Babasaheb Ambedkar’s Annihilation of Caste contains hard-hitting critiques of Hinduism. He writes, “I have... no hesitation in saying that such a religion must be destroyed, and I say there is nothing irreligious in working for the destruction of such a religion.” Was that a call to eliminate Hinduism? No. He was targeting the Hinduism that is practised thoughtlessly, controlled by a select group, and is casteist at its foundation because he also goes on to suggest ways in which Hinduism can be reformed.
Many from Brahminical castes believe that caste is a natural social order based on occupation and an inherent feature of Hinduism. The progressives among them call for an end to the violence perpetrated around caste, not caste itself. They tie themselves up in knots trying to explain the differences between varna, jati, and caste, while ignoring history and reality. To them, Ambedkar’s words, read alongside his other frontal attacks on Hinduism, would have been, and remain, offensive.
How any strong criticism of a thought or idea is comprehended depends on the environment, place, time of utterance, and its interpretation. Some among those who are today accusing Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin of demanding the end of their belief system have been comfortably appropriating Ambedkar who once said, “I will not die as a person who calls himself a Hindu.” Ambedkar did not mean that he was a believer at any point of time. But he was a member of Hinduism’s ugly social order because of the accident of birth. Before he died, he gave up that membership.
