It has now become evident that public visibility of Phule and Ambedkar ruptures Brahmanical dominance. Are their personas now being modified to keep a section of society happy?
The life and philosophy of Jyotiba Phule and B.R. Ambedkar were adored as emancipators for the shudra and untouchables in particular, as well as women and Indian society in general. A recent movie on Phule, directed by Anant Mahadevan created controversies, opposed by a few Brahmin organisations/individuals.
This led me to raise a few questions: Is there a free public space for Phule and Ambedkar in a Brahmanical Hindu Society? What do they represent in Indian Hindu society? How do their birth anniversaries바카라that fall on April 11 and 14, respectively, in a month that is celebrated as Dalit History Month바카라contribute to public popular culture?
The idea of public is always a contested space in modern democracies. It is controlled by the dominant elite class, race and caste across societies. Indian public is dominated by Brahmanical power discourse. In public popular culture, Brahmanical symbols바카라such as temples, sacred places and cultural practices바카라 overshadow public lives of others. In reality, the idea of public in a democracy must belong to each citizen, different groups, communities, and identities.
Democracy as an equal and free public space has allowed everyone to contribute towards a participatory, inclusive, respectful public sphere. However, the idea of the public is governed by a democratic state where public opinions are considered. But whose public opinions matter to the state? Phule and Ambedkar were critical and sceptical about the state and public sphere. Their apprehension appears to be true after a hundred years of their birth anniversaries.
Phule and Ambedkar were considered to be modern thinkers in the Indian sub-continent. They are known as the champions of the Indian Renaissance. Their public engagement was not only radically opposed to the Brahmanical discourse, but their social and political movement fostered an egalitarian public space in Indian society.
The question is, what space do these two revolutionaries are provided with? How are public spaces dedicated to them? Arguably, in public popular culture, both Phule and Ambedkar are defied by the casteist and patriarchal character of society. On the one hand, their presence is more prominent now and so is their relevance in society. However, any radical project in their identity is opposed by Brahmanical society.
The 198th birth anniversary of Mahatma Phule was celebrated on April 11 this year, yet Brahmanical society is unwilling to accept his emancipatory philosophy. In his book, Slavery, Phule rightly points out that popular culture created by Brahmins is to monopolise education, temple, business, and every means of society. So, for him, the maintenance of caste is equal to slavery, where shudra, ati-shudra and women are oppressed and suppressed.
The denial of public education will deprive the marginalised society of acquiring knowledge. Phule바카라s attack on the monopoly of Brahmins in terms of and religion is relevant today in the age of corporatisation and Hinduisation of education.
Phule, for the first time, got space in popular television screen in the episodes of , which was based on Jawaharlal Nehru바카라s Discovery of India. Nevertheless, the protests against Phule바카라s movie exposed the monopoly of Brahmins in India. Anything against Brahmins/Brahminism is regarded as anti-national. It is also evident in the case of Kashmiri pandits. It is ironic that none of the civil society groups express solidarity against the censorship of the movie.
In addition, even feminist intellectuals and activists did not express solidarity with Phule바카라s emancipatory movement in defending the movie. Dalit-Bahujan public, on the other hand, demanded for the movie to be screened across cinema theatres. The movie portrays Phule바카라s struggle and mission, which makes it inspirational, but Phule바카라s play and dialogues are not radical, original and polemical but moderate and liberal.
Ambedkar is not only ubiquitous in Indian politics and academics but also becomes a core part of public popular culture on his birth anniversary, on April 14, which is popularly known as Bhim (respectfully) or Ambedkar Jayanti. It is celebrated in remote villages of India as well in prominent cities across the globe. This year, New York City declared April 14 as B R Ambedkar Day. Earlier, British Colombia recognised Ambedkar Jayanti as 바카라Equality Day바카라.
Space for Ambedkar in Indian society and polity is undeniable. Several governments spend crores in building his mega statues; institutions are named after him. Ambedkar, as a symbol of mere identity, owns a visible public space, although it is always subject of contention.
In 2025, the government declared April 14 a national holiday. However, the other side of the story is that Ambedkar바카라s statues are desecrated on a sporadic basis by the casteist public of India. The presence of Ambedkar바카라s statue in rural towns and villages in India germinates a feeling of hatred, disgust and repulsiveness amongst the casteist public. Therefore, in what way is Ambedkar accepted in Indian society? Ambedkar's identity is accepted as a charitable public figure for a different political purpose.
At present, Ambedkar바카라s name is attributed to the Indian Constitution. His image is symbolised as a living embodiment of the Indian constitution in a democratic set-up that upholds the right to life of a citizen, which is in contrast with majoritarian authoritarianism. Ironically, the majoritarian government is antithetical to Ambedkar바카라s transformative constitutional principles and appropriates Ambedkarite바카라s cultural aspirations.
The space, that is created by Ambedkarites, made compulsion for political parties to provide a space in the Indian public, although Indian society is reluctant to accept. The space for Ambedkar is very limited. It is also a segregated space. For example, there is minimal in academia. Ambedkar바카라s perspective across the academic disciplines is yet to be acknowledged. However, in recent years, the number of scholarships in the name of Ambedkar have increased. This has happened after the persistent critique of Ambedkarite scholars. Ambedkar바카라s scholarship is not considered as a universal-abstract-general principle but is attributed to a narrow section, thanks to the reductionist gaze prevailing in academia.
A powerful counter-culture, Ambedkar바카라s Jayanti created its own popular public culture. It is celebrated meaningfully as a popular public day by Dalits, whereas upper caste political parties offer a tokenistic gesture. The presence of Ambedkar in villages and towns is an affirmation of Dalit existence. The presence of Ambedkar바카라s statue is an assertion of self-respect and a proclamation of human equality and dignity.
The name바카라Ambedkar바카라is an affective organic bonding that resonates with sublime, ecstasy and solace and everyday life and struggle of the millions of marginalised. The question is, what is the public perception about Ambedkar among the rest of the Indian people? How Ambedkar is accepted, therefore, in what way his name and philosophy created a space among the Indians.
It has become evident over the years that public visibility of Phule and Ambedkar ruptures Brahmanical dominance. Hence, their personas are now being modified to compensate the resentment of the ruling regime. This counterforce is entrenched in Brahmanical public culture. Arguably, any public representation of Phule and Ambedkar is caricatured, distorted, censored, and appropriated, exposes the centuries-old orthodox Brahminical mindset. On the contrary, with counter-public culture, and creates a critical consciousness against Brahmanical public culture. It makes an egalitarian public culture that celebrates human conscience and ethics of public virtue.
(Views expressed are personal)