Civilisational Surgeon Vs Racist Charlatan: Why Ambedkar Is Hindutva But 'Periyar' Is Not

The contemporary discourse surrounding social reform in India frequently conflates disparate ideological movements under the umbrella of 'anti-caste' activism. This tendency has led to a perceived logical inconsistency within Nationalist and Hindutva frameworks: the simultaneous embrace of Dr B.R. Ambedkar, venerating him as a Bodhisattva, and the categorical rejection of E.V. Ramasamy, popularly known as 'Periyar' to his followers.

However, a granular examination of the primary source material, historical trajectories and foundational epistemologies of both figures reveals that this perceived inconsistency is based on a fundamental category error. The ideological distance between Dr Ambedkar and Ramasamy is not merely a matter of degree but an ontological chasm.

Ambedkar represents a tradition of internal civilisational surgery, an attempt to excise the malignancy of caste whilst preserving the vitality of the Indian spiritual and national body. In contrast, E.V. Ramasamy's project was rooted in a colonial-era racial binary that sought the total dismantling of Indian civilisation, viewing it as a foreign imposition.

Dr Ambedkar's intellectual evolution was grounded in the rigorous study of Sanskrit texts, Western sociology and the indigenous Bhakti traditions, particularly the Kabir Panth. His objective was the recovery of what he envisioned as a pristine Indian egalitarianism, which he identified in the 'Brahmaism' of the Upanishads and the 'Maitri' of the Buddha.

Conversely, Ramasamy's worldview was a by-product of missionary-driven historiography, racial stereotypes of the West and anti-Semitism morphing into anti-Brahminism, which framed Indian history as a perpetual struggle between an invading Aryan race whose cunning agents were the Brahmins and an indigenous 'Dravidian' race who were the victims.

To suggest that these two figures, Dr Ambedkar and Ramasamy, occupy the same intellectual space is to ignore the intent, the source and the ultimate goal of their respective social critiques.

The Soul of India: Spiritual Foundations of Democracy

Kabir Panth and the Indigenous Root of Equality

The spiritual trajectory of Dr B.R. Ambedkar began not in a vacuum of secular rationalism but in the devotional atmosphere of the Kabir Panth. His father, Ramji Sakpal, was a devout follower of the Kabir tradition, a path that emphasises the direct realisation of Truth through Bhakti and the rejection of birth-based hierarchies through the lens of indigenous mysticism.

This upbringing instilled in Ambedkar a belief that religion is a fundamental social and individual necessity, essential for the deep spiritual fraternity required to sustain a democratic society. His later advocacy for Buddhism was not a rejection of the spiritual impulse itself but a refinement of it—a search for a religious framework that prioritised 'principles' over 'rules'. One can argue for colonial impact here. But then he minimised the inevitable colonialist impact in his discourse.

Dr Ambedkar's relationship with the sacred was defined by a search for social endosmosis, a state of fluid social interaction that he believed was the true meaning of fraternity. He argued that a religion of rules, such as he perceived in what he considered as the degenerate and yet the most dominating forms of Hinduism of his time, suffocated moral responsibility.

However, he did not find the Hindu spiritual tradition inherently worthless. Instead, he sought to reclaim its highest philosophical peaks, particularly the Advaitic realisation of equality.

The Mahavakyas as the Spiritual Bedrock of Social Democracy

One of the most profound insights in Ambedkar's philosophy is his reclamation of 'Brahmaism' or Brahmatvam as a foundation for democracy. Whilst critics often focus on his Riddles in Hinduism, they frequently overlook his assertion that the Upanishadic Mahavakyas—Tat Tvam Asi (That Thou Art), Aham Brahmasmi (I am Brahma) and Sarvam Khalvidam Brahman (All this is Brahman)—possess greater potentialities for producing social democracy than the Christian concept of brotherhood of Man under the fatherhood of God.

Dr Ambedkar argued that the realisation that every individual is a part of the same cosmic principle provides a 'solid foundation for democracy'. For a person suffering from an 'inferiority complex' due to caste oppression, the assertion 'I am Brahman' is not an act of arrogance but a radical reclamation of innate worth.

He explicitly advised reformers that they need not look to foreign sources for egalitarian principles, as these could be drawn directly from the Upanishads. In this view, democracy is the political expression of the spiritual oneness found in the heart of Indian philosophy.

EVR and the Racialisation of the Spirit

In stark contrast, E.V. Ramasamy's approach to the 'Soul of India' was one of total negation. It was for him an impossibility and a superstition of oppression.

Influenced by a Protestant-inflected colonial critique of Brahmins, Ramasamy viewed the entire Indian spiritual tradition as a racist cult invented by Aryan invaders and their cunning Brahmin agents to subjugate Dravidian natives and subvert their egalitarian and somehow pro-atheistic civilisation. His much-flaunted 'rationalism' was not a philosophical enquiry into the nature of truth or even a tool for social liberation as sometimes claimed but actually a tool for majoritarian racial mobilisation. He characterised the entire corpus of Hindu spiritual and sacred literature as instruments of slavery and 'irrationality'.

Dr Ambedkar sought to purge the 'rules' obsession of Hinduism to revive in a pristine way its 'principles'. One may argue he was right or wrong. But that was his intention. As against this, Ramasamy sought to destroy both.

His public acts of hitting the idols of Rama and Ganesha with slippers were not mere protests against social evils; they were attempts to sever the Dravidian identity from the broader Indian civilisational ethos. He used the social evils as capital for his hate enterprise. Ramasamy's 'Self-Respect Movement' did not offer a positive spiritual alternative; it offered a racial identity defined by its hatred of the 'Aryan' other, which inevitably targeted the Brahmins who have always been part and parcel of Tamil society.

Historiography as a Battlefield: The Aryan Race Myth

Dr Ambedkar's Scientific Repudiation of Race Theory

The reliance on a racialised history led Ramasamy to define the Brahmin community not as a social group within a shared civilisation but as an 'enemy race'. His rhetoric frequently invoked the imagery of the snake and the Brahmin, suggesting that the 'Aryan' element in India was inherently predatory and foreign.

The most significant historiographical divergence between Ambedkar and Ramasamy lies in their treatment of the Aryan Race Theory (ART). For Ambedkar, the ART was a 'perversion of scientific investigation' that relied on 'pleasing assumptions' rather than empirical facts. In his landmark work, Who Were the Shudras? (1946), Ambedkar subjected the Rig Veda to a rigorous textual and philological analysis. He concluded that the Vedas do not support the idea of a racial conflict between 'Aryans' and 'Dasyus'.

Dr Ambedkar argued that 'Aryan' was not a racial term but a social and cultural descriptor. He debunked the racial interpretations of Max Müller and others, demonstrating that linguistic differences did not equate to racial differences.

Crucially, Ambedkar rejected the idea that the 'Untouchables' were a separate race of conquered people. He maintained that they were part of the same racial stock as the caste Hindus, and that the origins of untouchability were cultural and psychological, the result of social stagnation and broken social ties, rather than a foreign conquest.

This conclusion is important because it disconnects the Aryan race question from the question of social stratification and exclusion. One should note that the evidence for any migration of Indo-European language speakers and the model of the migration have been moving from one position to another in scholarly debates.

Whatever the result of those scholarly debates and empirical evidence, the position Dr Ambedkar took completely invalidates the extrapolation of these discoveries to the question of caste and untouchability. He famously said that whatever may be the ethnic-linguistic-regional identity -Aryan/Dravidian/Naga- the Brahmin and the Untouchable would be sharing that. This means that the division has no or negligible racial implication for the socio-political discourse of today.

This insight of Dr Ambedkar sets him apart from the likes of Ramasamy, who simply parroted in crude way the racial theories of colonial rulers.

Whilst Dr Ambedkar's rejection of the ART was aimed at creating a unified cultural narrative for all Indians, Ramasamy's embrace of it was aimed at balkanisation and racial 'othering'.

This makes Dr Ambedkar even more relevant today than ever.

The Perils of Internalised Racial Thinking

The most insidious impact of the Aryan Race Theory is its internalisation even by those who ostensibly reject it, manifesting as a form of 'Karmic racism' in place of genetic racism. The Avarna-Savarna divide in India today, particularly within certain reactionary circles, has reached an alarming point where a disastrous Shatru-Bodh (perception of the other as an enemy) may develop if it has not already.

The glorification of archaic, even depredatory, Dharma Shastras and Smritis by a new breed of traditionalists on one hand, and the propensity to use caste inequalities to damn the core spirituality of Hindu Dharma and align with anti-national forces on the other, represent a trajectory that does not augur well for the realisation of Hindu Sanghatan.

Dr Ambedkar's vision of Hindu Sanghatan is not a reactionary impulse based on the much-vaunted Shatru-bodh of 'Abrahamic' religions. This Hindu Sanghatan based on the notion of unity against a perceived enemy is emotional, short-lived, reactionary and myopic and in the long run inimical to Hindu society.

On the other hand, Hindu Sanghatan envisioned by Dr Ambedkar as implied in his book on annihilation of caste is an inherently noble feature of Hindu society and should be sustained by a just social order.

If India is to truly become a strong and healthy society, such a Hindu Sanghatan is a must.

Nationhood and the Spectre of 'Denationalisation'

The Patriotism of Dr Ambedkar

Dr Ambedkar's commitment to the unity of India was rooted in a profound understanding of civilisational kinship. He viewed the 'Scheduled Castes' not as a peripheral group but as 'Protestant Hindus' whose struggles were essential to the refinement of the Indian nation. This is most clearly demonstrated in his approach to religious conversion.

For over twenty years, the Bodhisattva delayed his departure from Hinduism, carefully evaluating which path would provide his followers with dignity without severing their ties to the motherland.

Dr Ambedkar explicitly rejected Islam and Christianity because he feared that conversion to these faiths would lead to 'denationalisation'. He understood that these religions often came with extra-territorial allegiances and cultural frameworks alien to the Indian soil.

By choosing Buddhism, an indigenous, dharmic faith, Bodhisattva Ambedkar ensured that his followers remained rooted in the spiritual and cultural landscape of India whilst rejecting the social pathologies of caste. His vision of India was that of a unified, sovereign state where all citizens were bound by a shared sense of Bharat Varsha as both Fatherland and Holy Land.

EVR and the Advocacy for Balkanisation

In contrast, E.V. Ramasamy's political vision was one of fragmentation. He viewed the concept of a 'United India' as a colonial construct that benefited only the 'Aryans' and the North. This led him to advocate for the creation of 'Dravida Nadu', a separate sovereign nation for the Dravidian people of the South.

Ramasamy's commitment to separatism was so profound that he collaborated with the British authorities, fearing that their departure would leave the Dravidians at the mercy of a Brahmin-dominated Indian state. He even meekly sought the collaboration of Jinnah only to be humiliated by the latter.

Ramasamy characterised the Indian National Congress and the independence movement as 'Aryan' endeavours. On 15 August 1947, whilst the rest of India celebrated the end of colonial rule, Ramasamy declared it a 'day of mourning'. This pathetic subservience of Ramasamy to colonial masters made even his trusted lieutenant, C.N. Annadurai, cringe away from the stand taken by his political guru.

Reform versus Destruction: The Surgeon and the Charlatan

Dr Ambedkar's Attempted Reclamation of the Vedic Promise

Dr Ambedkar's critique of Hinduism was that of a child who had been 'thrown out' by the arrogance of orthodoxy in front of a helpless mother. He did not view the Hindu religion as inherently evil but as a system that had become diseased by indifferentism and social stagnation. His unfinished work, Riddles in Hinduism, was not a manifesto for destruction but a mixture of a pamphleteer's sneer combined with a Dharmic scholar's attempt to provoke a complete overhauling of Hindu society and Hindu Dharma as it existed then.

Bodhisattva Ambedkar's objective was to recover the principles of equality and fraternity of Brahmatvam (Brahmaism) that he believed were buried under the rules of Brahminism. He envisioned a Hinduism that could meet the expectations of both the modern democratic mind and the ancient spiritual seers and seekers, from the Upanishadic sages to Ramanujacharya to Kabir.

Even in his conversion to Buddhism, Dr Ambedkar did not abandon the Indian philosophical ethos; he viewed Buddhism as the fulfilment of the egalitarian potential of the Upanishadic Dharma.

He was the surgeon who sought to remove the cancer of caste so that the patient—Indian civilisation—could survive and flourish.

Ramasamy's Pedagogy of Hatred

E.V. Ramasamy's approach was fundamentally different. He did not seek to reform Hinduism because he believed there was nothing in it worth saving. His movement was built on an edifice of hatred, specifically targeting the Brahmin community as the biological repository of 'Aryan' oppression. Whilst the good doctor sought to abolish the varna system, Ramasamy sought to annihilate the Dharmis (the people themselves) through dehumanising rhetoric and worse.

This was not a move towards a more rational society but a move towards a more fractured one. His rhetoric did not differentiate between the social practice of caste and the spiritual essence of the civilisation; to him, the two were identical and equally toxic. In this, he inevitably facilitated the forces of conversion to Christianity and Islam.

Ramasamy was the charlatan who sought to dismember the civilisational body based on a spurious racial theory.

The Definition of a Hindu as a Unifying Tool

A critical point of convergence between Bodhisattva and the Hindutva framework lies in the shared definition of Hindu identity. Dr Ambedkar expressed a favourable view of Veer Savarkar's definition of a 'Hindu' as one who regards India as both Fatherland and Holy Land. Dr Ambedkar recognised the logical utility of this definition in creating a consolidated national identity that included not only Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains but also tribal communities, whilst excluding those with extra-territorial loyalties of sacredness.

It is true both had their differences and had criticised each other—sometimes in harsh words. But both Veer Savarkar and Dr Ambedkar were obsessed with the idea of 'Hindu Sanghatan'. Veer Savarkar, during his internment in Ratnagiri, worked aggressively for the eradication of untouchability, promoting common dining and temple entry for all castes.

Ambedkar acknowledged these efforts and saw a shared objective in the creation of a casteless Hindu society. For both men, the removal of caste was not an act of hostility towards the Hindu Nation but a prerequisite for its survival and strength in the modern world.

EVR's Opposition to the Unified India

E.V. Ramasamy stood in absolute opposition to this entire nationalist framework. He did not seek inclusion in a Hindu Nation because he rejected the very concept of 'Hindu' as an alien label. Whilst Ambedkar and Savarkar sought to bridge the gaps between castes to form a unitarian nation from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, Ramasamy sought to deepen those gaps to justify secession.

Ramasamy's 'Dravidian' identity was constructed specifically to exclude what he considered as the 'Aryan' element, and that he associated with the entire framework of United India. He attacked Dr Ambedkar precisely because Ambedkar became a stakeholder in the unified Indian state as the architect of its Constitution.

For Ramasamy, a united Bharat was nothing more than a mechanism for North Indian Brahminical imperialism.

The Category Error: Why Equating Dr Ambedkar and Ramasamy is Intellectually Lazy

The argument that a Hindutva or Nationalist framework is hypocritical for embracing Ambedkar whilst rejecting Ramasamy rests on a superficial reading of both men's work. This perspective assumes that "opposing caste" is a monolithic activity. It ignores the source, the intent and the ultimate horizon of that opposition.

Ambedkar was a civilisational insider. His critique was rooted in a profound love for the soul of Hindustan, which he sought to liberate from the 'riddles' of social stagnation. When he rejected the Aryan Race Theory, he was insightful and factual. He rejected it also because he believed in the cultural and racial unity of all Indians. He chose Buddhism to avoid being 'denationalised'.

Bodhisattva found common ground with Veer Savarkar in the goal of a strong, unified and casteless India.

Ramasamy was a civilisational outsider by choice. His critique was rooted in a racialised hatred derived from colonial historiography. He embraced the Aryan Race and Invasion Theory to fuel a politics of separatism. He advocated for the balkanisation of the country and viewed the day of India's freedom as a day of mourning. He used dehumanising rhetoric against an entire community based on their perceived racial origin.

Equating the Bodhisattva of a surgeon (Ambedkar) with the racist charlatan (Ramasamy) is an act of intellectual sleight of hand. Baba Saheb is the fulfilment of the Dharmic promise of equality—a promise that modern Hindu nationalism must seek to realise. Ramasamy is the rejection of that entire civilisational heritage.

A truly integral humanistic framework as that of true Hindutva embraces Dr Ambedkar because he sought to make India whole; it rejects Ramasamy because he sought to tear it apart.

Implications for Modern Hindu Nationalism

The realisation of Bodhisattva Ambedkar within the Hindutva paradigm is not an act of political co-option but a return to the foundational principles of the Dharma and hence Hindutva. Dr Ambedkar's nebulous conceptualisation of Brahmatvam (Brahmaism) provides the spiritual vocabulary for a social democracy that is authentically Indian, rather than a mere imitation of Western models.

By rejecting the racial theories of the colonial era and reclaiming the egalitarian peaks of the Upanishads and Buddhism, Dr Ambedkar provided the road map for a healthier, holistic and sustained 'Hindu Sanghatan' that is truly inclusive and resilient.

The Hindutva embrace of Dr Ambedkar is thus a logical necessity for any movement that seeks the 'Sanghatan' of the Indian people. The rejection of Ramasamy is equally necessary to prevent the racial balkanisation of the nation.

These are not two versions of the same struggle; they are two fundamentally different visions for the future of the Indian people. Equating them is not just a historical error; it is a category error that obscures the true nature of the quest for authentic social justice in India rooted in the Dharmic heart of Bharat.

One does not have to accept everything Dr Ambedkar had said as Vedic truth. One can differ and can criticise him. But the value shift that he showed to us through his own painful struggles is definitely Dharmic.

'Jai Bhim' should be a must spirit in every Hindu heart, if 'Jai Sri Ram' is for ever to reverberate in Hindustan.

Also Read:

• Do Hindu Movements Need Dr Ambedkar?

• Bodhi Sattva's Hindutva (six-part series)

• Hindutva And Dr Ambedkar

• Why Hindutva Embraces Ambedkar