Ambedkar’s Name Deserves Respect, Not Political Ambushes
Over the past few days in Maharashtra, a series of unrelated-looking incidents have unfolded in quick succession. A Republic Day ceremony disrupted because Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar’s name was allegedly not mentioned. An ink attack on a local elected representative over the same charge. Objectionable personal remarks made from a public platform associated with Dalit assertion, targeting the Chief Minister’s wife. Viewed individually, each incident can be dismissed as outrage, overreaction, or bad judgment. Viewed together, especially in the immediate aftermath of municipal election results, they reveal a deeper and more troubling pattern.
This is not about whether Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar should be remembered. That question should not even arise in a constitutional republic he helped build. The issue is how his name is increasingly being used not as a source of reflection or reform, but as a political tripwire, designed to trigger confrontation, humiliation, and spectacle.
The sequence matters. Within days, official events, community platforms, and local governance spaces were all turned into arenas of accusation. In each case, the target happened to be aligned, directly or indirectly, with the ruling alliance. In each case, the method was not dialogue or representation, but public disruption. And in each case, the moral framing relied on invoking Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar’s legacy as a shield against scrutiny.
There is a fundamental difference between reverence and weaponisation. Reverence for Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar is reflected in upholding constitutional values, expanding access to justice, protecting dignity, and strengthening institutions. Weaponisation is when his name is deployed selectively, strategically, and theatrically to create flashpoints that leave no room for nuance. The former builds society. The latter fractures it.
Public events, especially constitutional occasions like Republic Day, are meant to unite citizens around shared values. Turning them into ambush sites for protest, however emotionally charged the cause may be, undermines the very idea of civic space. The same applies to Dalit platforms and Ambedkarite gatherings. These spaces exist to assert dignity, articulate grievances, and demand justice. Using them to deliver personal abuse or to settle political scores corrodes their credibility and weakens their moral force.
The involvement of government officers in public disruptions raises an even more serious concern. Civil servants are entrusted with neutrality precisely because the state must function above political cycles. When officials abandon protocol to make political statements at official functions, they blur the line between service and activism. That erosion does not strengthen democracy. It destabilises it.
It is also worth asking who ultimately benefits from this style of politics. Not ordinary Dalit citizens, whose real issues risk being drowned out by spectacle. Not social harmony, which depends on restraint as much as expression. And certainly not Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar’s legacy, which was rooted in reasoned struggle, constitutional methods, and moral discipline.
The beneficiaries are those who thrive on permanent agitation, who find confrontation easier than organisation, and outrage more useful than electoral accountability. When democratic verdicts do not go their way, symbolism becomes a substitute for substance.
Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar warned against empty symbolism divorced from social reform. He believed in protest, but he believed even more deeply in responsibility. Invoking his name to justify public ruckus, personal humiliation, or institutional breakdown does not honour him. It diminishes him.
Maharashtra deserves a politics that respects Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar not just in words, but in conduct. His name should inspire better governance and deeper justice, not serve as a pretext for political ambushes that poison the public square.
