Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was deeply critical of M.K. Gandhi for what he perceived as Gandhi's tendency to appease Muslims and his silence on the persecution of Hindus. In one of his strong remarks, Ambedkar warned:
"It would be fatal for the Scheduled Castes, whether in Pakistan or in Hyderabad, to put their faith in the Muslims..." — Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
This stance highlighted his concern over the Congress's tendency to appease Islamist factions, a strategy that often marginalized interests of poor Hindus who were mostly from backward classess.
Ambedkar observed that Gandhi's and Nehru's opposition to caste discrimination was often superficial, aimed at political expediency rather than genuine reform.
Ambedkar's relationship with Nehru was strained, particularly due to the latter's sidelining of Ambedkar in governmental affairs. Despite being appointed as the Law Minister, Ambedkar was excluded from key cabinet committees and denied significant portfolios. In his resignation speech in 1951, he lamented:
“The Prime Minister agreed and said he would give me, in addition to Law, the Planning Department... Unfortunately, the Planning Department came very late, and when it did, I was left out.”
Ambedkar’s refusal to embrace Islam — despite active conversion movements — reflected both a philosophical stance and a strategic decision. He embraced Buddhism partly as a protest against caste oppression and partly to establish himself as an independent leader of the Scheduled Castes in Maharashtra. His disenchantment with Congress leaders, especially Nehru, also played a role.
Jawaharlal Nehru and Mohandas Gandhi, both upper-caste Hindus, publicly denounced caste discrimination. However, their actions often lacked the transformative edge of Ambedkar’s radical critique. Nehru, though secular in outlook, appeared reluctant to accept Ambedkar as an equal — a hesitation arguably rooted in caste biases and ideological differences.
Both Gandhi and Nehru are often accused — especially in modern political discourse — of promoting pseudo secularism: selectively advocating secular values while appeasing communal interests, particularly Islamist and leftist elements. Ambedkar, in contrast, was clear-eyed about the threat of religious majoritarianism in both Muslim and Hindu forms but remained committed to a rational and rights-based framework.
It’s deeply ironic that while Ambedkar warned against placing trust in communal forces, many of his modern political inheritors have aligned with factions that undermine the very values he stood for. The evolution of Dalit politics in some quarters into support bases for ideologies hostile to Hindu interests highlights how historical legacies can be co-opted by powerful political lobbies.