The Andhra Pradesh Congress party's demand for Union Home Minister Amit Shah's resignation due to his comments on Dr. BR Ambedkar has ignited a heated political dispute, drawing widespread attention across India. This call for resignation was made during a roundtable meeting convened by the Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee (APCC) on Saturday, where political leaders from various leftist parties, student unions, and people’s organizations participated. The resolution passed during the meeting criticized Shah’s remarks and called for immediate action. In a show of solidarity, the resolution was subsequently sent to President Droupadi Murmu, demanding that the Home Minister be held accountable for what the Congress party views as an insult to the legacy of Dr. Ambedkar.
YS Sharmila Reddy, the Andhra Pradesh Congress president, was particularly vocal in condemning Amit Shah's comments, which she deemed to be a grave offense against one of India’s most respected figures. According to Reddy, Shah's casual dismissal of Dr. Ambedkar by referring to him as a "fashion" not only trivialized his monumental contributions but also reflected a deep-seated disregard for the foundational pillars of India’s democracy. She argued that Dr. Ambedkar was not merely a "fashion," as Shah implied, but a legendary ideologist who dedicated his life to fighting for social justice, equality, and the rights of the oppressed. She also pointed out that the BJP and its leaders, including Shah, have consistently failed to understand the true essence of Ambedkar's vision and contributions to the nation. This sentiment echoed the Congress party's long-standing criticism of the BJP's approach to social justice and its manipulation of historical narratives to suit their political agendas.
Further elaborating on the significance of Dr. Ambedkar’s legacy, Sharmila Reddy emphasized that his vision was not limited to the drafting of the Constitution but extended to his broader philosophy of equality, education, and empowerment. She noted that Ambedkar's role in shaping India’s democratic framework could not be undermined by any political party, particularly not by those who continuously attempt to rewrite the history of India’s freedom struggle and its key architects. By calling for Shah's resignation, the Congress party wanted to send a strong message that any attempts to belittle Dr. Ambedkar would not be tolerated.
In addition to the demand for Shah’s resignation, Reddy launched into a broader critique of the BJP's political practices. She accused the party of exploiting religion and caste to further its electoral interests, arguing that the BJP's divisive politics had led to deepening social rifts in India. She cited instances like the ongoing violence in Manipur and the 2002 Godhra riots as examples of the BJP’s manipulative tactics, where religious and ethnic identities had been used to inflame tensions for political gain. She also pointed to the growing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few, specifically criticizing the BJP's alleged favoritism toward industrialists like Adani and Ambani, whom she accused of controlling large swaths of the nation’s economy through political influence.
Reddy went on to say that the BJP’s obsession with "saffronizing" India, a term used to describe the imposition of Hindu nationalist ideologies, was evident in its attempts to rewrite history and distort the legacies of leaders like Mahatma Gandhi. According to Reddy, the BJP had consistently insulted freedom fighters and sought to glorify figures who were seen as enemies of the nation’s unity and secular ethos. She expressed her deep concern that the BJP was attempting to shift India away from its foundational ideals of inclusivity and pluralism, values championed by leaders like Dr. Ambedkar and Gandhi.
Ramakrishna, a senior leader of the Communist Party of India (CPI), added his voice to the criticism, emphasizing the BJP’s disregard for the Indian Constitution, which was drafted by Dr. Ambedkar and other eminent leaders. He accused the BJP of wanting to replace the Constitution with Manusmriti, an ancient Hindu text that, according to critics, enshrines regressive caste-based social orders. Ramakrishna argued that the BJP’s leaders openly expressed their desire to implement Manusmriti, which was antithetical to the democratic ideals established by Dr. Ambedkar and other Constitution framers. He also pointed out that the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh), the ideological parent of the BJP, had no role in India’s freedom struggle and was attempting to impose its own vision of India through political manipulation.
The attack on Amit Shah also highlighted the BJP’s broader political agenda, with Ramakrishna accusing the party of sidelining the legacies of freedom fighters and seeking to impose the ideology of the RSS on the Indian populace. He condemned the BJP’s attempts to equate Mahatma Gandhi with Veer Savarkar, arguing that such comparisons were not only historically inaccurate but also disrespectful to Gandhi’s nonviolent struggle for India’s independence.
The controversy surrounding Amit Shah's remarks dates back to December 17, when he invoked Dr. Ambedkar during a debate in the Rajya Sabha to commemorate 75 years of the Indian Constitution. In a highly controversial statement, Shah remarked that it had become a "fashion" for people to invoke Ambedkar's name repeatedly. He also made a flippant remark about how if people had taken God's name as many times as they had said "Ambedkar," they would have earned a place in heaven. These comments were widely condemned by opposition parties, who saw them as disrespectful to Ambedkar’s legacy and an attempt to diminish his importance in Indian history.
In response, the Congress party moved a privilege notice in the Rajya Sabha on December 19, protesting Shah’s remarks. The debate escalated into a scuffle between opposition and ruling party MPs, leading to injuries among BJP members. This confrontation underscored the growing tensions between the BJP and opposition parties, especially in light of the controversy surrounding Shah’s comments on Dr. Ambedkar.
This political standoff has also reignited the larger debate about the direction of Indian politics and the role of historical figures like Dr. Ambedkar in shaping the nation's identity. The Congress, along with other opposition parties, has vowed to continue pushing back against what they see as the BJP’s attempts to rewrite history and alter India’s democratic foundation. With both political parties gearing up for further protests and discussions, the outcome of this controversy could have lasting implications for the political landscape in India, particularly as the country approaches the upcoming national elections.
