'Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar' A Tale of Casteism in India

 

Jabbar Patel's directorial venture ‘Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar’ (2000), starring Mammootty, Sonali Kulkarni and Mohan Gokhale among others, explores multiple themes associated with the struggle for elementary human rights in India by weaving threads of caste, class, gender, religion, education, freedom, ethics and justice into a poly-chromatic tapestry that provides food for thought. The viewer is introduced to a long period of pre and post-colonial Indian history through the lens of the subaltern, building a contradictory picture of Indian nationalism as merely an imagined community (Benedict Anderson) constructed by dominant forces during tremendous socio-political flux. It is fascinating to note that the life struggle of an oppressed man determined to seek justice and freedom for his community can be so inspirational for the viewer, who may or may not have any connection with his caste identity. It makes one realize that this resistance between the dominant and subordinate groups in any social system is a universal concept.

The film begins with drawings of exploitation of untouchables moving in tandem with the narrative voice explaining the history, origins and religious justification of the caste system lying in the ‘Purushsukta’ and the ‘Manusmriti’. With discrimination inherent in every frame of the historical background of untouchability, the movie links this phenomenon to contemporary experiences of its ideas of purity and pollution. Once it establishes a secure premise for continuing caste-based exploitation in India even in the 21st century, it flows into Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar's story. The journey of his life, portrayed impeccably by Mammootty, blends the history of the individual and collective self with that of a colony desiring freedom from its imperial rulers. We see Ambedkar in different lights- as a brilliant scholar (as an economist and professor) intent on proving his worth, a frustrated ‘Mahar’ (untouchable caste) unable to find lodging, a father wrecked by the misery of losing four of his children, a leader of the Depressed Classes aiming to improve the lot of his people, an opponent of Gandhi and the Congress party's claims to represent all Indians, a dedicated lawyer and charismatic speaker. 

The issue of untouchability is central to Ambedkar's struggle. Its connection with religion, superstition, beliefs about the sacred and profane, opposition to modern ideas of rationalism, and associated suppression form the basis of Ambedkar's arguments in the film. He emphatically claims, A god that discriminates is not a god-it's just a stone, to shake the very foundation of the tenets of Hinduism about the ‘Chaturvarna’ system. Clearly delineating rigid lines of caste along birth and occupation, his research into this social system complemented his personal experiences to combine ideas of equality, liberty and justice with a Shudra's suffering, which is justified by the prevailing social order in terms of horrific dehumanization and equation with animals. As a result, his battle for freedom did not correlate with the prevailing movement for India's independence which he saw as being marked by inconsistent attitudes. Instead, he chose to keep the interests of the ‘Shudras’ supreme, asserted the reality of caste discrimination and pragmatically demanded special rights and privileges for his community, even going to the extent of risking his life and reputation for this cause.

Nehru's famous statement about India being a bundle of contradictions is literally represented in the film via the hypocrisy of political and religious leaders, especially when Ambedkar decides to undergo religious conversion. The concept of social change unfolds on screen with small steps taken in the form of drinking water from the common public tank, attempting to enter a temple, spreading education and learning, asking for reservations and safeguards etc.

The movie skillfully portrays Dr. Ambedkar and Gandhiji's relationship without going overboard with the undertones of antagonism in their views and personalities. Once again, it charts personal histories by choosing to adopt Ambedkar's lens and shows the pitfalls of Gandhi's ideology without being excessively sympathetic to his central role in the freedom struggle or being influenced  by the charisma and mysticism associated with him. This noteworthy attempt to simultaneously ensure objectivity by basing their arguments on recorded facts throws Ambedkar's modern, rational viewpoint about equality and freedom in sharp contrast with Gandhi's idealistic, albeit conservative and superstitious perspective.  

Ambedkar decided to resign from Nehru's Cabinet when the progressive Hindu Code Bill, which would've recognized the rights of women, is not passed. However, it must be kept in mind that his relationships with his two wives Ramabai and Dr. Sharada Kabir are far from being exemplary. His hypocrisy is apparent as on one hand, he criticizes the Congress party's opportunism and talks about respect and equal status, while lashing out at his ailing wife on the verge of fainting when she tries to coax him to eat, on the other. Being a great scholar himself, he condescendingly teases his wife about her pronunciation and never mentions teaching her the alphabet or elementary subjects. The period depicted in the movie was also marked by an accompanying women's movement which included education of the girl child and women's contribution to the independence struggle, in its ambit. Hence, his treatment of his first wife seems too self-involved and egotistical to be sympathized with as he makes no effort to propel her on the path of education. Similarly, he marries his second wife simply because he needs someone to talk care of his multiple diseases. Does his modern, rational mind consider a woman to be worthy of only household chores and nurturing behavior? The second wife, who is a well-qualified doctor, leaves her job to assist him after marriage and follows him into religious conversion as well. This representation of women as submissive, sacrificing creatures lacking individuality deserves significant criticism.

Hence, this movie is an engaging subject of analysis as it aims to capture several incidents, concepts and issues of the quintessentially pre and post independence Indian experience through the life of an illustrious individual, while simultaneously highlighting facets of this experience that have universal relevance.