Ambedkar, IMO was a throughly colonized mind, many a times even supporting the British against the INC. His record against the British itself is questionable, as Arun Shourie has shown. As to his thoughts, I think it is quite clear that he was throughly disgusted with the Brahmin led social order, regardless of what he thought of some pristine Vedic principles (A questionable concept by itself but OT for thread). His determination not to die as a Hindu, led him to a journey of exploration of various faith principles, rejecting Islam and Christianity and closely considering the Sikh faith, before deciding upon Buddhism late in his life.Agnimitra wrote:
Shaurya_T ji, I'm not able to understand in what specific way Ambedkar's views do not build on Indian cultural capital. Could you elaborate? If one reads Ambedkar and views his life with an unprejudiced eye, it becomes clear that his ultimate aim was re-Sanskritization at a new normal. He considered Vedic principles to be unique and enlightened (compared to other ancient sources and cultures), but considered later laws based on it to be an aberration overlaid on it. In that respect, it would have been necessary to first dissolve the existing encrustations that pose as "cultural capital", and then re-create a new platform on which those principles could find new expression in present time.
My issue with Ambedkar if any, has less to do with his views but the wrongful attribution to him as the father of the constitution, which he was most certainly not. Ambedkar is in fact on record thinking in hindsight that the entire constituent assembly process was rather unwarranted. He did say many things and often not consistent with each other. On one hand he would say, that we have created a credible document in this constitution and yet at the same time, be ready to disown it in another statement. So, debating on Ambedkar's quotes is pointless. He was a complex person, on a journey influenced by his times and events as he saw them.
It would be huge stretch from his writings to come to a conclusion that this thought process as reflected in our constitution had anything to do with Indian principles or Dharma. Was he not the one to burn the Manu smriti? I have read many of his works off and on, including his take on the philosophy of Hinduism. The sense that I get from his writings is one of a throughly colonized mind.