Cartoonish insults

Ostensibly because Jawaharlal Nehru was insulting B R Ambedkar, the government decided, “No cartoons in NCERT textbooks.”

Could Nehru really have driven Ambedkar as mercilessly as in the impugned cartoon? That was my first question. But before I could even do the research with the potential to lead to a reasoned response, other questions started flooding my brain.

Was Nehru, the transplanted Kashmiri Pundit insulting the Marathi lower caste born in the now Madhya Pradesh (I have not googled B R Ambedkar for this post; the details I recall are from my reading of Gail Omvedt’s short book on him, a few years ago)? Caste war, anyone?

Nehru came from a well-to-do family whereas Ambedkar, almost from the other end of the economic spectrum. Is this why Nehru is driver the rider? Class war, anyone?

Nehru must have chaired a couple of committees (I have not heard about him in the context of writing of the constitution; shame on me) and of course, we know that Ambedkar chaired the Drafting Committee. Then, was Nehru insulting a fellow member of the Constituent Assembly?

Nehru was a lawyer by profession. Ambedkar’s basic educational qualification, though enhanced by his capabilities in other fields including law, was in economics. So, did the lawyer insult the economist?

Nehru was from the now UP and Ambedkar’s base was Maharashtra. Was the northerner insulting the westerner? (As an aside, perhaps this is why Raj Thackeray goes to war with Biharis, to right the historic insult!)

Nehru had a bald pate whereas Ambedkar had tufts of hair on his head. Did the true baldie insult the bald-hirsute hybrid?

There must be a much longer list to compare and contrast between the two, each item being a potential source of insult to Ambedkar from Nehru.

Then, how is it the current debate focuses on the first, to the exclusion of all others?

Another thing, Ambedkar, because he chaired the Drafting Committee and was devoted to its fully formed birth, is hailed as the architect of the constitution (I desisted calling him the father of the constitution, because I could be pulled up by a PIL by someone asking who gave him that title!). Ambedkar drove the necessarily slow process of writing the constitution as best as he could have, without toppling over and negotiating all the give-and-take speed breakers that happen to come in the way. One has to take into consideration the vastness of the land and the diversity of the nation that was beginning to emerge.

Nehru, as the designated leader of the Republic of India when it did come into being, was perhaps in a hurry to speed up the process, which anyway dragged on for nearly two years. It may have been an unjustified haste, but can anyone really fault him? I think not.

The cartoon, then, can be seen as caricaturing the process of writing the constitution, under the tempered guidance of Ambedkar with the putative political executive waiting impatiently.

Then, what is the current brouhaha all about?

It is all politics, you stupid (I am referring to myself).

Raghuram Ekambaram