It is seen that people often want a “proletarian revolution” or a “working class revolution”. I'm not at all against it, but I'd like to address that even babasaheb wasn't against it and he had mentioned how a revolution exactly is. He envisioned that labour must govern the country (in his speech Labour and Parliamentary Democracy). He also believed that Trade Unions must enter politics, and gave a special speech for it (I have included it as its one of the most important speeches), and also addressed that elections are a gamble. Then, why would he break the Girni Kamgar Union’s Bombay Textile mills strike in 1929? Did he suddenly start supporting capitalists because of his “Deweyian pragmatism” for opportunistic purposes? Did he just realize that the British India would be threatened and so would he be as a “British Agent” if they strike, what was really the reason? Let's dive into it.

Section 1: GKU Revolutionaries

The Bombay textile mills had different departments, namely weaving, ring and spinning departments. Some dalit workers worked in the mills, and of course there were caste Hindus who worked in the mills as well. Savarna Marxists would assume as they're both working in the mills, having the same relation to means of production, they must share solidarity and have a common interest and a conflict with the mill owners. Well oh well, nothing as such was the case that savarna marxists like to fantasize.

Different departments had different pay, the most lucrative department was the weaving department, where the workers of that department had the highest pay. While the low paying departments were the ring and spinning departments. Well the problem was, Dalit workers who were mostly Mahars, and others who were chambhars and mangs were banned from working in the weaving department. The noteworthy thing is, they weren't banned by the mill owners, but were prohibited by the workers themselves in the weaving department who were mostly Maratha Caste Hindus.

Here, we must carefully understand why exactly the caste hindu workers didn't let the dalits work in the weaving department. It wasn't simply because they thought dalits don't deserve a high paying job because they're untouchables by birth. They didn't really care what pay dalits were getting. The reason lies in how the weaving department works.

>Dalits were confined to the lowest-paying jobs in the ring and spinning departments and were actively prohibited from the better-paying, prestigious weaving department. During the weaving process, each time the weft bobbin needed to be replaced, workers had to wet the thread with their saliva to tie the knot. The Maratha caste workers argued that working with Dalits in the weaving department would result in ‘pollution.’ The prohibition of Dalits at times took violent forms. One Dalit worker who had disguised himself as a Muslim to work in the weaving department was physically beaten when his identity was revealed.

It was only because the Maratha caste hindus would get polluted by their saliva if the dalits worked with them in the weaving department. They would rather have a Muslim work with them than a Mahar.

The Girni Kamgar Union (GKU) led by figures like S.A. Dange and S.S. Mirajkar (yes, Babasaheb called them brahmin drummer boys later), they refused to include the demand for letting the dalit workers in the weaving department and also abolish untouchability in the mills. The reason? The Maratha workers fiercely protested against it, and our dear drummer boys said it'll only harm the class solidarity. To justify it, they believed that caste is only a superstructure and if we change the base, the superstructure would collapse, rendering caste obsolete. Surely, the caste Hindus would realize the “base” has changed and the caste system must no longer be followed, funnily.

Let's see what exactly happened:

---

1928: The Warning and the Critique

During the massive six-month general strike of 1928, Babasaheb did not immediately break the strike, but he fiercely challenged the communist leadership’s priorities.

He Demanded Integration: Ambedkar publicly confronted the communist leaders of the Girni Kamgar Union (GKU). He demanded that if the Dalit workers were expected to bleed and starve alongside the caste-Hindu workers for "class solidarity," the GKU must officially demand the opening of the lucrative weaving departments to Untouchables.

The Communists Refused: The communist leaders (like S.A. Dange) refused to include the desegregation of the weaving sheds in their list of demands. They argued that bringing up "caste issues" would anger the caste-Hindus and break the unity of the strike.

Babasaheb’s Ultimatum: Babasaheb warned them that by capitulating to the caste-Hindu majority, the union was protecting a Brahmanical status quo on the factory floor. He famously argued that the communists were using Dalits as "cannon fodder" for their revolution while refusing to grant them basic human rights in the workplace.

1929: The Decisive Strike-Break

By April 1929, the communist GKU called for another general strike. Because the union had completely ignored his warnings the previous year and continued to tolerate untouchability, Babasaheb took aggressive, decisive action. On top of that, GKU leaders urged the Depressed Classes workers to participate in the general strike while refusing to do anything for their demands.

Babasaheb Actively Organized the Mahars Against the Strike:

Ambedkar held massive rallies in the working-class areas of Bombay (like Parel and Naigaum). He explicitly instructed the Mahar and other Dalit mill workers not to join the communist strike. He argued that it was suicidal for Dalits to lose their wages and face starvation for a union that treated them as sub-human.

He Physically Broke the Picket Lines:
When the communists set up violent picket lines to physically block workers from entering the mills, Ambedkar personally went to the mill gates. He stood at the entrances to ensure the safety of the Dalit workers who chose to cross the picket lines and go to work.

He Leveraged the Strike for Dalit Employment: Because the caste-Hindus were striking, the mill owners were desperate for labor. Babasaheb used this leverage to secure jobs for Dalits in departments that had previously been closed off to them. He prioritized the immediate economic survival and advancement of his people over the abstract, caste-blind "Marxist revolution" the GKU was preaching.

The orthodox Marxists of the time (and today) paint this 1929 action as a "betrayal" of the working class. But we must address and understand this crucially: It was these communists who betrayed the working class. By refusing to fight untouchability in 1928, the communists proved they were just caste-Hindus wearing red shirts. In 1929, Babasaheb simply refused to let his people die for a revolution that did not include them.

But, was he always against strikes? Was this just an opportunity to carry out his pro-capitalist, pro-British actions?

Section 2: The 1938 General Strike

In 1938, the Indian National Congress (which formed the provincial government in Bombay) introduced the Industrial Disputes Bill. The bill essentially made it a criminal offense for workers to go on strike under almost any circumstance. It mandated lengthy, compulsory arbitration and conciliation processes, effectively stripping the working class of their only real weapon against exploitation: the withdrawal of their labor.

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar fiercely opposed the bill in the Bombay Legislative Assembly. He rightly identified it as a draconian, pro-capitalist law designed to crush unions. He famously dubbed it the "Workers’ Civil Liberties Suspension Act" and the "Black Bill.”

Who led and initiated the strike against this bill?

Dr. Ambedkar and his party initiated the strike, and the communists joined his initiative, they didn't initiate this strike. The initiative came directly from Dr. Ambedkar and his Independent Labour Party (ILP). Throughout September and October of 1938, Babasaheb had been fighting a bitter, lonely battle inside the Bombay Legislative Assembly against the Congress government’s "Black Bill." When it became clear that the Congress was going to use its overwhelming majority to force the anti-worker bill into law, the executive committee of the ILP met and officially passed a resolution to call for a one-day general strike. Babasaheb was the primary architect of taking the fight from the parliament floor to the streets.

How Did the Communists Join?

Knowing that a general strike required massive, unified numbers to paralyze the city, Dr. Ambedkar formally extended an invitation to the Bombay Provincial Trade Union Congress (BPTUC), which was controlled by the communists. The communists, realizing the massive influence Babasaheb Ambedkar had over the working-class Dalits (who could make or break any strike in Bombay), accepted his invitation. They formed a joint "Council of Action" to coordinate the strike. Jamnadas Mehta (a prominent labor leader) was made the President of this council, but Babasaheb was the primary driving force alongside communist leaders like S.A. Dange and Indulal Yagnik.

He put aside his profound ideological differences with the communists because the immediate threat of the State crushing labor rights was too great. It showed immense political maturity. He wasn't anti-communist out of spite; he was anti-communist only when they defended the Brahmanical status-quo. When they actually fought for the whole working class, he was willing to lead the charge with them.

Who Led the Ground Mobilization?

The workers were heavily mobilized through an intense, organized campaign led by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar's cadres.

The Samata Sainik Dal (SSD): Babasaheb’s volunteer organization, the SSD, acted as the vanguard of the strike. They distributed thousands of pamphlets, organized localized corner meetings, and guarded the workers.

The Propaganda Tour: In the days leading up to November 7, Babasaheb personally toured the labor catchments of Bombay. He didn't rely on the communists to do the talking. He went to Kamgar Maidan and told the workers directly that this bill would turn them into "slaves of the capitalists."

The Local Unions: Because the ILP and the Communists united, the municipal workers' unions, railway workers, and textile mill workers all received unified instructions from their local leaders to halt work.

The November 7, 1938 General Strike:

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and the communist leaders called for a massive, one-day general strike on November 7, 1938, to protest the passing of the Black Bill.

Babasaheb on the Front Lines: He didn't just give speeches from a desk. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and his ILP lieutenants actively toured the mill districts of Bombay (Parel, Dadar, Worli) in open cars, rallying the workers.

The Success: The strike was an overwhelming, historic success. Over 100,000 workers walked out. The textile mills of Bombay were completely paralyzed.

The Kamgar Maidan Rally: That evening, a massive rally was held at Kamgar Maidan. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar presided over the meeting, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with communist leaders like S.A. Dange and Indulal Yagnik, addressing a sea of workers.

The State Violence: The Congress Crackdown

The Bombay Provincial Government at the time was controlled by the Indian National Congress, with B.G. Kher as Chief Minister and K.M. Munshi as the Home Minister. They were terrified by the sheer scale of the Ambedkar-Communist alliance and decided to crush it using state machinery.

Armed Police Deployment: Home Minister K.M. Munshi deployed heavily armed police across the mill districts of Bombay (Parel, Dadar, Currey Road, and Prabhadevi). They were ordered to prevent the strike by force if necessary.

The Lathi Charges and Arrests: As the Samata Sainik Dal (Babasaheb Ambedkar’s volunteers) and communist cadres marched peacefully to enforce the strike, the police launched vicious lathi charges. Hundreds of workers were beaten, and key ground-level leaders were preemptively arrested to break the workers' morale.

The Police Firing: The violence peaked when the police opened fire on a crowd of unarmed striking workers near the Elphinstone Road and Prabhadevi areas.

The Casualties: The police bullets killed two workers and severely injured dozens more (some historical records cite around 70 to 80 workers wounded).

Babasaheb was absolutely furious. At the massive Kamgar Maidan rally that evening, he publicly held Home Minister K.M. Munshi personally responsible for shedding the blood of innocent laborers just to protect the profits of the capitalist mill owners.

The events of November 7, 1938, exposed the true allegiances of the Indian political establishment. Faced with a historic, unified strike initiated by Dr. Ambedkar's ILP and the Communists, the Congress government dropped its 'pro-poor' nationalist facade. Home Minister K.M. Munshi deployed armed police into the mill districts, answering the workers' demands with lathi charges and bullets. Unarmed laborers were shot dead in the streets of Bombay to protect the profits of the textile barons.

This display of working-class power carried a devastating human cost. The tragic deaths of these strikers placed a heavy burden on Dr. Ambedkar, who directed his absolute fury at the Congress government for shedding their blood. Because he had initiated and led the strike, the loss of innocent lives deeply grieved him. This profound grief stood in sharp contrast to the apathy of the Savarna communist leadership in 1928, who readily used Dalit workers as expendable cannon fodder for their revolutionary fantasies while refusing to grant them basic rights.

The 1938 police firing exposed the other side of the same oppressive coin. It proved that the Savarna political establishment, acting through the Congress government, viewed working-class lives as entirely disposable the moment capitalist profits were threatened. These events confirmed the grim reality he had already observed: whether it was the police firing in 1938 or the Girni Kamgar Union's earlier betrayals in 1928, Savarna leaders consistently treated Dalit and working-class lives as expendable for their own political agendas.

Critics today often attempt to dilute this militant history by pointing to his later cooperation with the Congress during the drafting of the Constitution. However, this 1938 clash proves that his political engagements were strictly pragmatic and never unconditional. He fought the Congress ruthlessly when they acted as agents of capitalist oppression, just as he later navigated their assembly when it became structurally necessary to secure constitutional safeguards for the Depressed Classes. His loyalty belonged entirely to the marginalized, never to an oppressive political establishment.

Months before the introduction of the Black Bill, Babasaheb had urgently tried to warn the labour movement. In a landmark speech, “Trade Unions must enter politics to protect their interests,” delivered in February 1938, he diagnosed the exact ideological disease driving these historical betrayals. Savarna Marxists treated caste as a mere superstructure expected to collapse on its own. Dr. Ambedkar explicitly countered this by warning that the working class fought a two-front war. Fighting the mill owners alone would never be enough. The widespread refusal to confront the internal, structural enemy of Brahmanism was actively fracturing the unions and costing actual lives.

Section 3: Brahmanism, Trade Unionism and failures of the (Indian) “Communists”

For the whole section I've taken excerpts from his speech “Trade Unions must enter politics to protect their interests”, Babasaheb pointed out the enemies of the working class. He also recalls what exactly is brahmanism, is it just the ban on inter-marrying and inter-dining, or is there more to it?

What does Brahmanism really mean?

>There are in my view two enemies which the workers of this country have to deal with. The two enemies are Bramhanism and Capitalism. The accusation by our critics arises partly because the critics fail to reckon Brahmanism as an enemy which the workers have to deal with. I do not want to be misunderstood when I say that Brahmanism is an enemy which must be dealt with. By Bramhanism I do not mean the power, privileges and interests of the Bramhins as a community. That is not the sense in which I am using the word. By Bramhanism I mean the negation of the spirit of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. In that sense it is rampant in all classes and is not confined to the Bramhins alone though they have been the originations of it. This Bramhanism which pervades everywhere and which regulates the thoughts and deeds of all classes is an incontrovertible fact. It is also an incontrovertible fact that this Bramhanism gives certain classes a privileged position. It denies certain other classes even equality of opportunity. The effects of Bramhanism are not confined to what are social rights such as inter-dining or inter- marriage. If that was so, one would not mind it. But it is not so. It extends to civic rights as distingnished from social rights. Use of public schools, of public wells, of public conveyances, of public restaurants are matters of civic rights. Everything which is intended for the public or maintained out of public fund must be open to every citizen. But there are millions to whom these civic rights are denied.

It is very important to note what Depressed Class workers have to face compared to other workers.

>Take the Depressed Class worker and compare his opportunities with a worker who does not belong to the Depressed Classes. What opportunities of obtaining work has he ? What are the prospects he has in the matter of security of service or advancement therein? It is notorious that there are many avocations from which a Depressed Class worker is shut out by reason of the fact that he is an Untouchable. A notorious case in point is that of the Cotton Industry. I do not know of what happens in other parts of India. But I know that in the Bombay Presidency the Depressed Classes are shut out from the weaving department in the Cotton Mills both in Bombay and in Ahemadabad. They can only work in the spinning department. The spinning department is the lowest paid department. The reason why they are excluded from the weaving department is because they are Untouchables and because on that account the caste Hindu worker objects to work with them although he does not mind working with the Musalmans.

>In those avocations where he has a chance to obtain work he is employed in the lowest grade. He is excluded from any place of power or authority. He is not only employed in the lowest grade but he is confined to that grade until he retires. There is no rise for him. There is no career for him and often there is no promotion for him. This is what happens to him when there is no slump. In days of slump he is the first to be fired as in the boom he is the last to be employed.

Even today, the views of the savarnas have not changed and there have not been any changes in caste based hiring and caste based promotions. No “revolutionary marxist” will dare to talk about these crucial issues, yet they will dare to talk about “class solidarity” or a “proletarian revolution”. They will only use the lower departments of workers as a cannon fodder for their opportunistic political careers. If they're asked to speak for them, they'll accuse us of breaking class solidarity. But they're the ones to never ever build class solidarity in the first place by not speaking against caste based hiring and promotions, caste based renting/housing (denying dalits a place to rent and live) and other aspects of the Indian economy that are caste ridden.

A revolution without the elimination of the spirit of brahmanism will only result in the dictatorship of the Savarna proletariat over the Depressed Classes proletariats. Savarnas need to feel ashamed to say they would rather deal with it once they do their “revolution”.

How must one eliminate brahmanism?

>That all labourers are one, form one class is an ideal to be achieved and it is the greatest error to assume it as a fact. How are we to consolidate the ranks of labour ? How are we to bring about unity among labour ? Not by allowing one section of the workers to suppress other section of the workers. Not by preventing the oppressed section from organizing. Not by preventing the aggrieved section from agitating against the injustice that is being done to them. The real way to bring about unity is to remove the causes which make one worker the antagonist of another worker on the ground of race and religion. The real way to bring about unity is to tell the worker that he is wrong in claiming rights which he is not prepared to give to other workers. The real way to bring about unity is to tell the worker who makes these social distinctions which result in unfair discrimination are wrong in principle and injurious to the solidarity of workers. In other words we must uproot Bramhanism - this spirit of inequality - from among the workers if the ranks of labour are to be united. But where is the labour leader who has done this among workers? I have heard labour leaders speaking vociferously against Capitalism. But I have never heard any labour leader speaking against Bramhanism amongst workers. On the other hand their silence on this point is quite conspicuous. Whether their silence is due to their belief that Bramhanism has nothing to do with the organisation and unity of workers, whether it is due to their non-appreciation of the fact that Bramhanism has great deal to do with the disorganisation of labour or whether it is due to sheer opportunism which believes in acquiring leadership of labour and not saying anything which would hurt the feelings of the workers I do not stop to inquire. But I must say that if Bramhanism is admitted to be the root cause of the disorganisation of labour then a serious effort must be made to remove it from the workers. This infection will not go away merely by ignoring it or by remaining silent about it. It must be pursued, dug out and knotched. Then and then only will the way for the unity of workers be made safe.

But none of the Savarna revolutionaries are ready to acknowledge the struggles of Depressed Classes. Let alone actively working to resolve it.

For the people from the Depressed Classes who choose to side with the Communist leaders:

>There are one or two men from the Depressed Classes who have disapproved of this Conference. There is nothing strange in this. Some of them are the tools and hirelings of others. Some are misguided. The Depressed Classes are so weak in themselves and the word union has such a charm in it, especially when it falls from the lips of influential propagandist that it is no wonder they are deluded; but such people forget that there can be no real union between parties whose feelings and attitudes are in every respect opposed to each other and where one of whom claims rights and interests which are adverse to the interests of the others. Union among such people would be nothing but fraud upon the weak and suffering party. Every sincere man who repudiates the fraud is maligned by these imposters, as one who would sow division. Division, indeed! Yes, a division it may be, but it is a division, where a real difference and a real antagonism exists. This antagonism arises chiefly because one section of Labour claims vested rights against another section of Labour namely the Depressed Classes. Nobody wants to create a difference. What we are doing is to recognize the difference and to prevent the difference from working an injustice to us.

Babasaheb fully acknowledged the backlash that comes with independent Dalit organizing. He noted that anyone who calls out the fraud of Savarna-led unity will be immediately maligned as someone who sows division. He unapologetically embraced this division. He argued that the antagonism between the Depressed Classes and Caste Hindus is a material reality. Ignoring this antagonism for the sake of "unity" only subjects the marginalized to further injustice. True solidarity is not created by pretending differences do not exist; it is created by recognizing those differences and preventing them from being weaponized.

Trade Unions and the Communists:

Babasaheb acknowledged that Trade Unionism in India is in a sorry state. The warfare between different unions is far more deadly than the conflict with the actual owners. He explains how communist leaders have been systematically organizing disorganization, which still remains true today.

>There are some labour leaders who are only arm-chair philosophers or politicians who have limited their task to issuing statements in the papers. Organizing the workers, educating the workers and helping them to agitate does not form part of their duty. They are only anxious to represent the workers and speak on their behalf but avoid having any contact with them. A second category of labour leaders is of those who are engaged in forming unions for the sole purpose of finding a place for themselves as Secretaries, Presidents or Chairmen. To maintain themselves in their places they try to keep their unions as separate and rival entities. One notices the astounding and shameful phenomenon that the warfare between different unions is far more deadly than what exists - if any at all - between workers and owners-and all this for what- for no other purpose than that of securing mastery over unions for certain individuals whose ambition is to find a leader’s place for themselves. The third class of labour leaders is composed principally of the communists. They may be well meaning but I have no hesitation in saying that they are a misguided body of men and I go further and say that nobody has brought a greater ruination on the workers than these men. If to-day the back of workers is completely broken, if to-day the masters have the upper hand, if to-day unionism is an anathema it is entirely due to the misuse of the powers which the communists had at one time secured over the trade unions. Their aim seems to bring about discontent among the workers as though there was any absence of it, because they believe that with a discontented body of workers they will bring about a revolution and establish the rule of the proletariat. Therefore to bring about discontent they launched upon a systematic campaign of organizing disorganization. The series of strikes on which they drove the men can have no other meaning and no other consequence except that it was a deliberate attempt to organize disorganization. For a successful revolution it is not enough that there is discontent; what is required is a profound and thorough conviction of the justice, necessity and importance of political and social right. Not even a revolutionary Marxist would make a fetish of strikes, as was done in the good old days by the Revolutionary Syndicalists. The strike was never considered by revolutionary Marxists as a “revolutionary exercise” but was regarded as a very serious measure to be resorted to as a last extremity after all efforts have proved unavailing. But the Communists have thrown all this to the winds and have looked upon strikes as a divine means of creating discontent among the workers. Whether they have created greater discontent or not they have most certainly destroyed the very trade union organizations which were the source of their strength and their power and now they are practically on the streets seeking to take shelter under all sorts of capitalist organizations.

But why would Babasaheb say that the communists have brought a greater ruination than anyone else? how exactly do the communists systematically organize disorganization? It is explained the excerpt below from the speech “YOU HAVE NOT REALISED WHAT TREMENDOUS POWER YOU HAVE”

>The leaders of some of the union in the city, specially the textile unions had led their men into a number of strikes during the last 14 years, said Dr. Ambedkar, but not in one of them had they succeeded in getting any of their demands. In fact these strikes had only resulted, because of unemployment during strike periods and retrenchments and dismissals following strikes, in adding to the woes and miseries of the workers.

>Such activities, far from organising the workers had only resulted in disorganising them and disintegrating their unions.

While the Depression Classes workers already couldn't find work and couldn't get paid enough, the numerous strikes of the communist leaders had already resulted in their loss. Not a single union leader could care about the Depressed Classes workers struggles and interests. At least when Babasaheb broke the Bombay textile mills strike in 1929, Depressed Classes had gotten an opportunity to work and earn which they rarely do, but the Savarnas would never acknowledge it, rather it's a betrayal according to them because we didn't bow down and be their cannon fodder.

The “Communist” Organization of Mr. M.N. Roy:

>There is another section- calling itself communist- represented by Mr. Roy which is vehemently opposed to any separate organization by labour or by any class in India either inside or outside the Congress. Mr. Roy must be a puzzle to many as he is to me. A communist ! And opposed to separate political organization of labour !! A terrible contradiction in terms !! A point of view which must make Lenin turn in his grave. The only rational justification that one can give for so queer a view is that Mr. Roy looks upon the destruction of Imperialism as the first and foremost aim of Indian politics. In no other way can one read any sense in the view which is being propagated by Mr. Roy. This view would be correct if it could be proved that with the disappearance of Imperialism all vestige of Capitalism will also disappear from India. But it does not require much intelligence to realise that even if the British depart from India, the landlords, the mill-owners, the money-lenders will remain in India and continue to bleed the people and that even after Imperialism has gone, labour will have to fight these interests just as much. If this is so why should not labour organize from now ! Why should it wait for developing its organization ? I don’t find any answer. The Congress Socialists evidently realize that labour has to fight capitalism as much as Imperialism and therefore agree that labour must organize. But they have put a proviso that any labour organization must be within the Congress. I am not able to understand the virtue or necessity of this compulsory coalition between the Congress and labour.

Here we can see that someone didn't understand the “Marxist” theory and unfortunately it isn't Babasaheb here but Mr Roy. Babasaheb pointed out the contradictions of M. N. Roy, and he shattered the illusion that Indian communists adhered to Marxist principles when it came to Indian realities.

Roy prioritized fighting British Imperialism, demanding the working class abandon independent organizing to serve the nationalist movement. Babasaheb exposed this lethal trap: if labor waited until after independence, they would simply trade white colonizers for brown Savarna oppressors.
By noting that Roy's stance would make "Lenin turn in his grave," Babasaheb proved he understood Marxist theory better than the communist elite. True Marxism demands absolute working-class independence, yet Indian communists eagerly surrendered this autonomy to nationalist elites.

Ambedkar also torched the "Congress Socialists" for demanding labor organize exclusively within the Congress party. Since Congress was bankrolled by capitalist exploiters, this was like asking sheep to unionize inside a wolf’s den. A labor movement tethered to Congress could never strike against its own funders. Genuine labor politics required absolute, uncompromising independence.

Section 4: Savarna Opportunism, Malignment and The Necessity for repudiating Brahmanical leadership.

I'd like to address something noteworthy. Even though Babasaheb has brought many changes and his methods and his efforts have actually been proven significant and correct, no Savarna Marxist or any Savarna Progressive is ready to acknowledge it. They will turn a blind eye to Indian communists' failure to grasp Marxist theory, and opportunism of other Savarna leaders. But surprisingly they'll point to how babasaheb didn't “understand basic marxism” while he could understand it better than any contemporary marxist. They will literally ignore the major roles of the Savarna leaders, including the communists for failing Indian political struggles.

But what about his involvement in the cabinet of the Congress government and the Telangana rebellion!?

As it is already talked about in this article, much before he had joined the cabinet as a law minister to secure constitutional safeguards and rights for every oppressed group, the “Communists” and the “Socialists” were already part of congress themselves. M N roy was someone who worked with Lenin but he refused to let socialists or communists organize outside Congress. Congress was funded directly by the wealthy industrialists as well, but they'll never really bring this up because it doesn't suit their attempt to malign Babasaheb.

Some “Marxist intellectuals” may try to argue that Babasaheb actually had any authority or administrative jurisdiction over operation polo against the telangana rebellion. It is clear that Babasaheb never really “green lit” the operation polo or condemned the telangana rebellion. It was simply not part of his administrative jurisdiction because that's how parliamentary democracy works. Even though these “communists” and “socialists” were part of the Congress, I wonder how they don't share any blame for the same, but somehow Babasaheb who was never even in the Congress Party is to be blamed.

He may have opposed the communists and the socialists, but it is important to note that he was against the individuals who were supposed to adhere to their ideologies, Babasaheb was never fully against the ideology of Marxism himself, while he did have some disagreements with the ideology but he was never against the core goal of it. They just tried to show some of his quotes speaking against the communists which were cropped and taken out of context, and somehow tried painting Babasaheb as an anti communist and implying him to be pro capitalist and pro congress without making any sense, they tried to forcefully somehow relate the telangana rebellion to babasaheb being in the cabinet as a law minister and needing to be blamed.

What the Savarna Marxists will never tell you about the Telangana rebellion:

What the Savarna Marxists will never tell you about the Telangana rebellion is that its command structure perfectly mirrored the oppressive caste hierarchy they claimed to destroy. The top communist leadership was overwhelmingly dominated by wealthy, land-owning dominant castes, specifically the Reddys and Kammas. Meanwhile, the foot soldiers bleeding on the front lines were Malas, Madigas, Koyas, and Gonds. Dalit and Adivasi peasants, desperately fighting to escape forced labor, were turned into human shields for a Savarna-directed ideological war.

This was the exact same blueprint of betrayal Dr. Ambedkar diagnosed during the 1928 Bombay strikes. Savarna communists used marginalized peasants to wage their war against the State, but when the Indian Army's brutal retaliation arrived, the contrast in consequences was horrifying. Dalit and Adivasi peasants were slaughtered by the thousands, and marginalized women were subjected to horrific mass rapes. But what happened to the Savarna elites who directed the insurgency? They did not face firing squads. Instead, men like Puchalapalli Sundarayya and Ravi Narayan Reddy called off the struggle and seamlessly transitioned into mainstream electoral politics. The marginalized died in the dirt, while their Savarna commanders traded revolutionary rhetoric for comfortable Parliament seats, proving they have always viewed the Depressed Classes as entirely expendable.

Savarnas only cared to get a leadership position, while Babasaheb only cared for the people.

He warned he would burn the Constitution if majoritarians used democracy to suppress minority rights.

While he fought in the streets under colonial rule, he rejected armed rebellion in a republic as the "grammar of anarchy." He knew the communist playbook well: upper-caste elites directing armed struggles from the top while Dalit and Adivasi peasants acted as cannon fodder.

Joining the first cabinet was never a surrender. It was a calculated mission to secure permanent constitutional safeguards, prioritizing the law so his people would never again bleed for unwinnable wars. The moment the establishment blocked his broader social reforms by stalling the Hindu Code Bill, he resigned. His loyalty belonged exclusively to the oppressed, never to the Savarna political elite.

The True Vanguard of Labor

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar declared in the speech “Trade Unions must enter politics to protect their interests” the Depressed Classes, the natural leaders of the Indian labor movement. Because they endured the deepest social wrongs, their politics were grounded in brutal material reality, not upper-caste political abstractions. This authenticity made them the true beacon for all workers.

He also revealed the strategic genius of their assured legislative quotas. While general elections are a volatile gamble, the Depressed Classes possessed guaranteed structural power. This quota was a constitutional weapon that the entire working class could wield, provided other labor groups accepted Dalit leadership.

Conclusion:

The real people against the status quo are not the ones who call themselves a leftist, but the ones who are against the Brahmanical Status quo and rightly see that Capitalism and Brahmanism are the two enemies of the people.

Babasaheb could achieve what the opportunistic savarna communists could never achieve in their collective careers. He could bring change, and he could do what no one dared to. The wealthy Savarna Landlord leaders of the Telangana insurgency conveniently shifted to electoral politics without needing to deal with any of the state retaliation and lived a comfortable life. The Telangana rebels were killed and mass raped, their leaders felt no remorse about it. The GKU leaders like SA Dange used Depressed Classes workers for securing benefits for the caste Hindus while refusing to abolish untouchability and never allowed the Depressed Classes to work in the weaving department which had a better pay.

It was Babasaheb who led the 1938 general strike against the black bill for the whole working class, and the strike had paralyzed the entire Bombay province. It was Babasaheb who never cared for leadership positions but only the people of India.

Jai Bhim.

On the recent installation of the statue of Sushruta, widely regarded as one of the earliest surgeons in history, which has been unveiled at the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh in Scotland, i've been since diving deep into the historical evidence around Sushruta, the claimed "Father of Surgery," and how ancient Indian medical and Vedic traditions hold up under scrutiny.

What started as a question about textual evidence in my mind turned into a full-blown debate on linguistics, archaeology, dating methods, Buddhist connections, and how power politics (ancient and colonial) shape what we call "history."

This is a systematic summary of that discussion. I'm approaching it with skepticism, not dismissing achievements, but questioning the layers of myth, oral transmission gaps, and retrospective editing.

Let's break it down.

The Case for Sushruta

Impressive Claims, Late Physical Evidence

Sushruta Samhita is a monumental text detailing advanced surgery (rhinoplasty via forehead flap, cataract procedures, 101 blunt + 20 sharp instruments, even using ants as "staples" for wounds). It is traditionally dated to ~600–1000 BCE, with Sushruta practicing in Kashi under Divodasa (Dhanvantari).

Supporting points

Manuscripts: Oldest surviving is the Kathmandu KL 699 palm-leaf (878 CE). The Bower Manuscript (4th–5th CE, from Turkestan) cites related surgical traditions.
Global transmission: Arabic translations (8th CE) influenced Avicenna; later Western adoption via the 1794 Cowasjee rhinoplasty case in The Gentleman's Magazine, which matched Sushruta's technique exactly and inspired modern plastic surgery in Europe.
Institutional recognition: Statues at Royal College of Surgeons (Edinburgh, 2026) and Royal Australasian College.

Major red flags:

No direct mention of Sushruta by name in pre-1 BCE Buddhist texts (which are rich in medical stories).
Jivaka (Buddha's physician, ~5th BCE) studied under Atreya in Taxila, not linked directly to Sushruta's Shalya (surgery) lineage in Varanasi.
Early Buddhist texts mention Divodasa but credit medical knowledge to the Buddha/monasteries, stripping Vedic/Brahmanical lineages.
Physical copies appear centuries (or a millennium) later. The text has clear layers: ancient core + later redactions (e.g., Nagarjuna adding Uttara-tantra ~2nd CE).

Dating Challenges

Oral "Onion" vs. Hard Evidence

How do we date an oral tradition on perishable materials in a humid climate?

Linguistic arguments (philology)

Archaic pre-Paninian grammar in core sections (before ~400 BCE).
Cross-references (e.g., anatomy matching Shatapatha Brahmana ~700–600 BCE; mentioned in Mahabharata).
Absence of post-Alexander Greek terms or heavy Buddhist vocabulary in oldest layers.

Skeptical counters (materialist view)

Physical evidence for Vedas/Panini/Brahmanas is late (medieval manuscripts). No contemporary stone/artifact proof from 1000 BCE.
Texts could be faked/edited under Gupta patronage or later to legitimize against Buddhist rulers.
Sociopolitical details and "absence of later concepts" can be retroactively constructed by reading history.
Mitanni Treaty (1380 BCE, Syria): Shows Proto-Indo-Aryan elements (gods like Mitra, numbers like "satta" closer to Prakrit than classical Sanskrit). Proves an ancestral dialect existed but not rigid "Vedic Sanskrit" as we know it.

Archaeology

Painted Grey Ware (PGW) culture (~1200–500 BCE) matches some descriptions (iron, horses), but pots/bones don't equal "Vedic Brahmins." Could be diverse groups (including those later erased like Ajivikas).
Ganges ecology destroys wood/mud structures—unlike Egypt/Mesopotamia.
Ashoka's edicts (260 BCE): Prakrits (simplified, vernacular), not Sanskrit. Proves linguistic drift, vedic forms had already "died out" in common use.

Linguistics is interpretive (Wittgensteinian: language games create illusions).

Phonetics, meters (Anustubh/Tristubh), and "lost sounds" rely on assumptions. Oral mnemonics (Ghana-patha etc.) preserved texts impressively across regions, but not flawlessly evolved (Rigveda Mandalas show internal changes). Claims of perfect "computer-like" preservation are overstated pseudoscience.

Buddhist Connections and Omissions

Buddhist texts pre-1 BCE don't name Sushruta. They overlap in medical sophistication (Jivaka's craniotomies, laparotomies) but emphasize different lineages and credit the sangha/Buddha. This fits a pattern of de-Brahmanizing knowledge. Later Bower Manuscript (Buddhist-linked) does reference Sushruta.

The Brahmanical Tricks and Political Fabrication

Texts aren't neutral, they're products of power

Layers added for legitimacy (avatar myths, guru-discipline claims).
Allopanishad: Fabricated under Akbar to portray him as Vishnu avatar.
Manusmriti: Not everyday law but elevated by pandits + Warren Hastings (1774) into colonial legal code for rigid caste governance and divide-and-rule.
Colonial orientalists amplified Brahmanical narratives, linking to Aryan race myths, while glorifying elites.

Deconstruction Methodology (used in the debate)

Stratigraphic ("Onion") analysis: Peel core linguistic/tech layers from later paint.
Materialism: Prioritize carbon-dated stone/clay over palm-leaf copies.
Cui bono?: Who benefits from edits? Kings, elites, colonizers.
Separate artifacts from identity projections, track linguistic drift scientifically (Ashoka as baseline).

TLDR and some Key questions

Sushruta's surgical knowledge was influential, surviving via practice. But the historical person and texts as presented involve heavy later mythologizing, redactions, and gaps.

Vedic/Brahmanical traditions rely on oral claims with sparse early physical corroboration due to ecology + materials. Linguistics helps but is subjective, archaeology is patchy and prone to bias.

Political fabrication (ancient patronage, colonial codification) is undeniable, texts served power, not pure preservation.

This isn't "debunking" innovation but urging critical history, distinguishing practical medical legacy from constructed narratives.

Buddhist sources provide a counter-tradition emphasizing compassion and monastic empiricism over Vedic ritualism.

Q. How do manuscript transmission, linguistic archaism, institutional power, and material survival shape what later generations come to regard as ancient knowledge?

Q. How do we distinguish real ancient knowledge from the origin myths present societies build around it? And how do manuscripts, linguistics, power, and survival biases shape what we call "ancient tradition"?

References & Further Reading

Meulenbeld, G. J. A History of Indian Medical Literature (Groningen, 1999–2002) – Standard scholarly reference on the composite, multi-layered nature of the Suśrutasaṃhitā and its redactions (incl. Nagarjuna’s role).

Bower Manuscript (4th–5th century CE) – Early Central Asian witness mentioning Sushruta traditions; edited by A. F. R. Hoernle.

Zysk, Kenneth G. Medicine in the Veda and Asceticism and Healing in South Asia – On overlaps between Buddhist (Pali Canon/Jivaka traditions) and Ayurvedic medical knowledge.

Primary texts: Suśrutasaṃhitā (trans. Kaviraj Kunja Lal Bhishagratna, 1907–1916); Ashokan edicts (Prakrit); Mitanni Treaty (c. 1380 BCE) for Indo-Aryan linguistic context.

On colonial codification: Studies on Warren Hastings and the elevation of Manusmṛti (e.g., works by J. D. M. Derrett or Nicholas Dirks on colonial knowledge systems).

Archaeological/linguistic context: Discussions of Painted Grey Ware culture and Indo-Aryan linguistics (e.g., standard references on Panini and post-Ashokan Sanskrit revival).

r/bahujan

World lives in 2026 where India is still in 1890.

They beat them to within an inch of their lives just on suspicion?

Video of a sweeper, she is mistreating a mentally challenged patient at the District Hospital Raebareli.

Dr B.R. Ambedkar works and speeches at one place

Kuki-Zo Community Holds Peaceful Protest in Manipur's Saikul Against Alleged Unilateral Meitei Resettlement at Dolaithabi - The Hills Journal

Why Babasaheb broke the Bombay textile mills strike in 1929: Indian labour, Trade Unionism, Failures and Opportunism of Indian Communists.

Section 1: GKU Revolutionaries

1928: The Warning and the Critique

​1929: The Decisive Strike-Break

Section 2: The 1938 General Strike

Who led and initiated the strike against this bill?

How Did the Communists Join?

Who Led the Ground Mobilization?

The State Violence: The Congress Crackdown

Section 3: Brahmanism, Trade Unionism and failures of the (Indian) “Communists”

What does Brahmanism really mean?

How must one eliminate brahmanism?

For the people from the Depressed Classes who choose to side with the Communist leaders:

Trade Unions and the Communists:

The “Communist” Organization of Mr. M.N. Roy:

Section 4: Savarna Opportunism, Malignment and The Necessity for repudiating Brahmanical leadership.

But what about his involvement in the cabinet of the Congress government and the Telangana rebellion!?

What the Savarna Marxists will never tell you about the Telangana rebellion:

Savarnas only cared to get a leadership position, while Babasaheb only cared for the people.

The True Vanguard of Labor

Conclusion:

Do you know how Dr. Ambedkar broached the question of contraception for a young India?

Dalit woman says she doesn't consider herself a Hindu (translation in body)

Built a test that measures how clearly you see caste - score 0 to 100, named honestly

To all the savarnas who want to be a part of the Ambedkarite movement

A Critical Deconstruction of Ancient Indian Medical History, Oral Traditions, and Political Fabrication

Ucs be like

Manish Gupta beat his ST housemaid to death for bringing "bad energy" to house

Private schools, pricey coaching, family business, MNC jobs : They also cracked EWS list in UPSC exam.

India recorded 55,698 cases of crimes and atrocities against Scheduled Castes (SCs) in 2024 according to the latest NCRB data

The realisation😭

The Dalit Panthers started as a literary group.

"B-but..."

"Babasaheb's thoughts on the sole purpose of religion"

Bhavacakra

1929: The Decisive Strike-Break