Lonely fighters with contrarian views and defiant practices

Because they championed visions contrary to the governing politico-ideological priorities, B. R. Ambedkar and Malcolm X became lonely fighters for causes which did not receive as much attention as they attracted later. In the prevalent socio-economic and political context, they articulated contrarian voices by defying those who were not inclined to disturb the existing social order which meant that, for them, discrimination around the axes of race and caste were not antithetical to humanity. One must also point out that both of them continued a tradition of opposition which had a long past. With their arrival on the scene, Ambedkar and Malcolm reiterated the views and mobilized support to execute what they deemed appropriate to completely uproot socio-culturally discriminatory practices. Malcolm devised his strategy in a context when many of his colleagues, inspired by Martin Luther King Jr, were already engaged in activities gravitating towards creating a society free from racial intolerances. The situation was however not propitious given the hegemonic presence of supremacist forces in every walks of life and with nearly unconditional support from those in the saddles of power. B. R. Ambedkar was an exception in the nationalist era because the mainstream nationalists did not appear to have been persuaded by his politico-ideological priorities as they felt that they were likely to weaken the anti-British political platform as soon as the ideational vision for Dalit empowerment was linked with the battle for national liberation. Indian nationalist leaders apprehended that as Ambedkar’s conceptualization of equality meant a serious challenge to the age-old benefits which the caste Hindus were accustomed to enjoy, Ambedkar’s ideological preferences were neither desirable nor conducive to the nationalist campaign. Even Gandhi, the apostle of universal humanism, opposed Ambedkar when the colonial government conceded Ambedkar’s demand for separate electorates for Dalits in the Second Round Table Conference of 1932 with the same argument that electoral separation of the untouchables was potentially divisive of Hindus as a collective compact.