Jyoti Bania & Ashok Danavath
Shashi Tharoor is the fox that Malcolm X warned of
Shashi Tharoor, a Nair liberal, member of the Indian Parliament (MP) and author of many books made many inaccurate, controversial and contradictory comments in a recent talk on Ambedkar: The Quest for Equality held on June 13, 2023, at Selwyn College, Cambridge University. This talk was organized for the promotion of his new book, Ambedkar: A Life, about Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar (1891-1956), one of the towering figures of India, the greatest Indian intellectual, an anti-caste philosopher and the architect of the Indian constitution and more.
It is important to note that, unlike other biographers of Dr Ambedkar, Shashi Tharoor’s ideas are at odds with Ambedkar’s philosophy, and he has never engaged in any caste issues and debates. Even Shashi Tharoor has gone one step further to deny his caste as he asserts that he was not aware of his caste (the elephant in the room), and he became aware of caste much later in his life when he joined Indian politics. This ‘not so innocent’ admission of non-awareness of (caste) privilege is a common trope of how privileged class across the world covers up their privilege.
This article intends to question and expose Shashi Tharoor’s academic dishonesty and his ideological ambiguities. Another important point of provocation in writing this article is that Shashi Tharoor appears to be misleading his readers and audiences (mostly western audience who rely on writers like Shashi Tharoor to know about socio-political issues of India). In this article, the comments Shashi Tharoor made during the talk are critically examined on various grounds and discussed under the following major themes as Gandhi’s defence of Caste and Varnashrama-dharma, Shashi Tharoor’s Caste Disavowal, Sambhandham practice of Kerala, Ambedkar’s Views of the Philosophy of Hinduism, Radical Revolutionary Acts of Ambedkar against Hindu Social Order and Shashi Tharoor the fox that Malcolm X warned of.
During the question-and-answer session of the talk, a participant asked Shashi Tharoor how his own experience with caste relations influenced his decision to write this book (Ambedkar: A Life) and how he approached writing this book. In his reply, Tharoor remarks:
“I was born to nationalist parents, my father had dropped his caste surname in college, in schools he wore it with pride, I could see his school books with Tharoor Chandra Sekhar (TCS) Nair written on some of his school books but he dropped the Nair because Mahatma Gandhi had said that you know caste is not a good thing to preserve in an independent India and so on, and he essentially never mentioned caste in the household and or religion for that matter, I went to school in Bombay where we had friends of every religion, every caste coming home to play and never once did our parents ever mention on that so and so that Muslim boy or that Hindu boy, that Sikh boy or whatever, it never came up, the question did not arise and that was what that nationalist generation believed in that we had to rise above these distinctions that divide us and focus on our unity – the cliché slogan of my childhood was national integration, unity and diversity that kind of things.
I only became aware of my caste much later and then I had to ask my parents what caste was, what you know Nair was and so on and that was a discovery but I never let it influence my life and nobody in my family chose to consciously sort of remain within caste boundary when it came to marrying or anything else. All three of us, I have two sisters and I married outside of our caste and none of us is particularly concerned about caste when it comes to you, you know, in India, I can afford to employ a cook. I did not ask him, you know, which community he is from. As long as he can cook well, I don’t care. I mean, so I came from a certain caste that, a certain background, if you like, being oblivious to caste issues, having said that when I came back to Indian politics I learned very quickly the limitations of that. Number one, I wrote a piece about that and was promptly rebuked by an 18 years old Dalit blogger saying, don’t you realize that obliviousness to caste itself is sometimes only available to the privileged and that I as a Dalit could never afford to be unaware of my caste and that kind of shook me. I did not / had not thought of it that way and it certainly woken me up to that very seriously. And the second episode of this nature that I had was, um, in my political career as representative as a member of parliament from Thiruvananthapuram. I had been similarly inclined to recruit people for my office and so on. I just looked in their merit, their cv and so on. I never inquired about their caste and then I was accused of having staffed my office with people of a particular caste and I had not even thought about it. So, I checked all their caste unfortunately the rebuke was wrong, one of them was from an underprivileged caste but the fact still was that the majority were not. And I then had to very consciously go out of my way. I mean, I had, in fact, a Muslim and a Christian are the staff but Hindus apparently were the majority, from one particular caste and I had to quickly undo that not by firing anybody but by simply redressing the balance. I would not want people to be fired because of the accident of their birth especially if they are doing a great job. But I am just saying so these are the learnings, um, I think today in Indian politics you have to be caste conscious. Parties give tickets to a candidate with an eye on the caste composition of a particular constituency, you know such and such places in Kerala, you really need a Christian candidate, on certain such a place, you need a Muslim candidate or a Dalit candidate, of course, there are reserved seats but then you have got even Nair candidate or an Ezhava candidate. There are questions of population numbers, the concentration of voters and so on. I never thought that way and I am learning that it is impossible to even if you don’t think that way, others who are important to your political life will think that way, so that the answer uh, it’s not a satisfactory answer because it shows I came into this in some ways unprepared but I have learned as I have spent time in this profession.”
In the above reply, Shashi Tharoor makes many inaccurate and false claims.
Gandhi’s defence of Caste and Varnashrama-dharma
Shashi Tharoor’s claim, “Gandhi had said that… caste is not a good thing to preserve in an independent India” is false. Gandhi’s writings clearly show that he was the defender of the caste system and an upholder of Varnashrama-dharma. Dr Ambedkar, in his book, “What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to Untouchables?” aptly quoted Gandhi’s views on Caste from his article in a Gujarati journal called Nava-Jivan published in 1921-22. Following are some of Gandhi’s views on the caste system:
“I believe that if Hindu Society has been able to stand it is because it is founded on the caste system.”
“The seeds of Swaraj are to be found in the caste system. Different castes are like different sections of military division. Each division is working for the good of the whole…”
“I believe that interdining or intermarriage are not necessary for promoting national unity… Taking food is as dirty an act as answering the call of nature. The only difference is that after answering call of nature we get peace while after eating food we get discomfort. Just as we perform the act of answering the call of nature in seclusion so also the act of taking food must also be done in seclusion.”
“To destroy caste system and adopt Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system. Hereditary principle is an eternal principle. To change it is to create disorder. I have no use for a Brahmin if I cannot call him a Brahmin for my life. It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin.”
“The caste system is a natural order of society. In India it has been given a religious coating. Other countries not having understood the utility of the Caste System it existed only in a loose condition and consequently those countries have not derived from Caste system the same degree of advantage which India has derived.
“These being my views I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the Caste System” (Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Writing and Speeches [DBAWS], Vol.9, p. 275-276).
Dr Ambedkar not only refuted all the claims made by Gandhi in the defence of the caste system but also criticized Gandhi’s shifting stance from the defender of the caste system in 1922 to an upholder of the Varna system. Dr Ambedkar asserted,
“The social ideal of Gandhism is either caste or varna. Though it may be difficult to say which, there can be no doubt that the social ideal of Gandhism is not democracy. For whether one takes for comparison caste or varna both are fundamentally opposed to democracy…” (DBAWS, Vol.9, p. 286).
Shashi Tharoor’s Caste Disavowal
Secondly, Shashi Tharoor’s statement, “I only became aware of my caste much later and then I had to ask my parents what caste was, what you know Nair was and so on and that was a discovery…” is a blatant lie, as it is nearly impossible for a person to be Hindu and not know about their caste. If Shashi Tharoor was born as Hindu (or aware of him being a Hindu), then he must be aware of his caste. Dr Ambedkar maintains,
“…the caste system is an essential feature of Hinduism and a man who does not belong to a recognized Hindu Caste cannot be a Hindu. While all this is true it must not be forgotten that observance of caste is not enough. Many Musalmans and many Christians observe caste if not in the matter of inter-dining certainly in the matter of inter-marriage. But they cannot be called Hindus on that account. Both elements must be present. He must be a Hindu and he must also observe caste” (DBAWS, Vol. 4, p.15).
Sambhandham practice of Kerala
Moreover, to refute Shashi Tharoor’s claim that he was unaware of his caste in the earlier years of his life, we need to delve into Shashi Tharoor’s caste background which is linked to a unique practice called, Sambhandham in Kerala. Neither Shashi Tharoor nor any informed person from the Nair caste and from the Nambudiri Brahmin caste in Kerala can deny the existence of this practice in Kerala’s history. In critiquing Shashi Tharoor for omitting the history of oppression of the Nair caste at the hands of Nambudri Brahmins in Kerala, Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd aptly states:
“He (Shashi Tharoor) never acknowledges that the Nairs, originally from Kerala, are considered Shudras within the Hindu caste order. This lays the ground for Tharoor to completely omit the history of the Nairs, and of their struggle against the casteist discrimination long imposed upon them.
Traditionally, the basic work of the Nairs, as of many Shudra castes, was agriculture, but the caste system that allotted them this work also denied them land rights. Over the centuries, the Nairs moved away from their typically Shudra occupation, and under the influence of Brahminism entered into a unique relationship with the dominant Nambudiri Brahmins. Well into the nineteenth century, Nair women lived in sambhandham with the Nambudri Brahmins’ younger sons. This was a form of sexual slavery, with the women denied marital rights and the men freed from obligation towards any children of the union, and it had full spiritual and religious sanction under the caste order” (Shepherd, 2018).
Kanch Ilaiah Shepherd also holds that Nairs, as an oppressed caste, were denied the right to education under the tyranny of Brahminism. However, in response to their historical (caste) oppression, Mannatthu Padmanabha Pillai, the Nair leader formed the Nair Service Society in 1914 to attain educational autonomy among the Nair caste. Nair Service Society played a significant role in transforming the Nair to become one of the most educated Shudra castes in India. Unfortunately, instead of fighting against Brahminism, the Nair Service Society chose to further Brahminize the Nair community, asserting that they are Hindus and actively promoting Hinduism in Kerala. Nairs after making progress never played any role in uplifting other oppressed castes instead, they committed oppression against the other oppressed castes in Kerala. Shashi Tharoor is the legacy of that Nair caste. Like Nair Service Society, he neither opposed the caste system nor Brahmanism, instead, he disavowed his caste.
Coming back to the talk, in his response to another participant’s question on the difference between Shashi Tharoor’s views in his book, Why Am I a Hindu and Dr Ambedkar’s views in Annihilation of Caste, and Riddles in Hinduism and his other important texts, Shashi Tharoor replies:
“I wrote Why Am I A Hindu, more as a response to the political response to Hindutva, as a political doctrine, uh, to say that in my view it was a misrepresentation of what faith I grew up with all about and I talked about some of the basic philosophical ideas of Hinduism and ethics of Hinduism as taught to all of us and certainly if you have read enough and imbibed enough of Hinduism you would not be particular fan of the caste system either. There are episodes I cite from an anecdote that many know of the great Hindu Sage, Adi Shankaracharya, the man who revived Hinduism around the 10th century, who was walking across a narrow bridge in Banaras in Varanasi with his disciples. When a chandala that is a Dalit in today’s language was coming from the other way and the disciples brashly ordered the Dalit to move aside from the great sage. He stopped and he refused to move and said to the sage what do you want? me to move my body or my soul because don’t we have the same soul and it is said that Adi Shankaracharya prostrated himself on the feet of the Dalit and said you have understood my teaching better than my own disciples. That is the Hindu spirit ultimately all of us possess fragments of the same Atma, the same soul that ultimately has that in common with all living creatures including even plants and trees and animals and ultimately the purpose to serve the quest of the soul is to attain ultimately merger with the Brahman, the divine god had the ultimate cosmic consciousness that sort of idea does not really permit distinction based on birth and soul so on. But society and social evolution of society is, sometimes, different from what religion and philosophy teach and that’s where the challenge has arisen.
Now, I don’t disagree with Ambedkar on the need to reject the caste system. I personally have not practiced caste as I explained in response to the earlier question and therefore, I don’t see any particular merit in it. It may have made sense as a profession-based categorization in more traditional rural society many many years ago, centuries and decades ago but in today’s modern world, it makes no sense at all as Ambedkar brashly pointed out when Gandhi ji said that Varnashrama-dharma was part of the core elements of Hindu societies. Why are you not practising the profession of the caste you were born into? He (Gandhi) was born into the merchant caste, Baniya caste where he was doing politics. The point is ultimately did become somewhat uh absurd as a proposition to suggest that all the elements of the caste system were still applicable in 20th century and to that degree I agree with Ambedkar.
Where I disagree with him (Ambedkar) was his complete rejection of Hinduism as a whole, where he completely overlooked the existence of these liberals and inclusive trends in Hindu philosophy and thought as well as the examples of teachers, preachers, reformers people from many different faiths, very different caste who stood for the faith over the centuries and he gave them sharp shrift and some of his comments were quite freely intemperate. I have quoted one in the book in particular where he said, “there might be better or worse Hindu but a good Hindu they can’t be.” I mean that kind of language, I thought was needlessly intemperate because it overlooked so much that Hinduism did have to offer and to that degree, I parted company with him.”
In his above response, Shashi Tharoor again makes many inaccurate statements and unjustified, empty claims.
Ambedkar’s Views of the Philosophy of Hinduism
Shashi Tharoor’s claim that, “…some of the basic philosophical ideas of Hinduism and ethics of Hinduism as taught to all of us and certainly if you have read enough and imbibed enough of Hinduism you would not be a particular fan of the caste system either” indicates that he is carefully only choosing those liberal, egalitarian aspects of Hinduism while ignoring the basic foundation on which Hinduism was built which is the caste system.
Dr Ambedkar, who rigorously examined Hinduism and its philosophy, declares that (graded) inequality is the soul of Hinduism and caste, as the dehumanizing moral order forms its central organization. Hinduism does not recognize equality, liberty and fraternity. It places Brahmins at the top of the hierarchal social order based on imagined racial and caste superiority. Dr Ambedkar maintains that both social inequality and religious inequality are embedded in the philosophy of Hinduism. There is no sharing of joys and sorrows among Hindus, everything is separate and exclusive for Hindus all through their lives. Dr. Ambedkar rightly argues,
“… the question of all questions is why do the Hindus refuse to share the joys and sorrows of life? It needs no saying that he refuses to share because his religion tells him not to share them. This conclusion need cause no surprize. For what does Hinduism teach? It teaches not to interdine, not to intermarry, not to associate. These don’ts constitute the essence of its teaching… The philosophy of Hinduism is a direct denial of fraternity” (DBAWS, Vol. 3, p. 66).
After systematic analysis of the philosophy of Hinduism Dr Ambedkar strongly contends that “Hinduism is inimical to equality, antagonistic to liberty and opposed to fraternity” (DBAWS, Vol.3, p.66).
Moving back to Shashi Tharoor’s reply where he expresses his disagreement with Ambedkar’s complete rejection of Hinduism, “where I disagree with him (Ambedkar) was his complete rejection of Hinduism as a whole, where he completely overlooked the existence of these liberals and inclusive trends in Hindu philosophy and thought…” It appears that Mr Tharoor himself overlooked Dr Ambedkar’s erudite analysis of the philosophy of Hinduism.
It is important to note that Hinduism has never been subjected to such critical examination as done by Dr Ambedkar. In his magnum opus, “Annihilation of Caste,” Dr Ambedkar says,
“Caste is a notion, it is a state of the mind. The destruction of Caste does not therefore mean the destruction of a physical barrier. It means a notional change…it must be recognized that the Hindus observe Caste not because they are inhuman or wrong headed. They observe Caste because they are deeply religious. People are not wrong in observing Caste. In my view, what is wrong is their religion, which has inculcated this notion of Caste. If this is correct, then obviously the enemy, you must grapple with, is not the people who observe Caste, but the Shastras which teach them this religion of Caste” (DBAWS, Vol.1, p.68).
He goes on to state,
“The real remedy is to destroy the belief in the sanctity of the Shastras. How do you expect to succeed, if you allow the Shastras to continue to mould the beliefs and opinions of the people? Not to question the authority of the Shastras, to permit the people to believe in their sanctity and their sanctions and to blame them and to criticise them for their acts as being irrational and inhuman is a(n) incongruous way of carrying on social reform” (DBAWS, Vol.1, p.68).
This begs an important question: can Shashi Tharoor refute Dr Ambedkar’s analysis of Hinduism and its Philosophy? The answer would be certainly not. Moreover, Tharoor’s contradictory statements, “I don’t disagree with Ambedkar on the need to reject the caste system…Where I disagree with him (Ambedkar) was his complete rejection of Hinduism as a whole, where he completely overlooked the existence of these liberals and inclusive trends in Hindu philosophy and thought…” appears to be an oxymoronic attempt to mislead his readers and audiences. Again, one must ask can Shashi Tharoor annihilate caste while adhering to Hinduism? Shashi Tharoor must be either ignorant or irrational or both to disagree with Ambedkar’s analysis of Hinduism and his decision of complete rejection of Hinduism to annihilate caste.
Not only did Shashi Tharoor omit Dr Ambedkar’s criticism of the philosophy of Hinduism, his remedy of annihilation of caste but he also selectively chose Adi Sankaracarya’s quote while concealing the fact that Adi Sankara was also a strong defender of the Varnashrama-dharma. There is an abundance of evidence to show that Shankaracharya supported or defended Varnashrama-dharma and it can be found in his commentary on the Vedanta-sutras. It is important to note that (according to Dr Ambedkar), “the idea of varna is the parent of the idea of caste. If the idea of caste is a pernicious idea it is entirely because of the viciousness of the idea of varna. Both are evil ideas and it matters very little whether one believes in varna or in caste” (DBAWS, Vol.9, p.289).
Radical Revolutionary Acts of Ambedkar against Hindu Social Order
Shashi Tharoor’s other blatant comments about Dr Ambedkar during the talk: “…Ambedkar remember was not a revolutionary, he was very much a reformer, he believed in the possibility of bringing about change through discussion, debate and legislation…” Tharoor’s above claim downplays the profound and revolutionary impact of Dr Ambedkar on the lives of millions of untouchables in India.
There is a legacy of movements of untouchables led by Ambedkar against Hindu social order, especially in Maharashtra. The revolt of the untouchables had two major stages, protests and petitions marked the first stage while the second stage was the “direct actions” against the Hindu social order (caste system). In 1920, Dr Ambedkar led Mahad Satyagraha, which was an open revolt of Untouchables against the Hindu Social Order, which established the right to access water from the Chawdar tank located in Mahad, Kolaba District of Bombay Presidency, which the caste Hindus challenged.
Moreover, this Mahad Satyagraha Movement also included “two cases of direct action” which Dr Ambedkar said, “aimed at the demolition of the Hindu Social Order by applying dynamite to its very foundations” (DBAWS, Vol. 5, p. 252). One direct action was the burning of the Manusmriti, an infamous Hindu text, into ashes publicly and openly after passing resolutions in the conference of untouchables held at Mahad on the 20th of December 1927. The burning of Manusmriti, on which the Hindu social order has been built, in the words of Ambedkar, “was an echo of Voltare’s denunciation of the Catholic Church of his time. For the first time a cry was raised against the Hindu Social Order “Ecraze la Infame”. It is also clear that these resolutions were absolutely revolutionary in character” (DBAWS, Vol. 5. p.255). Another direct action was the mass refusal by the Untouchables to carry the dead animals belonging to the Hindus and skin them Conference of the Untouchables which met in Mahad resolved that “no Untouchable shall skin the dead animals of the Hindus, shall carry it or eat the carrion” (DBAWS, Vol. 5. p.258). It had two main objectives, firstly, to foster self-respect and self-esteem among the untouchables and the second major objective was to strike a blow at the “Hindu social order” which is based on the division of labour “which reserves for the Hindus clean and respectable jobs and assigns to the Untouchables dirty and mean jobs and thereby clothes the Hindus with dignity and heaps ignominy upon the Untouchables” (DBAWS, Vol. 5. p.258).
Further more, Dr Ambedkar along with his nearly half-million followers renounced Hinduism and embraced Buddhism on 14 October 1956 (20 years after his declaration that “I solemnly assure you that I will not die a Hindu” at Yeola, District Nasik, Maharashtra, on 13th October 1935).This historic event aimed at the emancipation of millions of untouchables from the shackles of caste.
This history of the revolt of the Untouchables against the established caste order of Hinduism led by Ambedkar shows that Dr Ambedkar brought about a successful overthrow of the Hindu social order. While these movements originated in Maharashtra, they spreaded across all parts of India and currently Ambedkarism is becoming a global revolutionary movement.
The revolutionary impact of Ambedkarism is still so strong in India that at present, it stands as the only political ideology that can challenge current the ruling RSS-BJP Hindu supremacist ideology in India. The ruling BJP-RSS government, a Hindu supremacist party, still fears Dalits’ conversion to Buddhism (and to other religions) to such an extent that many BJP-ruled states have passed anti-conversion laws. In India, all liberal and left political parties have capitulated to Hinduism. Even though they may appear to oppose the BJP-RSS ideology, they are unable and unwilling to oppose majoritarian Hinduism.
Let us ask, Is this not enough for Shashi Tharoor to consider Dr Ambedkar as a revolutionary? Shashi Tharoor’s reluctance to acknowledge Dr Ambedkar as a revolutionary reflect his ignorance and his disorientation towards the real meaning of the (social) revolution.
In the book, Ambedkar: A Life, Shashi Tharoor first praises Ambedkar’s life and legacy in the initial chapters, and later he takes a strange turn to find flaws in Ambedkar. Tharoor’s book was severely criticised by Ambedkarite scholars like Harish Wankhede (2023) and Raja Sekhar Vundru (2022).
Why did Shashi Tharoor choose to write a book on Dr Ambedkar? Why has he not dared to criticize or find flaws in Hinduism? Instead, he seems desperate to find flaws in Dr Ambedkar in his very first book about Dr Ambedkar. Shashi Tharoor, (the author of the book, “Why Am I A Hindu”) chose to write a book about Dr Ambedkar (who rejected Hinduism) to hastily find flaws in Ambedkar and undermining his revolutionary impact by claiming that “Ambedkar was not a revolutionary” is a deliberate attempt to defend Hinduism against the real danger posed by Ambedkar’s revolutionary (anti-caste) thoughts and ideas. It is no exaggeration to say that Ambedkar’s thoughts and ideas have the potential to influence caste-oppressed people to reject Hinduism and embrace Buddhism (as the way Ambedkar showed the path to salvation for the untouchables).
Shashi Tharoor is the fox that Malcolm X warned of
Shashi Tharoor, a proud Hindu, a Congress politician, and a Nair caste patriarch is indicative of what Malcolm X once said about white liberals:
“That person you see calling himself a liberal is the most dangerous thing in the entire Western hemisphere. He is most deceitful, he is like a fox, and a fox is almost always more dangerous than the wolf. You can see the wolf coming, you know what he’s up to, but the fox will fool you. He comes at you with his mouth shaped in such a way that even though you see his teeth, you think he is smiling and take him for a friend.”
In a similar vein, Hindu liberals like Shashi Tharoor are the most deceitful, dangerous enemies of the caste-oppressed population because they neither fought for justice for caste-oppressed people nor allowed the caste-oppressed to revolt against caste oppression.
~
References
Ambedkar, B. R. (1979). Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Writing and Speeches, Volume No: 4. Dr. Ambedkar Foundation, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India. https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/CPV/Volume4.pdf
Ambedkar, B. R. (1979). Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Writing and Speeches, Volume No: 9. Dr. Ambedkar Foundation, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India.
https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/CPV/Volume9.pdf
Ambedkar, B. R. (1979). Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Writing and Speeches, Volume No:3. Dr. Ambedkar Foundation, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India. https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/CPV/Volume3.pdf
Ambedkar, B. R. (1979). Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Writing and Speeches, Volume No: 1. Dr. Ambedkar Foundation, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India. https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/CPV/Volume1.pdf
Ambedkar, B. R. (1979). Dr Ambedkar Writing and Speeches, Volume No: 5. Dr. Ambedkar Foundation, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India. https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/CPV/Volume5.pdf
Jadhav, N. (2009, October 13). Ambedkar conversion led to Dalit metamorphosis. mint. https://www.livemint.com/Politics/T2n2ksnb2I0oUAuolghj9J/Ambedkar-conversion-led-to-Dalit-metamorphosis.html
Shepherd, K. I. (2018, May 1). Swami Shashi: The political Hinduism of Shashi Tharoor. The Caravan: A journal of politics and culture. https://caravanmagazine.in/reviews-essays/political-hinduism-shashi-tharoor
Tharoor, S. (2022). Ambedkar: A Life (1st ed.). https://www.alephbookcompany.com/book/ambedkar-a-life/
Tharoor, S. (2023, June 13). Dr Shashi Tharoor on “Ambedkar: the quest for equality in India” [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqikwgRoYjw&t=2647s
Vundru, R. S. (2022, October 16). Shashi Tharoor’s attempt at understanding Ambedkar’s life. The Tribune: Voice of the People. https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/book-reviews/understanding-ambedkars-life-441729#google_vignette
Wankhede, H. S. (2023, July 28). Who gets to write about Ambedkar? Himal Southasian. https://www.himalmag.com/ambedkar-biography-caste-dalit-bahujan-savita-hindutva-gandhi-phule-buddha/
~~~
Jyoti Bania
Jyoti Bania is a Ph.D. research scholar at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Hyderabad, India. He belongs to the Scheduled Caste community of Assam, India. He is currently working in the area of men and masculinities in Assam for his doctoral thesis. His areas of interest include Caste, Gender, Religion, Men and Masculinities, Migration, and Climate Change.
Ashok Danavath
Ashok Danavth is a first generation ST post-graduate scholar from Telangana and a former GoI National Overseas Scholarship Fellow at the International Institute of Social Studies. Currently, work as a Senior Researcher for the (NCDHR).His areas of interests include Indigenous Studies, Sociology of Education, Politics of Indigeneity, Critical Caste Studies, Social Inequality and Social Justice, Agrarian & Rural Welfare.
Image Source: NewsX
