All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) president Asaduddin Owaisi has accused the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its political affiliate, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), of opposing the Constitution framed by B.R. Ambedkar and of preferring the ancient legal text Manusmriti as their guiding document.
Speaking at a public event, Owaisi questioned the public commitment of the RSS and BJP to the Constitution of India, which was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949, and came into effect on January 26, 1950. He alleged that both organizations had fundamental disagreements with the constitutional framework drafted under the chairmanship of Ambedkar, the chairman of the Drafting Committee, and that their ideological positions pointed toward a preference for Manusmriti, a classical Sanskrit text on social and legal duties, over the republican and egalitarian foundations of the existing Constitution.
Owaisi also used the platform to underscore what he described as the significant and often under-acknowledged contributions of Muslim freedom fighters to India’s anti-colonial movement. He argued that the sacrifices of figures from the Muslim community in the independence struggle were being downplayed in mainstream political discourse, which he said contributed to a narrow and exclusionary understanding of Indian nationalism.
In a further escalation of his historical critique, Owaisi referred to the letters written by V.D. Savarkar, a leading ideologue of Hindutva, to British authorities during his imprisonment in the cellular jail in the Andaman Islands. These communications, in which Savarkar petitioned the colonial government for clemency, have long been a point of contention in Indian political debate. Owaisi invoked them to argue that certain strands of the nationalist movement had been ideologically inconsistent in their commitment to constitutional principles and to the broader anti-colonial struggle.
What Happened
At the public gathering, Owaisi delivered a structured political attack targeting the ideological roots of the Sangh Parivar, the family of organizations associated with the RSS. He framed his criticism around two historical anchors: the framing of the Indian Constitution under Ambedkar, and the role of Muslim leaders in the freedom movement. According to accounts of the speech, Owaisi asserted that the RSS and BJP had not supported the constitutional vision that Ambedkar articulated, particularly its provisions on equality, secularism, and the abolition of untouchability, and instead aligned themselves with a social order more reflective of Manusmriti.
The remarks continued a pattern of statements Owaisi has made in recent years, in which he has linked the BJP and the RSS to what he describes as an exclusionary Hindu nationalist project at odds with the pluralist and secular character of the Indian Republic.
Why It Matters
The remarks come at a time when questions surrounding the legacy of Ambedkar, the architect of the Indian Constitution, have acquired heightened political salience. The BJP-led central government has publicly positioned itself as a champion of Ambedkar’s legacy, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and senior party leaders frequently invoking the dalit icon at public events. The ruling party has also been associated with major development projects linked to Ambedkar, including the redevelopment of key sites associated with the constitution maker.
Against this backdrop, Owaisi’s accusation that the RSS and BJP effectively oppose Ambedkar’s Constitution strikes at a key line of the BJP’s contemporary political messaging. The AIMIM chief’s invocation of Manusmriti, a text historically associated with varna-based social hierarchies and criticized by Ambedkar himself in his writings, is intended to sharpen the contrast between the BJP’s public homage to Ambedkar and what Owaisi characterizes as the ideological orientation of its parent organization.
The remarks also enter a charged political moment in which debates over the relative contributions of different communities to the independence movement have become increasingly contested. The BJP and RSS have at various points promoted narratives emphasizing the role of Hindutva-associated figures, including Savarkar, while critics have accused them of marginalizing the contributions of Muslim leaders, including members of the Indian National Congress and other political formations.
Background and Context
The relationship between the RSS and the Indian Constitution has been a subject of long-running public debate. The RSS was founded in 1925 by K.B. Hedgewar, and for several decades after independence, the organization did not participate directly in electoral politics. The BJP, established in 1980 as the political successor to the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, became the primary electoral vehicle of the Sangh Parivar. In 1948, the RSS was briefly banned following the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, on suspicion of involvement in the conspiracy. The organization has, over the years, issued varying public statements on the Constitution, with senior leaders at different junctures expressing both support and criticism of specific provisions, particularly those relating to Articles related to religious personal law and the Uniform Civil Code.
Owaisi, a member of parliament from Hyderabad and one of the most prominent Muslim political leaders in India, has built a significant part of his political identity on contesting what he describes as the majoritarian ideological framework of the BJP-RSS combine. His party, the AIMIM, has expanded beyond its traditional base in Hyderabad to contest elections in states including Maharashtra, Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh, often drawing attention for its assertive articulation of Muslim political concerns.
Ambedkar, a dalit jurist, economist, and social reformer, resigned from the union cabinet in 1951 over his disagreements with the Congress leadership on a range of issues, including the continuation of the Hindu Code Bill. In his later writings, including the work “Riddles in Hinduism,” Ambedkar offered sharp critiques of classical texts, including the Manusmriti, for their treatment of women and the lower castes. Owaisi’s invocation of Manusmriti in the context of his critique of the RSS draws directly on this long-standing Ambedkarite tradition of criticism.
The reference to Savarkar’s letters to the British adds a second historical layer. The contents of these communications, in which Savarkar wrote clemency petitions to the colonial government during his imprisonment, have been the subject of public controversy for decades. Critics, including members of the Congress, have cited the letters to question the ideological commitment of Hindutva-era nationalists to the cause of complete independence. Supporters of Savarkar have argued that the letters were strategic, written under coercion, and have defended his broader contribution to the freedom movement.
What to Watch Next
The remarks are likely to draw sharp responses from the BJP and RSS, both of whom have in the past pushed back against accusations of opposing the Constitution or undermining the legacy of Ambedkar. The political implications may be most visible in states where the AIMIM has been attempting to expand its electoral footprint, particularly in Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra, where questions of Muslim political representation, social justice, and the legacy of Ambedkar have been recurring themes in electoral contests.
In the days following Owaisi’s speech, attention will likely focus on whether the BJP and RSS issue formal responses, and whether senior leaders of the ruling party choose to engage directly with the substance of the accusation or attempt to frame it as a politically motivated attack. The remarks may also prompt renewed public discussion over the treatment of Manusmriti in contemporary Indian political discourse, and over the contested place of Savarkar in the history of the freedom movement.
Conclusion
Owaisi’s latest remarks sit at the intersection of several enduring fault lines of Indian political debate: the legacy of Ambedkar and the Indian Constitution, the historical contributions of India’s Muslim communities to the independence movement, and the contested ideological heritage of the Hindutva movement. By drawing together these strands in a single speech, the AIMIM leader has sought to frame the contemporary political contest in explicitly historical terms, challenging the BJP and RSS to defend the alignment between their public commitments to the Constitution and their ideological foundations. How the ruling party and the Sangh Parivar respond, and how these questions are received in the wider public sphere, will be central to the political conversation in the period ahead.
Analysis
Owaisi’s attack reflects a calibrated political strategy rather than a purely rhetorical gesture. By choosing to frame his critique around Ambedkar and Manusmriti, the AIMIM leader aligns his party with a figure who commands near-universal respect across the political spectrum in India, including among the BJP’s own support base, and against a text that is widely associated with social hierarchy rather than constitutional democracy. This framing allows Owaisi to make a sharp ideological point while limiting the political cost of direct confrontation with the BJP on more communally sensitive terrain. The reference to Muslim freedom fighters and to Savarkar’s letters extends this strategy by widening the historical lens, and by placing the BJP and RSS on the defensive over questions of nationalist legitimacy that have been central to their political identity for decades. The approach carries risks, including the possibility that the remarks will be characterized as communal polarization, but it also offers the possibility of repositioning the political debate around the substantive content of the Indian Constitution, where the AIMIM’s position enjoys broader support.
Sources
Times of India: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/they-opposed-ambedkars-constitution-wanted-manusmriti-owaisi-targets-rss-bjp/articleshow/123456789.cms
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: Times of India – Top Stories — source
