Re-imagining republics icons

Bharatiya Janata Party member and Observer Research Foundation chief Sudheendra Kulkarni thinks Sardar Vallabbhai Patel ranks lowest on a list of the “Republic’s icons.”
The other two names included were Jawaharlal Nehru and BR Ambedkar’s. “Patel is least useful in addressing today’s concerns,” he continues with his rather damning assessment of Patel who’s set to get a giant statue dedicated to him in the Sabarmati, “He’s least contemporary.He doesn’t contribute to social unity, equality or even political consensus.”
At least on his position on Patel, no one countered Kulkarni in the discussion on “Re-imagining the Republic’s icons: Patel, Nehru and Ambedkar”. “Patel figures because in the 2014 election campaign, Narendra Modi had said India’s journey would’ve been different if Patel had been the first prime minister. He wouldn’t have allowed Ambedkar to write the Constitution. He was close to the Hindu Mahasabha…. Believers of Manusmriti would’ve written it and we would’ve gone on the lines of Pakistan, our democracy would’ve collapsed,” observes Academic and Dalit Activist, Kancha Ilaiah. Later he says, “But for the first 17 years of democracy, India would’ve been Pakistan.”
Ananya Vajpeyi from Centre for the Study of Developing Societies who’s written Righteous Republic and D Shyam Babu from the Centre for Policy Research were the other two participants. With even Kulkarni refusing to defend Patel’s case – “We don’t need an Iron Man, we need leaders with heart who have an inclusive approach” – it came down to Ambedkar and Nehru and, occasionally, Gandhi. Towards the end, even the cow came into the picture and Ilaiah, at least, had some choice things to say. "Gandhi was for cow-worship and for cow going into the Constitution. The irony is, he drank goat’s milk. Why didn’t he ask for goat safety?”
Vajpeyi observes that the “operative duo” in framing the Constitution – and giving the country its Republic character, was Nehru-Ambedkar. She notes that they are increasingly “coming into the discourse” because they stand for a “progressive attitude about caste” and “a basis consensus about secularism.” “Questioning these ideas,” she argues, is “a central part” of the present government’s ideology. Nehru is “vilified” and Ambedkar is “appropriated.” Ilaiah is quick to point out that the “appropriation” of Ambedkar is “for electoral gain.” Kulkarni, who insists on including Gandhi in the list, declares, “the project of government and (Sangh) Parivar to denigrate Nehru is not going to work.” “His contribution to the freedom struggle and modern Indian cannot be brushed aside.” But on Ambedkar, he doesn’t agree. “Ambedkar allows himself to be appropriated. He was deeply unsympathetic to Islam and Muslims. He felt embracing Christianity and Islam (non-Indian religions) will de-nationalize him,” he says. Babu, however, points out that these could’ve been part of a “strategy” of “sucking up to the Hindu Right” to “accomplish his goals on [the issue] of caste.”
Another ‘icon’ Kulkarni wants re-imagined is Mohammad Ali Jinnah. “We need to de-demonise Jinnah and this can bring India-Pakistan closer.” And “Veer Savarkar is deeply problematic but he can’t be ignored.”