MP: Ambedkar Statue Row Exposes Sangh’s Hostility Towards Constitutional Values
Jaswinder Singh
THE controversy surrounding the installation of Dr B R Ambedkar’s statue at the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is not merely about a statue. At its core, it reflects the BJP-RSS combine’s deep-seated discomfort with constitutional values and their hostility towards Ambedkar’s legacy. Behind this controversy lies a targeted attack on former Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, who has become a victim of this ideological animosity.
Justice Kait, the 28th Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, holds the distinction of being its first dalit chief justice. For those steeped in Manuwadi ideology, nothing could be more intolerable than standing before a shudra and addressing him as “My Lord.”
Long before the current statue dispute, the Bar Council had accused Justice Kait of demolishing a temple and even lodged a complaint with then Chief Justice of India, Sandeep Khanna. However, these allegations turned out to be baseless. In fact, the president of the Madhya Pradesh Bar Association, Dhanya Kumar Jain, was eventually compelled to issue a written apology.
Even in the current dispute, protesting lawyers in Gwalior continue to target Justice Kait, not only accusing him of being an Ambedkarite, but also, pointedly, of being a dalit. Some of these lawyers have openly declared themselves Manuwadis. This brazenness has not emerged overnight. It stems from the ideological encouragement they receive from the ruling dispensation, both at the centre and in the state. BJP and RSS leaders routinely make anti-constitutional statements with impunity. Most recently, on the 50th anniversary of the Emergency, RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale publicly demanded the removal of the words “secular” and “socialist” from the Preamble to the Constitution. Soon after, union agriculture minister and former Madhya Pradesh chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, who took an oath on the Constitution, endorsed the same view.
The core question is: Why are Manuwadis targeting Justice Suresh Kumar Kait?
First, his dalit identity itself is viewed as a crime in their worldview. Second, his unwavering commitment to constitutional values represents a direct challenge to the Manuwadi order. This tension was visible during his tenure, when he passed an order banning the construction of temples inside police stations, a decision the BJP-led state government had to comply with. One can understood that if the issue of temple is taken away from the BJP, what will happen to the politics of BJP?
On the pretext of the Ambedkar statue controversy, the BJP and Sangh Parivar have found an opportunity to settle scores with both Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and the Constitution. Therefore, before discussing the statue issue, it is important to understand Justice Kait's background and his friction with the Sangh Parivar.
At his retirement farewell, Justice Kait expressed his anguish. He revealed that his wife was undergoing treatment in Hyderabad, and he had requested Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud to allow him to continue at the Telangana High Court. However, his request was denied, and he was transferred to Jabalpur. He stated clearly that this amounted to harassment, mental harassment.
A petition was filed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court by a retired employee, Om Prakash Yadav, alleging that the state government was violating a Supreme Court order. The Supreme Court had earlier ruled that all religious structures built on public premises, especially within police stations, must be removed. The Court had categorically stated that the construction of temples, mosques, churches, or gurdwaras in police stations was inappropriate from a secular standpoint and also a misuse of public resources. As per the order, the High Courts of respective states and union territories were tasked with overseeing its implementation.
Initially, the BJP government in Madhya Pradesh complied, and by 2013, temples had been removed from 571 police stations. But such actions contradict the BJP’s ideological narrative –how could the party demolish temples while in power? The petitioner argued that, despite the Supreme Court's directive, 800 out of 1259 police stations in the state either had temples or were in the process of constructing them. He contended that this was happening under political pressure, with temples being constructed in police stations at the behest of the government, and often inaugurated by the Superintendent of Police or a minister.
The case was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain. The bench sought a response from the government regarding the ground reality and its steps to comply with the Supreme Court’s order.
Instead of submitting a proper response, the BJP government accused the petitioner of seeking cheap publicity and claimed that such actions were typical of him. They urged the court to dismiss the petition. However, the High Court was not satisfied with this explanation and directed the government to submit a factual report within seven days.
Now, the Mohan Yadav-led BJP government found itself in a bind. The temples in police stations could neither be justified nor removed without risking accusations of being "anti-Hindu." Caught in this dilemma, the government resorted to devious tactics.
The Bar Association stepped in first, requesting to be made a party to the case but the High Court rejected this plea. With no other option left, the BJP and the Sangh Parivar launched a brazen campaign against Justice Kait. The president of the Bar Association, Dhanya Kumar Jain, submitted a complaint to the Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, accusing Justice Kait of being anti-Hindu. He alleged that Justice Kait had ordered the demolition of a Hanuman temple located in his official residence. The complaint further claimed that even the two Muslim chief justices who had served before him had not taken such action. On these grounds, the complainant demanded that Justice Kait be removed from hearing the case.
A clarification issued by Justice Kait’s office stated that he had undertaken no construction work in his official residence other than basic whitewashing and tap fittings. The Public Works Department (PWD) confirmed this, clearly stating that there was no temple in the bungalow, hence the question of demolition did not arise.
However, by that time, relations had already deteriorated significantly, leading to two notable consequences. First, the court dismissed the petition, directing that it be clubbed with an older petition from 2005. Anticipating further complications, the petitioner’s lawyer wisely chose to withdraw the petition. Second, as a mark of protest, the chief justice declined to attend the Republic Day programme organised by the Bar Association, breaking with tradition. In solidarity, the division benches of the Gwalior and Indore High Courts also decided to abstain from the event.
This series of events threw the Bar Association into disrepute. On December 22, Dhanya Kumar Jain, president of the Bar Association, wrote a letter to the chief justice, apologising and claiming that the original complaint to the Supreme Court had been made at the behest of a lawyer named Ravindra Nath Tripathi. He stated that he was now satisfied with the explanation given by the PWD. Only after this apology did the chief justice and the administrative judges of both benches agree to attend the Republic Day celebrations.
But critical questions remain: what action was taken against the individual whose false complaint created such tension between the court and the Bar? Could his enrollment certificate not have been cancelled? Why was the Bar Association so eager to intervene in this case? Which political forces was it attempting to shield? What are the political affiliations and background of the complainant, Ravindra Nath Tripathi?
A similar situation has now unfolded in the controversy over the installation of Dr B R Ambedkar’s statue. During a visit by Justice Kait to Gwalior, lawyers submitted an application requesting permission to install the statue. Justice Kait forwarded the application to the administrative judge, Justice A N Pathak. In response, Justice Pathak wrote to the district collector, asking for a platform to be constructed for the statue. Acting on the Collector’s orders, the Public Works Department completed the platform. Once this process was completed, the Governor even gave his consent to inaugurate the statue on May 17.
However, protests erupted from a section of lawyers, prompting the government to backtrack. The Governor too postponed his participation.
The question is: Is the government so weak that it cannot confront a few dissenting lawyers? Clearly not. These lawyers are only doing what the BJP wants and what aligns with the ideology of the Sangh Parivar.
