Ambedkarvad ki Roshni Mein RSS ka Dwij Rashtravaad (‘Ambedkarite thought in the light of RSS’s twice-born – upper-caste – nationalism’) by Bhanwar Meghwanshi is published at a time when Dr. B.R. Ambedkar is arguably India’s most contentious political figure. Ambedkar is cited, appropriated, and reinterpreted across ideological divides, frequently in ways that soften the radical edge of his ideas. Meghwanshi’s book makes a direct intervention in this conflict. Its main argument is unambiguous and unyielding: Ambedkarite philosophy and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s (RSS) ideological project are fundamentally incompatible.This study is neither impartial nor detached. The book conveys the urgency of Meghwanshi’s journey through these ideological landscapes, from affiliation with the Sangh to an Ambedkarite stance. However, its attempt to support that assertion in a variety of contexts, constitutional theory, caste, historical practice, and modern politics, gives it more weight than just its point of view. This book is unique not only because of its conclusion but also because of its approach. By reading the RSS through its own texts, speeches, and institutional history and then contrasting them with Ambedkar’s writings, Meghwanshi attempts to prove incompatibility rather than just state it. This contrast gives rise to the argument.आंबेडकरवाद की रोशनी में आरएसएस का द्विज राष्ट्रवाद, Bhanwar Meghwanshi, Forward Press, 2026.Reading the RSS through its own wordsThe way the book presents its case is one of its most significant contributions. Meghwanshi actively engages with literature generated by the RSS and its affiliated publishing houses rather than depending only on outside criticism. After carefully reading their writings, declarations, and ideological formulations, he compares them to the writings and speeches of Ambedkar.This approach is important. It enables the criticism to come from within the RSS’s own ideological archive. Meghwanshi aims to demonstrate that the contradictions are internal and irreconcilable rather than external by juxtaposing Sangh literature with Ambedkarite philosophy.In order to combat the increasing trend of selectively appropriating Ambedkar, the book also draws from his own corpus, which includes his writings, speeches, and interventions. As a result, the idea that Ambedkar fits neatly into a Hindutva framework is consistently rejected. The idea that Ambedkar’s project, which is based on the abolition of caste and the establishment of a constitutional, egalitarian order, cannot be compatible with an ideology that prioritises cultural unity is a recurring theme in the book.Caste and the limits of cultural nationalismThe book maintains that caste is the main source of ideological conflict rather than a side issue throughout all of its chapters, especially those that deal with caste and social hierarchy. Meghwanshi contends that the RSS’s focus on Hindu unity frequently ignores or reframes caste, viewing it as a side issue rather than a structural cause of inequality. He cites Ambedkar’s criticism of caste as a system ingrained in social and religious customs to refute this. The RSS, as described in the book, starts with unity and aims to absorb inequality within it, in stark contrast to Ambedkar, who starts with inequality and calls for its eradication. This distinction is not just hypothetical. It influences how each framework tackles issues of democracy, citizenship, and justice. According to Meghwanshi, any initiative that emphasises unity without eliminating hierarchy eventually perpetuates inequality.Ambedkar and the politics of co-optionThe modern attempt to appropriate Ambedkar within Hindutva discourse is a major issue that runs throughout the book. Meghwanshi views this as a political tactic rather than an intellectual convergence. Ambedkar poses a number of historical positioning queries in the chapter that looks at his relationship with the RSS. For example, what part did the Sangh play in anti-caste struggles? How did it react to Ambedkar’s criticism of social order and Hindu scriptures? The narrative that portrays the RSS as Ambedkar’s ally is contested by these queries.The book makes the case that the way Ambedkar is currently invoked frequently entails a selective reading, emphasising his nationalism while downplaying his criticism of caste and Brahminism. Meghwanshi tries to put that criticism back at the forefront by going back to Ambedkar’s own writings.Reservation, constitution, and ideological tensionThe book’s discussions of reservations and the Constitution highlight the conflict between these two frameworks. Meghwanshi highlights what he refers to as a pattern of ambivalence in the reservation chapter, where reservations are acknowledged as a political reality but not entirely embraced as a moral commitment based on historical justice. In a similar vein, it is argued in the Constitution chapter that the RSS’s involvement with constitutional principles has frequently been instrumental rather than fundamental. According to Ambedkar, the nation’s moral and political foundation is embodied in the Constitution. Meghwanshi contends that the RSS should be negotiated within a larger framework of civilisation. The main argument of the book, that the differences between Ambedkarite and Hindutva thought are evident in specific political stances rather than being limited to abstract concepts, is expanded upon in these chapters.Hundred years of RSS: Continuity through changeIn RSS ke Sau Saal (Hundred Years of RSS), one of the book’s most extensive sections, Meghwanshi follows the organisation’s leaders from K.B. Hedgewar (1925-1940) to M.S. Golwalkar (1940-1973), Balasaheb Deoras (1973-1994), Rajju Bhaiya (1994-2000), K. S. Sudarshan (20000-2009), and Mohan Bhagwat (2009-present). This section focuses more on ideological trajectory than biography. Meghwanshi looks at how the organisation’s tactics have changed over time, especially with regard to Dalits, Adivasis and Dr Ambedkar. He contends that although language and outreach have changed, the fundamental structure is still the same.In terms of interacting with marginalised communities and redefining Ambedkar’s image, the shift from earlier leadership to later phases is interpreted as a move from relative distance to active incorporation. Although Rajju Bhaiya’s appointment as the first non-Brahmin head is acknowledged as a symbolic change, the book raises concerns about the extent to which such changes result in structural change. This section presents a case for continuity through adaptation. Meghwanshi contends that the RSS has demonstrated strategic adaptability while upholding its fundamental ideological beliefs.The appendix: Claim and counter-claimThe appendix, the book’s last section, is essential to its argument. Here, Meghwanshi addresses a number of RSS-related claims in a methodical manner. This section serves as a sort of rebuttal by posing queries, analysing assertions, and then refuting them with logic and supporting data. This is where the book’s primary strategy becomes evident: rather than simply rejecting arguments, it seeks to directly address them. The appendix serves as a closing argument in many respects. It compiles the book’s themes, caste, nationalism, history, and ideology, and restates them in a way that is more pointed and probing.Conclusion: A necessary intervention, with questions of methodIn the end, Meghwanshi’s book provides a defence of Ambedkar’s political and intellectual legacy in addition to a critique of the RSS. It maintains that Ambedkar’s criticism of caste and hierarchy cannot be reduced to a symbolic figure. By doing this, it provides much-needed clarity to a discussion that is frequently clouded by political expediency and selective readings.The way of interpreting the RSS through its own documents and comparing them with Ambedkar’s ideas is what makes the book so strong. The argument gains some internal force as a result. It is grounded and comparative rather than just antagonistic.However, the book’s assertive position sometimes sacrifices subtlety. The RSS is frequently viewed as ideologically homogeneous, with little attention paid to internal differences or opposing viewpoints. Additionally, there are times where the documentation should be improved. For example, the description of a BBC interview with K.S. Sudarshan (pp. 39-41) lacks complete citation details and has inconsistent naming, which somewhat undermines the evidentiary rigour.However, these drawbacks do not lessen the book’s main significance. If anything, they highlight the need for greater study in this area, work that is just as dedicated but even more rigorously methodological. Ultimately, Meghwanshi poses a challenging but essential question to the reader: is it possible for a politics that aims for cultural unification to coexist with a critique that calls for the destruction of hierarchy? His response is obvious. The book makes sure that the question cannot be evaded, whether or not one agrees.Dr. Neeraj Bunkar is a researcher specialising in caste and cinema.