The meeting between former Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai and self-styled godman Dhirendra Shastri cannot be construed as just an issue of religious belief. We are witnessing a much deeper cultural transformation, wherein individuals who occupy positions of power and influence, and who are from middle and upper classes of communities which had traditionally turned their back on Hinduism, feel a need to relate themselves or even match to the Hindutva influenced aesthetics in order to remain relevant.The transformation is no mere accident. It suggests that for those with different identities, learning to live within and adapt to the dominant culture is becoming increasingly necessary just to survive. However, this comes with its own cost and consequences. It produces a kind of soft form of violence wherein the identity is not simply negated but subsumed under the dominant aesthetic structure. In the age of viral images and performative acts such instances cannot stay isolated and end up normalising a hierarchy which slowly causes psychological, mental and cultural harm.The aesthetic trapBuddhism embraced by Babasaheb was not only a spiritual or a religious conversion but it constituted a political break from the Brahminical system of meaning, power, and ordering. This was a very thoughtful effort to create totally new moral world centered on equality and reason that completely rejects the dominant aesthetics. The paradox emerges when those who represent this counter identity look for affirmation and validation within the system they have denied. Does this suggest that this sense of otherness has begun to lose its direction?Given the claims made by Gavai – a public figure – about the legacy of Dr Ambedkar and identity of being Buddhist, such an engagement with these spaces holds symbolic meaning. The presence of CJI Gavai in such a scenario cannot simply be seen as an individualistic act.It represents the shrinking of that important distance which Dr Ambedkar had tried to build between those who were oppressed and those oppressive institutions. Even if there is no explicit shift in ideology, this growing proximity to the dominant system suggests a quiet surrender of autonomy.Subtle violenceThis is where the concept of subtle violence becomes central to the discussion. In this case, violence does not mean physical or direct actions but rather cultural and psychological violence. It is a silent method of ensuring that dominant norms are established and that other identities become part of these dominant norms. It is a form of violence characterised by being included according to the dominant’s terms, so much so that the oppressed identity ends up becoming a mere reflection of itself.In the case where important Dalit-Buddhist personalities that hold powerful positions within the State are perceived to interact within the dominant Hindu aesthetic environment, the effect is significant. This is because it makes the distinction between resistance and accommodation obsolete, thereby dissolving the clear-cut distinction that existed in the Ambedkarite movement of 1956. It suggests that the departure from Brahminical structures was not a permanent break, but a distance that can be closed for the sake of public optics.Perhaps most significantly, however, it implies that legitimacy continues to originate from the dominant cultural system. It indicates that despite having achieved the apex of institutional power, the recognition continues to require validation from the custodians of the old hierarchies. This is not due to any form of intimidation, because nobody is compelling individuals to participate. This is far more subtle; through absorbing the dominant culture into the only ‘natural’ forum for public discourse, the ruling class makes sure that even our heroes become products of the system. And this is precisely how a counter- culture is murdered, not through prohibition or being banned, but inclusion.Authoritarianism and the Brahminical logic of legitimacyIn contemporary authoritarianism, the power of the state is not what makes it effective. Instead, the real effectiveness of authoritarianism rests on its ability to produce cultural consent, something India has experienced for ages. By flooding the public domain with particular aesthetics, rituals, symbols, and religious icons, the ruling elite can establish an emotional language that perpetuates ancient structures.Here lies an entirely different Brahminical logic that is a mode of operation based on fixing the parameters for the notions of the sacred, legitimacy, and authority. According to the Brahminical logic, authority cannot be simply institutional or legal but has to be conferred by the established social structure.In involving a Supreme Court judge in the process of glorifying a religious personality, the Brahminical logic scores a great point because it proves that the Rule of Law is culturally inferior to the “Rule of Ritual.When even those historically positioned as the vanguard of resistance begin to participate in this aesthetic framework, the system does not weaken. It assimilates the institutional power of the individual and employs it to authenticate the traditional order. This creates a deceptive appearance of inclusivity while the underlying hierarchy remains untouched. The ruling class doesn’t need to defeat the Ambedkarite challenge if it can simply convince its leaders to seek legitimacy from the very gatekeepers Dr Ambedkar rejected.The cultural violence through viral imageThe digital era ensures that images are no longer simply passive reflections of events but weapons for perceptions. To make such images viral, which entails their circulation on the screen of millions, is a conscious attempt to construct meanings culturally. Such images are never just records of an event but tools that ensure that the cultural domination that exists is perceived as natural and inevitable.Each shared frame contributes to the quiet erosion of alternative political identities, making the very idea of a distinct, sovereign Buddhist or Ambedkarite space seem less imaginable. It conditions the consciousness of the community to seek approval from the very structures they were meant to challenge. When the viral image becomes the primary way we understand power, the mental harm inflicted is a slow conditioning where resistance is no longer viewed as a necessity, but as an inconvenience to be negotiated away. Over time, this becomes the ultimate form of cultural violence: the total absorption of difference into a singular, hierarchical sameness.Dr Ambedkar’s idea of fraternity and the distance it requires‘Fraternity’ was the whole project of Babasaheb Ambedkar, which entailed the formation of a society based on liberty, equality, and fraternity, where one can deal with others on terms of equality. But Dr Ambedkar was aware that such fraternity cannot exist without deconstructing the existing hierarchies. This necessitates consciously moving away from such systems of inequality. And such an act is not merely an attempt at isolation, but politically necessary for the oppressed class to acquire a sovereign psychic space to be able to enter into public life as equals and not as supplicants looking for benedictions.The question, then, is not about denying an individual’s personal freedom of movement or belief. Instead, it is about recognising the immense responsibility inherent in symbolic acts, especially when those acts are performed by individuals who carry the historical and institutional weight of the Ambedkarite struggle. When the distance from inequality is closed through symbolic proximity to its guardians, the possibility of true fraternity is actually pushed further away. It suggests that the path to social peace lies in accommodation with old hierarchies rather than the total annihilation of the values they represent.Not an incident, but a patternUltimately, this is not about one specific meeting, one viral photograph, or one individual’s choices. It’s about a trend wherein aesthetics becomes an instrument of power and identity is rendered negotiable.The real challenge is to recognise this process not just in moments of public outrage, but in moments of quiet normalcy. Power is most effective when it doesn’t look like power at all, when it quietly turns the closing of that important distance into something that appears harmless, like tradition or spirituality.If we fail to see the logic behind these symbolic crossings, we risk losing the very autonomy that was hard – won through generations of struggle. True fraternity can only grow once hierarchy is dismantled, and that requires maintaining a distance that allows a distinct and equal identity to exist. Distance here is neither withdrawal nor isolation from social life; rather, it means a refusal to be swallowed up by structures that have historically undermined humanity.It represents a clear break from the relationships of domination, humiliation, and inequality. Through distance, those who were once dominated ensure their autonomy (mental, cultural, and political) in order to participate in public life as equals. Without such a rupture, calls for fraternity risk collapsing into assimilation, where equality is claimed but hierarchy quietly persists.Bodhi Ramteke is a lawyer and researcher who has completed an Erasmus Mundus Master’s in Human Rights Policy and Practice, studying across multiple European universities. He can be reached at bodhi.ramteke@opendeusto.es.