'He's Up There With the Likes of Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King'

Tuesday, Mar. 6, 2001 | The life of Indian leader Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar was exceptional. Born in 1891 - - the 14th child of a schoolteacher -- he rose from being an impoverished village boy to become a lawyer, politician and main author of India's constitution. Along the way he overcame extreme discrimination and humiliation, acquired degrees in economics and law from Columbia and London universities, and led the struggle of India's untouchables (known as Dalits or the oppressed) for dignity and justice. Shortly before his death in 1956, Ambedkar, disillusioned with Hinduism, converted to Buddhism. Now his extraordinary life has made it to the big screen. Indian director Jabbar Patel spoke to TIME South Asia contributor Maseeh Rahman about the making of "Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar." Edited excerpts:

It has taken India a long time to make a film on Ambedkar. How did it come about?

More than a decade ago I was shooting a documentary on Ambedkar at Columbia University, where he studied from 1913 to 1916. Columbia is very close to Harlem, and I began wondering what it must have been like for this man, coming from an oppressed class in India and studying so close to the black district in New York, to find that there was not a single black student attending Columbia University. There were other Indians along with Ambedkar, but no black students. I thought then that if I had actors and could recreate the period, it would be very challenging to do a feature film on Ambedkar. When I was in India years later, my proposal to do a feature film on Ambedkar received support from the government. It's not that nobody had thought of making a film on Ambedkar; he's just a very complicated subject. His story isn't just about him coming from an oppressed class; or that he suffered personal humiliation and struggled for social justice. His life's work ran parallel to the country's freedom movement. For the first few decades after independence, India celebrated the heroes of the freedom movement, and Ambedkar was sidelined.

How difficult was it to research Ambedkar's life and recreate the era in which he lived?

There was a lot of print material on Ambedkar's life. The government of Maharashtra (the province Ambedkar belonged to) had published 15 volumes of his writings and speeches and most of Ambedkar's associates had written autobiographies and memoirs containing anecdotes about him. There were other contemporary sources; newspapers, for instance, reported in detail the first meeting between Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi. A lot of the dialogue in the film is actually from historical sources. But recreating the period was very difficult. The main campus at Columbia University, where the film starts, had changed so much, and then of course the cars on the road and people's attire had to be different. There were other problems: We got permission to shoot at St James' Palace in London, where the Round Table Conferences (involving Britain and leaders of India's freedom movement) were held, but the palace is now the official residence of Prince Charles. And due to security, no more than four people were allowed entry at a time. My unit had 40 people. So we ended up filming the Round Table Conference scenes in Pune, India, in what used to be the British governor-general's residence. The problems, though, didn't end there. The conference had around 60 participants, two-thirds of who were British. Where do you find 40 white actors in Pune? Our budget didn't allow flying them in from London, but luckily the Osho (Bhagwan Rajneesh) commune in Pune was having an international theater festival, and when the foreign participants discovered that Osho had given discourses on Ambedkar and Buddhism, they immediately agreed to act in the film. The first thing we did was to run and get several barbers to cut their long hair and beards.

What was exceptional about Ambedkar's life?

He had to fight for everything that we take for granted and he was untiring. He also suffered a lot, but his desire to study, to learn, was undiminished. Furthermore, his intellectual achievements were very impressive. He became, for instance, an authority on the constitutions of the world. That's how he stands out from other national leaders of that period. Ambedkar was also constantly humiliated so he developed a distrust of people. He had to fight not only with the British but also with his own countrymen, with people from his own religion, and with leaders of the Congress Party. On issues relating to people of his own caste, he had to confront Mahatma Gandhi and later, after becoming India's first law minister, he had to confront (former Prime Minister Jawaharlal) Nehru's government on the issue of reforming Hindu law. His social and political struggle is of great relevance today, not just in India, but internationally. This man's life embodied the struggle for human rights, for equality, for social justice. He stands right there in history next to leaders like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King.

The film portrays in some detail the differences between Gandhi and Ambedkar on the direction the untouchables' struggle should take. There's been some criticism that you've been less than fair to Gandhi.

The first 90 minutes of the film focuses almost entirely on Ambedkar (played by Malayalam actor Mammootty) and his suffering and his struggle. His presence is strongly established in the film; his views become clear and you feel you're in love with the man. I have seen Dalits watch the film with tears in their eyes. It's then that Mahatma Gandhi enters the scene, and you become aware of his ideas on the untouchables' question. The first meeting between Gandhi and Ambedkar -- when Gandhi doesn't realize Ambedkar is a Dalit -- jolts people and they start thinking about Gandhi in a different way. But actor Mohan Gokhale's portrayal of Mahatma Gandhi is so human. I've been very honest to history.

I read an article in "The Times of India" from Ahmadabad that said Dalits jeered whenever Gandhi appeared on screen.

I think the reporter was taking sides; he hasn't been sympathetic to Ambedkar. In all the screenings I've attended, only once did members of the audience ridicule Gandhi. I think it's a very natural reaction for the Dalits. Ambedkar is a hero to them; he's the man who gave them an identity. They identify themselves completely with him.

Why do you think the Dalit community has been unable to produce another leader like Ambedkar?

The same reason there is no other Mahatma Gandhi. The Dalits today are split up among various political parties. Ambedkar was a great leader and scholar -- he was well-versed in economics, law, anthropology and philosophy. Tell me the name of a leader from any community today who has such scholarly achievements along with popular appeal?