When a person asks such a question, the answer to which is readily available, then:
Either
1. The questioner has a harmful motive, usually to degrade or belittle someone
Or
2. She/he has fallen prey to false and doubt creating information by someone from the privileged classes causing confusion, in this case by the Brahmins trying portray Dr Ambedkar as a Brahmin.
Which one is it with you? 1 or 2.
If it’s the later, then the answer to your question is:
“No, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar was not a Brahmin by birth. Nor did he, or could he became a Brahmin, even if he had wanted to”.
Contrary to what many assume, he was neither a Shudra. He didn’t fall in the Varna system at all and was considered an outcaste, an untouchable (Acchut) by the dominant castes. Shudras fall in the Varna system. The untouchables (Ati- Shudras) were considered lower than the lowest varna, lower than the Shudra. They weren’t even fit to be kept as slaves, for then there would have been that risk of touching, or their shadow falling on the ones who fell in the Varna system and had a caste.
Dr. Ambedkar was none of the above. He considered himself firstly and lastly an Indian.
NOTE:
1. Since the untouchables were considered the lowest of the low not fit for any Varna, they, being the outcastes, belonged to no caste and WERE THEREFORE CASTELESS.
2. If Dr. Ambedkar was a Brahmin, he would have been even greater than what he is known to be for no Brahmin in known history has fought for women’s rights and the rights of all oppressed communities as he did.
3. If he was a Brahmin, he would have been the ONLY Brahmin in history to be treated as an untouchable. He would have set an example for the Brahmins to follow. Why can’t/don’t other Brahmins follow his example to show their greatness?
*EDIT:
My aim is not to prove that Dr. Ambedkar came from a community that was considered untouchable, although I believe that he did. The intention is to show that he wasn’t a Brahmin, only because for some reason an attempt is being made to show him as one.
