My only contention with Ambedkarism is because Budhhism should not be interpreted as just a hindu-hating recalcitration. The pantheistic idea of gods among hindus (being illusory as Hindus themselves would agree) is more friendly to budhhism than assertion of a supreme God that rules us all. And when I say friendly, I don't mean that it is just a feeling of harmony. Instead, it is so that a Hindu doesn't have to face a social obstruction for moving to truth or the path Buddha took. His duties are not imposed by the Supreme, but are only dynamics of his society; he doesn't think that things go bad because of the devil's designs. Ideally, he knows that realization individual self is false, he knows that soul is a non-entity. Theoretically, the Hindu gods are not the instances of God either. There is a big difference between praying God and worshipping a god (mark the difference between pantheism and monotheism). It is for those reasons that I say Hinduism is not too much antagonistic to Buddhism. (and I am talking philosophy here)
I know that one can easily come up with instances in Chinese buddhism which contradict some of the things that modern Hindus have incorporated, but again Hindu is a medieval term, it is always incorrect to say that Buddhism came out of Hinduism, in the literal sense. On the top of that, I agree that practically we see things a lot different among hindus (than it should be according to Vedanta) but thats more because of political reasons in general than any proposed 'brahmin conspiracy' (or should we not be more just by putting brahmin conspiracy under political reasons rather than the essence of Hinduism) ?
Frankly, I have problems with the whole 19th century way of classifying Eastern religion as such, and trust me, I am not the only one. There are umpteen reasons why eastern religion (or eastern philosophy) should not be approached just by finding equivalents of a central scripture (bible/quran), a religious head (pope/ulema) – which I (like many others) think, would be inherently erroneous. Such an error is evident not just in the differences that a 19th century indologist would cite between buddhism or hinduism, but also in the classification of various 'sects' withing buddhism itself in the buddhist countries (comparing thailand or sri Lanka for instance)
Intrestingly, Jainism has enough reasons to curse Brahmins as much as anyone else. They have been assimilated manipulatively too. Jains would not submit to Vedanta (They never were adherent to Vedanta historically) but still the evil brahmin mind could gel them in. You would seldom find a Jain who would refuse to accompany a Hindu to a temple. After a few 19th century revivals, you would easily find Jains marrying so called Vedantists (or mainstream Hindus, might I say) too.
Honestly, with demise of Hinduism and buddhism in India and the onslaught of some chauvinistic confused revivals, I see more days of intellectual bankrupcy in India.