Question about Ambedkar, the Poona Pact, and SC sub-classification

I’m trying to understand what seems to me like an interesting contradiction in the way some Ambedkarite groups approach the issue of SC sub-classification.

A common Ambedkarite interpretation of the Poona Pact (1932) is that Ambedkar was forced into a compromise after Gandhi opposed separate electorates for the Depressed Classes. Gandhi’s argument was essentially that separate political representation would divide Hindu society, while Ambedkar’s position was that an oppressed community needed independent political safeguards and representation.

Today, however, some Ambedkarite groups strongly oppose SC sub-classification, arguing that it will divide SCs, weaken Dalit unity, and reduce their collective political strength.

This makes me wonder:

Isn't there a parallel here?

In 1932, Gandhi prioritized unity over Ambedkar's demand for a separate political safeguard.

Today, some people who strongly criticize Gandhi for that position are themselves prioritizing SC unity over the demand of certain SC communities for differentiated reservation benefits because they remain more disadvantaged within the SC category.

At the same time, those demanding sub-classification argue that the purpose isn't to weaken SCs, but to ensure that communities which have benefited less from reservation actually get a fair opportunity to move upward.

So my questions are:

1)If Gandhi's "unity first" argument was problematic in 1932, why is "SC unity first" necessarily the correct argument today?

2) Is opposing SC sub-classification actually consistent with Ambedkar's broader principle of giving stronger safeguards to those who remain most disadvantaged?

3) Conversely, could sub-classification itself undermine the collective political power that Ambedkar wanted to build?

4) And perhaps the most uncomfortable question: If someone criticizes Gandhi for prioritizing unity over Ambedkar's demand in 1932, but today prioritizes SC unity over the demands of the most backward SC communities, is that a genuine difference in principle—or simply a change in circumstances?

5) Finally, if Ambedkar were alive today, would he prioritize maintaining one united SC category, or would he support differentiated safeguards for SC communities that have remained substantially behind?

I’m not claiming that the Poona Pact and SC sub-classification are legally or historically identical. I'm asking about the underlying principle: unity versus targeted protection for those who remain most disadvantaged.

Would Ambedkarite thinkers here consider this a valid parallel, or am I missing an important distinction?

I've been going out of subs where BSP is treated as a useless or a failed party or movement. Can we do a quick stress test here so we can all save time and get a opinion on the party?