POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF Dr. B. R. AMBEDKAR

Indian Political Science Association
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF Dr. B. R. AMBEDKAR

Author(s): A. M. RAJASEKHARIAH and HEMALATA JAYARAJ
Source: The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 52, No. 3 (July - Sept., 1991), pp. 357-
375
Published by: Indian Political Science Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41855567
Accessed: 19-05-2018 13:14 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Indian Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Indian Journal of Political Science
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.148 on Sat, 19 May 2018 13:14:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF
Dr. B. R. AMBEDKAR
A. M. RAJASEKHARIAH
and
HEMALATA JAYARAJ
India has produced many a social and political thinker and

philosopher in the course of her long and chequered history.
Among the galaxy of thinkers and philosophers of India, Bharat
Ratna Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar occupies undoubtedly the most
important place. He "has carved out for himself a unique
position in society, Whatever label he wears in future, Dr.
Ambedkar is not the man to allow himself to be forgotten."1
His personal bitter experiences, progressive and liberal Western
education, extensive reading and research, wide mass contacts
provided him the required perspective, theoretical frame, the
depth and dimension for understanding and analysing any pro-
blem, be it social, political or economic. He had an incisive mind
and diagnostic skill that always stood him in good-stead in his
relentless search for truth. Dr. Ambedkar was a rare and curious
combination of a scholar, thinker, writer, leader, legal luminary,
constitutional expert and a champion of the downtrodden masses.
He was all these bundled in one personality, whose memory never
fades in the minds of the suffering masses and toiling millions
for many years to come. No wonder Jawaharlal Nehru charac-
terised him as 'a symbol of revolt against the oppressive features
of the Hindu society'. Mr. Joachim Alva wrote of Dr. Ambedkar
as 'a great scholar, his penetrating intellect sat on that massive
figure of his, can carry him through anywhere, at all times, at all
the places 2 His birth as an untouchable notwithstanding, and
despite all the stigma that he carried, it was his privilege to be
The Indian Journal of Political Scitnce, Vol. 52, No. 3, July - Sept., 1991.
358 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
ranked as 'one of the top dozen great Indians of the Century' by

an impartial and objective Western observer.
Dr. Ambedkar's was a multi-faceted and multi-dimensional

personality whose contribution to modern India was significant
and substantial. He was one of our most prominent political
and social thinkers, whose ideas on various social and political
problems such as caste system, the pernicious practice of untou-
chability, the emancipation of the downtrodden through political
action etc., open up new vistas and horizons. His findings on all
these and similar other problems that plague the contemporary
Indian society and polity are original and characteristically his
own. They speak volumes for his profound scholarship and
intellectual capacities. He delved deep into the Indian social
and political history and contributed a good deal to the under-
standing of Indian society and polity through his writings. He
has thrown a flood of light on Indian social theory, its develop-
ment and its political and social implications. According to him,
Indian social and political history is nothing but a 'glorification
of upper castes and degradation of lower castes and the lower
strata of society*. He considered caste system, untouchability
etc., as an artificial creation of the vested interests and their
philosophers. The unfortunate outcome of all this conspiracy
was the artificial division of society into the 'privileged', the
'slavish' and the 'sluggish' sections, consisting of the upper cas-
tes and the lower castes respectively. Dr. Ambedkar's main con-
cern all along his life was to fight this injustice by all possible
and necessary means and establish a just and egalitarian society.
It is very appropriate that as part of his Birth Centenary Cele-
brations, a systematic and scientific evaluation of his valuable
ideas and thought- process is made to enable us to appreciate his
contribution to the Indian society and polity. The objective of
this paper is to attempt such an evaluation, with particular refer-
ence to his political thought or philosophy.
AMBEDKAR'S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
Epis temolo gical foundations
It is rather difficult to separate and compartmentalise p

losophy into social, political etc., because philosophy is a 'pe
stent attempt to think things through'. It 'grows out of the
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF Dr. B. R. AMBEDKAR 359
of each thinking person to find an intelligible order in his life, so

that he can think and feel that things make sense'. Philosophy
has to be an integral whole. It is a system of interrelations bet-
ween different aspects of a problem. It has to take into account
all aspects of human life, activity and thought. A discussion of
Dr. Ambedkar's philosophy has to be a part of this broad
assumption.
Dr. Ambedkar was not a philosopher in the generally accep-

ted sense. He did not develop a philosophy for its own sake.
He was not a theoretician and theory-building was not his objec-
tive. As a researcher, thinker and writer he, no doubt, belonged
to the realm of thought. He developed his ideas about man,
society and their interrelationship. He was having all the ingre-
dients of a thinker and a philosopher. But the social milieu in
which he lived was a very important consideration and basic to
the development of his personality. The constraints of an unjust
social order led him to the realm of action as he was not only a
thinker but a determined social engineer and reformer. He was
not interested in arm-chair philosophy. Hence he was indifferent
to epistemology in a sense. His philosophy was not abstract and
obscurantist. It was more of a practical nature and realistic. It
was not purely normative. Nor was it dogmatic. Dogma had
no place at all in his schema. His philosophy was, in fact, pra-
gmatic and programmatic. He always tried to strike a balance
between thought and action. In his search for a meaning to life,
he tried to bring together the ideals of his thought and the reali-
ties of life. So he did not indulge in building up a metaphyicals
body of thought.
Political philosophy is the study of human ideals and thought

which underlie political systems and institutions. Its main
concern is with nothing less than the 'moral phenomena of
human behaviour in society'.3 But political philosophy gives the
political institutions such as State, Government etc., the human
base and purpose of togetherness for social development. It also
suggests the means to coordinate human ends of different social
groups within the State. Political Philosophy tries to observe
the actual in the light of the ideal, the momentary in the light of
the eternal and the particular in the light of the universal. It is
as a part of this process that it becomes highly speculative.
P- 9
But Dr. Ambedkar's political philosophy was not purely

speculative and idealistic. Though not a philosopher in the
conventional sense like Plato or Aristotle, he nevertheless deve-
loped his own social and political ideals out of a clash between
idealism and realism, empiricism and rationalism, naturalism and
humanism, individualism and socialism, nationalism and inter-
nationalism,4 Political philosophy is not entirely based on the
plane of speculative and ethical ideas. According to him it has
to be essentially related to real human problems and issues,
because social environment and political philosophy are compli-
mentary. His political philosophy in a sense, is an expression of
vital human affairs and is a sincere attempt to bridge the gulf
between theory and practice, materialism and spiritualism 5 He
had no sympathy and interest in a philosophy which did noi
study the actual human problems. His thought process arose out
of his dejection with the inhuman treatment meted out to his
community by the caste Hindus. The servile class consisting of
the untouchables and the Shudras were for ever condemned to a
life of poverty, ignorance, ignominy, hatred and contempt. His
main concern was the total emancipation of the servile class from
the clutches of the privileged caste Hindus. In whatever he said
and whatever he did this was uppermost in his mind. Hence, "he
was in total engagement throughout his life with the social
phenomena, as a humanist who charitably looked for what made
true humanity. These were later to figure in all his endeavours."6
Dr. Ambedkar had a 'mission' in his life and that was one of
'man-making.'
Views on Man and Society :
Man constitutes the focal point of his philosophy and man

is the chief subject and object of his study. He developed an
unfailing faith in man and demonstrated fullest sympathy towards
man in society. He declared that every man should have an
opportunity to live a dignified life. He thought it was disgraceful
for any person to live without self-respect which is so vital to
honourable life. Individual and individuality is the key-note of
his philosophy. It is not enough for man to just manage to
survive. Mere survival without culture is not worth it. One has
to realise the difference between mere living and living worthily.
To him, it is useless for man to be satisfied with the fact that he and
his society have survived. Dr. Ambedkar emphasises that "What
he (the man) must consider is the quality of his survival. If he

does that, I am sure he will cease to take pride in the mere fact
of survival."7 So it should be a life of self-respect, justice an
equality. Otherwise he will not be a full or complete man.
Dr. Ambedkar does not hold a static view of life. He

says:"... a human being is always changing, always growing. He
is not the same at two different moments of life."8 He further
says "Man is what his mind makes him."9 In other words, every
man has a mind of his own and that should be allowed to act and
react. It should have opportunities to develop fully so that each
develops his own individuality without any servility. He
says: "...lumping together of individuals into a few sharply
marked-ofF classes is a superficial view of man noteworthy of
serious consideration. Consequently, the utilisation of the quali-
ties of individuals is incompatible with their stratification by
classes, since the qualities of individuals are so variable."10 He,
therefore, does not accept Plato's concept of man, his classifica-
tion of individuals into three categories of soul. He says :
"Plato's idea of lumping of individuals into few sharply marked
off classes is a very superficial view of man and his powers.
Plato had no perception of the uniqueness of every individual
forming a class of his own. He had no recognition of the infinite
diversity of active tendencies and combination of tendencies of
which an individual is capable of. To him, there were types of
faculties or powers (i.e., the appetitive, the passionate and the
rational, and three corresponding classes are the industrial, the
military and the governing) in the individual constitution. All
this is demonstrably wrong."11 On the same premise Dr.
Ambedkar denounces and rejects the Chaturvarna system of social
organisation of the Hindus by Manu as totally irrational, un-
scientific and inhuman.
Dr. Ambedkar is fully convinced of the uniqueness of man,

his ability, courage and reflective capacity. He tends to agree
with Shakespeare that "There is a tide in the affairs of man,
which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune."12 Man's life is,
therefore, one of continual change, adventure, a mission of tide
and fortune. To Dr. Ambedker, man is not a means to an end but
an end in himself. The ultimate purpose of all activity is the good
of man, and as Aristotle put it, the good life. It is man who gives
meaning to society. Every individual must have a mission in life

and he should pursue it with a singleness of purpose and relen*
tless devotion and sincerity. The mission of man's life should be
one of fighting all forms of tyranny, injustice, superstition, false
traditions and to destroy all sorts of privileges so that the harass-
ed and the oppressed are released from bondage. He himself
followed this mission all along his life with a single-minded devo-
tion because of which we remember him today as a great fighter
for social justice and an emancipator. So man is the most
important component of society and focal point of his social and
political philosophy.
Ambedkar's view of Society is also different from those of

others. To him it is not an organism. Society is based essentially
on human attitudes. According to him: "Men do not become a
society by living in physical proximity any more than a man ceases
to be a member of his society by living so many miles away from
other men... similarity in habits and customs, beliefs and thoughts,
is not enough to constitute men into society. Things may be passed
physically from one to another like bricks. In the same way*
habits and customs, beliefs and thoughts of one group may be
taken over by another group and there may thus appear a simi-
larity between the two."13 It is not only a sense of similarity but
also an ardent faith in the common unity of purpose among
different members of the society that is basic to society. He fully
concurs with his teacher, John Dewey, at the Columbia Univer-
sity, to whom he owes so much by way of intellectual influence*
who said: "society is the process of associating in such ways that
experiences, ideas, emotions, values are transmitted and made
common."14 To Dr. Ambedkar, "Men constitute a society
because they have things which they possess in common... And
the only way men can come to possess things in common with
one another is by being in communication with one another.
This is merely another way of saying that Society continues to
exist by communication indeed in communication."15 In fact, it
is communication that creates like-mindedness in a people about
their values and their common good. Without shared experi-
ences, shared emotions and shared values there cannot be a
society in the real sense, because society implies an association
and associated living. It is a coming together in joint intercourse
and action for the better realisation of any form of experience
which is augmented and confirmed by being shared This essenc

of human society is totally lacking in the Hindu Society because
of the prevailing caste system, which is the citadel of the Hindu
society.
"The Caste system", according to Dr. Ambedkar, "prevents

common activity and by preventing common activity it has pre-
vented the Hindus from becoming a society with a unified life
and a consciousness of its own being."16 Unity and cohesion in
such a society for building up an over arching just political
society in such a context was, of course, unthinkable. He con-
ceives of a society which is a spiritual whole that does not ignore
the essential parts, however small they may be. If they are
ignored and ill-treated it will impair the harmony and unity in a
society. Such discriminatory attitudes and treatment would
promote disharmony and disunity. So there should be common
standards and modes of life among all the sections of a society.
There cannot be social stability if there are different standards,
different conditions and differences in their attitude towards
some. Social stability depends on social adjustment among
different social units or communities and there cannot be social
adjustment 'fluidity' and 'equity'. Without fluidity and equity
among classes there cannot be social progress and hence no social
stability. Stability and adjustment should not be at the cost of
change and social justice. Social stability is lacking in the Hindu
Society because of the fixed nature of the caste system and
because there is no spirit of adjustment among them, social
justice has been sacrificed. Indian society is a stationary society.
It refuses to change which is the worst thing that can happen to
a society. He stands for a change in society when essential, a
re-examination when inevitable, reforms when required and
revolution when the people need it.
Dr. Ambedkar blames man for the present ills of society and
not his karma or past deeds. It is, in turn, the environment and
circumstances under which he lives that influence his life. So the
status of a man is determained not so much by heredity but his
social environment. The social organisation is responsible for the
state of society and status of man. What man has made of man
is obvious from man's own hostility and enemity towards man.
Inquiry, exploitation, tyranny, coercion, hatred etc., are all a
negation of an ideal social relationship and harmony in a society.

Such wrong attitudes are at the root cause of all social problems.
Apart from these, even wrong ideals are harmful. As he says:
" I realise that the world is very imperfect and any one who wants
to live in it must bear with imperfections. But while I am pre-
pared to bear with imperfections and shortcomings of the society
in which I may be destined to labour, I feel I should not consent
to live in a society which cherishes wrong ideals or a society which
having right ideals will not consent to bring its social life in
conformity with those ideals."17 It is significant that he makes
this statement in reply to Mahatma Gandhi's observations on the
views expressed by Dr. Ambedkar on castes in his delivered Presi-
dential Speech for the Jat Pat Todak Mandai Conference that
was later published as Annihilation of Caste . Dr. Ambedkar
condemns such a society based on standards, which make false
basis of social organisation which leads to hypocrisy and wrong
traditions. His ideal society should be based on Liberty, Equality
and Fraternity. It should be mobile, open with opportunities for
communicating and sharing common experiences. In other words,
there must be social endosmosis.18 It has to have a 'social
conscience,' without which there cannot be an ideal society.
social conscience always strives for social justice, peace and p
gress and stands for upholding the principles of liberty
equality in human relations. So Dr. Ambedkar's political p
sophy is based on the recognition of the fact that man and
alone constitutes the basis of all social relations. Agreeing fu
with Aristotle he says: "More than political or religious, man
social animal. He may not have, need not have, religion; he m
not have, need not have politics. He must have society; he ca
not do without society."19 Thus Dr. Ambedkar has attemp
at a harmony between man and society as part of his social
political philosophy.
Dr. Ambedkar's View of State and Government :

Dr. Ambedkar makes a distinction between State and
Society. He considers society as basic and more important th
State. Of course he considers State as a necessary institution
secondary in importance. He does not hold the anarchic v
of the state. Nor does he hold the absolutist view of state held
by Thomas Hobbes, W.F. Hegel and others. To these absolutists
state is an end in itself, possessing rights of its own. To
them the state is omnipotent and absolute. It is the 'march

of God on earth', The individual has to simply bow to its
awe-inspiring authority without any rights of his own against
it. Ambedkar rejects this view of state totally. He, no doubt
considers state as an essential organisation in a democratic
way of life, especially when the society is in the grip of dis-
order and lawlessness. To him, the state has "to provide against
internal disorder and external aggression."20 He does not accept
the view that state is an end in itself and man as its means. On
the contrary, the state is a means to individual good. He, at the
same time, is an advocate of a stable state and the people to
obey the laws made by the state organisation, i.e., government
for the well-being of the individual and the society. He is also
in favour of the stability of the state organisation. He says:
"Willingness to render obedience to the authority of the govern-
ment is as essential for the stability of government as the unity
of political parties on the fundamentals of the State. It is impos-
sible for the same person to question the importance of obedience
in the maintenance of the State. To believe in civil obedience
is to believe in anarchy."21 The aim of State organisation is: (i)
"To maintain the right of every subject to life, liberty and pur
suit of happiness and to free speech and free exercise of religio
(ii) to remove social, political and economic inequality by provi
ding better opportunities to the submerged classes; and (iii)
make it possible for every subject to enjoy freedom from want and
freedom from fear."22 He does not consider State as an isolated
self-sufficient entity. He relates it with other organisations in
the society. He does not hold the organic view of State as held
by Hegel, Green and Rousseau. He accepts that the State is a
human organisation and it has to serve the interests of man and
society as a servant and not as their master. In other words, he
considers State as a means and not an end in itself. Similarly the
individual for whose good the state exists has the duty to obey the
laws of the state enabling it to discharge its functions. It is
man's faith and obedience towards State that can help it in dis-
charging its most sacred duties for the happiness of the people.
The government is an organisation based on the willing

obedience of the people to the authority. Dr. Ambedkar has
greater faith in obedience than in force to compel obedience.
The state and government should function for social good.
Dr. Ambedkar has expressed his views on the nature and form of
governments as part of his political thought. He has expressed
his support to the parliamentary form of government in general
as it is ca negation of hereditary rule' and it is based on the
will of the people, unlike in a monarchy. It is more democratic
than any other form of government. It provides for self-govern-
ment which is obviously a representative government. A self-
government is a prerequisite of a good government and a good
government cannot be a substitute for self-government. He does
not agree with the view that self-goverenment automatically
leads to good government. He was mistaken for this during the
freedom struggle that he was opposed to India's freedom, which
was not true. He insisted that care should be taken before trans-
fer of power and the establishment of Swaraj or self-government
to ensure that it will be a good government. It is not enough if
it is efficient. One of the essentials of a good government is that
the ruling class should be in a position to rise above all class and
caste consideration and steer through all conflicts. He says:
"What is necessary is to have in the governing class the will to
do good or, to use Dicey's language, freedom from internal limita-
tions arising out of selfish caste interests. Efficiency combined
with selfish class interests instead of producing good government
is far more likely to become a mere engine of suppression of the
servile classes."23 So he fought not only for self-government
but also for good government both during and after the freedom
struggle. There was no questian of his being opposed to India's
freedom at all. In his Presidential Address to the All-India
Depressed Class Congress in August 1930, he exhorted his people:
"I am afraid that the British chose our unfortunate conditions,
not with the object of removing them but only because such a
course serves well as an excuse for retarding the political pro-
gress of India... Nobody can remove your grievances as well as
you can, and you cannot remove them unless you get political
power in your hands. No share of this political power can come
to you as long as the British Government remains as it is. It is
only in a Swaraj Constitution that you stand any chance of
getting the political power into your hands without which you
cannot bring salvation to your people."24 This exhortation was
patriotic and nationalistic first and last. But he thought in the
Indian conditions self-government may not lead to a good
government through the parliamentary form of government with
the executive of the British type because in Britain the majority

in the Parliament is always a political majority. Whereas in Ind
it may be and would be a communal majority which may no
ensure good government to all sections of Indian society. H
declared, an Executive of the British model will be full of mena
to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness 'of the minorities i
general and the depressed classes in particular'. He upholds the
American type of Executive and actually suggests a modifie
mixed type of Executive of some thing like the Swiss Executiv
The type of Executive he has suggested in his 1947 Memorandum
^States And Minorities is his own model which may rightly be
called 'the Ambedkar Model' of Executive.
As a thinker holding a realistic view of State, Dr. Ambedkar

held a federal view of the state. Though he had a partiality for
a Unitary form of Government, he thought Federal form would
serve the interests of a country like India better. He said: ťťI am
not opposed to a Federal Form of Government. I confess I have a
partiality for a Unitary form of Government. I think India needs
it. But I also realize that a Federal form of Government is
inevitable if there is to be Provincial Autonomy."26 He envisa-
ged a federal polity in which the interests of the minorities could
be protected by maintaining a balance between dependence and
independence among different parts of the federal state. So he
was for division of powers between the federal and the state
governments, but with over-centralisation, so that the State
would normally function as federal but in emergencies it would
function as a unitary state. He kept in view the needs of emot-
ional integration and national unity while devising such a via-
media arrangement.
Views on Natural Rights and Law

Dr. Ambedkar, as we all know, is rightly hailed as the
greatest champion of human rights of the twentieth century.
Social Justice being the main plank of his political philosophy
tempered by humanism, he endeavoured to build a system of
rights of all individuals in the society through and by law. His
theory of rights is based on the assumption that every 'indivi-
dual has certain inalienable rights'.26 They are 'natural' and
'inherent'. According to him the State is built on a comprehen-
sive social philosophy and it exists for the sake of preventing
P- 10
injustice and tyranny through a system of rights. From a hum-

anistic point of view, he is opposed to any form of discrimination
and exploitation on the basis of caste, sex, race, creed, place of
birth etc. To him, right to life, liberty and property are the
natural and inherent rights of individuals. He fully agrees with
John Locke when he says, the purpose of government is to
protect the life, liberty and property, i.e., the natural rights and
a government that fails to do it forfeits its claim to moral autho-
rity. These natural rights have to be recognised by the funda-
mental law of the land i.e., Constitution and protected and
upheld by the Constitution. It is not only the responsibility of
the State but also that of the individuals to uphold these rights
through a sense of constitutional morality as enunciated by Greek
Historian Hugo Grote. Grote's concept of constitutional mor-
ality meant: ť a paramount reverence for the forms of constitu-
tion, enforcing obedience to authority acting under and within
these forms yet combined with the habit of open speech, of
action subject only to definite legal control, and unrestrained
censure of those very authorities as to all their public acts com-
bined too with a perfect confidence in the bosom of every citizen
amidst the bitterness of party contest that the forms of the Con-
stitution will not be less sacred in the eyes of his opponents than
in his own."27 Dr. Ambedkar was painfully aware of the lack of
constitutional morality among Indians. He stressed on this
aspect to impress on us the need for developing such a spirit so
that rights of the people guaranteed through the Constitution are
safe and meaningful. He provided for an admirable Bill of
Rights in the Constitution of India, which remains the sheet
anchor of liberty, equality and fraternity among all citizens of
India irrespective of race, religion, caste, creed, sex etc
Law constitutes an important component of Dr. Ambedkar's

political system and political philosophy. Law is the instrument
through which the state organisation is founded and maintained.
It determines the relations between the State and the individual.
It is Law that creates and promotes peace and justice in society
among different sections of the society. It is the guardian of
liberty and equality. He declares: "All citizens are equal before
the law and possess equal civic rights. Any existing enactment*
regulation, order, custom or interpretation of law by which any
penalty, disadvantage or disability is imposed upon or any dis-
crimination is made against any citizen... shall cease to have an

effect."28 Law regulates the life of the whole society and kee
within its limits everyone, including the governing class.
Dr. Ambedkar enunciates the principle of 'rule of law' in the
fullest sense of the term. He says: "No state shall make or
enforce any law or custom which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty and property without the due process of law; nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of
law."29 Dr. Ambedkar believes that Law and State must depend
upon the wishes of the people. Laws of the State influence and
mould the ideas of right and wrong in society and thus affect the
morality of the people. So Law is also an obligation which
depends upon the social and moral conscience of the people. He
says: "If social conscience is such that it is prepared to recognise
the rights which law chooses to enact, rights will be safe and
secure. But if the fundamental rights are opposed by the Com-
munity, no law, no parliament, no judiciary can guarantee them
in the real sense of the word."30 So he stresses the need for
harmony among the people and Law. It is on this count that he
was emphasising on the need for constitutional morality among
the people. He was of the firm view that where there are consti-
tutional means available, people have no right to resort to violenc
and unconstitutional methods such a Satyagraha, Bandh, Dharna
etc. He said: "... where constitutional methods are open, there
can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These
methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and sooner
they are abandoned the better for us."31 He opposed the adop-
tion of the path of violence to solve any problem. Instead, as a
true Buddhist he advocates the path of peace and non-violenc
and increasing recourse to law and constitution. He had absolute
faith in the efficacy of law to preserve society. His plea for
adoption of non- violent means is an important component of no
only his political philosophy but also his ethical view.
Dr. Ambedkar and Democracy :
Dr. Ambedkar was an ardent believer in Democracy. He

took a rationalistic and comprehensive view of Democracy. H
was, by philosophical persuasion, a liberal democrat. While per-
suing the cause of justice for the Untouchables, he was in fact
enunciating the democratic principle as the bed-rock of justice.
This is abundantly clear from the definition of Democracy he gave

in a Speech at Poona on December 22, 1952. He defined Demo-
cracy as "a form and method of Government whereby revolutio-
nary changes in the economic and social life of the people are
brought about without bloodshed." His vision of a democratic
society was one in which there will be neither an oppressor class*
nor a suppressed class; equality before law and in administration
and functioning of moral order in society. He wrote else-where
that a society based on Liberty, Equality and Fraternity should
be the only alternative to a caste society. It should be full of
channels for conveying a change, taking place in one part to
other parts. It should be mobile. There must be 'social endos-
mosis' This is fraternity which is only another name for demo-
cracy. He writes: "Democracy is not merely a form of Govern-
ment. It is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint
communicated experience. It is essentially an attitude of res-
pect and reverence towards fellowmen." He was also aware of
the fact that 'equality' is a fiction and is glaringly fallacious.
But we cannot escape it. We can give most to the people by
"making them (everyone) equal as far as possible at the very
start of the race."32 It is quite clear from this that he was
making purely a 'secular' approach to the problem of democracy
and he believed in democracy that is complete and real. We see
in him a burning desire to build democracy in the social, econo-
mic and political sphere in India. He was fully aware of the
fact that political democracy will not succeed without there being
social and economic democracy. According to him, social and
economic democracy are the tissue and the fibre of political
democracy. He did not make a secret of his utter dissatisfaction
and dismay at the inadequacy of the democratic edifice created
in the Constitution of India, of which he himself was the chief
architect. In his address to the Gonstitutent Assembly he said:
"...On the 26th January 1950, we are going to enter into a life
of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social
and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be
recognising the principle of 'one man one vote, and one vote one
value'. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of
our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle
of one man one value. How long shall we continue to deny
equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny
it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy
in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possi-

ble moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up
the structure of political democracy which this Assembly has so
laboriously built up ,."33 So he attached highest importance for
establishing the principle of 'one man one value* along with the
principle of 'one man one vote and, one vote one value; which
along can make democracy complete and real. This is the soul
of democracy. In other words, political power, economic strength
and social position should be shared equally by all sections of
society in a democracy. He pleaded for a share in the political
power of the country so that they can influence decision-making
and participate in the policy-making process in their favour. To
him political power is the key to all social progress. "His idea of
democracy is thus, tinged with social realism, human experience
and reason. Pragmatic and humanistic outlook on life.."34 He
accepted the theory of State Socialism instead of Communism or
Capitalism for achieving economic equality and prosperity.
Though he liked the economic aspect of Russian Communism, he
did not approve it as it deprived the individual of his liberty and
rights and followed the path of violence. He was never for
adopting violence to achieve even a good objective. He was for
democracy and socialism, i.e., socialism through democracy or
Democratic Sooialism which was very dear to Jawaharlal Nehru.
Dr. Ambedkar wrote the only way out to have State Socialism
without dictatorship is "...to retain Parliamentary Democracy
and to prescribe State Socialism by the law of the Constitution
so that it will be beyond the reach of Parliametnary majority to
suspend, amend or abrogate it. It is only by this that one can
achieve the triple object, namely, to establish socialism, retain
Parliamentary Democracy and avoid Dictatorship."35 Such a
view of his reflects largely the political and economic philosophy
of John Locke which stands for political and economic liberalism.
Dr. Ambedkar and Secularism:
Secularism is one of the most precious contributions of Dr.

Ambedkar not only to India but to humanity in general. Dr.
Ambedkar was essentially a man of religion, though not in the
sense of a fanatic. To him man has also a mind. He does not,
of course, believe in the existence of a soul. The mind needs
some food and nourishment as the body. Secularism is the product
of his philosophy of religion. He believed that through secularist
path only religion can become useful and can survive. He

advocates religious tolerance and co-existence among all religions.
Religion has the most improtant function of improving the social
conditions of people and society. He pleads that State should
follow a policy of tolerance towards all religions. It should
not have a religion for itself i.e., there should not be a state
religion. It should not interfere with any religion, but should
allow religious freedom to its citizens. It should guarantee "The
liberty of conscience and free exercise of his religion including the
right to profess, to preach and to convert within limits compatible
with public order and morality".36 He provides for such a reli-
gious freedom to Indian citizens in the course of Articles 25 to 28
of the Constitution of India. As a humanist, he considers religion
as a means to cater to the needs of the people during this life
and here itself, because religion is for man. There should, there-
fore, be harmoy between the principles of religion and the laws
of the land. If they clash and lead to a conflict, religion becomes
counterproductive. So Dr. Ambedkar believes ina religion based
on humanistic values and principles. It should not be religion Oi
prescriptions, rites, rituals, ceremonies and of Gods and Godesses.
He was opposed to organised religion and idol worship. There
should be no place for fanaticism and irrationalism in religion.
It should not be based on blind beliefs and superstitions. That
religion which is based on principles of enlightenment is true
religion. Religion should preserve human values of equality,
brotherhood, freedom of thought and worship. He found all these
values in Buddhism and he, therefore, embraced Buddhism along
with his followers at the tale-end of his career. In a land like
ours where there is a bewildering multiplicity of religions, Secul-
arism is the only way to religious peace. Secularism, to him, is
a blend of tolerance, liberty, equality leading towards a synthesis.
His secularism, however, does not tolerate any discrimination,
ill-treatment and inequality in the name of religion. It is of a
radical type and revolts against any ill-treatment, hatred and
inhumanity. While speaking in the context of Nehru's Socialistic
Pattern of Society, Dr. Ambedkar stated emphatically that the
Indian socialists should realise the monster of caste that crosses
their path. There cannot be economic and political reform unless
this 'montser' is killed. Ambedkar had the vision of a realist and
a prophet when he made these utterances as early as 1936. He
realised that only in a Secular India in which the death-knell of
castcism is sounded can be fit for a socialistic pattern, based on

equity and justice.
Conclusion :
The hypothesis of this paper that Dr. Ambedkar did not

build a body of political thought and a system of philosophy
remains proved and valid after this discussion of the various
elements of his thought-process relating to man, Society, State,
Government and the various related aspects. Yet, his concern
for men all along led him to build up a body of philosophical
thought indirectly. It was not an idle, arm-chair philosophy
developed for its own sake, without any concern for human
beings. He realised fully well that no philosophy will be worth
its name if it does not have its roots in humanism, philosophy
should serve human interests, and not that of the other-worldly
or supernatural being. He accepts naturalism along with huma-
nism. Naturalism denies the existence of anything beyond
nature, behind nature or other than nature. There is nothing
as supernatural or other-worldly. Naturalism without huma-
nism is meaningless. It is only a combination of the two that
can bring about a better understanding and human welfare. Dr.
Ambedkar, naturally, does not draw any line of distinction bet-
ween man and nature.
Dr. Ambedkar's social and political philosophy is very

much influenced by the philosophy of his inspiring teacher Pro-
fessor John Dewey of the Columbia University, the American
Constitution, particularly the Fourteenth Amendment, the English
Economists like J. M. Keynes, R. A. Selghman, and the great
English Parliamentarian Edmund Burke, and back home Maha-
tma Jotiba Phule, whom he described as the 'greatest Shudra of
modern India'. But the most important and enduring influence
on him was that of Buddha, the enlightened. The principles of
Buddhism constitute a major component of his political philo-
sophy. In fact he got the idea of liberty, equality and frater-
nity more from Buddhism than from the French Revolution. Of
course the influence of Western Liberalism has been evident in
his thinking. We have already categorised him as a liberal demo-
crat in his political and philosophical persuasion. These influ-
ences on him helped to build up a philosophy based on a synthe-
sis of rationalism and empiricism, idealism and realism, natu-
ralism and humanism, materialism and spiritualism, individua-

lism and socialism, and nationalism and internationalism. His
philosophy was guided by a kind of social dynamism. It was
one of solving the problems of the social and political ills of
mankind. It is this purposiveness that brought about a com-
bination of thought and action in him and led him into practical
politics. His politics was not for personal power or gain or for
climbing the ladder to high positions. It was a politics of Eman-
cipation of the dumb, down-trodden millions of India. His ideas
and ideals revolving round the welfare of man through social
and political action, respect for the dignity of man, respect for
human rights, secularism, his belief in peace and non-violence,
constitutional morality, social justice are some of the most valua-
ble and enduring elements of his political and social philosophy
which should guide us in building up a humane and prosperous
society. His thoughts and philosophical exhortations should be
the beacon light and guiding stars to mankind and we should
rededicate ourselves to these values of his philosophy during the
Year of his Birth Centenary which is rightly declared as the
'YEAR OF SOCIAL JUSTICE.'
NOTES
1. Gandhi, M. K. Harijan , July 11, 1936.

2. Joachim Alva, Men and Supermen of Hindustan , Thacker
and Co., Ltd., Bombay, 1945, p. 26.
3. Wayper, C. L., Political Thought , Oxford, p. vii.
4. Jatava, D. R., The Political Philosophy of Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar , Phoenix Publishing Agency, Agra, 1965, p. 2.
5. Ibid..
6. Rajasekhariah, A. M., B. R. Ambedkar - The Quest Fo

Social Justice, Uppal Publishing House, New Delhi, 1989, p. 15
7. Ambedkar, B. R., Annihilation of Caste , 1937, p. 55.
8. Ambedkar, B. R., The Buddha and His Dhamma , Siddhart
College, Bombay, 1957, p, 240.
9. Ibid.,
10. Ambedkar, B. R., Annihilation of Caste , p. 44.

11. Ibid., pp. 43-44.
12. Keer, Dhananjay, Dr. Ambedkar : Life and Mission , Popular

Prakashan, Bombay, (2nd edition) 1962, p. 27.
13. Ambedkar, B. R., Annihilation of Caste , pp. 26-27.
14. Dewey John, Reconstruction in Philosophy , 1952, p. 161.
16. /Airf., pp. 27-28.
17. Ibid. y Appendix-II, pp. 25-26.
18. Ibid., p. 38.
19. Ambedkar, B. R., Pakistan or the Partition of India,
Thacker and Co., Ltd., Bombay, 1943, p. 119.
20. Ambedkar, B. R., States and Minorities : What are Their
Rights and How to Secure Them in the Constitution of Free India
Thacker and Co., Ltd., Bombay, 1947, p. 3.
21. Ambedkar, B. R., Pakistan or the Partition of India, op. cit .,
p. 294.
22. Ambedkar, B. R., States and Minorities ..., p. 3.
23. Ambedkar, B. R., What Congress and Gandhi have done to
Untouchables ? Thacker and Co., Ltd., Bombay, 1945, p. 240.
24. Quoted in Rajasekhariah, A. M., B. R. Ambedkar. The
Politics of Emancipation , Sindhu, Bombay, 1971, p. 65.
25. Ambedkar, B. R. Federation Vs. Freedom ., R. K. Tatnis,
Bombay. 1939, p. 155.
26. Ambedkar, B. R., States and Minorities
27. Constituent Assembly

28. Ambedkar, B. R., State
29, Ibid.,
30. Ambedkar, B. R., Ranade , Gandhi and Jinnah , Thacker
and Co., Ltd., Bombay, 1943, pp. 34-35.
31. C.A.D. , Vol. XI, p. 979.
33. C.A.D., Vol. XI, p. 979.
34. Jatava, D. R., The Political Philosophy of Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar , p. 114.
35. Ambedkar, B. R,, States and Minorities, p. 34.
36. Ibid., p. 11.
P- 11

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF Dr. B. R. AMBEDKAR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF Dr. B. R. AMBEDKAR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Indian Political Science Association

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF Dr. B. R. AMBEDKAR

India has produced many a social and political thinker and

ranked as 'one of the top dozen great Indians of the Century' by

Dr. Ambedkar's was a multi-faceted and multi-dimensional

AMBEDKAR'S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Epis temolo gical foundations

It is rather difficult to separate and compartmentalise p

of each thinking person to find an intelligible order in his life, so

Dr. Ambedkar was not a philosopher in the generally accep-

Political philosophy is the study of human ideals and thought

But Dr. Ambedkar's political philosophy was not purely

Views on Man and Society :

Man constitutes the focal point of his philosophy and man

he (the man) must consider is the quality of his survival. If he

Dr. Ambedkar does not hold a static view of life. He

Dr. Ambedkar is fully convinced of the uniqueness of man,

meaning to society. Every individual must have a mission in life

Ambedkar's view of Society is also different from those of

which is augmented and confirmed by being shared This essenc

"The Caste system", according to Dr. Ambedkar, "prevents

negation of an ideal social relationship and harmony in a society.

Dr. Ambedkar's View of State and Government :

them the state is omnipotent and absolute. It is the 'march

The government is an organisation based on the willing

the executive of the British type because in Britain the majority

As a thinker holding a realistic view of State, Dr. Ambedkar

Views on Natural Rights and Law

injustice and tyranny through a system of rights. From a hum-

Law constitutes an important component of Dr. Ambedkar's

crimination is made against any citizen... shall cease to have an

Dr. Ambedkar and Democracy :

Dr. Ambedkar was an ardent believer in Democracy. He

This is abundantly clear from the definition of Democracy he gave

in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possi-

Dr. Ambedkar and Secularism:

Secularism is one of the most precious contributions of Dr.

path only religion can become useful and can survive. He

castcism is sounded can be fit for a socialistic pattern, based on

The hypothesis of this paper that Dr. Ambedkar did not

Dr. Ambedkar's social and political philosophy is very

ralism and humanism, materialism and spiritualism, individua-

1. Gandhi, M. K. Harijan , July 11, 1936.

6. Rajasekhariah, A. M., B. R. Ambedkar - The Quest Fo

10. Ambedkar, B. R., Annihilation of Caste , p. 44.

12. Keer, Dhananjay, Dr. Ambedkar : Life and Mission , Popular

27. Constituent Assembly

You might also like