AMBEDKAR

INTRODUCTION

Babasaheb Ainbedkar is one of the foremost thinkers of modern India. His thought is centrally
concerned with issues of freedom, Human equality, democracy and socio-political emancipation. He
is a unique thinker of the world who himself suffered much humiliation, poverty and social stigma,
right from his childhood, yet he rose to great educational and phiIosophica1 heights. He was a
revolutionary social reformer who demonstrated great faith in democracy and the moral basis of a
society. He was one of the principal critics of India's national movement led by M.K.Gandhi. He built
civic and political institutions in India and criticised ideologies and institutions that degraded and
enslaved people. He undertook several major studies on the economy, social structures and
institutions, law and constitutionalism, history and religion with methodological rigour and reflexivity.
He was the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Indian Constitution and defended its key
provisions with scholarly precision and sustained arguments without losing sight of the ideals it
upheld while, at the same time; holding firmly to the ground. He embraced Buddhism, recasting it to
respond to modern and socially emancipatory urges, with hundreds of thousands of his followers and
paved the way for its resurgence in Modern India.

LIFE SKETCH

Babasaheb Ambedkar (1891-1956) was born in the untouchable Mahar Caste in Maharashtra. Despite
facing social humiliations in his childhood and throughout his life due to untouchability, he pursued
education and successfully completed his graduation, Masters, and Ph.D. from prestigious
universities. Influenced by liberal and radical thought in America and Europe, Ambedkar was deeply
concerned with the caste system and untouchability in India. He also analysed the impact of
colonialism on the economy, politics, and social life of India.
Ambedkar's academic contributions in the field of colonial economy and politics were remarkable.
His research focused on the administration and finance of the East India Company, the evolution of
provincial finance in British India, and the problems of the Indian Rupee. After completing his Ph.D.,
he initially served the Baroda Maharaja but faced discrimination. He then worked as a professor
before becoming involved in political movements advocating for the rights of untouchables.
After completing his Ph.D. at Columbia University, he returned to serve the Baroda Maharaja, who
had sponsored his education. However, despite his exceptional qualifications, he faced discrimination
within the Baroda administration due to his untouchable status. He left his position and became a
professor of Political Economy at Sydenham College of Commerce and Economics in Bombay.

He made a representation before the Southborough Committee, advocating for separate representation
for the depressed classes, including the untouchable and low-caste communities. In 1920, he started
Mooknayak, a Marathi fortnightly, and played a key role in the first All-India Conference of
Depressed Classes.

He pursued his D.Sc. at the London School of Economics, completing it in 1922, and became a
Barrister-at-Law from Grey's Inn in the same year. He began his legal practice in Bombay in 1923 and
actively participated in the mobilization and organization of the untouchables.
In 1924, he founded the Bahishkrit Hitkarini Sabha (Depressed Classes Welfare Association), and in
1927, he was nominated to the Bombay Legislative Council. He led the Satyagraha at Chowdar Tank,
demanding access to the water tank previously restricted to untouchables, which eventually led to the
burning of the Manusmriti.

Dr. Ambedkar started the fortnightly journal Bahishkrit Bharat in Marathi and formed two
organizations, Samaj Samata Sangh and Samata Sainik Dal, in 1927 to further advocate for equality
for the depressed classes. The Depressed Classes Education Society, Bombay, was founded in 1928,
and the journal Samata was launched in the same year.

Throughout these years, Dr. Ambedkar remained active as a professor of law. In 1928, he presented
his deputation before the Simon Commission, which was investigating constitutional reforms in India.
He also led the Satyagraha at Kalaram Temple in Nasik, demanding temple entry for untouchables in
1930. Additionally, he presided over the First All India Depressed Classes Congress, held in Nagpur
in 1930.

Ambedkar played a significant role in organising and mobilising the depressed classes. He founded
organisations like the Depressed Classes Welfare Association and fought for equality and
representation. He established educational societies and journals to spread awareness and create a
platform for the oppressed. He also participated in various protests, including the famous Satyagraha
at Chowdar Tank in Malad, demanding rights for untouchables.

Ambedkar's ideas and vision of a modern India, emphasising self-help and the emancipation of
untouchables, put him at odds with the Indian National Congress and Mahatma Gandhi. He demanded
separate electorate for the depressed classes, which Gandhi vehemently opposed. Eventually,
Ambedkar negotiated the Poona Pact, securing a joint electorate with reservation for depressed classes
and ending Gandhi's fast.

In 1936, Ambedkar founded the Independent Labour Party, which achieved success in the elections.
He then established the Scheduled Caste Federation and served on the Viceroy's Council. As a
member of the Constituent Assembly, he advocated for a united India with cooperation between the
Congress and Muslim League. He chaired the Drafting Committee of the Indian Constitution and
became the law minister in the Nehru Cabinet, where he worked towards creating a free and
egalitarian framework for public life, with safeguards for the disadvantaged and minority groups.

Ambedkar later resigned from the Nehru Cabinet in 1951 and focused on addressing the lack of social
and economic democracy in India. He explored alternative solutions, leading to his conversion to
Buddhism and the proposal for the Republic Party of India. He left behind a complex body of thought,
a significant public life, and a radical agenda for economic, social, and cultural reconstruction.

Babasaheb Ambedkar's contributions have had a lasting impact on Indian society, inspiring social
justice movements and advocating for the rights of marginalised communities. Hc died on 6
December, 1956 n~ourned by millions. He left behind a complex body of thought scattered across a
large number of writings and speeches, an eventful public life spanning across civic and political life
and a radical agenda for economic, social and cultural reconstruction.
WORKS OF AMBEDKAR
Dr. Ambedkar wrote several books. Unlike his contemporaries, he had done a lot of original research
on his texts. Apart from writing thc Indian Constitution as the Chairman of its Drafting Committee
and defending it in the ~marathon debates of the Constituent Assembly, he wrote several books that
reflect systematic thinking. Apart from his doctoral dissertations on The Problem of the Rupee (1923)
and The Evolution of Provincial Finance in British India (1925), he wrote Annihilation of Caste
(1936),Thoughts on Pakistan (1940), What Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables
(l945), Who were the Shudras? (1946), The Untouchables: who were they and how they became
Untouchables? (1948), States and Minorities (1947), Thoughts on linguistic States (1955) and his
magnum opus The Buddha and his Dharma (1957) are the most important. Apart from them he wrote
numerous articles, submitted learned memoranda, delivered lectures and commented on the issues in
the journals he published.

THOUGHTS AND IDEAS OF AMBEDKAR

1. IDEOLOGICAL ORIENTATION

Dr. Ambedkar identified himself as a 'progressive radical' and sometimes as a 'progressive

conservative' depending on the context in relation to liberals, Marxists, and others. He
believed strongly in freedom, viewing it as a positive power that allows individuals to make
choices without being hindered by economic processes, exploitation, social institutions,
religious orthodoxies, fears, or prejudices. He criticized liberalism for tolerating vast
accumulation of resources in a few hands and the resulting deprivation and exploitation. He
argued that liberal systems allowed for massive inequalities in economic, social, and cultural
spheres and overlooked the deep inequalities faced by minorities such as African Americans
in the United States and Jews in Europe.

Ambedkar also felt that liberalism often justified colonial exploitation and ignored the
importance of community bonds in sustaining a reflective and creative self. He believed that
liberalism inadequately understood the role of the state in promoting a good life. While he
acknowledged the advancement of the principle of equality before the law, he believed that
stronger notions of equality, such as equality of consideration, respect, and dignity, were
needed.

Ambedkar found common ground with Marxism in certain areas. He agreed with Marx's idea
that philosophy should aim to transform the world and viewed the central message of
Buddhism as aligning with this goal. He recognized the existence of class conflict and the
need for extensive public ownership of the means of production and equal opportunities for
self-development. However, he rejected the notion of socialism as inevitable without human
agency actively working towards it, and he criticized the economic interpretation of history
for neglecting the role of political and ideological institutions. He also disagreed with the
concept of the state withering away and denounced violent means of seizing power,
advocating instead for resolute mass action.

Critically, Ambedkar denounced the Brahmanical ideology dominant in India, which he

believed perpetuated graded inequality, undermined reason in favor of rituals and priestly
authority, and disadvantaged the lower castes. He saw little place for freedom or the
reevaluation of choices within this ideology.
 Additionally, Ambedkar fiercely criticized Gandhi and Gandhism. He disagreed with Gandhi's
approach to abolishing untouchability, arguing that rights and humanity should not be subject
to the whims and prejudices of those who have a vested interest in undermining them. He
rejected the idea that untouchability could be eliminated through a purely moral appeal, as he
believed it would merely entrench untouchables as the lowest rung of society. He also
disagreed with many other central notions of Gandhism, such as Swaraj, nonviolence,
decentralization, Khadi, trusteeship, and vegetarianism.

Overall, Ambedkar emphasized the need for a modern polity and economy, focusing on
worldly concerns rather than otherworldly pursuits. He believed that an uncritical approach to
Panchayat Raj (local self-government) would only reinforce the power of dominant classes
and further exploit social classes and groups below them.

2. REASON AND RIGHTS

Ambedkar believed that the modern era marked a triumph of human reason over myths,
customs, and religious superstitions. He argued that the world and human behavior could be
explained through human reason and effort, without the need for invoking supernatural
powers. Ambedkar recognized that supernatural beliefs reflected human weaknesses and an
underdeveloped state of human development. He viewed the expression of human reason
positively in science and modern technology, as any problems associated with them could be
addressed using the same reason.

Ambedkar had an ambivalent attitude towards religion. While he did not believe in a personal
God or revelation, he acknowledged that religion, as morality, provided a strong foundation
for societies and enabled collective pursuit of a good life. He believed that a moral religion
promoted altruism, concern for others, solidarity, and social justice. He advocated for the
essential conditions of freedom, equality, and fraternity for a good life, and emphasized the
need to construct a regime of individual and group rights based on these principles. Ambedkar
supported both civil and political rights, as well as social and economic rights, viewing them
as complementary rather than conflicting. He advocated for the rights of minorities and
cultural groups to maintain their distinct beliefs and identities, while also ensuring their
participation in public affairs. Ambedkar defended affirmative action for disadvantaged
communities as a means to create an egalitarian and just society.

3. RELIGION

Ambedkar extensively discussed major religions, including Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, and
Buddhism. He focused on Hinduism and Buddhism, tracing the evolution of religious thought in early
India. He observed that Hindu scriptures lack unity and coherence, with divisions existing within and
across sects. The Upanishadic thought contradicts Vedic thought, and the Smriti literature often
conflicts with the Sruti literature. Ambedkar criticized the worship of Hindu avatars, stating that they
cannot be held as exemplary figures. He viewed the Bhagavadgita as an attempt to save Brahmanism
in response to the rise of Buddhism.

Ambedkar offered a new interpretation of Buddhism, highlighting its social engagement and concern
for the oppressed. Buddhism prioritizes the welfare of the poor, rejects the belief in God or the eternal
soul, upholds reason, asserts the importance of this world, subscribes to a moral order, and aligns with
science. Ambedkar believed that values like freedom, equality, and community were central to the
teachings of the Buddha.

Ambedkar criticized Christianity and Islam, noting their reliance on a transcendental realm that
undermines human reason and fosters hierarchical tendencies. He argued that these religions limit
rational inquiry and equality among individuals. The belief in Jesus as the son of God was seen as
contrary to reason. Ambedkar believed Christianity and Islam perpetuated graded inequality and have
often justified violence. Ambedkar saw the Buddha as a formidable figure who stood against the
proponents of both Christianity and Islam.

4. CASTE

Ambedkar's understanding of caste and caste system underwent certain significant changes
overtime. Initially he identified the characteristics of caste as endogamy superimposed on
exogamy in a shared cultural milieu. He felt that the evils such as sati, child-marriage and
prohibition of widow remarriage were its inevitable outcomes. Once a caste closed its
boundaries, other castes too followed suit. The Brahmins closing themselves socially first
gave rise to castes. Ambedkar continued to emphasise the endogamous characteristic of
caste but roped in other features such as division of labour, absence of inter-dining and the
principle of birth which he had initially considered as integral to endogamy. Hc also found
that caste name is important for the continued reproduction of caste. He argued that castes
as discrete entities have to be distinguished from caste system based on the principle of
graded inequality. At the pinnacle of this system are the Brahmins. We argued that ranking
on the basis of graded inequality safeguards the stability of the system and ensures its
continued reproduction which simple it~equality would not have permitted. The dissenting
members are accommodated as another grade in the hierarchy of deference and contempt
that deeply marks the caste system. Ambedkar thought that caste is an essential feature of
Hinduism. A few reformers may have denounced it but for the vast majority of Hindus
breaking the codes of caste is a clear violation of deeply held beliefs. The principles
governing varna system and caste system are one and the same. Both of them uphold graded
inequality and subscribe to the doctrine of birth rather than worth.
Ambedkar argued for the annihilation of caste without which wielding community bonds, and
upholding freedom and equality becomes well-nigh impossible. He suggested inter-caste
marriages and inter-caste dining for the purpose although the latter, he considered, is too
feeble an exercise to constitute enduring bonds. He further argued that shastras which
defend 'varnashramdharma' have to be abandoned as they justify and legitimise graded
organisation of society. He also felt that priesthood in Hinduism should be open to all the
co-religionists on the basis of certified competence rather than on birth. At the same time
he thought this project is well nigh impossible to be carried out because what is to be
renounced is believed to be religiously ordained.

5. ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

Text written as speech for lecture at meeting of Jat Pat Todak Mandal. Organizers had
problems with some passages and asked him to reconsider, he refused and cancelled his
lecture and got it publish later. In this text Ambedkar highlights the anomalies associated
with caste system and logic of its defenders as well as decimated those defences. He also
talks about problems of caste and how to resolve it. For example, two main arguments
forwarded by the advocates and defenders of caste system is a) it is a form of division of
labour and improves efficiency in society; b) caste system was meant to ensure purity of race
and blood. Ambedkar countered these claims by arguing that caste system was not only a
division of labour but also division of labourers. No civilized society allows hierarchy and
denial of mobility based on birth. In caste, social status of parents and birth was important
factor or determinant and it went against the logic of merit. Caste does not allow job mobility
and there is no freedom of choosing occupation. As a result, natural inclinations and talents
are prevented from developing. To the second claim, Ambedkar responded by arguing that
there is no pure race in world as anthropologists have shown. There have been intermixtures
all around. Caste system developed much after such comingling had taken place. Secondly,
race and caste are different. Race based on biological differences but caste not based on that.
No racial affinity between Brahmin of different regions of India or between backward
communities of different areas. It is social division of people of the same race.
Caste system, according to Ambedkar was a product of design aimed for personal
benefits of certain sections who were dominant and got imposed everywhere. In India, he
argues, there was no consciousness of kind, but only consciousness of caste. It is such a
divisive system that it prevents common activity and prevents unity among Hindus that
defines community. Further the subdivisions within caste make it even more complicated and
a hurdle for oneness and unity. Caste not only discriminates but also creates hierarchy and
preservation seen important. There is constant attempt to pull down those who want to
liberate and improve life style. It also makes Hindus intolerant as preventive and punitive
aspects attached against those who want to break barriers of caste. The fear of social boycott
kills public spirit and consciousness. He also criticizes those who defend Varna system by
posing it as different from caste. He argues that chaturvarnya as a system was impracticable,
harmful and miserable. He argues that varna system was the predecessor of caste and both
equally undermined human potential to develop its potential and capacities by fixing into
categories that are predetermined.
For Ambedkar his ideal would be based on the principles of Liberty, Equality and
Fraternity. Ideal society, in his views, should be mobile, and based on ‘social endosmosis’- an
inclusive view about common sharing. He argues that the problem is not the presence of
division of society into different groups as it was widely practiced in all societies, which
exhibit atleast some form of division. The question should rather be: a) How varied are
interests within the group? How strong are forces and sanctions that divide the groups than
forces that unite? If the groups have similar interests and the divisions are not rigid and if the
factors acting as glue within those societies is more than divisive forces, there should not be a
problem. But in caste system it is not so. It has a rigid structure with sanctions from religious
scriptures and exhibits serious preventive and punitive system of punishments attached with
any form of mobility.
Caste is a notion, a state of mind. It requires notional change. The best solution for
Ambedkar is the practices of intermarriage and interdining as these practices are against the
idea of purity and pollution that is significant for continuing caste in Hindu society. But
Ambedkar is also mindful that Hindus observes caste as they are deeply religious and the
legitimacy or sanction for caste system is received from shastras. The remedy can therefore
only be to dismantle the belief in the sanctity of shastras as it is shastras that prevent
interdining
and intermarriage.
In fact, Ambedkar suggests that we need a complete overhaul in the structure of religion.
 He differentiates between religion based on principles and that based on rules. Rules are
practical but rigid they enslave you and restrict you. Principles are intellectual and only show
the path of right and wrong. They are not imposed. Religious act must be responsible. It must
be based on principles and not rules. Moral and ethical discussions should be part of it but no
sanctions and rules to slave them. Hindu religion is full of rules and hence regressive. He is
not against religion. He also suggests some religious reforms that could help Hindu religion
to become inclusive.
1) One standard book acceptable to all Hindus and followed by all. All other books and
its preaching should be prevented by law.
2) Priesthood be removed, at least should not be hereditary. Anyone who has good
knowledge can become priest. An examination should be held by state to qualify as
priest and it should be open for all.
3) No ceremony should be allowed to be performed by priest who does not qualify the
exam. It should be held illegal. Priests should not have any immunities in law. Their
numbers should be restricted by state as required.
4) A new doctrinal basis to religion is required. He stressed on a democratic religion
based on the values of liberty, equality and fraternity.

6. UNTOUCHABILITY

Ambedkar distinguished the institution of untouchability from that of caste although the
former too is stamped by the same principle of graded inequality as the fatter. Untouchability
is not merely an extreme form of caste degradation but a qualitatively different one as the
system kept the untouchable outside the fold and made any social interaction with him
polluting and deplorable. He argued that in spite of differences and cleavages all untouchables
share common disadvantages and meted out the same treatment by caste Hindus: they are
condemned to ghettoes on the outskirts of the village, are universally despised and kept away
from human association.
He did not subscribe to the position that untouchability has its basis in race. He saw it as
a social institution defended by the ideology of Brahmanism. While he did not extensively
probe the reasons for the origin of untouchability in one instance, he proposed a very
imaginative thesis that untouchables were broken men living on the outskirts of village
communities who, due to their refusal to give up Buddhism and beef-eating, came to be
condemned as untouchables.
Given the deep-seated beliefs and practices of untouchability prevailing in India, Ambedkar
thought that no easy solution can be found for the malaise. Removal of untouchability
required the transformation of the entire society wherein respect and rights towards the
other person becomes a way of life rather than a mere constitutional mechanism. Given the
entrenched interests and prejudices revolving around the institution of untouchability, it was
something too much to expect from entrenched groups. Therefore he felt that the primary
burden of emancipating themselves fell on the untouchables themselves. Such-self-help
required not only struggles but also education and organisation, Further a constitutional
democracy with preferences at various levels can help enormously in such an endeavour.

7. DEMOCRACY:

Dr. Ambedkar was an ardent believer in Democracy. He took a rationalistic and

comprehensive view of democracy. He 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 Democracy as
"a form and method of Government whereby revolutionary 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
elsewhere 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 democracy. He writes: "Democracy is not merely
a form of Government. It is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated
experience. It is essentially an attitude of respect 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." It is quite clear from this that he was making a purely '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, economic 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
Constituent 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. 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 possible moment or else those who suffer
from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which this Assembly has so
laboriously built up ,." So he attached the 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 alone 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.." 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 Socialism 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 Parliamentary 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.

8. SOCIAL JUSTICE

Concept:
Social Justice implies that all benefits and privileges in society should be shared by all its
members. If any group in society has suffered from structural inequalities inherent in the
social system special care should be taken to remove such structural inequalities. The obvious
implication is that the state should take affirmative action in order to remove such injustices
perpetrated in the same society by one section over another section.
In so far as it seeks the help of the state to remove inequalities and injustice inherent in the
social system, it may be said to be related with the ideology of positive liberalism and,
therefore, with the concept of the welfare state. Liberalism believes that every individual in
society should get freedom for the development of his personality. Both negative and positive
liberalism agree on this point. But they differ on the role of the state to achieve this. While
negative liberalism attempts to restrain the sphere of state action, positive liberalism attempts
to widen it and holds that state should provide necessary conditions for liberty of individuals.
If one section of society has monopolised benefits and privileges, the state should rectify it.
Hence, by implication positive liberalism accepts the view that the state should look after the
interests of the weaker section of society. It is in this sense Laski has stated that every state is
known by the rights that it maintains.
The state which attempts to provide necessary conditions for development of individuals in
the society is known as a welfare state. It stands for that kind of state whose functions are not
limited to provide law and order but are extended also to take care of those who are not in a
position to help themselves. It enacts welfare legislation to provide for those who suffered
from deprivation and discrimination in society. In other words social justice is a function of
the welfare state.

Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s Struggle for Social Justice

Ambedkar belonged to the Mahar caste. The Mahars were treated as untouchables and were
subjected to socio-economic discrimination in society. In such a society, not only did man
hate man, but the caste Hindus kept themselves away from the shadows of the Harijans
(Harijans (children of lord Hari/Vishnu) is a term popularized by Mohandas Gandhi for
referring to Dalits, traditionally considered to be untouchables) and downtrodden. Their paths,
residences, wells and temples were separate; even if one side had a great desire to talk, but the
other side discarded them. The ways of keeping relations were strange. The downtrodden did
not have the courage to come forth, raise their eyes and stand beside to talk to people of the
higher castes. The doors of the temples, like the doors of schools, were not opened for them.
These bad traditions were the gifts of the social structure and the caste system. It was in such
a society that Ambedkar was born and brought up. However, fighting all odds, he attained
higher education and soon after completing his studies, he launched himself politically,
fighting for the rights of the depressed classes and against inequality practiced in the society.
He was a crusader of social equality and justice. He never made any compromise with
injustice, never cared for prestige and self aggrandizement. He was an uncompromising rebel
against social injustice and inequality. He worked relentlessly for the regeneration of
humanity, for the well-being of mankind and for the transformation of man and society. He
was a great social liberal. His vision was to produce a new social order based on the principles
of justice, equality and fraternity. Thus, the idea of justice, equality, liberty and fraternity
was the crux of his activities (Mallik, 2011). Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s name will be written in
golden letters in the history of India as a champion of social justice. He was not only the main
builder of the Constitution, but also the crusader of social justice for the betterment of the
downtrodden. He spent his whole life for the betterment of the poor and exploited
untouchables in the Indian society. In such a society, to bring about a great change, Dr
Ambedkar had only one power—his logic and thought. He relied on the power of his thoughts
and ordinances. French revolutionary Rousseau had written, ‘Man is born free, but
everywhere he is in chains.’ His three words equality, liberty and fraternity had revolutionized
France in 1789. Ambedkar was very much influenced by Rousseau’s words and he decided to
fight for justice based on equality. Dr B.R. Ambedkar wanted economic and social equalities
before political equality; he tried his best to ensure that the downtrodden got a proper place in
society. Hence, he gave more importance to social justice than political justice; on equal
opportunity with individual liberty were laid much emphasis to root out the differences
created by the caste system of the country.
Former Chief Justice of India, P.B. Gajendragadkar, has said, ‘Ambedkar is the law maker of
the 20th century and modern Manu, but unlike old Manu this new Manu favoured human
equality and social justice’ (Pact, n.d.). In memory of Dr B.R. Ambedkar, the leader of the
downtrodden, Government of India celebrated his birth centenary from 14 April 1990 to 14
April 1991, as a ‘Social Justice Year’. In this way, many programmes for the welfare of
neglected people of the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) throughout the
country were initiated. Scholarship and stipends are being provided to SC/ST students.
Provisions have been made for free supply of books, educational equipment and stationery.
Grants have also been provided for construction of schools and hostel buildings. Provisions
have also been made in Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) and Mahatma
Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA). Various housing schemes,
like Indira Awas Yojana, have been initiated for construction of micro habitats and housing
units for SCs, STs and top priority is being given for the supply of drinking water. Assistance
is given to them for self employment like setting up poultry and dairy units. Training and
coaching centres have been established for the training of SC/ST persons in order to achieve
success in getting services. To employ the candidates of these classes to the reserved seats,
special programmes were started. In the absence of capable candidates, the government
ordered not to fill such vacancies till the candidates of these classes became duly equipped
after studies.

Ambedkar’s Ideas on Social Justice

A Just society is that society in which ascending sense of reverence and descending sense of
contempt is dissolved into the
creation of a compassionate society.
—Dr B.R. Ambedkar
Justice is a very complex concept, as it has a number of sources and dimensions. It has been
examined by different people from different viewpoints within the limits of the time, place
and circumstances they lived in. Social justice is one of the dimensions of the concept of
justice that stands for organization of society based on the principles of equality, liberty and
fraternity. Its greater emphasis is on the principle of equality, both social and economic, and
fraternity with a view to create such human social conditions that ensure free and fair
development of all human beings. As such, the concept of social justice sometimes require
unequal or preferential treatment for certain sections of the population, which have been
deprived of certain values for ages, with a view to bring them on an equal footing with other
sections of the population. Ambedkar’s concept of social justice stands for the liberty, equality
and fraternity of all human beings. He stood for a social system that is based on right relations
between man and man in all spheres of his life. As a rationalist and humanist, he did not
approve of any type of hypocrisy, injustice and exploitation of man by man in the name of
religion. He stood for a religion that is based on universal principles of morality and is
applicable to all times, to all countries and to all races. It must be in accord with reason and
must be based on the basic tenets of liberty, equality and fraternity. He considered the caste
system as the greatest evil of Hindu religion. The varna system according to him is the root
cause of all inequality and is also the parent of the caste system and untouchability.
Ambedkar stood for a social system in which man’s status is based on his merit and
achievements and where no one is noble or untouchable because of his/her birth. He
advocated the policy of preferential treatment for the socially oppressed and economically
exploited people of the country. The Constitution of India, which was drafted under his
chairmanship, contains a number of provisions that enjoins the state to secure to all its
citizens, justice, social, economic and political, along with liberty, equality and fraternity. It
also contains a number of provisions that guarantee preferential treatment to the downtrodden
people in various sectors. Article 17 of the Indian Constitution declares untouchability is
abolished. Ambedkar, in his speech before the Constituent Assembly for the passage of the
Constitution, said ‘I have completed my work; I wish there should be a sunrise even
tomorrow. The new Bharat has got political freedom, but it is yet to raise the sun of social and
economic liberty.’

Relevance of Ambedkar’s Concept of Social Justice in the Present Scenario

Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s thoughts on social justice were progressive. He did not believe in
violence; he considered the press to be a powerful tool for social changes for justice and
freedom. He published Mook Nayak, Janata and Samata magazines, but these magazines
remained largely unsold, perhaps because of the progressive and unconventional thoughts
expressed therein. If there are prohibitions on the social evil of untouchability in the
Constitution, then this credit goes to Ambedkar to a great extent. Ambedkar’s greatest
achievement was that he made the downtrodden of India feel their separate powerful
existence; the credit goes to him that he brought all the downtrodden, untouchable castes
under the one name of SCs. If Ambedkar had not pursued special reservation facilities for the
SCs/STs in the field of education and government services of the central and states
governments, their conditions would have remained as before—laden with sorrow and
sufferings. It is the result of Ambedkar’s constant efforts that today there are members of
parliament (MPs), members of the legislative assembly (MLAs), The Indian Administrative
Service (IAS)/The Indian Police Service (IPS), professors and doctors from among these
castes. He enshrined the principles of reservation for improvement of SCs/STs to enable them
to progress educationally, economically and socially, by providing extra support to them in the
form of reservation and concessions to uplift them to the level of the advanced classes. It is
clearly seen at present that many legal provisions have been made to give social justice to all
 classes. In this way, many schemes and programmes have been started for the all-round
development of the country and a measure of development has been achieved through it. At
the same time, we cannot deny the fact that in the field of social justice, much remains to
complain about. Social differences and untouchability have not been removed due to the
difficult caste system and the blind faiths that have been continuing for centuries. Many
heinous instances of continuing caste atrocities may be cited, of which a few recent incidents
are as follows. In a gruesome incident recently, three members of the dalit family, Sanjay
Jadhav, his wife and son Sunil, were killed and their mutilated limbs were scattered around a
field and a well in Pathardi in Ahmednagar district, Maharashtra, on the night of October
2014 (Menon, 2014). In another case, two teenaged dalit girls from the Katra village of
Badaun district, Uttar Pradesh, were reportedly gang-raped and murdered on 27 May 2014
(Nita, 2014). The incident was widely reported in the press in India as well as overseas. After
an extensive investigation, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) concluded that there was
no gang rape and the suspects were released (Bureau, 2014). According to a post-mortem
examination conducted earlier, it was reported that the girls had been raped and they died
from strangulation due to being hanged while still alive (Pritha, 2014). The girls’ family and
several activists rejected the CBI report as a cover-up to avoid international shame and
acceptance of the dismal law and order situation. These are just few of the many incidents that
took place. Every such incident, be it Khairlanji (Vishwanathan, 2010), Bhojpur (Agarwal,
2014), Dharmapuri (Teltumbde, 2012) and now Ahmednagar and Badaun, is a crude reminder
of the feudal and patriarchal social relations that guard the grip over the resources and the
supposed ‘honour’ of the dominant castes in this society. Today Ambedkar is not with us, but
in his free India, social and economic differences have increased manifold. As a result, where
on the one hand, there are buildings touching the sky and 5-star hotels are found in the cities,
on the other hand, there are dirty drains, places full of mud and there are the huts that speak of
a hellish life, even worse than the life of animals. In such a situation, the thoughts of
establishing a society based on equality appears only like a dream.

9. CONSTITUTION AND CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY

Ambedkar believed that however good a constitution may be, it depended on those who
worked upon it. Constitution could only provide broad contours of different organs and
functions. It totally depended on the people who operated there and political parties whether
they would uphold constitutional methods or not cannot be predicted. He opined that earlier
also India lost independence due to internal forces that divided our power and capacity. Caste
and class divisions were a truth in Hindu society, but the political parties representing their
interests should keep in mind that interest of the country was more important than the
sectarian interests of the groups.
Ambedkar held that if the constitution was to be protected and democracy was to be
preserved, constitutional morality was important. First, there was a need to hold fast to
constitutional methods in our fight for social and economic objectives. It must mean citizens
would abandon methods of revolution, but also method of civil disobedience, noncooperation
and satyagraha. When there was constitution that recognized the rights citizens
did not need such political posturing that hampered the spirit of constitution. When there was
no constitution, Ambedkar argued, such “unconstitutional methods” could be employed but
not after the constitution was adopted. He called such methods as nothing but “grammar of
anarchy”. Secondly, Ambedkar argued that we should observe caution that not to lay liberty
even on the feet of a great man. Respect their greatness but not make them hero because in
 India we have tendency for ‘bhakti’ or hero worship as it might lead to eventual dictatorship.
It is good for religion not for democracy. Third was not to be content with mere political
democracy but rather strive to make Indian democracy a social democracy as well. Social
democracy meant a way of life that recognized equality, liberty and fraternity as fundamental
values for the collective being of the citizens. They formed a union of trinity that must be
uphold at all costs. He held that there was complete absence of equality on social plane in
India because of the discriminatory caste system and on economic plane there was a huge gap
between the rich and the poor. Social and economic inequality produced a contradiction that
was not good for political democracy in the long run. At the same time there was also a
deficit of the value of fraternity in Indian society. Fraternity meant a sense of common
brotherhood that gave solidarity and unity to social life. Therefore, he claimed that till the
time castes existed, India could not develop as a nation in the truest sense. So, there was a
need to overcome and do away with these as castes are anti-national as it divided people.

10. ECONOMIC VIEWS

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar was an economist by education and training. His higher degrees in both
Columbia University and London School of economics and Political Science were in the field
of Economics. Based on his research outputs, he also published three important works in the
areas of public finance which included Administration and Finance of the East India
Company (1915), The Evolution of the Public Finance in British India: A Study in the
Provincial Decentralization of Imperial Finance (1925) and The Problem of Rupee: Its
Origin and Solution (1923).
Based on the data from 1792-93 to 1857-58, Ambedkar in Administration and Finance of
the East India Company presented a gross critique of the British East India Company’s
economic policies in India by highlighting how it had gradually ruined Indian economy. He
claimed that by the time the Company rule ended in India after the Mutiny of 1857, the
burden of the entire debt accumulated by it during its conquest of India was put on the Indian
people who were already burdened by poverty produced by the Company’s policies in India.
Further, he also highlighted large scale transfer of wealth in the form of tributes, gifts and
transfers from India to England by the Company officials. He also exposed the uneven trade
policies followed by the British that was set to benefit the colonial power and destroy
indigenous economy. He points at the fact that in terms of tariff policies imports from Britain
were taxed at much lower rate making its access of Indian market smooth and easy, whereas
exports from India to Britain had to face heavy export duties. This uneven structure led to
destruction of local industrial capacity and manufacturing base and promoting the interests of
British industries.
In his next work, The Evolution of Provincial Finance in British India, Ambedkar
studied the relationship between the Centre and the Provinces between 1823 to 1921. His
analysis highlighted the problems with the British economic policies in India. The uneven
relationship was reflected in the fact that revenue collecting powers and legislative powers
were concentrated in the hands of the Centre but the expenditure was primarily the
responsibility of the Provinces. This arrangement based on diarchy produced chaos at the
level of public finance. Ambedkar also highlighted the unjust system of taxation where the
entire burden fell on the poor and the collection, rather than being invested for public welfare
was being used for lavish lifestyle and privileges of the elites including zamindars and
government officials. Due to the uneven forms of taxation policy the overall tax collection
had also gradually shrunk and led to large scale shortfall in revenue collections.
 In 1923, Ambedkar published The Problem of Rupee: Its Origin and Its Solution. It
discussed the evolution of currency system in India since the nineteenth century. It further
analyzed the efficiency of the prevailing system and exchange rate in India and suggested
possible reforms. He found that an overvalued rupee was in line with British commercial
interests as it could ensure that the exports from Britain to India were cheaper, whereas on the
contrary, the Indian industrialists were lobbying for devaluation as it would support exports
from India. Ambedkar however favored a stable currency system and held that it could only
be achieved by stabilizing its purchasing power. The British had adopted Gold-Exchange
Standard instead of Gold Standard following the suggestions of famous economist John
Maynard Keynes, whereas Ambedkar argued that Gold Standard would be most suited for
stabilizing the value of rupee and creation of a stable monetary system in India, as Gold-
Exchange Standard lacked stability and predictability.
Other than his intellectual contributions, Ambedkar also played significant role in giving
direction to India’s economic growth. He introduced key reforms in the labour laws, laid
foundations of river valley projects and electricity production houses. He understood the deep
linkages between agriculture, infrastructure development, industrialization, education, and
poverty alleviation. He believed that no sector could develop in isolation and there needed to
be a proper coordination among different sectors to achieve a balanced economic growth. He
favored land reforms but with a cautious approach taking into consideration the local
dynamics of social, political and other dynamics. He also advocated the idea of expanding the
total cultivable land by transforming the wastelands by the help of science and technology.
The converted land could be distributed among the landless. However, he also understood the
limitations of agriculture in generating wealth and therefore favored the idea of promoting
cottage and small-scale industries. His emphasis on hydro-electric river projects like
Damodar, Son, Mahanadi was based on the foresightedness that electricity generation was an
important infrastructural requirement for the establishment of large-scale industries. He also
opined that proper forest cover was important for ecological balance, but also because it
could ensure ample rainfall which was important for agriculture. Thus, as visible, he
promoted the idea of sustainable development as well as integrative developmental strategy.

11. POSITION OF WOMEN

Dr. Ambedkar believed that endogamy was the primary and key characteristic of the caste
system. He asserted that in order to maintain the sex ratio and perpetuate endogamy and
thereby the caste system, four different practices were deployed: a) the practice of sati; b)
enforced widowhood; c) enforced celibacy; and d) the marriage of child brides with older
men and widowers. These practices are exploitative for women and thus Ambedkar
underlines the fact that castes are maintained through the sexual exploitation of women.
Ambedkar also argues that in ancient India, women enjoyed a high social status. They were
in forefront in the political process as also in the social and intellectual spheres. But with the
production of dharamsastras like Manu’s, the downfall in the status of women began. He puts
forth evidence for the same by quoting from the Manusmriti. “The essential character of
women’s life is to tempt and corrupt men” (Rule 2-213). Examples like these were forwarded
by him as evidence of his claims. Manu, Ambedkar held, stood in opposition to women’s
right to property and divorce, and justified atrocities on women. This was in sync with the
needs of the Brahmanical religion. Ambedkar claims that Manu codified the position of the
Brahmans on the status of women which had developed after the rise of Brahmanical
Religion. Dr. Ambedkar in a powerful symbolic gesture publicly burnt the Manusmriti for its
 justification of enslavement of women and shudras.
As law minister Ambedkar sought to change the laws of Manu which were misogynistic
and reduced women to commodity. Therefore, he argued for women’s right to justice,
equality and security. The Hindu code bill brought forth a text that had possibilities for the
liberation of women. Women were at the core of the Hindu Code Bill and through the laws
on property, marriage and divorce, he sought to enhance the cause of women. For instance,
men could marry many times but similar right was not granted to women. Hindu code bill
changed it to uniform principle of monogamy for both genders. Also as in Hindu law
marriage was sacrament, a break in this or divorce was not possible. Ambedkar saw this as
unjust and sought to amend it. He also wanted that women be granted right to inheritance
equal to sons which was denied to them under Act of Inheritance 1937. He advocated the
Hindu Code Bill as an effective tool to transform the hierarchies embedded in the Hindu
families and the caste system to put them in line with the values promoted by the Indian
constitution. When there was pressure on the government from different sections of
conservative Hindus not to amend these laws, he wrote to Nehru that the bill had for him
extraordinary importance and appealed to him to leave no stone unturned to convince the
opponents. When government under tremendous pressure from opponents decided to tone
down the bill and remove some significant clauses, he dared to resign on the women’s
question as the Law Minister of Nehru Cabinet. He conceived the Bill as a historic
opportunity to address the women’s question.

12. POONA PACT

● Dr Ambedkar was in favour of a separate electorate for the Depressed Classes and this
was laid down by him in the First Round Table Conference. He was representing the
Depressed Classes in the conference.
● Gandhi was against this idea and when PM Macdonald decided to grant communal
awards to minorities and the Depressed Classes, he undertook a fast whilst in jail in
Poona.
● Due to public pressure to end the fast unto death, Dr Ambedkar and Gandhi made the
Poona Pact which laid down reserved seats for the Depressed Classes in the provincial
legislatures for which elections would be through joint electorates.
● Gandhi was against this idea because he did not want to view the untouchables as being
outside the folds of Hinduism.
● Certain seats for the provincial legislatures would be reserved for the Depressed
Classes. The number of seats was based on the total strength of the Provincial Councils.
The number of seats reserved for the provinces was 30 for Madras, 8 for Punjab, 14 for
Bombay with Sindh, 20 for the Central Provinces, 18 for Bihar and Orissa, 30 for Bengal,
7 for Assam and 20 for the United Provinces. So, in total, there were 147 reserved seats.
● For each of these seats, the members of the Depressed Classes who could vote would
form an electoral college. This Electoral College would elect a panel of four candidates
who belong to the Depressed Classes. These candidates would be elected on the basis
of a single vote. Four candidates getting the highest number of votes would be elected.
● Then these four candidates would stand in the election for the assembly along with the
general candidates where the general electorate would vote. The members of the
Depressed Classes hence got a ‘double vote’ since they could vote under the general
electorate also.
● Even in the Central Legislature, the same principle of the joint electorate and reserved
seats was to be followed.
● In the Central Legislature, 19% of the seats would be reserved for the Depressed
Classes.
● This system would continue for ten years unless a mutual agreement consents to
terminate it earlier.
● Fair representation of the Depressed Classes would be ensured by all means.
● Nobody would be discriminated against on the basis of caste on matters regarding
election to the local bodies or in public services appointments.
● A certain sum of money from the educational grant would be allotted for the education of
the Depressed Classes in all provinces.

13. NATION AND NATIONALISM

Using the essay of French nationalist Earnest Renan, “What is a Nation?” Ambedkar argued
that nation is a specific form of ‘consciousness of kind’, ‘social endosmosis’, ‘social
amalgamation’- an ideal society suffused with the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Nationalism is defined as aspiration to have a separate and self-determined political fraternity.
On the question of Pakistan and later during reorganization of states, Ambedkar realized and
pointed out time and again the advantages of cultural/linguistic homogeneity for the smooth
functioning of democracy. In 1940, after the demand for Pakistan was pushed by Muslim
league, he wrote “Pakistan or the Partition of India”. He felt that the appeal for Pakistan was
due to failure of congress for social reforms and democratize society. He argued that once an
identity became a political force then consequences of its formation have to be faced. He
questioned the leadership of nationalist movement in India based on various issues like their
elite nature and their non commitment on the issues related to minorities and marginalized
classes. Ambedkar argued that political unity is not sufficient for a nation, it is social unity
that is crucial. Also Democracy and its values like liberty, equality and fraternity are equally
central for nation- both procedural and substantive. For Ambedkar nationalism was a strong
emotional feeling and it was not possible to remove it. However, he equally opined that in
absence of integration, inclusiveness and respect for human rights true nationalism could not
be evolved. He did not believe in aggressive form of nationalism as he considered it irrational
and it could give rise to intolerance among people. At the same time, he was convinced that
any nationalism based on religion could not promote the ideals of democracy. Therefore, for
him Indian nationalism ought to be based on social endosmosis where citizens of all sections
get due recognition and respect.