POLITICAL VIEW:
During her long and chequered history, India has produced many social and political thinkers and philosophers.
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. Dr. Ambedkar was a rare and
curious combination of a scholar, thinker, writer, leader, legal luminary, constitutional expert and champion of the
downtrodden.
Dr. Ambedkar, however, was able to make a strong impact on the making of the Constitution after he was
appointed president of the “Drafting Committee”. In addition, he was one of the few members of the Constituent
Assembly who belonged, besides the Drafting Committee, at the same time, to more than one of the 15
Committees including the Minorities Committee where safeguards for the Dalits were discussed.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was a multifaceted personality whose contributions to modern India were profound. He
viewed Indian social and political history as a narrative that celebrated the upper castes while marginalizing the
lower castes and underprivileged sections. Unlike traditional philosophers, Ambedkar didn’t pursue theory for its
own sake; rather, as a researcher and thinker, he focused on understanding the relationship between individuals
and society. His work embodies the qualities of both a thinker and a philosopher.
Ambedkar’s Political Philosophy
However, Dr. Ambedkar's political philosophy was not purely speculative and idealistic. Though not a philosopher
in the conventional sense like Plato or Aristotle, he developed 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 internationalism. According to him, it must be essentially related to real human
problems and issues, because social environment and political philosophy are complimentary.
Dr. Ambedkar's View of state and government
Dr. Ambedkar makes a distinction between State and Society. He does not hold the anarchic view of the state. He
considers the state as an essential organisation in a democratic way of life, especially when the society is in the
grip of disorder and lawlessness. 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 government is as essential for the stability of
government as the unity of political parties on the fundamentals of the State.
• Dr. Ambedkar did not see the State as a self-sufficient or isolated entity; he related it to other social
organizations.
• He disagreed with the organic view of the State (held by thinkers like Hegel, Green, and Rousseau),
instead viewing the State as a human institution meant to serve people and society, acting as a servant,
not a master.
• Dr. Ambedkar supported a parliamentary form of government, which is democratic and based on the
people’s will, rejecting hereditary rule like in a monarchy.
• He believed that a parliamentary government promotes self-government, representing the people's
choice and authority.
• He argued that self-government does not always result in good government, stressing the need for
careful planning before granting power to ensure effective governance.
• As a realist, Dr. Ambedkar supported a federal view for the State, though he favored a Unitary form. He
believed a Federal structure would better suit India’s needs.
Views on natural rights and law
Dr. Ambedkar is rightly hailed as the greatest champion of human rights of the twentieth century. His theory of
rights assumes that every 'individual has certain inalienable rights'. They are 'natural' and 'inherent'. From a
humanistic point of view, he is opposed to any form of discrimination and exploitation based on caste, sex, race,
creed, place of birth etc. To him, the right to life, liberty and property are the natural and inherent rights of
individuals. Dr. Ambedkar was painfully aware of the lack of constitutional morality among Indians. He stressed
that this aspect impressed the need to develop such a spirit so that the rights of the people guaranteed through
the Constitution are safe and meaningful. He provided 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.
Dr. Ambedkar enunciates the principle of 'rule of law' in the fullest sense of the term. So Law is also an obligation
which depends upon the social and moral conscience of the people. le. He was of the firm view that where there
are constitutional means available, people have no right to resort to violence and unconstitutional methods such
as the Satyagraha, Bandh, Dharna etc. problem. Instead, as a true Buddhist he advocates the path of peace and
non-violence and increasing recourse to law and constitution. He had absolute faith in the efficacy of law to
preserve society.
Dr. Ambedkar and Democracy
• Dr. Ambedkar was a strong advocate for democracy, viewing it as essential for achieving justice and equality.
• Defined democracy as a government method enabling social and economic change without violence, as
stated in a 1952 speech in Poona.
• Envisioned a society without oppressor or oppressed classes, emphasizing equality before the law and a
moral societal order.
• Advocated for democracy across social, economic, and political spheres, recognizing that political
democracy alone is insufficient.
• Saw social and economic democracy as integral to political democracy, describing them as the "tissue and
fibre" of a complete democratic system.
• Championed 'one man, one vote, one value' as foundational to democracy, advocating for equal distribution
of political, economic, and social power.
• Believed political power enables marginalized communities to influence policy, vital for social progress.
• ,Preferred state socialism over capitalism or communism to achieve economic equality and prosperity
within a democratic framework.
ECONOMIC VIEW
Having thrown a cursory glance at some of the available literature on Ambedkar’s thoughts on economics, it may
be stated that he explicitly expressed his ideas on the concept of economic development, the role of the state in
the process of development of the economy and ensuring socio-economic justice and his views on agriculture,
industry and services. At the outset, it may be stated that Dr. Ambedkar supported the concept of State
Socialism. He suggested that the key and basic industries of India should be owned and controlled by the state.
On the contrary, the basic but non-key industries should be owned by the state and run by the state or by
corporations established by it. This will help in rapid industrialization and at the same time, benefits of
industrialization will be distributed among all the sections of the society by the state. Industrialisation was
necessary according to Dr. Ambedkar to move surplus labour from the agricultural sector to the industrial sector.
Land reform measures
Improvement in the agriculture sector should be undertaken through land reforms and cooperative societies:
Basically, agriculture should be treated as a state industry according to him. The state should initiate collective
farming. Farmers will be allowed to enjoy part of the agricultural produce, and the state will get some share in the
form of levy. Food grains procured by way of levy will be used for distribution at fair prices. In other words, the
state should actively control both the industry and the agriculture. This would ensure equitable distribution of
wealth and protect the needy and the poor.
During the colonial rule and even after the attainment of Independence, Dr. Ambedkar had very keenly observed
the plight of the agricultural sector in India and the Indian cultivators. Intervening in a discussion in the Bombay
Legislative Council on October 10, 1927, he argued that the solution to the agrarian problem in India lies not in
increasing the size of farms, but in having intensive cultivation that is employing more labour. Dr. Ambedkar
understood economic development as a process to remove poverty, inequality, exploitation and servitude and
the state has an important role to play in it.
Nationalisation of insurance
Dr. Ambedkar recognized the importance of insurance in providing the state with the resources necessary for
financing its economic planning, in the absence of which it would have to resort to borrowing from the money
market at high rates of interest and proposed the nationalization of insurance. He categorically stated that state
socialism is essential for the rapid industrialization of India. Removal of poverty and inequality was neither the
priority nor was possible through Private enterprises because private enterprises are guided by the maximization
of the private profit. On the contrary, it would produce those inequalities of wealth which private capitalism had
produced in Europe.
Currency system
Ambedkar was, however, an advocate for private property rights, the gold standard, free banking or multiple
competing currencies, and decentralized planning. He was a champion of individual liberty and freedom. He was
a vehement critic of John Maynard Keynes, and his views were much more in consonance with the great architect
of libertarian economic thought, Friedrich Hayek. It’s worthwhile to note that Ambedkar wrote these ideas
decades before. He wrote that closing of the Mints would prevent inflation and disturbances in the internal price
level. He advocated that the standard of value should be gold and the elasticity of currency should come from
this source. He advocated further that the smaller industries should be left to be operated and controlled by
the private sector.
Mechanism of labour disputes
To control capitalism, Ambedkar supported Trade Union Movements and their strikes in India. He advocated for
‘Labour Participation in the Management’ of industries. He gave priority to joint councils, employment exchange
and the facility of earned leave for permanent workers, welfare activities, conciliation, trade disputes, etc.
According to him, industrial peace would prevail if these were based on social justice. He proposed for 5% to 6%
reservation for SCs in central government. He helped the untouchable students willing to take technical
education in foreign countries.
Taxation policy
In his ‘Swatantra Majadur Party’ in 1936, Ambedkar expressed his ideas on taxation policy. He opposed the Land
Revenue System and Land Tax System as it would be a burden on poor sections of society. He suggested the
following principles of taxation:
➢ Tax should be imposed on payers’ capacity and not on income.
➢ Tax should be less on poor’s and more on riches.
➢ Tax exemption should be given up to certain limit.
➢ There should be equality between different sections in tax imposition.
➢ Taxation should not adversely affect the standard of living of the people.
Free market economy
• Dr. Ambedkar's ideas gained new relevance with liberalization, privatization, and globalization, as India
became part of this global shift.
• He believed that the process of deregulation and reducing government control could lead to exploitation
of underprivileged classes and economic power concentrating in the hands of a few.
• Dr. Ambedkar emphasized the need for government intervention to protect people from economic
exploitation and to limit the power of wealthy capitalists and landlords.
• While he would have supported certain economic reforms to boost industrialization in India, he was
cautious of the risks of excessive state control.
• Dr. Ambedkar advocated for state management of agriculture and essential industries but warned
against creating a system of "state capitalism."
• He opposed the idea of the state owning all resources, which, in his view, would increase state power
excessively, veering away from true socialism.
• Dr. Ambedkar's views suggest that the industrialization model during early Indian planning (Nehru-
Mahalanobis) unintentionally created a form of state capitalism that benefited the wealthy class, not
true socialism.
• Beyond being a constitutional expert, social reformer, and leader, Dr. Ambedkar was also an important
economic thinker with a focus on protecting marginalized communities.
RELIGION THROUGH AMBEDKAR’S LENS
Rethinking religion by Ambedkar is an enormous subject. First, Ambedkar was intimidated by and understood the
fearless and trenchant criticism of religion. It was unique – because public figures in his time either criticized
religion as a divisive or irrational force or felt like Gandhi that every religion is true and respectful. Our modern
sensitivity to sarva dharma samabhava, which is equality between all the religions of the State and Indian laicism,
takes part in this very idea of the intrinsical goodness of all the religions. Although Ambedkar insisted that religion
was necessary to public life and inevitable, he denied strongly that all religions are good. Ambedkar (also for the
sake of alienating sympathizers like the Lahore's Jatpat Todak Mandal, who then refused to allow him to deliver
his Caste Reading) was saying that religion can be criticized and must be criticized when he diagnosed Hinduism
as a religion of inequality by sanctifying caste or by converting to Buddhism with his followers. This was not a
rejection of religion but a more just and just religion.
Stand Against Religious Identity Reduction in Modernity
Secondly, Ambedkar has been fighting against the identity reduction of religion. Modernity emerged in Europe by
opposing Religion and the State to the Church about reason. Yet modernity had not abolished or made religion
private. As pointed out by German philosopher Carl Schmitt and contemporary philosophers like Hegel, religion
continued to play its role in public life, even in the forming of the modern European State (Christianity, Europe,
Hindus, and so on). Religion, therefore, re-entered modern discourses, but in the back door. Nationalism, as in
India, therefore, also took the form of religious nationalism predominantly.
Challenging Religion and National Identity
Hence critique of religion, as it was perceived as a critique of national society in Ambedkar's day, had
become a dually difficult task. So it offended a lot of his time, even Gandhi when Ambedkar criticized
Hinduism because it also seemed to be a critique of Indian nationalism. But Ambedkar was not
dismissed.
Ambedkar openly said that nationalism excludes and persecutes many of the people of the nation –
namely the untouchables – was hardly worthy of its name. Alongside Rabindranath Tagore,
Ambedkar, who dared to criticize nationalism, was a very rare brave person at the height of the
nationalist movement in India – the risky business of any public figure. And so it is important that
Ambedkar redefined the majority and minority categories from being religious-cultural to being jurist-
constitutional when he called untouchables the 'social minority' and asked for a separate electorate in the
Depressed Classes, at the same rate as separate electorates in the Muslim classes. That, as we are aware, was
crucial in India's post-1947 history of democracy.
A Revolutionary Role
But it wasn't everything. Ambedkar argued, too that religion is truly vacuuming its real importance to reduce
religion to cultural identity. He then had to rescue religion from self-proclaimed religionists who had made religion
a mere set of cultural characteristics and practises and turn the two crucial philosophical and theological
dimensions into religion. This was the third major aspect that should be addressed in Ambedkar's rethinking of
religion. Ambedkar says in his text "Philosophy of Hinduism" that religion constitutes a human condition because
it addresses the basic issues of life, such as birth and death, nutrition and disease. The history of religion is a
history of revolutions, "The mother of philosophy is Revolution," said Ambedkar. Interestingly, the conventional
Modernity narrative did not go through Ambedkar.
This is Ambedkar's account of religion fascinatingly. Ambedkar argued that early forms of religion have no
concept of God or even of morality, through an anthropological study of "primitive" religions. Religion concerned
about the propitiating forces of nature, such as sun, rain, wind, pestilence etc. with death, sickness, birth, growth
and nourishment, scarcity and so forth. They were a-moral: they were placated, harnessed and even fought
sometimes. Society was moral as human interaction norms, but it was a separate domain from that of religion.
Religion was, in all its demands, risks and prosperity, simply about life.
From Kinship Gods to Faith-Based Belief
It was only in ancient times that the idea of God was integrated into religion, as opposed to primitive ones, and
this led to the first revolution in religious history. The concept of divine origin was non-religious. It probably
stemmed from devotion towards large and powerful men – heroes and kings – or from pure philosophical
speculation about the world's author/architect. A second major revolution followed the invention of God. The
term 'political society' – used by Ambedkar – was comprised of offspring and worshipers of a common parent-
god, and therefore competing politics had competing gods. In other words, rules of lineage and parental
relationships apply more than abstract moral rules to human interaction. Later, however, the god-human
relationship turned from kinship to that of faith and belief, when society came to be conceived as composed
exclusively of people and gods into transcendental figures outside political society.
Ambedkar's is a more complex story about change in the relationship between politics and religion rather than
the standard narrative of secularisation. It is not as though religion in modern times is irrelevant to politics. In
modernity, religious affiliation and political affiliation, instead because of changes to the nature of religion and the
nature of the relations between man and God, are no longer straightforward. In complex ways, they come
together and sometimes even compete. In public life, but with very different normative principles, religion
continues to play a role.
Buddhism as a Path to Equality
• Ambedkar emphasized that the morality a religion promotes must be judged. He argued that Hinduism’s
morality is flawed as it upholds hierarchy, inequality, and untouchability.
• According to Ambedkar, Hinduism sanctifies social hierarchy and discrimination, making it undesirable.
• Buddhism, by contrast, does not discriminate based on caste, gender, or species. It has historically
welcomed low-caste individuals and women into the sangha and criticized animal sacrifices in Vedic rituals.
• Ambedkar’s idea of religion is straightforward – it’s a religion without gods, prophets, or the concept of an
eternal soul (atman). He described this in The Buddha and His Dhamma.
• For Ambedkar, the focus of religion should be on the everyday, mortal human experience, rather than
spiritual or mystical ideas.
• Buddha is distinct because he never claimed to be a divine messenger, nor did he speak on supernatural
topics like the afterlife or the nature of the soul.
• Buddhist teachings are reflections on human suffering (dukkha) and emphasize "dependent origination"
(everything is interconnected) and "emptiness" (nothing has an essential, independent existence).
• Ambedkar advocated for a new form of Buddhism as a world religion based on these inclusive, ethical
principles.
Buddhism vs. Marxism: A Moral Perspective
Ambedkar was a trenchant critic of traditional Brahman karma – who said that in his previous life, suffering was
the result of sins. The Annihilation of Caste's quote: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar argues that society needs a "religion of
morality" because laws alone can't create true social change. While rules may keep order, real transformation
requires a moral commitment that inspires responsibility and sacrifice. He believed morality should be as
powerful as religious faith to guide society toward justice and equality. Laws have limits, but a strong moral
foundation can drive lasting change, which he saw as essential for modern society.
This is Ambedkar's last important aspect of rethinking religion, that Ambedkar posed religion as a force that
functions at national and legal limits. The biggest evidence of that is that Ambedkar wrote 'Buddha or Marx' on 2
December 1956, just four days before he died! In this essay, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar compared Buddhism and
Marxism, noting that both saw private property as the root of inequality. However, he argued that while Marxism
relied on the state, even using dictatorship and sacrificing freedom for equality, Buddhism valued democratic
principles and voluntary participation. Ambedkar believed that Buddha accepted violence in rare cases but
rejected dictatorship, as the true change had to come from within, not by force. He suggested that where the
state's power ended, religion, as a moral guide, became essential to sustain society peacefully.
SOCIAL VIEW
In the ancient Indian approach, justice was concerned with the performance of duties, not with the notion of
rights. In ancient Indian tradition, there were two approaches ‘Dandaniti’ and ‘Dharma’, which were concerned
with justice. The modern approaches to justice are broadly Liberal and Marxist approaches. The concept of social
justice emerged out of a process of evolution of social norms, order, law and morality.
Dr. 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, the other side
discarded them. The ways of keeping relations were strange. The downtrodden did not dare 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.
• Dr. B.R. Ambedkar overcame numerous challenges to attain higher education.
• After completing his studies, he entered politics to fight for the rights of the oppressed classes and against
societal inequality.
• He was a strong advocate for social equality and justice, never compromising on these values.
• Ambedkar worked tirelessly for the improvement of humanity and the transformation of society.
• He envisioned a new social order based on justice, equality, and fraternity.
• His efforts centered on the principles of justice, equality, liberty, and fraternity.
• Ambedkar is remembered as a key figure in shaping India's Constitution and as a champion of social justice.
• He dedicated his life to improving the conditions of the poor and untouchables.
• Ambedkar relied on the power of logic and reasoning to bring about change, inspired by Rousseau's
revolutionary ideas on equality and liberty.
• He emphasized economic and social equality before political equality, aiming to secure a rightful place for
the downtrodden in society.
Hence, he gave more importance to social justice than political justice; on equal opportunity with individual
liberty laid much emphasis on rooting out the differences created by the caste system of the country. Man
constituted the focal point of his philosophy and man was the chief subject and object of his study. He developed
an unfailing faith in man and demonstrated the fullest sympathy towards man in society. He declared that every
man should have an opportunity to live a dignified life. 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." He further
says "Man is what his mind makes him” He, therefore, does not accept Plato's concept of man, his classification
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.
Dr. Ambedkar rejected the Chaturvarna system by Manu, calling it irrational, unscientific, and inhuman.
He believed man should be an end in himself, not a means to an end, and that the ultimate goal of life is the
good of man and the good life, as per Aristotle.
Ambedkar envisioned a society where all parts, no matter how small, are treated with respect, as ignoring or
mistreating them leads to disharmony.
Former Chief Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar called Ambedkar the “law maker of the 20th century,” promoting
human equality and social justice.
In 1990-91, the Indian government celebrated Ambedkar’s centenary as a ‘Social Justice Year,’ launching
welfare programs for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
Programs included scholarships, free books, educational equipment, school construction, and support for
rural development.
Housing schemes like Indira Awas Yojana, drinking water supply, and self-employment assistance (e.g.,
poultry, dairy) were prioritized.
Coaching and training centers were set up to help SC/ST individuals succeed in public service.
Ambedkar’s ideas on social justice
• Ambedkar's concept of social justice promotes liberty, equality, and fraternity for all.
• He advocated for a social system based on right relationships between people in all aspects of life.
• As a rationalist and humanist, he opposed hypocrisy, injustice, and exploitation in the name of religion.
• He believed religion should be based on universal morality, reason, and principles of liberty, equality, and
fraternity.
• Ambedkar considered the caste system as the biggest evil in Hinduism, and the varna system as the root
cause of inequality and untouchability.
• He supported a social system where people's status is determined by merit and achievements, not birth.
• Under his leadership, the Indian Constitution included provisions for social, economic, and political justice,
with guaranteed rights to all citizens.
• Article 17 of the Indian Constitution abolishes untouchability.
• Ambedkar emphasized that while India gained political freedom, it still needed social and economic liberty.
Relevance of Ambedkar's concept of social justice in present scenario
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 state governments, their conditions would have remained as before—
laden with sorrow and suffering. 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 seen at present that many legal provisions have been made to give social justice to all
classes.
