Dr. Ambedkar's inner journey cannot be understood without reading his trilogy- 1. The Buddha and His Dhamma, 2. Buddha and Karl Marx and 3. Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India.
Notably, Siddhartha studied under Alara Kalam and Uddaka Ramputta before he took Parivraja (total giving up) at the age of 29. He attained enlightenment at the age of 35. Mahatma Buddha was born 180 years before Asoka's coronation and died 100 years before the coronation, a lifespan of about 80 years. He lived in eastern India sometime between the mid-6th and the mid-4th centuries before the Common Era. His 45-year journey began after enlightenment. He preached Madhyama Marga (Majjhima Patipada), the Path of Purity, Pratityasamutpada (Interdependent Co-Arising, cause and effect co-arise), the Four Noble Truths, Ashtanga Marga and the Path of Virtue.
In the first book, Dr. Ambedkar has admitted that he borrows from the language of
first-second century Buddhist philosopher and Sanskrit poet
Ashvaghosha's epic poem Buddhacharita which had 28 cantos.
He underlines why "Right Outlook" comes first in the Noble Eight-fold Path, followed by right aim, right speech, right action, right mode of livelihood, right efforts, right mindfulness and right concentration.
Why Right Views Rank First
1. Of the noble Eightfold path the noblest is Right Outlook.
2. Right thinking is the preface and the key to every thing else in the higher life, and ignorance.
3. The lack of understanding is the root of all evil.
4. For developing right outlook one must see all phenomena of life as a process of causal law. To have right outlook is to recognise the law of cause and effect.
5. " Whatsoever individual, brethren, follows perverted views, perverted aim, perverted speech or acts or living, perverted effort, attention, and contemplation : whose knowledge and emancipation are perverted, for him every action of deed, word or thought, performed and achieved according to such perverted views ; every willed act, every aspiration, every resolve, all his activities, these things one and all conduce to what is distasteful, unpleasing, repulsive, unprofitable, and painful. And why so ? Because of his evil view."
6. To be right is not enough. A baby may be right but that does not mean that a baby knows what is right. To be right one must know what is right.
In Buddha and Karl Marx, Dr. Ambedkar asserted that "Buddha established Communism so far as the Sangh was concerned without dictatorship. It may be that it was a communism on a very small scale but it was communism...The Buddha's method was different. His method was to change the mind of man: to alter his disposition: so that whatever man does, he does it voluntarily without the use of force or compulsion. His main means to alter the disposition of men was his Dhamma and the constant preaching of his Dhamma. The Buddhas way was not to force people to do what they did not like to do although it was good for them. His way was to alter the disposition of men so that they would do voluntarily what they would not otherwise to do." He added, "Equality will be of no value without fraternity or liberty. It seems that the three can coexist only if one follows the way of the Buddha. Communism can give one but not all."
In his incomplete text entitled Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India, Dr. Ambedkar wrote: "Buddhism was a revolution. It was as great a Revolution as the French Revolution. Though it began as a Religious revolution, it became more than Religious revolution. It became a Social and Political Revolution. To be able to realise how profound was the character of this Revolution, it is necessary to know the state of the society before the revolution began its course. To use the language of the French Revolution, it is necessary to have a picture of the ancient regime in India." The text being incomplete its conclusions can only be deemed tentative.
Dr. Ambedkar was India's first law minister and was the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution of the Republic of India. He had presented the final draft of the Indian Constitution to Dr. Rajendra Prasad, President of the Constituent Assembly, on November 25, 1949. After embracing Buddhism along with 3,65,000 of his followers on October 14, 1956, he died at the age of 65 on December 6, 1956.
Admittedly, Dr. Ambedkar often drew from the language of other thinkers to express his own views on different subjects. He used British constitutional theorist A.V. Dicey's ideas. Dicey argued against a popular view that the British Parliament enjoyed unlimited powers. He cited another British thinker, Leslie Stephen to observe that Parliament could not conceivably pass a law enforcing the murder of all blue-eyed babies. Dr. Ambedkar used the example literally to make another argument: Group interests, which are not entirely constituted under the Marxist frame of class interest, restrict the scope for actions toward the common good. As an antidote to that situation, Dr. Ambedkar advocated assured representation to disadvantaged groups in legislatures and public services. Representation of opinions and preferences alone is not an adequate measure for democracy. It requires personal representation as well. The latter involves ‘representation of opinions as well as representation of persons.’ A government for the people, but not by the people, is sure to educate some into masters and others into subjects; because it is by reflex effects of association that one can feel and measure the growth of personality.’
Dr. Ambedkar felt that there are some constituencies, such as untouchables, who can be represented only by the untouchables themselves. Because others cannot understand their situation of dehumanisation, subjugation, denial of respect which one person owes to another as a human being and the denial of rights of citizenship that ensues therefrom. The representative should not merely hail from such a constituency but should be able to effectively highlight its concerns, monitor them across contending interests and pursue their implementation.
Dr. Ambedkar's constitutional ideas
Dr. Ambedkar was aware of the gap between the lofty principles of the Constitution and the reality of social and political life in post-independence India. He was deeply concerned that without meaningful social and economic reforms, the constitutional promises of equality and justice would remain unfulfilled. He understood the limitations of constitutional law in addressing deeply ingrained social inequalities.
Dr. Ambedkar developed his ideas about constitutionalism in legal-social terms. He was a constitutional expert who looked at legislature, a law making body, as a product of its social conditions. Federalism divides the power in the written Constitution and is a living structure. He was a believer in the evolutionary theory of the Constitution. For him, the Constitution was an organic whole which must adapt to the needs of the time. The amendment procedure in the Indian Constitution is testimony to it where several Articles are amended but are not deemed to be the amendment.
He was opposed to the bureaucratic control of the politically organised society. He enunciated the principle of democratic control of the bureaucracy which is a practice in the representative democracy. Democracy is the edifice on which constitutionalism survives. If in any socio-political life the democratic system is lacking or deficient then constitutionalism cannot live. He called the British Government a bureaucratic government. He proclaimed that Swaraj with its indigenous Constitution is the prerequisite to good governance and good life. In this respect his warning to the British Government is relevant. "We feel that nobody can remove our grievances as well as we can, and we cannot remove them unless we get political power in our own hands. No share of this political power can evidently come to us so long as the British Government remains as it is. It is only in a Swaraj Constitution that we stand any chance of getting the political power into our own hands, without which we cannot bring salvation to our people. No Constitution will be workable which is not acceptable to the the people. Let the consent of the people be the touchstone of your new Constitution. He conceptualised constitutional order impregnated with constitutional morality as the edifice of good life for the people of India. He was instrumental in its elaboration and establishment in the country. Speaking in the Constituent Assembly he summed up the true soul of the Constitution, when he said: "By parliamentary democracy we mean a 'one man, one vote’. We also mean that every Government shall be on the anvil, both in its daily affairs and also at the end of a certain period when the voters and the electorate will be given an opportunity to assess the work done by the Government. The reason why we have established in this Constitution a political democracy is because we do not want to install by any means whatsoever a perpetual dictatorship of any particular body of people.’ He said in the Constituent Assembly that both the words "fundamental" and "directive" are necessary and should be retained’ because they limits the powers of government as the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy can exercise sufficient limitations on the powers of any government in power.
In the constituent assembly, he said "While everybody recognizes the necessity of the diffusion of Constitutional morality for the peaceful working of a democratic Constitution, there are two things interconnected with it which are not, unfortunately, generally recognized. One is that the form of administration has a close connection with the form of the Constitution. The form of the administration must be appropriate to and in the same sense as the form of the Constitution. The other is that it is perfectly possible to pervert the Constitution, without changing its form by merely changing the form of the administration and to make it inconsistent and opposed to the spirit of the Constitution. It follows that it is only where people are saturated with Constitutional morality such as the one described by Grote the historian that one can take the risk of omitting from the Constitution details of administration and leaving it for the Legislature to prescribe them. The question is, can we presume such a diffusion of Constitutional morality? Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realize that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic."
His response to the criticism that "no part of it represents the ancient polity of India" is quite relevant. In later years, Dattopant Thengadi who founded Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad in 1992 echoed that criticism.
In his speech introducing the Draft Constitution in the Constituent Assembly on November 4, 1948, Dr. Ambedkar said, "It is said that the new Constitution should have been drafted on the ancient Hindu model of a State and that instead of incorporating Western theories the new Constitution should have been raised and built upon village Panchayats and District Panchayats. There are others who have taken a more extreme view. They do not want any Central or Provincial Governments. They just want India to contain so many village Governments. The love of the intellectual Indians for the village community is of course infinite if not pathetic. It is largely due to the fulsome praise bestowed upon it by Metcalfe who described them as little republics having nearly everything that they want within themselves, and almost independent of any foreign relations. The existence of these village communities each one forming a separate little State in itself has according to Metcalfe contributed more than any other cause to the preservation of the people of India, through all the revolutions and changes which they have suffered, and is in a high degree conducive to their happiness and to the enjoyment of a great portion of the freedom and independence. No doubt the village communities have lasted where nothing else lasts. But those who take pride in the village communities do not care to consider what little part they have played in the affairs and the destiny of the country; and why? Their part in the destiny of the country has been well described by Metcalfe himself who says:'Dynasty after dynasty tumbles down. Revolution succeeds to revolution. Hindoo, Pathan, Mogul, Maratha, Sikh, English are all masters in turn but the village communities remain the same. In times of trouble they arm and fortify themselves. A hostile army passes through the country. The village communities collect their little cattle within their walls, and let the enemy pass unprovoked.' Such is the part the village communities have played in the history of their country. Knowing this, what pride can one feel in them? That they have survived through all viscisitudes may be a fact. But mere survival has no value. The question is on what plane they have survived. Surely on a low, on a selfish level. I hold that these village republics have been the ruination of India. I am therefore surprised that those who condemn Provincialism and communalism should come forward as champions of the village. What is the village but a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism? I am glad that the Draft Constitution has discarded the village and adopted the individual as its unit."
His observations for the rights of minorities continue to be germane.
Dr. Ambedkar added: "The Draft Constitution is also criticised because of the safeguards it provides for minorities. In this, the Drafting Committee has no responsibility. It follows the decisions of the Constituent Assembly. Speaking for myself, I have no doubt that the Constituent Assembly has done wisely in providing such safeguards for minorities as it has done. In this country both the minorities and the majorities have followed a wrong path. It is wrong for the majority to deny the existence of minorities. It is equally wrong for the minorities to perpetuate themselves. A solution must be found which will serve a double purpose. It must recognize the existence of the minorities to start with. It must also be such that it will enable majorities and minorities to merge someday into one. The solution proposed by the Constituent Assembly is to be welcomed because it is a solution which serves this twofold purpose. To diehards who have developed a kind of fanaticism against minority protection I would like to say two things. One is that minorities are an explosive force which, if it erupts, can blow up the whole fabric of the State. The history of Europe bears ample and appalling testimony to this fact. The other is that the minorities in India have agreed to place their existence in the hands of the majority....It is for the majority to realize its duty not to discriminate against minorities. Whether the minorities will continue or will vanish must depend upon this habit of the majority. The moment the majority loses the habit of discriminating against the minority, the minorities can have no ground to exist. They will vanish."
His foresight in addressing issues such as caste-based discrimination, the protection of minority rights, and the need for social and economic justice continues to resonate in constitutional jurisprudence. His ideas have influenced key judicial decisions in India, particularly those related to affirmative action, the right to education, and the protection of minority rights (Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, 1992).
As part of 9-judge constitution bench, Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy wrote:"The proceedings of the Constituent Assembly on draft Article (10) disclose a persistent and strident demand from certain sections of the society for providing reservations in their favour in the matter of public employment. While speaking on the draft Article 10(3) [corresponding to Article 16(4)] Dr. Ambedkar had stated, 'then we have quite a massive opinion which insists that although theoretically it is good to have the principle that there shall be equality of opportunity, there must at the same time be a provision made for the entry of certain communities which have so far been outside the administration.' It was this demand which was mainly responsible for the incorporation of Clause (4) in Article 16."
Justice Reddy quoted Dr. Ambedkar's speech delivered on May 9, 1916 at the Columbia university of New York, U.S.A. on the subject "castes in India: their mechanism, genesis and development" (the speech was published in Indian Antiquary-May 1917-Vol.XLI), which shows that as early as 1916, "class" and "caste" were used inter-changeably. In the course of the speech, he said: "....society is always composed of classes. It may be an exaggeration to assert the theory of class-conflict, but the existence of definite classes in a society is a fact. Their basis may differ. They may be economic or intellectual or social, but an individual in a society is always a member of a class. This is a universal fact and early Hindu society could not have been an exception to this rule, and, as a matter of fact, we know it was not. If we bear this generalization in mind, our study of the genesis of caste would be very much facilitated, for we have only to determine what was the class that first made itself into a caste, for class and caste, so to say, are next door neighbours, and it is only a span that separates the two. A Caste is an Enclosed Class." A little later Dr. Ambedkar stated:"We shall be well advised to recall at the outset that the Hindu society, in common with other societies, was composed of classes and the earliest known are the (1) Brahmins or the priestly class; (2) the Kshatriya, or the military class; (3) the Vaishya, or the merchant class and (4) the Shudra or the artisan and menial class. Particular attention has to be paid to the fact that this was essentially a class system, in which individuals, when qualified, could change their class, and therefore classes did change their personnel. At some time in the history of the Hindus, the priestly class socially detached itself from the rest of the body of people and through a closed-door policy became a caste by itself. The other classes being subject to the law of social division of labour underwent differentiation, some into large, others into very minute groups."
Referring to the concept of equality of opportunity in public employment, as embodied in Article 10 of the Draft Constitution, which finally emerged as Article 16 of the Constitution, and the conflicting claims of various communities for representation in public administration, Dr. Ambedkar emphatically declared that reservation should be confined to 'a minority of seats', lest the very concept of equality should be destroyed. In view of its great importance, the full text of this speech delivered in the Constituent Assembly on the point is appended to this judgment. But I shall now read a few passages from it. Dr. Ambedkar stated:"...firstly, that there shall be equality of opportunity, secondly that there shall be reservations in favour of certain communities which have not so far had a 'poorer look- in' so to say into the administration.... Supposing, for instance, we were to concede in full the demand of those communities who have not been so far employed in the public services to the fullest extent, what would really happen is, we shall be completely destroying the first proposition upon which we are all agreed, nemely, that there shall be an equality of opportunity....Therefore the seats to be reserved, if the reservation is to be consistent with Sub-clause (1) of Article 10, must be confined to a minority of seats. It is then only that the first principle could find its place in the Constitution and effective in operation...we have to safeguard two things, namely, the principle of equality of opportunity and at the same time satisfy the demand of communities which have not had so far representation in the State...." Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. 7, pp. 701-702 (1948-49).
The relevance of his thought in shaping India’s democratic institutions and legal frameworks emerges his constitutional vision which laid the groundwork for legal protections and affirmative action policies, much work remains to be done in realizing the full promise of social justice. His ideas emerged from his engagement with Buddhist principles, Western philosophical traditions. They continue to shape India’s constitutional trajectory.
Dr. Ambedkar infused his constitutional philosophy with a strong egalitarian ethos, anchored in social justice and the need to dismantle caste-based oppression.His vision for India’s future was rooted in the recognition that the country’s social hierarchies could only be effectively challenged through the creation of a just and inclusive legal and political system.
Certain episodes in Dr. Ambedkar’s political career, such as the Mahad Satyagraha, were crucial moment which influenced his constitutional and philosophical thought. His struggle for the basic right to access public water sources became symbolic of a broader assertion of equality and human dignity. Mahad Satyagraha was both an act of resistance against oppressive social structures and as a formative moment in Dr. Ambedkar’s evolving ideas on constitutionalism and social justice. His acts of civil disobedience informed his later work on the Indian Constitution.
His engagement with constitutionalism, represents both a continuation of and a radical departure from prior constitutional discussions. His ideas on popular government and citizenship, which form the crux of his democratic vision.
For Ambedkar, democracy was never a matter of mere procedural formalities, such as elections and majority rule, but was fundamentally concerned with the material realization of social and economic justice. Democracy had to be substantive—concerned not only with the protection of individual political rights but also with the redistribution of resources and opportunities in ways that would enable marginalized communities to participate fully and equally in the political process. Ambedkar’s insistence on the link between political democracy and economic justice was instrumental to his broader constitutional vision.
He rejected the notion that democracy should be limited to the understanding of numerical majorities and electoral outcomes.
Instead, his conception of democracy was rooted in the recognition that India’s deeply hierarchical social structure necessitated constitutional mechanisms that would protect the rights of minority groups, particularly Dalits and other oppressed castes. He sought to create a constitutional framework that would transcend the formal legal equality of citizenship and instead actively protect the rights of marginalized communities through institutional safeguards.
Dr. Ambedkar's insightful observations
1. "The roots of democracy lie not in the form of Government, Parliamentary or otherwise. A democracy is more than a form of Government. It is primarily a mode of associated living. The roots of Democracy are to be searched in the social relationship, in terms of associated life between the people who form a society.”
[Prospects of Democracy in India, 1956]
2. Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.
[Excerpted from Dr. Ambedkar's speech in the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949]
3. “It is true that in our legislation there is a rule that all questions shall be decided by a majority. But I could ask you to be very careful about that principle. It is one of the most dangerous principles that we have got. The majority rule has been admitted merely for reasons of convenience [emphasis added]. But for God’s sake, do not ride that principle too much. You will create great deal of difficulties. In a certain sense, the rule of majority is the wrong rule.”
[Dr. Ambedkar's address at Siddharth College on 25 September 1947]
4. “Unfortunately, for the minorities in India, Indian nationalism has developed a new doctrine which may be called the divine right of the majority to rule the minorities to the wishes of the majority. Any claim for the sharing of power by the minority is called communalism while the monopolizing of the whole power by the majority is called nationalism.” - Dr. B.R Ambedkar.
[Taken from Dr. Ambedkar and Democracy: An Anthology (2018) by Prof. Christophe Jaffrelot and Dr Narender Kumar Publisher: Oxford University Press.( Page number 172).]
5. “As regards other Political Parties, the Scheduled Caste Federation’s attitude can be easily defined. The Scheduled Caste Federation will not have any alliance with any reactionary Party such as Hindu Mahasabha or the RSS.”
[Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 17, Part One, edited by Prof Hari Narke, Govt of Maharashtra, Mumbai, 2003, pp. 402]
6. “Democracy is a form and method of government whereby revolutionary changes in the economic and the social life of the people are brought without a bloodshed”
[Taken from — Dr. Ambedkar and Democracy: An Anthology (2018) by Prof. Christophe Jaffrelot and Dr Narender Kumar Publisher: Oxford University Press.( Page number 219).]
7. “Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realise that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil which is essentially undemocratic.”
[Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste]
8. “I do not want that our loyalty as Indians should be in the slightest way affected by any competitive loyalty whether that loyalty arises out of our religion, out of our culture or out of our language. I want all people to be Indians first, Indian last and nothing else but Indians.”
[Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Writings And Speeches: A Ready Reference Manual]
9. “It is not enough to be electors only. It is necessary to be law-makers; otherwise those who can be law-makers will be the masters of those who can only be electors.”
[Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Writings And Speeches: A Ready Reference Manual]
10. “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 in Annihilation of Caste]
Had Dr. Ambedkar been around, he would have said: Supreme Court, High Courts, Executive and Legislature are creatures of the Constitution and they are legitimate only as long as work to fulfill the promises made in the preamble of the Constitution and exist under the guiding light of its basic structure.
Dr. Ambedkar said citizens “must hold fast to constitutional methods” to achieve their social and economic objectives, if they wished to maintain democracy “not merely in form, but also in fact”. This message is quite relevant in the face of capture of the constitutional institutions by mobs.
----
Dr. Gopal Krishna
The author’s doctoral thesis is on corporate crimes and the accountability of public institutions. He is a lawyer and a researcher of philosophy and law. His current work is focused on philosophy of digital totalitarianism and monetisation of nature. He has appeared before Supreme Court’s Committees, Parliamentary Committees of Europe, Germany and India and UN agencies on the subject of national and international legislation. He is an ex-Fellow, Berlin based International Research Group on Authoritarianism and Counter Strategies (IRGAC).
