B. R. Ambedkar on Caste, Democracy, and State Action

• Author: Hari Ramesh
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00905917211069607
• Published date: 01 October 2022
• Date: 01 October 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/00905917211069607

Political Theory

2022, Vol. 50(5) 723 –753

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00905917211069607

journals.sagepub.com/home/ptx

Article

B. R. Ambedkar on

Caste, Democracy,

and State Action

Hari Ramesh1

Abstract

Recent years have seen a notable surge in scholarship on the life and thought

of B. R. Ambedkar (1891–1956). This essay contributes to this literature

by uncovering heretofore underemphasized aspects of how Ambedkar

theorized the relationships between caste oppression, democracy, and state

action. The essay demonstrates that, particularly in the period from 1936 to

1947, Ambedkar closely attended to the pathological imbrications between

caste society and representative institutions in India; that he theorized an

alternative, ambitious conception of democracy that encompassed the social

and political spheres; and that he framed the state, and Dalit presence within

the state, as a uniquely appealing instrument to transition from the former

arrangement to the latter. In addition to filling gaps in the scholarship on

Ambedkar, this interpretation offers important resources for contemporary

democratic theory—in particular by countering perspectives that remain

overly skeptical of the state’s capacity to move against social oppression in

ways that enable, rather than inhibit, collective self-government.

Keywords

Ambedkar, caste, Dalit, democracy, state

1Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT, USA

Corresponding Author:

Hari Ramesh, Wesleyan University, 318 High Street, Middletown, CT 06459-0146, USA.

Email: hramesh@wesleyan.edu

1069607PTXXXX10.1177/00905917211069607Political TheoryRamesh

research-article2022

724 Political Theory 50(5)

Introduction

Recent years have seen a notable surge in scholarship on the life and thought

of B. R. Ambedkar (1891–1956). This is an unquestionably salutary develop-

ment, as it provides resources to understand and evaluate the ways in which

Ambedkar is invoked in contemporary Indian politics and sheds light on a

number of ideas and practices in the South Asian context—mainly having to

do with Dalit history and politics—that have been previously neglected.1

Ambedkar was a complex and prolific figure with wide-ranging substantive

interests. The latest research has reflected this, with some of the most notable

studies exploring such varied topics as Ambedkar’s understanding of the rela-

tionship between practices of untouchability and the organization of physical

space (Cháirez-Garza 2014; Godsmark 2020), his theorization of the relation-

ship between Brahminism and patriarchy (Rege 2013), his fascinating adju-

dication between Buddhism and Marxism (Skaria 2015), and the philosophical

and rhetorical elements of his ultimate conversion to Buddhism (Kumar

2015; Stroud 2017).

Both alongside and, in some cases, preceding this more recent round of

scholarship have been works that focus more squarely on Ambedkar’s under-

standing of the relationship between democracy and the modern state, as well

as the place of Dalits in that relationship. Some scholars, such as Rochana

Bajpai, C. A. Bayly, and Bidyut Chakrabarty, emphasize the liberal character

of Ambedkar’s commitments (Bajpai 2012; Bayly 2012; Chakrabarty 2016).

They suggest that Ambedkar evinced an abiding concern for several ideas

central to liberalism, such as the normative importance of individual flourish-

ing, the amenability of historically accrued injustice to rational scrutiny and

correction, and the necessity of constitutional checks and balances within a

modern democratic regime. At the same time, these interpreters are careful to

note that Ambedkar was a divergent, indeed radical, liberal insofar as he

thought just as frequently in terms of “group autonomy and dignity”

(Chakrabarty 2016, 134) and offered possibilities of achieving these ends by

“[making] the state work for the underprivileged” (Bayly 2012, 305).

According, then, to this view, we can understand Ambedkar to have carved

out a position whereby political institutions could prioritize redistribution for

1. Throughout this essay I use the currently preferred term “Dalit,” except when

using direct quotations.