gcash player Dr. Ambedkar, The Architect Of Inclusive Indian Nationalism

Statue of Dr BR Ambedkar, the Father of the Indian Constitution Photo: Getty images Statue of Dr BR Ambedkar, the Father of the Indian Constitution Photo: Getty images

Today is 68th death anniversary of Boddhisattva Baba Saheb Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar. People speak of him as a Dalit icon; however, his view on nationalism is less discussed among the masses. He had said that he was an Indian first, and last.

“For I believe that the most vital need of the day is to create among the mass of the people the sense of a common nationality, the feeling not that they are Indians first and Hindus, Mohammedans or Sindhis and Kanarese afterwards, but that they are Indians first and Indians last. If that be the ideal then it follows that nothing should be done which will harden local patriotism and group consciousness,” Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Volume 17-01, page no-66).

Critique of Ethnocentric Nationalism

Ambedkar observed that the caste system is a significant source of communal and national weakness in India. He argued that it creates social hierarchies that undermine unity and hinder the development of a cohesive national identity. Ambedkar believed dismantling the caste system is essential for strengthening India's unity and promoting its potential as a democratic and inclusive nation. (Volume-17-01, page 24).

According to Ambedkar, while nationalism requires the unification of diverse groups, the caste system fosters separation and exclusion, undermining a cohesive national identity. He emphasizes that dismantling the caste system is crucial not only as a moral duty but also for achieving true national integration. (Volume -3, page – 304).

Ambedkar addresses the challenges of nation-building in India by contrasting it with the United States. He notes that historical divisions in American society hindered national unity, a challenge amplified in India by its entrenched caste system. He highlights two major consequences of the caste system: it creates social separation and fosters antagonism, impeding the development of fraternity essential for liberty and equality. Ambedkar stresses the urgent need to confront these issues, asserting that for India to achieve true nationhood, it must overcome the divisive effects of caste and promote unity among its diverse population. (Volume -13, page – 1217).

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar critiques the belief that practices like interdining or intermarriage are not sufficient for national unity. He argues that empirical evidence does not support the idea that communal dining fosters camaraderie, citing historical conflicts in Europe despite shared cultural practices. Ambedkar suggests that superficial interactions are insufficient for building lasting bonds or preventing divisions. He emphasizes that true national unity requires addressing systemic inequalities and fostering mutual respect, rather than relying on symbolic practices like interdining or intermarriage, which have a limited impact on bridging societal divides. (Volume -9, page -276).

Inclusive democracy as a pillar of nationalism

Ambedkar critiques the Indian governing class by comparing it to Japan's governing elite, emphasizing their different approaches to nationalism and reform. He argues that while the Japanese elite is willing to sacrifice privileges for national progress, the Indian ruling class exploits nationalist rhetoric to maintain its dominance. When marginalized groups demand legislative representation or public service reservations, the Indian elite raises alarms about threats to national unity, framing social justice as detrimental to national cohesion. Ambedkar highlights that, unlike their Japanese counterparts, the Indian elite clings to power and undermines legitimate demands for reform. (Volume 9, page-226).

Psychological unity is the foundational base for nationalism

Ambedkar analyzes nationalism by distinguishing it from nationality. He defines a sense of nationality alone doesn’t automatically lead to nationalism. Two key conditions for this transformation are needed: first, a collective "will to live as a nation," which serves as the driving force behind nationalism; second, a defined territorial base that acts as both the political entity and cultural home of the nation. Without this foundation, nationalism becomes unsustainable, akin to "a soul wandering in search of a body," as Ambedkar notes. His framework highlights the psychological, cultural, and territorial factors that must align for nationalism to emerge. (Volume – 8. Page – 39).

Ambedkar challenges the notion of nationhood, arguing that it extends beyond geography and cultural commonality. He defines nationality as a subjective phenomenon characterized by a "corporate sentiment of oneness" and a sense of separation from others. This national feeling, rooted in psychological experiences, is not dependent on external factors such as geography or culture. Ambedkar suggests that the fragmented consciousness in India, exacerbated by the caste system, undermines the idea of India as a unified nation. He emphasizes the need for an inclusive sense of belonging, transcending caste divisions, as essential for true nationhood. (Volume -3, page – 309).

Ambedkar critiqued the village system for fostering local patriotism over national unity

Ambedkar, in his response to the Village Panchayat Bill on October 6, 1932, in the Bombay assembly critiqued the village system's role in hindering Indian nationalism. He argued that the ancient structure fostered a parochial mindset rooted in local particularism, which obstructed the development of a broader civic consciousness and national identity. According to Ambedkar, this led to a fragmented society comprised of isolated village communities, with only a weak allegiance to a common monarch as their unifying feature. This excessive localism stifled the emergence of Indian nationalism, which should encompass a sense of territorial unity and shared identity. He emphasized the need for institutional reforms to combat these entrenched parochial tendencies and promote a cohesive national spirit that could unite diverse communities. Ambedkar critiqued the village system for fostering local patriotism over national unity, calling it fatal to the development of Indian nationalism. (vol-2, page-106).

Importance of federal government

Ambedkar emphasizes the vital role of a common central government in fostering national unity and collective identity in India. He argues that a unified governing structure is essential for cultivating a shared sense of citizenship among diverse populations. Ambedkar believes that centralized authority is crucial for building a common nation and nurturing a spirit of nationality, as it allows individuals to see themselves as part of a larger collective beyond regional and cultural divisions. A common government serves as a unifying force, facilitating inclusivity and collective identity. Without such a structure, uniting a diverse country like India would be significantly more challenging. (page -195, vol -2)

Ambedkar emphasized the importance of a Unitary form of government in fostering national unity in India, a nation marked by diversity. He recognized that a centralized government has played a vital role in nation-building but noted the contemporary challenges posed by separatist tendencies and regional parochialism. While India is transitioning towards a Federated structure with more autonomy for its local units, Ambedkar argued that a balance must be struck between local autonomy and national cohesion. He warned that regional loyalties could conflict with national interests, underscoring the need for careful management to maintain a strong and unified India amidst the complexities of a federal system. (Vol -2, page- 507, 513).

Advocacy for proportional representation and minority rights

Ambedkar, in his address at the Round Table Conference on January 2, 1931, critiques the self-perception of nationalism and patriotism in India. He acknowledges that his views might be labeled as communalism by those identifying as nationalists but insists that India's situation is unique. Ambedkar argues that many Indian patriots while recognizing systemic oppression, lack moral outrage and do not demand human rights for all citizens. He highlights a contradiction in Indian nationalism: those who profess love for the nation often disregard the social and political rights of marginalized groups. Ambedkar’s critique emphasizes that true nationalism must be inclusive and rooted in equality, justice, and human rights for everyone. (Vol -2, page- 598).

Ambedkar critiques the political doctrine in India, which he calls the "Divine Right of the Majority," that allows the majority to dominate minorities. He argues that any attempt by minorities to gain political power is labeled as "communalism," while the majority's control is seen as "nationalism." His stance illustrates the necessity of constitutional guarantees for marginalized groups in India's political landscape. (Vol-2, page- 428).

Nation First: Beyond Individual Leadership

Ambedkar asserts his role as a critic of key political figures despite facing personal attacks. He rejects idol worship, believing it hampers progress, and clarifies that his criticisms of leaders like Gandhi and Jinnah stem from a deep love for India, not hatred. For Ambedkar, true nationalism means prioritizing the nation's well-being over individual leaders. He hopes that Indians will come to value the nation more than any political figure, arguing that hero worship can contradict genuine service to the country. (Volume -1, page -209).

Ambedkar wrote one letter to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, asserting that the nation was more important than any individual. He maintained that one could be a committed nationalist without being aligned with the Indian National Congress, claiming he was a greater nationalist than any Congress leader. This highlights Ambedkar's belief that true nationalism prioritizes national unity and welfare over party affiliation. (Vol-17-2, page-249).

Indian Identity and Unity

Ambedkar emphasized the importance of a unified national identity in Indian society. He believed that people should prioritize being Indian over regional, religious, or linguistic affiliations. Ambedkar warned against actions that could deepen local patriotism or reinforce divisive identities, arguing that a cohesive nation-state required a collective Indian identity. He believed that national solidarity could only be achieved if the people recognized themselves as a unified whole with shared interests. (Volume – 17, part—1, P. No. 66).

Buddhism as Nationalism

Ambedkar in 1956, embraced Buddhism publicly in Nagpur, accompanied by over five lakh followers. He expressed joy in his conversion, feeling liberated and aligned with Buddhism's principles of liberty, equality, fraternity, and morality. Ambedkar viewed Buddhism as a way to alleviate suffering and preserve India's cultural heritage, believing it would benefit the nation and promote essential social transformation. He wanted annihilationn of caste to the upliftment of marginalized communities for the greater national cause. (page-10, vol-17-01).

He stressed the political significance of a Buddhist renaissance in safeguarding the nation's freedom and spiritual integrity. Ambedkar declared that the Buddhist renaissance had begun anew in India. He highlighted the role of Buddhism in India’s national symbolism, noting that the Ashoka Chakra, inspired by Buddhist iconography, became the emblem of the national flag. At the swearing-in of India’s first President, an idol of Lord Buddha was installed, marking a historical moment of renewed connection to Buddhism, which embodies values of justice, equality, and compassion. Dr. Ambedkar emphasized Buddhism's significance as a unifying force because of roots of the Buddhism in India only. (Volume -17-3, PAGE-402-403).

Nationalism is rooted in the equitable distribution of resources

In a lecture on September 22, 1944, in Madras, Ambedkar discussed his views on nationalism and independence. He expressed support for Swaraj but emphasized the importance of fulfilling promises of independence, education, and welfare for the nation. Ambedkar warned that if the pursuit of independence resulted in a superficial political process, it would render these goals meaningless. He cautioned against political power benefiting only the governing class, which would perpetuate injustice and disenfranchisement for marginalized groups. Ambedkar argued that true nationalism requires not just political sovereignty but also substantial social and economic changes to ensure justice and equality for all citizens, not just the elite. (VOLUME-17-3, PAGE- 318).

Constitutionalism as Nationalism

Ambedkar's dedication to nationalism and patriotism was evident in his role as a member of the Constituent Assembly, where he emphasized the importance of defending India's sovereignty. Ambedkar strongly believed in upholding democartic principles and constitutional norms. He opposed civil disobedience and unconstitutional protests, asserting that “Democracy is a form and method of Government whereby revolutionary changes in the economic and social life of the people are brought about without bloodshed.” For Ambedkar, democracy allowed for peaceful reform through dialogue and legal means. He criticized tactics like civil disobedience when constitutional avenues were available, calling them “the grammar of anarchy.” He believed that the Constitution was more than a legal document; it embodied the nation's aspirations and was a living framework for achieving liberty, equality, and fraternity. This belief illustrated his commitment to a just and inclusive India. (Volume -17-01, Page- editors.)

Relevance of Ambedkar’s Nationalism Today

Ambedkar's vision of nationalism continues to offer profound insights into contemporary challenges, such as religious intolerance and Caste discrimination. His principles of inclusive nationalism emphasize diversity and fraternity as the cornerstones of social cohesion. Ambedkar advocated for a nationalism rooted in the Constitution, which provides legal safeguards to uphold equality and fraternity. Ambedkar's inclusive democracy ensures that no section of society is left behind. Promoting equitable resource distribution to achieve true national integration. In doing so, Ambedkar’s nationalism remains a guiding light for building a cohesive and equitable society in the 21st century.

Krishna Mohan Lal is a PhD research scholar at Tata Institute of Social Sciencesgcash player, Mumbai. He tweets @Maitreya_G. Views are personal