Bhimrao Ambedkar is well-known as the architect of the Indian constitution, the document that created the world's largest democracy when it came into effect in 1950. Ambedkar is also famous, or infamous according to some religious partisans, in the Indian political context for his unflagging and often bombastic advocacy on behalf of India's so-called "untouchables." Being a Mahar, an untouchable caste in the Indian state of Maharashtra, Ambedkar knew of the struggles and the religiously underwritten violence that was foisted upon (...) these swaths of Indian society. His struggles in and against the caste system, and the Hindu religious-philosophical system that frequently enabled it, are well documented by... (shrink)

ABSTRACT This article argues that we should take the philosophical thought of Bhimrao Ambedkar, the Indian politician and advocate for “untouchable” rights, seriously as part of the pragmatist tradition. Doing so will reveal the international impact of pragmatist thought and will contribute to current concerns over how citizens should communicate and pursue advocacy in pluralistic societies. As a student of Dewey's, Ambedkar took pragmatist ideas of democracy and integrated them into his reading of Buddhism. His reconstruction of nonviolence as love (...) of one's friends and enemies leaves him open to criticisms from those favoring revolutionary means to achieve social justice. The final section considers criticisms stemming from insurrectionist ethics and argues that Ambedkar operates as an important emancipatory counter to this position. Ambedkar's pragmatism holds back from violent means, as they tend to destroy too many people and valued ends that one needs for an ideal democratic community. (shrink)

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. (shrink)