Ambedkar Constitutionalism and State Structure

The 1980s in Indian electoral democracy witnessed the political arrival of the dalit citizens.
Ambedkar is considered the posthumous purodha (high priest) of the dalit political assertion and arrival.
Ambedkar extensively discussed the fundamental structure of the Indian state and its Constitution, as well as the basic structure of Hindu society.

The Constituent Assembly (CA) was elected in July 1946 through an indirect election based on a restricted franchise (about 25% of Indians had voting rights).
Ambedkar entered the CA as the leader of the All India Scheduled Castes Federation, which elected two representatives (Ambedkar himself was elected from Bengal).
His eminence also stemmed from his position as an ex-member of the Governor-General’s Executive Council.
Key Committees: Ambedkar was a member of the all-important Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities and Tribal and Excluded Areas (chaired by Ballabhbhai Patel).
Ambedkar was appointed as the Chairman of the Drafting Committee. The committee’s task was to scrutinize, settle, and present drafts from preparatory committees for debate in the Assembly.
His main role was to present the draft Constitution, defend it during deliberations, and reply to the debate, which spanned over 13 months.

Ambedkar presented the draft on November 4, 1948, and replied to the debate on November 24, 1949.

The constitution preferred the parliamentary system over the executive presidency.
The President occupies the same position as the King under the English Constitution. The President is the head of state, represents the nation, but does not rule the Nation; his place is ceremonial.
The President is “generally bound by the advice of his Ministers”. He has no power to dismiss Ministers as long as they command a majority in Parliament.
A democratic executive must satisfy two requirements: stability (like the U.S. executive) and responsibility (like the British executive). The draft constitution preferred more responsibility to more stability.

Ambedkar noted that while both India and the U.S. adopted the federal form, the differences were “more fundamental and glaring than the similarities”.
Unlike the U.S., India does not maintain dual citizenships or dual constitutions for the federation and the states.
India’s federal structure is characterized by its flexibility, allowing it to become entirely unitary during times of war or national emergency.

The problems of the scheduled castes were paramount in Ambedkar’s thought.

Minority Status: He countered the view that SCs were not minorities, arguing they were the “real minority among minorities”.
He argued that the correct test for a minority was social discrimination, not just religious affiliation, and that SCs were in a worse condition than any other minority.
Demands and Constitutional Provisions: He pleaded for constitutionally entrenched rights and reservations in legislatures, executives, and civil services, proportional to their population.
He also demanded constitutional provisions for state-funded higher education for the scheduled castes.
These demands, largely incorporated into the Constitution, rely heavily upon state law and action.

Ambedkar critiqued the post-Independence reorganization process, particularly in his pamphlet Thoughts on Linguistic States (1955).

He noted that he advocated partition in 1947, believing that only through partition would Hindus be “not only be independent but free”, as a united India would have meant Hindus were “at the mercy of the Muslims,” who would have been the ruling race.
However, he lamented the divisiveness of the linguistic states, arguing that their tendency to adopt regional languages as official languages would be a “death knell to the idea of united India”.
Critique of SRCR: He called the States Reorganization Commission Report’s (SRCR) position that the vastly varying sizes of states were federally irrelevant the “most terrible error”.
He pointed out that smaller states were a safeguard to the minorities, especially since separate electorates had been removed from the post-colonial constitution.
Proposed Reorganization: He suggested the trifurcation of the old Bombay state and Uttar Pradesh, and the division of Bihar and Madhya Pradesh into two parts.
He also suggested two capitals for India, Delhi and Hyderabad, based on climatic conditions, the sentiments of the South, and defence considerations.

Ambedkar is considered a statist in both the social and political domains.
The overriding role of the state was central to his political thought, extending into the internal government structure, civil society, and the economy.
His memorandum on scheduled caste safeguards proposed collective farming under state ownership in agriculture and state socialism in the industrial sector.
He advocated incorporating socialistic measures into the constitution itself to safeguard against future changes by an anti-socialist majority in the legislature.
He also proposed reforming temple establishments by instituting recruitment of priests across caste divisions and arranging their training and appointment under positive state law.