Why Samvidhan architect BR Ambedkar was an original thinker, despite borrowing freely from others

Lately, there have been quite a few books on BR Ambedkar. You write in the preface to 'A Part Apart' that for a long time after Ambedkar died in December 1956, there was a lack of scholarship around him. This changed in 1990, when he won the Bharat Ratna. Since then, however, and especially in the last five to seven years, there has been a burgeoning of interest and scholarship around his life and his thought. Now, you started reading Ambedkar's writings - in Marathi and English - some 15 years ago, with no intention of ever turning it into a book till people around you convinced you otherwise. Would you like to add something to that, in terms of why you think another book on Ambedkar was necessary?

When I started writing in 2018, I wasn't aware that the other books were coming out. Somewhere around two-thirds of the way, I realized there were more books coming out. At the time I started, in English, there were really speaking only two biographies. One is the standard biography by Dhananjay Keer ('Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar: Life and Mission') which was written in the 1950s, and has been reprinted many times. And the other was a small pocket-sized book by Gail Omvedt ('Ambedkar: Towards an Enlightened India', 2008) that's actually more informative and insightful than Keer's biography. There has of course been a lot of scholarly writing on Ambedkar. While Gail Omvedt and some scholars do reference (Ambedkar's) texts in Marathi, it was quite clear that a comprehensive survey of Ambedkar's intellectual thought that include his writings in Marathi was not there.

While you have credited Dalit archivists like Vijay Surwade with providing you with some important material and photos for the book, you have also noted how a lot of Ambedkar's own writings were lost to things like fire and rain. Add to that the fact that Ambedkar's thought was not always consistent; he was rethinking some ideas throughout his life. Given all of these sources and challenges, could you talk us through how you pieced together his thought - perhaps with the example of, say, his thoughts on religion?

As far as the texts that have been lost go, that gap cannot be filled. What's gone is gone. But the thing is that when you follow his ideas all the way from his entry into public life, or even before that, when he wrote a paper on Caste in India when he was a student, if you follow his speeches and writings, there are certain ideas that come (through) and that give a coherence to his vast spread of writings—which range from 'what is the kind of ethical base that democracy should have' to something narrow, specific and technical subject like 'what were the processes followed for distribution of finance between the Central and provincial governments in colonial India', which could be useful for those who study public finance.

My job was to join the threads and build a narrative which showed that there were certain principles that he held throughout, although his stance on specific issues changed sometimes. For example, on separate electorates for the depressed classes (as the scheduled castes were known during British rule). That stance changes at least thrice.

Finally, what brings it all together is his last book which was published posthumously: 'The Buddha and His Dhamma'. The book is largely ignored... (by most people). One can see there's discomfort there definitely for people who don't consider religion to be a very important subject or who think that this is one hot potato one shouldn't touch. On the other hand, for those following the Left or Marx, of course, religion should not be taken very seriously except for its ill-influence. For liberals also, it is something discomfiting. When you look at the Right, and his (Ambedkar's) way of interpreting religion... those who (don't) follow his line of thought, they are not going to be inherently sympathetic to this.

So, it is difficult to place his ideas on Buddhism in any standard political spectrum. But that cannot be a reason to ignore the work. Considering that Ambedkar spent so much of his time on this book, I thought, if you ignore it, that is really unfair.

"The People’s Education Society, founded by Ambedkar in July 1945, established Siddharth College in Mumbai (1947) and Milind College in Aurangabad (1950). The architectural plan was made under Ambedkar’s directions. In this picture taken at Milind College on 9 July 1953, Ambedkar is with (from left) the architect Narvekar, principal M. B. Chitnis, Savita Ambedkar, S. K. Bole, Kamalakant Chitre and B. H. Varale." (Caption from 'A Part Apart' by Ashok Gopal; image from the archival collection of Vijay Surwade, courtesy of Navayana)

Well, religion was also important to Gandhi and Gandhian thought, even though Ambedkar and Gandhi didn't see eye to eye on many things. Now you also write in the book that by the early 1930s, he has this ethical conception of democracy that is based on his understanding of the Buddha's teachings. Can you expand on that? How does his idea of governance come into this?

It starts with his days in Colombia. He was not exactly a student of John Dewey in the sense that he was not a philosophy student to start with. He went there to study economics. But he took John Dewey's courses, and he was definitely influenced by John Dewey. And John Dewey had this notion that democracy is basically a form of society.

Dewey started off as a protestant. By in his middle phase, however, he had gone away from religion. Though he valued moral life, he believed that one doesn't need religion for that purpose. But for Ambedkar, it (religion) mattered for a number of reasons that I have explained in the book. One is his upbringing. Two is that in India, religion matters so much to people, whether you like it or not. Three, he wants to give a moral base to democracy.

Although he was part of building (the Constitution) of India, he feels that that by itself is not going to give you the (requisite) moral framework. And that is when he looks to Buddhism.

The way Ambedkar interprets Buddhism is not exactly our traditional understanding of Buddhism. So he is on a journey, and there are three ways we can look at it: One is (to say) of course democracy should have a moral base. Second is to say, okay, these are very much real (concerns), but Dr Ambedkar's way of looking at it is not the right way. And the third is that you look at what he is saying, and you take it from there.

Ambedkar spends so much time on this. While he is working on the political apparatus (for newly Independent India), he is also working on 'Buddha and His Dhamma'... In any case, though he promotes Buddhism, he makes it clear that Buddhism leaves everything open to examination - that is how Ambedkar read it. There is a paradox there.

"Ganpat Jadhav alias Madkebua, one of Ambedkar’s trusted aides and chief organisers of the chalval in Mumbai, at the third conference of the All-India Scheduled Castes Federation in Mumbai on 6 May 1945." (Caption from 'A Part Apart' by Ashok Gopal; image from the archival collection of Vijay Surwade, courtesy of Navayana)

You write that BR Ambedkar was largely underappreciated as an original thinker and scholar. Could you give an example of his original thinking?

No political contemporary, nobody (contemporaneous with Ambedkar), thought through democracy. What does it mean in India? What could it mean? It was taken as a given that after World War II, that once colonialism recedes, there would be two blocs in the world: the communist bloc and the democratic. And immediately after World War II, there was certainly a large number of on-paper democratic nations (some of) which quickly passed into military dictatorship.

But in any case, democracy was very much in the air, and it was taken as a given (that once India became independent, we would have democracy). But there wasn't much examination of this dichotomy that we have the idea of one man-one vote, and all people have equal value, but we have a social system that absolutely negates this. Ambedkar said we have to address this contradiction, otherwise this political system we have built will collapse. Now we know that that is not true - that the political system can survive. That even in an undemocratic society, you can have formal structures of democracy. Democracy has become more complicated than was understood in Dr Ambedkar's time.

Democracy is one of these areas, along with caste, where there is consistency in how he goes on to say that this is such an important part of Indian life that you cannot ignore it. These are two aspects where his way of thinking itself was so original in the Indian context. Also, he is a non-academic thinker. He is in public life; he is using philosophical ideas as tools. Although he's not in a great position to influence public policy, he is putting forward ideas; it's completely different from an academic thinker writing on an issue. If you look at it, which other political leader was or is doing intellectual work?

There's a line in the book that you read some 100,000 pages of Ambedkar's writings - in English and Marathi - as research?

That is a typo. It should be around 10,000 pages or so. But the main thing is that there are about 21 bound volumes, some in multiple parts, each 500-600 pages issued by the government of Maharashtra which cover his all his writings and speeches. There is some material outside these volumes, for example some of his letters. More than the reading, to form a picture of the entire material, I would say it was the rereading and the rereading and the rereading (that took time). Ambedkar didn't write an autobiography. He didn’t maintain a diary. He didn't have an assistant who noted down everything he said. So forming a picture was difficult.

Ashok Gopal's 'A Part Apart: The Life and Thought of BR Ambedkar' won the 2024 Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay NIF Book Prize. (Images courtesy Navayana)

So, the number of pages was just an entrypoint into my actual question, which is essentially around what kind of writer was Ambedkar? In the English translation one reads, he is very logical, but it is also that his sentences are short, and the writing is very straightforward. Is he like that in Marathi too? What is the experience of reading his writing like?

In Marathi, he followed two styles. There is an early style, which is uses in his first periodicals: 'Mooknayak' and 'Bahishkrut Bharat'. 'Mooknayak' had very few issues which he wrote before he went back to London to complete his studies. In 'In Bahishkrut Bharat' you see his Marathi in full flow - that follows the standard that was developed by (Bal Gangadhar) Tilak when he was writing in 'Kesari'. That is a certain style of writing Marathi that is very powerful, it has a flavour of oratory in it. It is not very easy to follow today for someone who doesn't read Marathi well.

In this early Marathi writing, he also uses the language of the street. He throws in some Sanskrit once in a while. He also throws in some Tukaram abhangs (devotional poetry). In that sense it's a dated style. Marathi editorials are not written today in that way.

However, later in the 1940s, he did write a few pieces for Janata - his third Marathi periodical –in a different style. He wrote only few pieces, where his Marathi is very simple. Here he's coming towards the style that he uses in 'Buddha and His Dhamma'.

In English, there is a range. But basically he presented his arguments like a lawyer would; which made them easy to follow but easy to question also. I would say that the ultimate character of his writing is that it is transparent; he's not wishy-washy (on any topic).

There are two things that he does in this. One is, if he finds a phrase which expresses what he wants to say, then he takes it as it is. For example, he takes passages from John Dewey, but the context in which Dewey said it was completely different. So take these expressions for his own purposes - he uses it as a shortcut, that here is a sentence that says what I want to say - and then he takes it as it is. He doesn't care about the context of the original. There are ways of looking at this, but the Dewey pragmatist way of looking at it of course is that everything we have received from the past is a resource for dealing with the challenges of the present... So, these passages are a resource.

He didn't care if in the original phrase, Edmund Burke was talking about something else. He was quite bindaas that way (laughs).

Second is that there are certain ideas he takes. Like the idea of associated living. He takes the idea, he uses the term in the original sense but then explains the idea in the Indian context. So Dewey's idea of associated living; he takes it in the Indian context - questioning that given that Indian society is so divided by caste, what is the possibility of associated living? So there is an application of ideas in the Indian context.

One last thing: Having read and re-read through so much of Ambedkar's writings, what do you think he might have thought of the ceremony around Constitution Day today?

Firstly, I am a student of history and this kind of query cannot be answered following a historical method. But just for the sake of speculation, I think he would not have been impressed. He emphasized that the working of the Constitution depends very much on Constitutional morality. That is to say that you have to understand the principles underlying all the clauses and act accordingly; you cannot take it just by the letter. In his time itself, he complained that that was not happening. That Constitutional provisions were being legally abused.

He was a Constitutionalist, so I don’t think he would have dismissed the idea of the Constitution itself. But he would have been very unhappy. We can say this from what he said. As for what we are facing, and what to do next - he would have expected us to work it out.