Gandhi’s philosophy of ahimsa, meaning non-

violence or non-injury, was central to his concept of

Satyagraha, a method of non-violent resistance used to achieve
social and political change. Ahimsa, for Gandhi, extended beyond
physical harm to encompass all forms of violence, including mental
and verbal abuse. It was a creative force rooted in love and aimed at
realizing truth.
A-himsa means literally “lacking any desire to kill”. Literally
translated, ahimsa means to be without harm; to be utterly
harmless, not only to oneself and others, but to all living beings. But
its implications are far wider; it is more than not doing violence, it is
more than an attitude, it is a whole way of life.

Key aspects of Gandhi’s ahimsa:

• Non-violence in thought, word, and deed: Ahimsa wasn’t just

about physical actions but also about avoiding harmful
thoughts and words.
• Positive and negative connotations: In its negative sense, it
meant not harming others or oneself, while in a positive sense,
it meant infinite love and compassion.
• Intertwined with truth: Gandhi believed that ahimsa was the
path to truth and that it was impossible to separate the two.
• A powerful tool for social change: Gandhi used ahimsa as a
central tenet of his Satyagraha movement, which involved non-
violent protests, civil disobedience, and other forms of
resistance to challenge injustice.
• Ahimsa as a way of life: Gandhi saw ahimsa not just as a
political strategy but as a way of life, requiring self-purification,
humility, and a dedication to truth.
• Relevance today: Gandhi’s philosophy of ahimsa continues to
inspire movements for social justice and peace around the
world.
Examples of Gandhi’s application of ahimsa:
• Calling off the Non-Cooperation Movement: Gandhi called
off the movement after a violent incident at Chauri Chaura,
demonstrating his commitment to non-violence.
• Satyagraha campaigns: Gandhi used non-violent protests,
boycotts, and other forms of civil disobedience to challenge
British rule in India.
• Emphasis on constructive work: Gandhi believed that ahimsa
also involved positive actions like promoting social harmony
and economic self-reliance.

• The concept of ahimsa extends to all living beings, and

therefore, protection of environment, natural habitats and
vegetarianism are its natural derivatives. Buddhism and
Jainism impose total non-violence on their followers. In
Hinduism, it means the principle of non-injury to living beings.
Hindus, particularly in the southern parts of India, often
abstain from eating meat in accordance with the belief in not
harming animals. To one who reads the spirit of the Gita, it
teaches the secret of nonviolence, the secret of realizing self
though the physical body.
 • Ahimsa ‘nonviolence’ is the ancient Indian principle of
nonviolence which applies to actions towards all living beings.
It is a key virtue in Indian religions like Jainism, Buddhism and
Hinduism.
• Ahimsa (also spelled Ahinsa) is one of the cardinal virtues of
Jainism, where it is the first of the Pancha Mahavrata. It is also
one of the central precepts of Hinduism and is the first of the
five precepts of Buddhism.
• Ahimsa is inspired by the premise that all living beings have
the spark of the divine spiritual energy; therefore, to hurt
another being is to hurt oneself. Ahimsa is also related to the
notion that all acts of violence have karmic consequences.
• Ahimsa’s precept that humans should ‘cause no injury’ to
another living being includes one’s deeds, words, and
thoughts.

Satyagraha, meaning “holding firmly to truth,” was a

philosophy and practice of nonviolent resistance developed by
Mahatma Gandhi. It involved a commitment to truth, nonviolence,
and self-suffering to achieve social and political change. Gandhi
employed Satyagraha in India, notably during the Indian
independence movement, to challenge injustice and oppression.
Satyagraha is a philosophy of non-violent resistance developed by
Mahatma Gandhi, emphasizing truth and moral integrity in the
struggle against injustice.
The term “Satyagraha” is derived from two Sanskrit words: “Satya,”
meaning truth, and “Agraha,” meaning firmness or insistence. Thus,
Satyagraha translates to “insistence on truth”. This concept
emphasizes the moral and ethical dimensions of resistance,
advocating that one must confront injustice with the truth while
remaining steadfast and non-violent. Satyagraha is not merely a
strategy; it embodies a philosophy that encourages individuals to
uphold justice and righteousness even in the face of oppression.
Key aspects of Satyagraha:
• Truth (Satya): At the core of Satyagraha is the pursuit of truth
and the refusal to accept falsehoods or injustice.
• Nonviolence (Ahimsa): Satyagrahis commit to non-violent
resistance, believing that physical force is not the way to
achieve lasting change.
• Self-Suffering: A key element is the willingness to endure
suffering and hardship to demonstrate the truth and awaken
the conscience of the opponent.
• Civil Disobedience: This involves deliberately breaking unjust
laws in a non-violent way, often leading to arrest and
imprisonment.

Examples of Satyagraha in action:

• Champaran Satyagraha (1917): Gandhi’s first Satyagraha

movement in India, protesting against forced indigo cultivation
by British landlords. Gandhi organized a successful campaign,
 leading to the abolition of oppressive practices and earning the
rights of farmers.
• Kheda Satyagraha (1918): A movement for the remission of
land revenue in the Kheda district of Gujarat.
• Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-1922): A mass movement
advocating for the boycott of British goods, schools, and
government institutions.
• Salt Satyagraha (1930): The famous Salt March to Dandi,
protesting the British salt tax. In a bold act of civil
disobedience, Gandhi led a 240-mile march from Sabarmati
Ashram to Dandi, where he and his followers produced salt in
defiance of British salt laws.
• Quit India Movement (1942): A mass movement demanding
an end to British rule in India.
Impact of Satyagraha:
• Inspiration for civil rights movements: Gandhi’s philosophy
of Satyagraha inspired movements for civil rights and social
justice around the world.
• Achieving political and social change: Satyagraha was a
powerful tool in the fight against British rule in India and
contributed significantly to the country’s independence.
• Global influence: Gandhi’s Satyagraha continues to be
studied and applied in movements for social and political
change globally.
The term “Satyagraha,” embodies the idea of unwavering
commitment to truth in the face of adversity. It is a powerful
philosophy of non-violent resistance that emerged from Mahatma
Gandhi’s experiences in South Africa during the early 20th century.
Gandhi formulated this concept to combat the injustice and
oppression faced by the Indian community.
Central to this philosophy are principles of non-violence, integrity,
and the courage to confront injustice without hatred. Through
significant movements like the Champaran and Salt Satyagraha,
Gandhi harnessed Satyagraha as a method to mobilize mass
protests against colonial oppression.

Gandhi’s vision of political power and the economy

was deeply intertwined with his philosophy of nonviolence and self-
reliance. He advocated for a decentralized, village-based system
where political power resided with the people, and economic
activity was focused on local production and consumption.
Political Power:
• Gandhi envisioned a society with minimal state intervention,
ideally an “ordered anarchy” where individuals and
communities govern themselves through consensus and
cooperation.
• He was critical of centralized power structures, believing they
could easily be corrupted and lead to oppression.
• His concept of Swaraj (self-rule) extended beyond political
independence to include individual and collective self-reliance
and autonomy.
• He believed that true political power resided in the strength
and unity of the people, rather than in formal institutions.
1) Gandhi viewed political power as a tool to serve the people
and promote their well-being, not as an end in itself. He
believed in a decentralized, participatory democracy where
individuals and communities had the power to govern
themselves. For Gandhi, true power resided in the ability to
influence hearts and minds through truth and nonviolence,
rather than through coercion or force.
2) Gandhi’s concept of political power diverged significantly from
traditional views. He believed that true political power
stemmed from the people and their collective will, rather than
from the state or its institutions. He emphasized nonviolent
resistance (Satyagraha) as a means to challenge unjust laws
and policies, believing it to be a more potent form of power
than physical force. Gandhi also stressed the importance of
moral and ethical conduct in political action, advocating for
Swaraj (self-rule) achieved through self-discipline and social
reform.
• Power from the People: Gandhi rejected the idea that political
power originates from the state or government. He believed
that legitimate power comes from the consent and
participation of the governed.
• Satyagraha (Nonviolent Resistance): Gandhi’s most
significant contribution to political thought was the concept of
Satyagraha. It’s not just passive resistance, but a proactive
form of resistance based on truth (satya) and non-violence
(agraha). It involves actively opposing injustice through
peaceful means, such as civil disobedience and non-
cooperation.
• Moral and Ethical Conduct: Gandhi believed that political
action should be guided by ethical principles. He emphasized
truthfulness, non-violence, and self-control as essential
components of political leadership.
• Power as Service: Gandhi believed that those in positions of
power should be servants of the people, working for their
welfare and upliftment.
• Decentralization: He advocated for a system where power is
distributed among villages and communities, rather than
concentrated in a central authority.
• Participatory Democracy: Gandhi envisioned a system where
every individual has a voice and can actively participate in
decision-making processes.
• Nonviolent Resistance: He believed that true power lies in the
ability to resist injustice through nonviolent means, such as
civil disobedience.
• Influence Through Truth: Gandhi emphasized the importance
of truth (Satyagraha) and persuasion in achieving political
goals.
• Individual Responsibility: He believed that individuals have a
responsibility to act ethically and morally, and this ethical
conduct is essential for a just and peaceful society.
• Swaraj (Self-Rule): Gandhi envisioned Swaraj not just as
political independence from foreign rule, but as self-rule at the
individual and societal level. This involved self-discipline,
social reform, and economic self-sufficiency.
• Rejection of Coercion: Gandhi explicitly rejected the use of
force or coercion as a legitimate means of achieving political
 goals. He believed that true change comes from within
individuals and societies, not through imposition.
• Emphasis on Constructive Program: Gandhi’s political
approach included a constructive program focused on social
reforms like promoting Hindu-Muslim unity, abolishing
untouchability, and developing village industries.

Economy:
Gandhi’s economic thought centered on a village-based,
decentralized economy prioritizing self-sufficiency, social justice,
and human welfare over material wealth accumulation. He
advocated for a system where production meets basic needs,
emphasizes rural development, and promotes cooperation and
equity. He also believed in the principle of trusteeship, where the
wealthy act as custodians of their wealth for the benefit of society.

• Gandhi promoted a self-sufficient, village-based economy

focused on meeting basic needs through local production and
consumption.
• He advocated for the revival of traditional crafts and industries
like hand-spinning and weaving (Khadi) as a means of
economic empowerment for rural communities.
• He opposed large-scale industrialization, arguing that it would
lead to exploitation and inequality.
• Gandhi’s economic philosophy emphasized trusteeship, where
those with wealth and resources were expected to act as
custodians for the benefit of society.
 Key Ideas:
• Decentralization: Reducing reliance on centralized authority
and promoting local autonomy. Gandhi favoured a
decentralized, village-based economy with local production
and consumption. He believed that large-scale
industrialization, while not entirely rejected, should not come
at the expense of rural livelihoods and self-sufficiency.
• Self-Sufficiency: Focusing on local production and
consumption to reduce dependence on external markets. He
emphasized the importance of self-reliance at the individual,
village, and national levels, particularly in essential needs like
food and clothing.
• Non-Violence: Emphasizing peaceful and cooperative means
of social and economic development. Gandhi’s economic
vision was rooted in non-violence, extending to production
methods and consumption patterns.
• Trusteeship: Encouraging those with wealth and resources to
act as custodians for the benefit of society. This concept
suggests that individuals with wealth should act as trustees for
the benefit of society, managing resources for the common
good.
• Human Welfare: Gandhi placed human well-being at the
center of economic activity, emphasizing the development of
human faculties and spiritual goals.
 Specific Ideas:
• Village Republics: Gandhi envisioned India’s economic
structure as a federation of self-governing village republics,
each capable of meeting its basic needs.
• Small-Scale Industries: He supported cottage and small-
scale industries as a means to empower villagers and provide
employment.
• Limited Industrialization: While not completely opposed to
industrialization, Gandhi believed it should be carefully
managed to avoid exploitation and environmental damage.
• “Bread Labour”: He stressed the importance of individuals
earning their livelihood through physical labour, connecting
work with basic needs.
• “Swadeshi”: Gandhi’s concept of “Swadeshi” (self-reliance)
extended to promoting local products and industries.
Contrast with Modern Economics:
• Free Market: Gandhian economics contrasts with the free
market model, which can lead to inequalities and prioritize
profit over social well-being.
• Capitalism: Gandhi’s approach differs from pure capitalism,
which may lead to exploitation and environmental degradation.
• Consumerism: He opposed excessive consumerism and
luxurious living, advocating for simple living and reduced
wants.
“Annihilation of Caste,” is a seminal work written by Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar, is a powerful critique of the Hindu caste system,
arguing for its complete abolition(dismantling) to achieve social
justice and equality ultimately a casteless society. Originally a
speech intended for a 1936 Jat-Pat Todak Mandal conference, it was
never delivered due to disagreements with the organizers about its
radical stance. Ambedkar published it himself, becoming a seminal
work advocating for a casteless society.
The core argument of "Annihilation of Caste" is that the caste
system is not merely a division of labour, but a hierarchical system
that perpetuates social and economic inequality, and denies basic
human rights to lower castes. Ambedkar critiques Hindu
scriptures and practices, arguing they are the foundation of the
caste system and must be dismantled to achieve true social
reform. He proposes that inter-caste dining and marriage are not
enough, and that the religious underpinnings of caste must be
addressed.
Annihilation of Caste is an undelivered speech written by B. R.
Ambedkar in 1936. The speech was intended to be delivered at an
anti-caste convention held in Lahore by Hindu reformers. However,
upon reviewing the written speech, the conference organizers
deemed it too controversial, and subsequently revoked Ambedkar’s
invitation to the conference. Ambedkar proceeded to self-publish
the speech, which gained widespread popularity and prompted
translations into multiple Indian languages. Since then this speech
has been viewed as a manifesto for the abolition of caste system
and for social emancipation.
 Key Themes and Arguments:
• Critique of the Caste System: Ambedkar dissects the caste
system, highlighting its detrimental effects on social mobility,
economic opportunity, and basic human dignity.
• Caste as a hindrance to social progress: Ambedkar argues
that the caste system, with its inherent hierarchy and
endogamy, is a major obstacle to social, political, and
economic progress in India.
• Rejection of Caste as Division of Labour: He argues that the
caste system is not a natural division of labour, but rather a
system of forced and unequal labour distribution, which
denies certain castes access to education and other
professions. He challenges the notion that caste is merely a
division of labour, asserting that it is a rigid system of graded
inequality that perpetuates social division and prevents social
mobility.
• Challenge to Hindu Orthodoxy (Rejection of religious
justification for caste): Ambedkar directly challenges the
religious justifications for caste, arguing that Hindu scriptures
and traditions uphold the hierarchical structure and must be
rejected for social progress. Ambedkar refutes the religious
justifications often used to defend the caste system, arguing
that the scriptures themselves are the problem and that the
system is a social construct, not a divinely ordained one.
• Need for social reform before political reform: He
emphasizes that political reform cannot be successful without
accompanying social reform, particularly the abolition of
caste.
• Vision of a casteless society: Ambedkar envisions a society
based on equality, liberty, and fraternity, where individuals are
not bound by caste restrictions and can interact freely.
• Call for Annihilation: He advocates for the complete
annihilation of the caste system, not just its modification, as a
necessary step towards a just and equitable society.
• Importance of Education and Occupation: Ambedkar
emphasizes the importance of education and the freedom to
choose one’s profession as crucial for social upliftment.
• Impact and Legacy: “Annihilation of Caste” remains a
powerful manifesto for social justice and has inspired
generations of activists and reformers working towards a
casteless society.
• Solutions Proposed: Ambedkar proposes two primary
solutions to abolish the caste system: inter-caste marriages
and the destruction of religious scriptures, including the Vedas
and Puranas. He argues that opposition to inter-caste
marriages stems from a fear of losing social and political
power. The call for the destruction of religious scriptures is
grounded in his belief that they perpetuate social injustice.
Relevance and Impact:

• Foundation for social justice movements: The work has

served as a foundational text for Dalit movements and other
social justice initiatives aimed at dismantling caste-based
discrimination.
• Continuing relevance in contemporary India: Despite legal
prohibitions, caste continues to be a significant social issue in
 India, making Ambedkar’s analysis and call for annihilation
highly relevant.
• Influence on social and political thought: “Annihilation of
Caste” has significantly influenced social and political
thought, inspiring ongoing debates about social justice,
equality, and the nature of Indian society.
In essence, “Annihilation of Caste” is a powerful critique of the
caste system and a vision for a more just and equitable society,
rooted in the belief that social reform is essential for India’s
progress.
In a letter dated 12 December 1935, the secretary of the Jat-Pat
Todak Mandal (Society for the Break Up of Caste system), an anti-
caste Hindu reformist organization based in Lahore, invited Dr.
Ambedkar to deliver a speech on the caste system in India at their
annual conference in 1936. Ambedkar wrote the speech as an
essay under the title “Annihilation of Caste” and sent in advance to
the organisers in Lahore for printing and distribution. The
organisers found some of the content to be objectionable towards
the orthodox Hindu religion, so intemperate in the idiom and
vocabulary used, and so incendiary in promoting conversion away
from Hinduism, that they sought the deletion of large sections of the
more controversial content endangering Brahmanical interests.
They wrote to Ambedkar seeking the removal of sections which they
found, in their words, “unbearable.” Ambedkar declared in response
that he “would not change a comma” of his text. After much
deliberation, the committee of organizers decided to cancel their
annual conference in its entirety, because they feared violence by
orthodox Hindus at the venue if they held the event after
withdrawing the invitation to him. Ambedkar subsequently
published 1500 copies of the speech as a book on 15 May 1936 at
his own expense as Jat-Pat Todak Mandal failed to fulfill their word.
The book focuses on the urgent nee” for social reform to take
precedence over political and religious reform in Indian society.
Ambedkar meticulously exposes the tyranny imposed by upper-
caste Hindus on the untouchable community, providing instances of
discrimination and advocating for the reconstruction of Hindu
society. He challenges the fallacy of socialist ideals in the context of
India, asserting that a socialist revolution is unattainable as long as
the caste system persists.
In the essay, Ambedkar criticised the Hindu religion, its caste
system and its religious texts which are male dominant and
spreading hatred and suppression of female interests.
Ambedkar’s central argument revolves around the detrimental
impact of caste on ethics, morality, and public spirit within Hindu
society. He rejects traditional defenses of caste based on the
division of labour, purity of blood, and historical legitimacy. Instead,
he argues that caste is a divisive force, creating a hierarchy that
impedes social cohesion.
He argued that Inter-caste dining and inter-caste marriage is not
sufficient to annihilate the caste system, but that “the real method
of breaking up the Caste System was… to destroy the religious
notions upon which caste is founded”.
Ambedkar critically examines the caste system, arguing against its
defense based on the division of labour. He contends that caste is
not merely a division of labour but a division of labourers, leading to
forced occupation, job aversion, and inefficiency. The book
questions the scientific basis of caste and highlights the
dehumanizing impact of Hindu Dharmashastras, particularly the
Manusmriti.
Gandhi, however, accused Ambedkar of selecting the wrong
interpretations of the Shastras. Gandhi argued that the Shastras
selected by Ambedkar cannot be accepted as the word of God and
cannot be accepted as authentic. He also argued that religion
should be judged by the very best, not the worst, adherents of the
religion, and that the standard set by Ambedkar would fail every
known living faith.
Later editions and translations
In the second edition of his book, Ambedkar replied to Gandhi’s
comments. This edition was published in 1937 as Annihilation of
Caste: With a Reply to Mahatma Gandhi.
He published a third edition in 1944; it included another essay,
Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development, which
had been presented at a seminar in New York in 1916.
Annihilation of Caste was translated into Tamil with the help of
Periyar and published in 1937.
“Hindu society is like a multi-storeyed tower with no staircase
and no entrance. Everybody dies in the storey in which they are
born.” - B. R. Ambedkar
Ambedkar’s concept of constitutionalism emphasized
that the Indian Constitution, while a legal document, needed to be
infused with a strong sense of constitutional morality to ensure
social justice and protect the rights of all citizens. He believed that
political democracy alone was insufficient; social and economic
democracy were equally crucial for the well-being of individuals.
Ambedkar’s idea of constitutionalism went beyond a mere legal
framework; he envisioned it as a tool for social transformation,
aiming to achieve social, economic, and political justice for all
citizens, especially the marginalized. He believed a constitution
should be a living document, adaptable to the needs of society and
capable of fostering a social democracy that ensures liberty,
equality, and fraternity.
1. Emphasis on Constitutional Morality: Ambedkar highlighted
the importance of constitutional morality, which he defined
as a commitment to upholding the values and principles
enshrined in the Constitution. This included ensuring that
the government operates within the bounds of the
Constitution and respects the rights of all citizens.
• Ambedkar stressed that the Constitution, as a legal
framework, requires a commitment to constitutional
morality, which he defined as a public conscience that is
sensitive to injustice and actively seeks to rectify it.
• This morality involves a sense of public conscience, where
everyone is concerned about the well-being of others, not
just themselves, and is willing to fight for justice for all.
 • He argued that constitutional morality is not natural; it must
be cultivated through education and public discourse.
2. Social Justice and Equality:
• Ambedkar believed that the Constitution should not
only guarantee political rights but also promote social
and economic justice.
• He highlighted the need to address inequalities in
status, opportunities, and income, not just among
individuals but also among different groups and
regions.
• His vision included a social order where justice, social,
economic, and political, informs all aspects of national
life.
Social Justice as a Core Principle: Ambedkar emphasized that
political democracy alone is insufficient without social and
economic justice. He advocated for a society where everyone has
equal opportunities and dignity, regardless of caste, gender, or other
social barriers.
3. Protecting Minority Rights:
• Ambedkar emphasized that the tyranny of the majority
over the minority should be avoided.
• He stressed that the Constitution should ensure that
minorities feel safe and secure, even when the majority is
in power.
4. Importance of Constitutional Remedies:
 • Ambedkar considered Article 32 of the Constitution,
which deals with the right to constitutional remedies, as
the “heart and soul” of the Constitution.
• He recognized that the mere declaration of fundamental
rights would be meaningless without effective
mechanisms for their enforcement.
5. Addressing the Gap between Law and Social Reality:
• Ambedkar acknowledged that the Constitution was a
modern legal document, while India had a history of
deeply ingrained social inequalities.
• He believed that constitutionalism, with its emphasis on
constitutional morality, was crucial for bridging this gap
and ensuring that the Constitution’s ideals are realized in
practice.
• In essence, Ambedkar’s vision of constitutionalism was
not just about the legal framework of the Constitution but
also about fostering a society that is just, equitable, and
respectful of the rights and dignity of all its citizens.
6. Constitutionalism as a Tool for Change:
• He saw the Constitution as a means to dismantle
oppressive social structures and create a more equitable
society. His work on the Constitution included provisions
for the abolition of untouchability and affirmative action
policies to uplift marginalized communities.
7. Protection of Fundamental Rights:
• He strongly advocated for fundamental rights, particularly
for the marginalized, and believed they should be
 justiciable, meaning they could be enforced through the
courts.
8. Adaptability and Evolution:
• Ambedkar recognized that a constitution should not be
static. He believed it should be open to amendments to
reflect the changing needs and aspirations of society.
9. State Socialism:
• His concept of state socialism involved state ownership
of key industries and resources, with a focus on equitable
distribution of wealth and resources. He believed this
approach was necessary to address economic
inequalities and ensure a more just society.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s ideas on constitutionalism were

influenced by his experiences as a social reformer, his deep
understanding of the principles of liberty, equality, and justice,
and his commitment to eradicating social inequalities.
According to Ambedkar, the primary goal of a constitution
should be to achieve social justice and equality. He
emphasized the protection of individual rights and liberties. He
believed that fundamental rights were essential for protecting
the rights of individuals and argued that fundamental rights
should be enshrined in the Constitution and that they should
be enforceable by the courts.
Ambedkar stressed the separation of powers among the
branches of government to ensure checks and balances. He
also focused on the importance of an independent judiciary to
 uphold the principles of justice and protect the rights of
citizens.
Ambedkar believed constitutionalism should not be limited to
the legal framework but should also encompass social reform
and education. His ideas had a lasting impact on the framing of
the Indian Constitution. His ideas continue to shape the
discourse on constitutionalism and social reform in India.
B. R Ambedkar, popularly known as Babasaheb, was the
architect of the Indian Constitution and a champion of social
justice for the oppressed classes. He was an eminent jurist, an
astute politician, a seasoned parliamentarian, and a prolific
writer.
As an architect of the social change, he used law as an
instrument of social change and fully anticipated that under a
democratic political system and through the agency of a
responsive state, law can be utilized to promote social
transformation in a direction congruent with the values of
justice, liberty and equality.
B.R. Ambedkar viewed constitutionalism not just as a legal
framework, but as a means to achieve social justice and equality,
particularly for marginalized groups like the Scheduled Castes and
Tribes. He emphasized the importance of “constitutional morality”
in ensuring the success of democratic institutions, advocating for a
public conscience that is sensitive to the needs and rights of all
citizens, especially minorities.
 Detailed look at Ambedkar's views:
1. Constitutionalism as a Tool for Social Transformation:
• Ambedkar saw the Constitution as a powerful instrument for
social change, aiming to dismantle traditional hierarchies
and inequalities.
• He believed that a well-functioning democracy, guided by
constitutional principles, could be a vehicle for achieving
social justice and equality.
• His focus was on using the Constitution to address issues
like caste discrimination, untouchability, and economic
disparities.
2. Constitutional Morality and Public Conscience:
• Ambedkar stressed the importance of “constitutional
morality,” which he defined as a commitment to democratic
values, including respect for the rule of law, minority rights,
and social justice.
• He argued that this sense of morality needed to be
cultivated among the people to ensure that the Constitution
is interpreted and applied in a just and equitable manner.
• He believed that a strong public conscience was essential
for holding those in power accountable and for protecting
the rights of all citizens.
3. Democracy as a Way of Life:
• Ambedkar envisioned democracy not just as a form of
government, but as a way of life that emphasizes equality,
liberty, and fraternity.
 • He believed that these values are interconnected and must
be pursued together to create a just and harmonious
society.
• He advocated for a society where individuals are treated
with dignity and respect, regardless of their social
background.
4. The Importance of Fundamental Rights:
• Ambedkar was a strong proponent of fundamental rights,
particularly the right to constitutional remedies, which he
considered the “heart and soul” of the Constitution.
• He believed that these rights were essential for protecting
individuals from the tyranny of the majority and for ensuring
that everyone has access to justice.
5. The Role of the Constitution in Education and Social
Change:
• Ambedkar saw the Constitution as a tool for educating the
Indian population about democratic values and principles.
• He believed that by understanding the Constitution and its
underlying principles, citizens could become more engaged
in the democratic process and more committed to building
a just and equitable society.
In essence, Ambedkar’s vision of constitutionalism was a holistic
one, encompassing legal, social, and moral dimensions. He
believed that the Constitution should not only provide a framework
for governance but also serve as a catalyst for social transformation
and the realization of a more just and equitable society.