Listen to this article:

Today, April 14, is Ambedkar Jayanti.

There are numerous tangible and historically grounded reasons for remembering Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. However, among the most salient and analytically significant aspects that distinguish him from other thinkers are his conception of the nation as a moral-social formation, his notion of freedom as the essence of life, and his articulation of a universal principle of morality, all developed through a sustained critique of social irrationalities that are part of a caste-ridden patriarchal society.

Ambedkar’s intellectual project offers a systematic and sociologically grounded critique of Indian society, wherein nationhood, freedom, morality, and constitutionalism are conceptualized as interdependent normative domains. Contrary to cultural nationalist and liberal constitutional traditions, Ambedkar insists that political democracy is structurally unsustainable without social democracy. His thought therefore constitutes not merely a constitutional doctrine but a theory of social transformation rooted in the annihilation of caste, in particular, and in all of his writings in general.

Nation as a moral and social construction

In Annihilation of Caste, Ambedkar rejects primordial definitions of nationhood based on territory, language, or civilizational continuity. For him, such markers may constitute a state but not a nation in the sociological sense. A nation, in his formulation, is a “conscious community of associated life” grounded in fraternity. However, caste society in India structurally prevents the emergence of such a community.

Ambedkar’s critique is grounded in the concept of graded inequality, where social hierarchy is not binary but vertically stratified, producing segmented moral communities. This prevents what he terms “social endosmosis”, or the free circulation of social interaction across groups. Without such interaction, neither shared identity nor a collective moral imagination can emerge.

This position resonates with later sociological critiques of nationalism such as Partha Chatterjee, who argues that Indian nationalism is historically fractured between elite and subaltern domains, though Ambedkar’s diagnosis is more radical in locating caste as the structural blockage of nationhood itself. Various studies in recent times have proved Ambedkar’s point by extending this aspect. Ambedkar remains relevant in contemporary times when we see challenges to the nation as it becomes a new social formation.

Freedom as substantive social capability

One of the most resonant elements while conceptualising the nation is Ambedkar’s conception of freedom, which extends beyond liberal negative liberty. In States and Minorities, he argues that political rights are meaningless without the social and economic conditions that enable their exercise. Caste, by enforcing hereditary occupation, endogamy, and social exclusion, produces a condition of structural unfreedom.

This anticipates the capability approach of Amartya Sen, where freedom is defined as substantive capability rather than formal entitlement. Similarly, Ambedkar’s critique parallels Marxian concerns with formal equality under conditions of material inequality; however, Ambedkar uniquely centres caste as the primary structure of domination in the Indian context. This contextualisation further helps other parts of the world to understand their own variants of suffering while moving away from the ruthless generalisation of grand theories.

A portrait........

© The Wire