Ambedkar, Politics, and Theology
Any renewal of the political order
required a renewal of theology. John D. Caputo and Catherine Keller[1]
Political thought, whether
it is of the ‘West’ or the ‘Rest’ bears the signature of a theology. It was Giorgio Agamben who exposed the
Christian theological inheritance of the Western political thought. Agamben
theorizes the social location of the bare
life—people live outside of the territory of laws of immigration,
nationality and citizenship which reconfigure the notions of state, law and
justice.[2]
Agamben’s
political theory of ‘the state of exception’ signifies a radical turn in the Continental
political thought as it is being appropriated or even critically engaged by the
postcolonial political philosophers. Taking
the cue from those critical engagements with the Continental philosophical
thought, this study tries to analyze B. R. Ambedkar’s political thought in the
contemporary postmodern/ postcolonial context and explores its theological
implications for envisaging a subaltern political theology in Indian context.
As in the case of Agamben, the political thought
of Ambedkar which is termed as the subaltern political thought exposes the hegemonic
epistemological foundation of Indian socio-political order which excludes
certain sections of people in the account of the social practice—caste that is
legitimized by certain elitist epistemologies and theologies. As an interlocutor of colonial modernity,
Ambedkar’s political intention is to explore the possibility of democratizing
of the democracy on the basis of a social ethics which is rooted in Indian
materialist philosophical discourses.
Here Ambedkar’s political thought remains unique due to its non-Western
philosophical foundation while exploring the multiplex inhabitations within the
colonial modernity. This study tries to
re-read or re-locate Ambedkar in the philosophical discourses of the Indian
political thought while allowing him to interact with the other
post-Continental political thinkers as well. It is argued here that Ambedkar’s
political thought signifies a radical turn not only in the Indian political thought
but also in the Continental political philosophical tradition. Theological
engagement with Ambedkar’s political thought doesn’t mean just attaching
certain Christian categories like God, Christ, kingdom of God or liberation to
his political thought and argue that he is eligible to be called as a
liberation theologian; rather it is to explore deep into his epistemological
discontents with Christian theology and Christianity on his way to envisage
radical social democracy in India. This study
has four major sections: (1) Ambedkar’s epistemological itinerary; (2) The
political philosophy of Ambedkar; (3) Religion after Ambedkar; (4) A
theological engagement with Ambedkar’s political thought.
Ambedkar’s Epistemological Itinerary
Despite of his
academic training in Deweyan pragmatism, Ambedkar appears to be a postcolonial interlocutor
of the colonial modernity.[3] Ambedkar takes a departure from the notion of
the universality of the Western enlightenment ideals such as liberty and
freedom, and initiates a deviation from the universal reason to social ethics or
morality which is founded on Indian materialistic philosophies and religious
traditions. It is here Ambedkar deviates from the Habermasian communicative theory
that presupposes the universality of reason, and locates himself in a
postcolonial theoretical location through which he appropriates or rejects the
colonial notions of liberal subjectivity. Of course, Ambedkar prefers the
scientific thinking and the enlightenment notions as it is in the Deweyan
pragmatism, but that is to challenge the irrational Brahmanic-Hindu knowledges
on social order and democracy which is inherently hegemonic and exclusive.[4]
In nut shell, Ambedkar’s subaltern political
thought opens up a dialogical epistemological space within colonial modernity
which appropriated with the indigenous knowledges of social morality and
politics.
Another important
discipline that Ambedkar engages with is Marxism. In his 1961 Columbia essay,
‘Castes in India’ describes caste as an ‘enclosed class’. According to Ambedkar
it is the ‘enclosure of caste’ which gives caste their social coherence. Ambedkar uses the word class as a collectivity
formed around shared interest and the experience of exploitation. Ambedkar’s use of the term Dalit varga (class) is to signify the
governmental category of depressed classes through which he meant for a Dalit
political subjectivity in the modern context. Ambedkar-Marxist dialogue
intensified during the formation of the Independent labor party on 15 August
1936. Ambedkar used the category labor
as an inclusive category of depressed classes. Society is classified into various classes and
the depressed classes constitute the excluded-the marginalized. They are
excluded from all kinds of ownership, management, and production due to their
caste location. Ambedkar brought caste as a crucial factor in defining the
category-labor which is nothing but Ambedkar’s “interwar engagement with
Marxism”.[5]
While signifying Ambedkar’s emphasis on caste in Indian socio-political
context, Anupama Rao clearly analyzes the inadequacy of the Marxist definition
of the category-labor in India. Rao
contends, “labor was thus underspecified
and overdescribed: it was an organizational element in union activism, a
category on whose behalf the Communist Party spoke, and a key category of
governance and legal regulation shaped by the joint requirements of industrial
capital and the resistances of strike action.”[6]
Ambedkar-Marx engagement
ultimately led to a postcolonial translation of Marxism which differentiates
themselves in their notions of power, body, and capital. Ambedkar contradicts with
the Marxist theory of labor and argues that in Indian context the labor of the
untouchables has no ‘value’ or ‘count’ because it is already defined as defiled
and impure. According to Rao, in Ambedkar-Marx dialogue the problem that involves
the collision of two kinds of body history, of the body as value, and the body
as dispossessed and disposable.[7]
In the Brahmanic Hindu social knowledge, the history of labor was embedded in
the theory of duty, varnadsramadharma, the
labor of the shudra was seva-the service to the social body. Taking
the cue from the Vedic epistemology, Gandhi defined labor as a social
gift-sacrifice for the social order. For Gandhi service is a ‘giving without
return’.[8]
Gandhi’s political philosophy of
non-violence was in fact inherently violent. For Ambedkar, the primary step for
the untouchables is to challenge the stigma embodied on their bodies and to
become ‘valuable’ bodies before go for emancipation through labor as Marx
proposed.
Along with Marx,
Ambedkar initiates a lifelong interaction with Buddha. Unlike Nagarjuna who
takes a mystic turn with Buddhism, Ambedkar takes a secular-political turn with
Buddhism.[9]
Ambedkar engages with Buddhism through Marx.
Differently said, Ambedkar envisages a new form of Buddhism with the help of
Marx. Ambedkar re-interpreted Buddhism
as a morality-centric Dhamma based on the materialistic philosophy. Buddhism,
in its original form, is a heterodox philosophy that denies the Vedic
philosophy of God, soul, and karma. Ambedkar denies the philosophy of Hinduism
which is impotent to offer an open and free subjectivity and social life based
on liberty and fraternity. As Kancha Illaiah
writes Ambedkar re-constitutes Buddhism by defining God as a political
philosopher and human self as futurist and becoming through political
engagements.[10] Gail
Omvedt clearly states that it is the question of commitment to an egalitarian
society that led Ambedkar to approach Buddhism which hails from an
anti-hegemonic epistemological standpoint.[11]
Thus in Ambedkar’s political thought religion takes a political turn and
becomes ‘religion after religion’.
While reading
Ambedkar’s the Buddha and his Dhamma,
Raosaheb Kasbe rightly analyzes that Ambedkar’s Buddha is not just the
traditional Buddha; but a Marx-like Buddha.[12]
Buddha, for Ambedkar, is a political philosopher who stands for a democratic
form of governmentality as it is theorized by Marx. However,
Ambedkar-Marx-Buddha dialogue is internally complex and contested one. Ambedkar
asks “Could the Buddha answer Karl Marx?” Ambedkar wanted Buddha to answer the
questions raised by Marx. By critiquing Marx for the inadequacy of his economic
theory and the theory of historical materialism in Indian context, Ambedkar
looks into the social formation of the economic-political system that is
epistemologically located in the ‘pure materialistic’ philosophies like Lokayata. Ambedkar finds epistemological
validity to fulfill the Marxist vision of classless society in the Buddhist
Dhamma which further needed to be reconstructed to be a postcolonial political
philosophy of casteless society. In short, the epistemological itinerary of
Ambedkar’s political thought locates itself in a locus of Dewey-Marx-Buddha
which is internally complicated, contested and disputed.
Political Philosophy of Ambedkar
Ambedkar’s political
philosophy is analyzed here in three focuses: (1) social precedes political;
(2) ethical and religious contents of political philosophy; (3) constitutional
democracy and the agency of law.
a.
Social Precedes Political
Ambedkar becomes the
most prominent political philosopher in the Indian political thought, based on
his political theorization of the problem of exclusion. According to Ambedkar
there is a permanent inconsistency in the political knowledge of Indian social
order. Some sections of people are permanently excluded and their struggle to
enter into the political domain constitutes democracy in India inherently
problematic. In this contested political situation, Ambedkar comes up with a
new slogan: the social precedes political.[13]
According to Ambedkar, it is the social content of democracy that enhances the
excluded one’s struggles to reorganize the social-political order. It is not
just the lack of the political conscience, but lack of the moral conscience
that becomes important in the Indian context of caste exclusion. Here Ambedkar offers a radical ‘punch’ to the
political philosophy which is internally destabilized and re-defined in terms
of the social morality and social democracy.
Kesava Kumar opines
that the core of the Ambedkarite political thought is constituted by two
assumptions: ‘the rights are protected not by law but by social and moral
conscience of society, and a democratic form of government presupposes a
democratic form of society’.[14]
Unlike the Western tradition of democracy, in Ambedkar’s thought democracy is a
form of society, or a mode of associated living, and a social consciousness
which is founded on high values of morality. For Ambedkar the political
democracy presupposes a social democracy. Social democracy presupposes a
quality life based on social values of freedom, liberty, and justice. According
to Ambedkar, a democratic government means a democratic social structure that
brings revolution to the socio-political and economic life of the common people
without bloodshed. Here Ambedkar poses the potentiality to annihilate caste as
the major criteria to judge the fecundity of a political theory or practice in
Indian context.
b.
Ethical and Religious contents of the
Political Philosophy
Another significant
specialty of the Ambedkarite political thought is that is primarily ethical and
religious. According to Ambedkar, Indian social order which is fundamentally
built on the caste epistemology of the Vedic religiosity, is to be destabilized
and denied on the basis of the modern ideals of democracy, justice and liberty.
The moral standard of the Vedic religiosity is not at all acceptable due to its
exclusivist and enslaving theology. The authoritarian Hindu social order
delimits the freedom and enslaves the majority of the Indian polity. The
victims of the caste system are thrown out of the socio-political and economic
capitals of the society. Thus the social order is to be reconstituted on the
basis of equality, justice and the moral religiosity. Hinduism is not capable enough to provide an
ethical social life due to its caste epistemology. It is here Ambedkar brings
the question of religious conversion as political strategy for freedom and
social democracy.
Religion for Ambedkar
is nothing but a political community that gives a collective identity to the marginalized
people in India. Especially the modern
Indian context of nation-state necessitates a collective political identity
that is rooted in a religious identity. In the nation-state politics, it is the
religious collective identity that signifies the representation of plural
sections of people. Analyzing this consciously, Ambedkar argues for a religious
identity for the caste victims to be represented in the nation-state political
power. Thus the notion of community becomes
central to Ambedkar’s political thought. For him, Hinduism is not qualified to
be a just community. Islam and Christianity, though they stand for
egalitarianism, are politically impotent to challenge the caste epistemology
and its practices in Indian context. For Ambedkar, Buddhism has the inherent
potentiality to be a moral community based on political reasoning and ethics.[15]
Buddhism, unlike Islam and Christianity, has had the history of challenging the
caste epistemology theologically and politically. Contrary to the Marxist
notion of class, Ambedkar’s ideal community is to be created through the moral
transformation of an individual from the caste status to the political
subjectivity. Ambedkar believes that Buddhism has the potential to initiate this
moral transformation because of its anti-casteist epistemological heritage and
the moral philosophy of political becoming through sangh.
c.
Constitutional Democracy and the Agency
of the Law
Ambedkar’s political
philosophy is marked by its basis on the constitutional democracy and the
agency of the law. Ambedkar’s engagement
with the British government was to ensure the self –representability of the
disadvantaged people in the politic discourses of the state. If the
untouchables are not represented in the political process, that state becomes
sectarian and exclusive. Here Ambedkar exposes the assumption of the Western
notion of state that it represents all citizens irrespective of their social
locations.[16] The
Western notion of the state always functions in the assumption that the excluded
are to be incorporated into the mainstream through its emancipatory projects
and thereby the state can become politically neutral. Contrary to the Western notion of the state,
Ambedkar destabilizes the notion of the neutrality of constitution of the state
and reconfigured it in terms of the multiple locations of its citizens on the
basis of a constitutional democracy and the agency of the law. Ambedkar focuses
on the political inclusion of the excluded through the constitutional spacing
and the agency of laws and thereby the very constitution of the notion of the
state itself can be re-imagined and re-configured. It is here Ambedkar
differentiates himself with the so called ‘nationalists’ and becomes an ‘anarchist’.
It is this ‘anarchist’ position of Ambedkar enforces the ‘nationalist wing’
like National Congress and Hindutua allies to call Ambedkar ‘anti-nationalist’.
In fact, in this position, the ‘nationalist wing’ becomes pro-colonial and
promoters of colonial modernity.
However, towards the
end of his career and political life, Ambedkar comes to the understanding that
there is a limitation to the fulfillment of the social democracy and the
annihilation of caste through the legal means. Ambedkar stated on All India
Radio in 1954: “I deem the place of law very low; because I am not confident to
say that law would certainly be of any help with regard to violation of liberty
and equality”.[17] Thus
Ambedkar moves towards the social role of religion in functioning of a social
democracy. J. Soske rightly says that ‘Ambedkar moved away from his expanded
ideal of state-driven transformation not because he rejected its
presuppositions: many of them reappeared in his advocacy of Buddhism as a civic
religion’.[18] Of
course, in the law’s place, he advocated the criterion of a new socio-cultural-political
community as the power capable of producing social consciousness and a shared
moral order. Conversion to Buddhism was a political agenda of Ambedkar to
envisage a political community, political practice and a political theology
that challenge the casteist social order and promote political subjectivity to
the disenfranchised in the Indian context.
d.
Ambedkar and the Continental Political Philosophy
Continental
philosophy as a post-enlightenment Western thought emerges out of the crisis of
Western liberalism. In the modern world dominated by Europe, liberalism has
functioned to support both economic capitalism and political democracy. The
political democracy that continues to support neoliberal capitalism encountered
severe criticism from the post-Continental philosophers for being authoritarian
and sovereign.[19] The
concept of sovereignty embedded in the modern political democracy has been
severely criticized by Giorgio Agamben’s political theory of ‘state of
exception’. According to Agamben, there are some people who live in the ‘state
of exception’-‘the living dead’-that destabilizes the notion of the sovereignty
of the state. Interrogating the notion of sovereign state, Jacques Derrida
proposes the theory of ‘democracy to-come’ that invokes a constant
deconstruction of the political process in order to envisage an ever differing
meaning of democracy and political subjectivity. Hardt and Negri, on the other
hand, come up with the notion of ‘multitude’ that signifies the political power
of the common people as it is opposed to the notion of sovereignty in a post-liberal
and postcolonial democratic political process.
Following Foucault’s
theory of bio-politics, Agamben highlights the inability of the force of law to
deconstruct the social body from the discursive formulation of the sovereignty.
Here Agamben explains the crisis of the Western political philosophy as it
finds difficulty to reconfigure social order out of its liberal,
individualistic, rational and sovereign political epistemological framework. Gilles Deleuze tries to address this crisis
by fixing it with his theory of ‘event’. Deleuze talks about an unconscious
event through which we dream for the force of law beyond the law. The problem
with these Western political thoughts is that they are founded on certain
psychoanalytic ideas and literary aesthetics, rather than political engagements
of the marginalized people. It is here Ambedkar’s political philosophy remains
significant and different for a postcolonial political thought. Ambedkar’s
political thought is rooted in the political engagements of the excluded as
they take on the hegemonic notions of political power and social order. It is
located in the ethical and religious values rather than psychoanalytic ideas
and liberal values of capitalism. Unlike the Continental political philosophy,
Ambedkar’s political philosophy is located in the political becoming of the
subaltern subjectivity as they struggle to erupt a multiphonic democracy based on
the indigenous materialistic philosophies and the heterodox religious
traditions.
Religion after Ambedkar
Ambedkar differentiates
the concept of religion and Dhamma. Keeping Hinduism in mind, he defines religion
as personal whereas Dhamma is social. According to Ambedkar, Hinduism as a
reformed Brahmanic philosophy, is ritualistic and thus forms enslaving
subjectivities. On the other hand, Dhamma
stands for righteousness which means right relationship with all. Dhamma
necessitates relationship and vice versa. Society cannot do without Dhamma.
Dhamma leads to liberty and justice. Dhamma consists of prajna (reason) and karuna (compassion).
It is the understanding with compassion and ethics keeps our social life righteous
and democratic.[20]
Following Buddha,
Ambedkar held the view that religion is connected with revealing the beginning
of things or the origin of the world whereas Dhamma is to reconstruct the
world. Dhamma is founded on morality. The main content of religion consists of
God, soul, prayers, worship, rituals ceremonies, and sacrifices. Transcendence is
foundational for religion whereas Dhamma is built on immanence. The root of
Dhamma is not rituals rather it is morality. According to Ambedkar, morality
comes in religion only human comes in relationship fellow human. Religion asks
us to be moral because we are all connected to God. Be good to your neighbor
because we are children of God. In
religion, morality is just an attachment. For religion, morality is casual and
occasional and thus it is a secondary thing. On the other hand, Dhamma is nothing but
morality. In Dhamma, morality takes the place of God, although there is no God
in Dhamma. Morality in Dhamma does not need any divine sanction. It arises out
of the human relationship for liberty, freedom and justice.
Morality in Dhamma is
considered as sacred because it stands for the protection of the weak. Survival
of the weakest is the social imperative behind the morality. It is the morality
or the politics of the survival of the weakest what determines the progress of
the society. As in the case of religion, Dhamma is not controlled by
ceremonies, rituals and liturgies, rather social morality that sustains the
society sacred. Dhamma is not just rhetorical, rather it is practical and thus
internally political.
Ambedkar’s definition
of religion becomes significant in the post-religious and post-secular
context. In Ambedkar’s political
thought, religion (Dhamma) is treated as a political philosophy through which
the binarism between the secular and the sacred is being denied and it is being
immanently connected to the political process of becoming. The reconfiguration
of the subjectivities is inherently connected with the socio-political and the
material relations which are founded on morality or Dhamma. Dhamma as a
political form of religion (Dhamma) becomes significant in Ambedkar’s thought
through which it transgresses the limitations of both Marxism and the
traditional Buddhism. When this
political thought of Ambedkar comes into dialogue with Christianity, the
problem becomes intensified since Christianity is assumed as the epitome of ‘The
Religion’.
Despite of its
egalitarianism, Ambedkar was skeptic about the potentiality and the usefulness
of Christian theology in challenging the caste knowledges and its practices.
According to Ambedkar, Christianity is good to be preached, but not to be
practiced. For him, Christianity is purely
spiritual. Christian spirituality is unrelated to the
material life and thus it is politically unproductive. Ambedkar argues that it
is evident in the life of the Dalits who converted to Christianity. The
Christian converted Dalits, in Ambedkar’s perspective, become apolitical and
inactive due to the transcendent content of the Christian doctrines. Analyzing
the missionized theology in India, Ambedkar tries to expose the theological inconsistency
within the doctrinal discourses of Christian missionary program:
Instead of being
taught that their fall was due to a wrong social and religious environment and
that for their environment they must attack the environment, they were taught
their fall was due to their sin. Consequently the Dalit Christians instead of
being empowered to conquer their environmental context, conferred themselves
with the belief that there is no use of struggling, for the simple reason that
their fall is due to the sin committed not by them but by some remote ancestors
of their called Adam and Eve.[21]
According to James
Massey, here Ambedkar stresses that when a Dalit Christian ‘was a Hindu his
fall was due to his karma. When he
becomes a Christian he learns that his fall is due to the sins of his ancestor.
In either case, there is no escape for him.’[22]
In Ambedkar’s political thought, the transcendental framework of Christianity is
being strongly interrogated and the Christian theology is being invoked to deconstruct
its doctrinal fecundity in a postcolonial political content.
Ambedkar, Politics,
and Theology
As Agamben exposes, Christian
Theology is inherently political. In the Western tradition, what is political
is always theological. However, through the formation of political theology in
the modern philosophical context, Christian theology tried to cover up this
inherent coalition and pretend to be neutral to become capable enough to talk
about democracy, justice, and freedom. The emergence of the postcolonial
theologies exposes the “imperio-colonial sense” of the Christian Theology and
tries to envisage theologies differently in the post-Christendom context. While explaining the potential space of the
postcolonial theologies, Catherine Keller emphatically contends: “With its
(Christian Theology’s) imperial success, the church, one might argue, absorbed
an idolatry of identity: a metaphysical Babel of unity, an identity that
homogenizes the multiplicities it absorbs, that either excludes or subordinates
every creaturely other, alter, subaltern”.[23]
It is here the postcolonial theology,
that differentiates itself from the “imperio-colonial sense” of the Christian
Theology and rooted in the subaltern ethical and religious theological
epistemology, becomes imperative in the Indian theological context.
Dalit
theology in India, on the other hand, followed uncritically the epistemological
foundations of Christian Theology and never tried to engage with the philosophical
framework of its doctrinal discourses as we see in the political thought of
Ambedkar. Dalit theology tried to appropriate and incorporate Ambedkar into
theological discourses without attending his epistemological differences and
contestations. This is true in the case of all contextual theologies and public
theologies in India that pretend to be political in content. Ambedkar’s
political thought cannot be incorporated to Christian theology easily. The political thought of Ambedkar remains
insoluble and unfathomable for Christian Theology. To engage with the Ambedkar’s subaltern
political thought, Christian Theology has to go through certain foundational reconfigurations
and changes. Ambedkar’s political
thought invokes Christian Theology to take a postcolonial and subaltern
epistemological turn which is rooted in the materialist philosophical
traditions in India. Christian Theology has to prove its theological and
doctrinal fecundity to be a de-casteist epistemology. The offering of salvation
to the sinful bodies, whether it is human body or social body, through the
transcendentalist notions of the sacramental theology faces interrogation in
the Ambedkarite subaltern political thought. For Ambedkar, Christian theology
seems to be apolitical and impotent to challenge the caste formations of
subjectivity. In short, a theological engagement with the subaltern political
thought of Ambedkar provokes Christian theology to take a postcolonial and
materialist turn that even destabilizes the philosophical foundations of
Christian Theology itself. Differently
said, engagement with Ambedkar’s political thought is a ‘crucifixion point’ for
Christian Theology that necessitates new resurrections in the political
programs of the disenfranchised in the Indian context.
Conclusion
It was Ambedkar who
unsettled the settled logic of Indian social order and reconstructed it on the
basis modern notions of social democracy and equality. Ambedkar was not just an interpreter of the
colonial modernity; rather he twisted its head towards a social democracy of
equality and justice. In his political thought, both the process of
secularization and the religious-moral foundations are being interrogated and
reformulated for the excluded mass of Indian population. The question of social agency and the
recognition of the ‘broken people’—Dalits in the Indian socio-political realm
signifies Ambedkar’s political thought in the contemporary transnational
political context. Ambedkar’s subaltern political thought due to its foundation
in the materialistic philosophical tradition and in the ethical-religious
values rather than liberal, capitalistic values of the Western democracy
locates itself in post-Continental philosophical framework.
Ambedkar’s political philosophy remains
unassimilable for Christian Theology. It is not just easy to absorb him into
the philosophical foundation of Christianity. Christian Theology has to be
destabilized epistemologically and philosophically in order to attend the
political thought of Ambedkar. Ambedkar’s
political thought remains unincorporated and unfathomable for Christian
Theology. There is a tendency among the Christian theologians to theologize
everything by adding some Christian categories like liberation, salvation, and
redemption to anything. At least
Ambedkar needs to be saved from any kind of such incorporation and
accommodation into the all-embracing philosophical foundation of Christianity. The ‘irreducible singularity’ of Ambedkar’s subaltern
political thought is to be affirmed and differentiated. It was his desire for becoming a political
community through which the excluded ones envisage a political subjectivity and
social democracy lead him to embrace Buddhism and to reject Christianity. The
challenge before Christian Theology in India is to reconfigure its
epistemological and philosophical foundations that delimit its potential to
become a subaltern political practice which locates its epistemological
habitation in Indian materialistic philosophies and heterodox religious
traditions.
Y.T.
Vinayaraj
[1] Catherine Keller and John D. Caputo,
‘Theopoetic/ Theopolitic,’ Crosscurrents, March 2007,Vol. 60, Issue
1: 105-111.
[2] Giorgio Agamben, State of Exception (Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 2005
[3] Dewey was Ambedkar’s teacher in the
Columbia University, New York. There are some studies that define Ambedkar as a
statist. It is a misunderstanding of Ambedkar’s political reading and a
misreading of Deweyan pragmatism. For
e.g. Keith Hebden, Dalit Theology and
Christian Anarchism (USA & London: Ashagate, 2011), 87. Dewey had never been a statist.
[4] Pradeep Gokhale, ‘Dr. Ambedkar as a
Philosopher: Beyond Reductionism,’ in The
Philosophy of Dr. B. R. Amedkar, edited by Pradeep Gokhale (Pune: Indian
Philosophical Quarterly Publication, 2008), 1-25.
[5] Anupama Rao, ‘Revisiting interwar
thought: Stigma, labor, and the immanence of caste-class,’ in The Political Philosophies of Antonio
Gramsci and B. R. Ambedkar: Itineraries of Dalits and Subalterns edited by
Cosimo Zene (London & New York: Routledge, 2013), 43-58.
[6] Ibid., 48-49.
[7] Ibid., 52.
[8] Ibid., 55.
[9] Pradeep Gokhale, ‘Dr. Ambedkar as a
Philosopher: Beyond Reductionism,’ 6.
[10] Kancha Illaiah, God as Political Philosopher, Buddha’s Challenge to Brahmanism
(Culcutta: Samya, 2000).
[11] Gail Omvedt, Buddhism in India (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2003)
[12] Raosaheb Kasbe, Ambedkar ani Marx cited by
Pradeep Gokhale, ‘Dr. Ambedkar as a Philosopher: Beyond Reductionism, 13.
[13] Kesava Kumar, ‘Political Philosophy of
B. R. Ambedkar: A Critical Understanding, International
Research Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 1 No.2, pp 193-210, 2008,
Pondicherry University, Pondicherry.
[14] Ibid., 4-5.
[15] Harish Wnkhede, ‘The Political and
Social in the Dalit Movement Today,’ in Economic
& Political Weekly, February 9, 2008, 50-57.
[16] Valerian Roudrigues, ed., The Essential Writings of B. R. Ambedkar
(New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002), 61.
[17] Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, edited by Vasant moon and Hari Narke, Vol. 17
(3): 503, Mumbai Education Department, Government of Maharashtra.
[18] Jon Soske, ‘The other prince, Ambedkar,
constitutional democracy, and the agency of the law,’ in The Political Philosophies, 70.
[19] Douglas Harink, ed., Paul, Philosophy and the Theopolitical
Vision, Critical Engagements with Agamben, Badiou, Zizek, and Others
(Eugene: Cascade Books, 2010).
[20] Aakash Singh Rathore and Ajay Verma,
eds. B. R. Ambedkar: the Buddha and his
Dhamma, A Critical Edition (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2011),
167-221.
[21] Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol.7, Bombay Education Department,
Government of Maharashtra, 1989, 471-2.
[22] James Massey, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, A Study in Just Society (New Delhi: Center for
Dalit/ Subaltern Studies, 2003), 60.
[23] Catherine Keller, “The Love of
Postcolonialism: Theology in the Interstices of Empire,” in Postcolonial Theologies, Divinity and Empire,
edited by Catherine Keller and et al. (Missouri: Chalice Press, 2004), 223.
