Sant Kabir and the Ambedkarite Political-Theoretical Framework: A Critical Reappraisal

 

Sant Kabir and the Ambedkarite Political-Theoretical Framework: A Critical Reappraisal

-    SR Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)

 

 

Introduction

Sant Kabir (c. fifteenth century) occupies a crucial yet understudied position in the genealogy of anti-caste thought in South Asia. While Kabir is conventionally interpreted within the Bhakti devotional tradition, such readings often depoliticise his intellectual intervention by reducing it to mystical universalism. When examined through an Ambedkarite political-theoretical framework, Kabir emerges not merely as a spiritual dissenter but as an early critic of caste, religious authority, and epistemic hierarchy.

This framework does not seek to anachronistically transform Kabir into a modern constitutional thinker. Rather, it situates him as part of a long historical trajectory of Bahujan resistance that culminates in the modern anti-caste movement articulated most systematically by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

1. Social Location and the Politics of Knowledge

Ambedkar consistently emphasised that systems of knowledge are shaped by social location. Kabir’s emergence from the Julaha (artisan-weaver) community is therefore politically significant. Unlike Brahminical intellectual traditions rooted in scriptural scholasticism, Kabir’s knowledge production arises from labouring experience.

From an Ambedkarite standpoint, caste operates not only as a social hierarchy but as an epistemic order, wherein Brahminical traditions monopolise the authority to define truth. Kabir’s rejection of Sanskritic scholasticism and his deliberate use of vernacular languages represent an early challenge to this epistemic monopoly. By articulating philosophical critique in popular idioms, Kabir democratises access to spiritual and moral knowledge.

In this sense, Kabir anticipates Ambedkar’s argument that social emancipation requires dismantling knowledge systems that legitimise hierarchy.

2. Kabir’s c and Ambedkar’s Theory of Graded Inequality

Kabir’s denunciation of caste parallels Ambedkar’s analysis of caste as a system of graded inequality. Kabir rejects Brahminical claims to ritual purity and spiritual superiority, repeatedly asserting that birth cannot determine moral or spiritual worth.

Ambedkar, in Annihilation of Caste, extends this critique by demonstrating that caste persists through religious sanction, endogamy, and social segregation. Kabir’s poetic interrogation of caste may be understood as a moral-philosophical precursor to Ambedkar’s structural analysis.

However, important distinctions remain. Kabir’s critique primarily targets the ethical illegitimacy of caste, whereas Ambedkar advances a programmatic demand for its institutional annihilation through law, political mobilisation, and constitutional reform.

Thus, Kabir represents a pre-modern moral insurgency, while Ambedkar develops a modern political strategy for social transformation.

3. Nirguna Theology as Anti-Hierarchical Politics

Kabir’s doctrine of nirguna bhakti—devotion to a formless divine—acquires new significance within an Ambedkarite framework. Nirguna theology undermines the theological foundations of caste by rejecting divine forms that can be monopolised by priestly authority.

Ambedkar similarly argued that religious systems that sacralise inequality must be fundamentally restructured or abandoned. His eventual embrace of Navayana Buddhism reflects this conviction. Kabir’s nirguna conception of the divine may therefore be interpreted as an early attempt to construct a non-hierarchical spiritual ontology, though without the institutional framework Ambedkar later provides.

4. Critique of Scriptural Authority and Ethical Rationalism

Kabir’s refusal to grant unquestioned authority to the Vedas, Puranas, Quran, or Hadith resonates strongly with Ambedkar’s critique of scriptural supremacy. Both thinkers challenge the notion that religious antiquity confers moral legitimacy.

Kabir privileges direct experience (anubhava) as the basis of truth. Ambedkar, while operating within modern constitutional and rationalist traditions, similarly insists that ethical and social equality must supersede scriptural authority. This shared emphasis situates both thinkers within a tradition of ethical rationalism, where human dignity becomes the primary criterion of truth.

5. Religion, Social Democracy, and Moral Community

Ambedkar argued that democracy is not merely a political system but a form of associated living grounded in liberty, equality, and fraternity. Kabir’s rejection of religious sectarianism and his insistence on the unity of humanity prefigure this conception of moral community.

Kabir’s refusal to privilege either Hindu or Muslim identity reveals his recognition that social oppression can be reproduced across religious boundaries. This insight aligns with Ambedkar’s warning that conversion alone cannot ensure liberation unless accompanied by social and ethical transformation.

6. Labour, Ethical Praxis, and the Rejection of Ascetic Hierarchy

Kabir’s insistence that spiritual realisation is attainable within labouring life challenges the hierarchical distinction between renunciatory asceticism and productive work. Ambedkar similarly emphasised the dignity of labour and criticised caste as a system that devalues productive occupations.

Kabir’s affirmation of householder spirituality may thus be read as an early articulation of a labour-centred moral philosophy, which Ambedkar later develops into a critique of caste-based occupational stratification.

7. Limits of Kabir from an Ambedkarite Perspective

While Kabir anticipates several elements of anti-caste critique, an Ambedkarite framework also highlights his limitations.

Kabir: does not formulate a political program, does not propose institutional mechanisms for dismantling caste, and remains largely within an ethical–spiritual register.

Ambedkar, by contrast, transforms anti-caste thought into a modern emancipatory project, grounded in constitutionalism, democratic mobilisation, and state intervention.

Thus, Kabir’s significance lies not in providing a complete political theory but in representing a historical stage in the evolution of anti-caste consciousness.

8. Kabir within the Genealogy of Bahujan Intellectual Tradition

From an Ambedkarite perspective, Kabir may be situated within a broader lineage of Bahujan resistance that includes figures such as Ravidas, Tukaram, Jyotirao Phule, Periyar, and Ambedkar himself. This genealogy reflects a continuous struggle against Brahminical social order through diverse intellectual and political strategies.

Kabir’s contribution to this tradition lies in his articulation of a subaltern moral critique that destabilises the cultural legitimacy of caste and religious authority.

Conclusion

Interpreting Sant Kabir through an Ambedkarite political-theoretical framework reveals him as a foundational figure in the historical evolution of anti-caste thought. Kabir’s poetic critique of religious hierarchy, caste inequality, and epistemic monopoly anticipates key elements of Ambedkar’s later political philosophy.

At the same time, the comparison underscores a critical transition from ethical rebellion to institutional transformation. Kabir’s legacy endures not as a complete emancipatory program but as an early articulation of the moral imagination that would later find systematic political expression in Ambedkarite thought.

Courtesy: ChatGpt

Democratic Backsliding in India: An Ambedkarite Constitutional Analysis

 

Democratic Backsliding in India: An Ambedkarite Constitutional Analysis

-         SR Darapuri, National President, All India Peoples Front

This paper examines the contemporary condition of democratic governance, constitutional rights, secularism, and judicial independence in India through an Ambedkarite–constitutionalist lens. It argues that while India formally retains the institutional architecture of a constitutional democracy, its substantive democratic content has been progressively eroded by the rise of majoritarian nationalism, executive centralization, and the weakening of constitutional morality. Drawing on B.R. Ambedkar’s conception of democracy as a social and moral system rather than merely an electoral mechanism, the paper situates India’s current trajectory within broader debates on democratic backsliding and authoritarian populism. It contends that India is witnessing not the collapse but the hollowing out of constitutional democracy, with grave implications for marginalized communities and the future of the republic.

1. Introduction

India’s Constitution envisaged a transformative democratic project aimed at dismantling entrenched hierarchies of caste, religion, and gender, while guaranteeing political liberty, social justice, and equality. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Constitution, consistently warned that constitutional democracy in India would remain fragile unless supported by constitutional morality and social democracy. In recent years, concerns have intensified regarding the erosion of democratic norms, the dilution of constitutional rights, the decline of secularism, and the growing constraints on judicial independence.

This paper seeks to analyze these developments from an Ambedkarite constitutionalist perspective. Rather than treating democracy as synonymous with elections or majoritarian rule, it foregrounds Ambedkar’s insistence on substantive equality, minority rights, and institutional accountability as the core of democratic life. The central argument advanced here is that India today represents a case of democratic backsliding characterized by the persistence of electoral procedures alongside the systematic weakening of constitutional restraints on power.

2. Ambedkar’s Conception of Constitutional Democracy

Ambedkar rejected the minimalist view of democracy as periodic elections. For him, democracy was a form of “associated living” grounded in liberty, equality, and fraternity. He emphasized that political democracy without social democracy would be inherently unstable. Central to this vision was the idea of constitutional morality, defined as respect for constitutional values, limitations on power, and the ethical commitment of institutions and citizens to uphold the spirit of the Constitution.

Ambedkar also viewed the Indian social order—structured by caste and graded inequality—as fundamentally anti-democratic. Consequently, he regarded constitutional safeguards, fundamental rights, and independent institutions as essential correctives against majoritarian domination. His apprehension that Hindu majoritarianism could subvert democracy through the misuse of numerical strength has acquired renewed relevance in contemporary India.

3. Democratic Governance and Executive Centralization

India continues to conduct regular elections with high voter participation, sustaining the formal appearance of democracy. However, democratic governance has increasingly come to be marked by executive dominance and institutional marginalization. Parliament’s deliberative role has been weakened through reduced sittings, limited debate on major legislation, and the growing reliance on ordinances and money bills.

From an Ambedkarite perspective, this concentration of power undermines the constitutional balance envisioned by the framers. Ambedkar consistently argued that unchecked executive authority posed a grave threat to liberty, particularly in societies marked by deep social inequalities. The deployment of investigative and regulatory agencies against political opponents further erodes the conditions for fair political competition, pushing India toward what comparative political theory describes as competitive authoritarianism.

4. Constitutional Rights and the Crisis of Substantive Equality

While the text of fundamental rights remains intact, their practical realization has been increasingly constrained. The frequent use of sedition laws, anti-terror legislation, and preventive detention has curtailed freedoms of speech, association, and personal liberty. Prolonged incarceration without trial has become a defining feature of the contemporary legal landscape.

Ambedkar viewed fundamental rights not as abstract guarantees but as instruments of social emancipation, particularly for historically oppressed communities. The selective enforcement of laws and the differential treatment of minorities, Dalits, Adivasis, and dissenters represent a retreat from the constitutional promise of equality before law. This shift reflects a transition from rights-based constitutionalism to a governance paradigm centered on order, security, and majoritarian sentiment.

5. Secularism and the Rise of Majoritarian Nationalism

Secularism constitutes a basic feature of the Indian Constitution, rooted in the principle of equal respect for all religions. Contemporary political practice, however, has increasingly departed from this constitutional commitment. State neutrality toward religion has been replaced by overt or implicit endorsement of majoritarian cultural nationalism.

Ambedkar regarded the fusion of religion and politics as antithetical to democracy, particularly in a society where religious identity overlapped with social hierarchy. The normalization of communal polarization, selective responses to hate speech, and the differential application of law during episodes of communal violence signify the erosion of secular constitutionalism. In this context, minorities are progressively transformed from equal citizens into conditional subjects of state power.

6. Judicial Independence and Constitutional Adjudication

The judiciary occupies a central position in Ambedkar’s constitutional design as the guardian of fundamental rights and the arbiter of constitutional limits. Although the Indian judiciary formally retains its independence, its contemporary functioning reveals significant constraints. Delays in adjudicating politically sensitive cases, selective prioritization of matters, and increasing deference to the executive on questions of national security and majoritarian policy have weakened judicial oversight.

Rather than overt judicial capture, the present condition may be better described as judicial restraint bordering on abdication. This has profound implications for constitutional democracy, as the absence of timely judicial intervention enables the gradual normalization of unconstitutional practices.

7. Conclusion: Constitutional Democracy at a Crossroads

This paper has argued that India is experiencing a process of democratic hollowing rather than outright authoritarian rupture. Electoral competition persists, but the substantive content of constitutional democracy—rights, secularism, institutional accountability, and judicial independence—has been progressively undermined. From an Ambedkarite perspective, this trajectory reflects the resurgence of social and political forces that the Constitution sought to restrain.

Ambedkar’s warning that democracy in India would be endangered in the absence of constitutional morality resonates with renewed urgency today. The future of the Indian republic depends not merely on the survival of electoral mechanisms, but on the revitalization of constitutional ethics, social democracy, and the struggle against graded inequality. Without this, constitutional democracy risks being reduced to a formal shell, increasingly detached from the emancipatory aspirations that informed its founding.