Reflecting on Ambedkar’s wisdom for a resilient democracy.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Indian Constitution, delivered a speech to the Constituent Assembly on the final day of its proceedings that has resonated through decades. While widely cited, the true value of his words lies not merely in their historical significance, but in the insights they offer for sustaining a healthy democracy today. In this essay, I reflect on Ambedkar’s three warnings—on constitutionalism, the limitations of mere political democracy, and the dangers of leader-worship—exploring their continuing relevance for citizens and institutions in India and beyond.
In his speech to the Constituent Assembly, Ambedkar issued three warnings to future generations of Indians who were about to experiment with a new liberal democratic Constitution—one that, for the first time in India’s history, enshrined liberty, equality, and fraternity as the foundational principles of the Republic. His first warning was against falling into the trap of using unconstitutional methods, even in pursuit of goals deemed noble. In a democracy, political moderation and restraint are essential for achieving lasting results. A revolutionary regime, for instance, could be tempted to achieve goals like alleviating poverty or providing universal education and healthcare through violence, even at the cost of millions of innocent lives. But within a liberal democratic framework, Ambedkar insisted, no matter how noble a goal might appear, a true democrat must confine themselves to constitutional methods—a principle he termed constitutionalism.
Constitutionalism, according to Ambedkar, is not merely a formal respect for the letter of the Constitution but a deep commitment to its true spirit. In our rush to meet growing populist demands, governments often try to achieve more and more in less and less time—frequently without proper deliberation, civic engagement, or space for dissent in the public sphere. Democracy is not simply decision-making by majority vote; at its core, it requires that decisions be made in a deliberative spirit, giving every individual the opportunity to express dissent. In other words, democracy is about discussion, deliberation, and the fearless expression of differing views. To grasp Ambedkar’s first warning in its full meaning, governments—regardless of party—must be the first to embody this constitutional spirit, making legislation and decisions through thoughtful deliberation and by allowing scope for dissent.
For individuals, constitutionalism means that all differences, conflicts, or difficulties—whether with other individuals, their own community, society at large, or even the state—must be resolved strictly by adhering to constitutional norms and respecting constitutional values. In a country like India, which endured long periods of colonization that stifled open debate, criminalized civic engagement, and made deliberative discussion nearly impossible, cultivating this spirit of constitutionalism and a habit of civic engagement is understandably challenging. Yet, despite these historical obstacles, it must not be considered unattainable.
Ambedkar’s second warning focused on the need to transform the mere political democracy established by the Constitution after India’s long struggle against British colonial rule. Like other national leaders of his time, he believed that Swaraj—as envisioned by leaders of different ideologies—should not be limited to the simple transfer of power from colonial authorities to national ones. Continuing this line of thought and eloquently expressing the ideals of the Indian freedom struggle, Ambedkar cautioned that political democracy alone would be insufficient in a country that had endured centuries of exploitation, oppression, and fear. People would expect not only the right to vote but also meaningful improvements in the quality of their lives—economically, socially, and culturally. Without such transformation, Ambedkar warned, there was a real danger that the very masses who had fought for freedom in millions, hoping for a better life after British rule, could become disillusioned. In their frustration, they might destroy the fragile democratic structure painstakingly built by the Constitution and replace it with a sinister authoritarian democracy—or, in the worst case, an outright dictatorship.
In the same spirit of his deep love for democracy and his awareness of its possible dangers, Ambedkar issued his third warning: no democratic citizen should ever consider their representatives to be above moral law. Any form of cult-like worship of leaders is a dangerous practice, incompatible with a healthy democratic society. Citizens must hold their representatives accountable, ensure that popular ambitions are translated into public policy, and consistently demand that democratic institutions and their leaders act in a transparent, responsible, and accountable manner.
Those who exceed their mandate or prioritize personal glory at the expense of the nation’s interest, social harmony, or economic prosperity must be firmly checked. Ambedkar believed that the path to dictatorship could very easily be paved through such cults of personality—a risk particularly potent in a country like India, where devotion and bhakti have long shaped the cultural imagination.
These three warnings carry stage-like wisdom for a reason. Like the American founding fathers, Ambedkar understood that democratic institutions, at the time of their foundation, would represent the aspirations of the people—especially after a long struggle against colonial rule, imbued with moral undertones. For a generation or two, representatives would work for the national interest, foster social harmony, and alleviate the plight of the people, while citizens would actively engage in civic life and treat the nation as their own.
Yet, over time, this vigilance can wane: citizens may stop holding the state accountable, and the state’s commitment to due procedures and constitutional principles may erode. This is exactly what happened in India during the Emergency, and to some extent, both before and after it.
In light of current conditions—where the state actively polarizes society and society responds with equally radicalized, retaliatory rhetoric—the need for political moderation, reflection, and introspection is urgent. To cultivate these virtues, we must continually draw inspiration from the vision of the founding fathers, and especially from Ambedkar.
Comments