ABSTRACT
This chapter argues that it is necessary to go beyond the texts produced by B.R. Ambedkar to examine his theory of democracy, as he belongs to what Hannah Arendt calls the intellectual tradition of vita activa rather than vita contemplativa. It is necessary to flesh out ideas implicit in his practices. Unlike socialists and Nehru who assume that India’s parliamentary democracy is derived from the British model, Ambedkar argues that parliamentary democracy can be rooted in India’s history which offers signposts for Indian democracy in 1949. He proposes the history of Buddhism as signposts of Indian democracy. Unlike communists, Ambedkar argues that political democracy is very important and that India’s social democracy cannot be envisioned without challenging caste inequalities. Ambedkar argues that democracy may be classified in terms of three different forms. First, there is a distinction between social democracy and political democracy. This is well known in Ambedkar studies. However, certain principles of precedence are overlooked in the existing studies. Second, democracy as a policy of appeasement is to be distinguished from a policy of settlement of grievances. Third, democracy as mechanism (means) must be separated from democracy as value (ends).
