BABG 171
UNDERSTANDING B.R. AMBEDKAR
IGNOU BABG 171 Free Solved Assignment 2024
BABG 171 Free Solved Assignment July 2024 & January 2025
Assignment-I
Q 1. Discuss Ambedkar view on caste.
Ans. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s views on caste were revolutionary for his time and remain deeply influential even today.
As someone who personally experienced the harsh realities of caste discrimination, his critique of the caste system was both powerful and grounded in lived experience.
He saw the caste system as not just a social hierarchy but as a deeply oppressive and rigid system that denied basic dignity, rights, and opportunities to millions of people in India.
Ambedkar didn’t simply aim to reform caste practices—he sought to annihilate caste altogether.
For him, caste was not a matter of religion or tradition; it was a man-made system designed to keep a large section of society in permanent subjugation.
Ambedkar believed that caste was a form of graded inequality where people were not just divided, but arranged in a strict order of superiority and inferiority.
According to him, what made caste more dangerous than other forms of inequality was its religious sanction.
The Manusmriti, a Hindu law book, was a particular target of his criticism because it justified caste-based discrimination and untouchability in the name of dharma.
He argued that any system that considers a whole group of people untouchable is inhumane and unacceptable in a civilized society.
Caste, in his view, did not allow for social mobility or individual growth, and it denied the basic principle of equality.
One of Ambedkar’s sharpest critiques was that caste is not just about division of labor—it is about division of laborers.
While many tried to defend the caste system by claiming it provided an organized structure for different types of work, Ambedkar rejected this argument.
He said that in caste, the worth of a person is judged not by their skills or character but by their birth. This destroyed the spirit of liberty and fairness.
The idea that one is born into a caste and must live and die within it, regardless of talent or effort, was to him a serious barrier to both personal development and national progress.
Ambedkar was also very critical of the Hindu social order that supported and sustained the caste system.
He believed that true social justice could not be achieved within the traditional Hindu framework, which he felt was inherently discriminatory.
That is why he famously said, “Hinduism is not a religion, but a compilation of castes.” In his view, religion should unite people, not divide them.
But in India, caste had become a tool of exclusion, and religion was being misused to protect this exclusion.
He saw this as a dangerous mix that needed to be challenged both intellectually and politically.
Ambedkar’s call for the annihilation of caste was most clearly expressed in his famous speech Annihilation of Caste in 1936, which he had originally written as a lecture for a meeting organized by a group of progressive Hindus.
When they asked him to remove critical comments about Hinduism and caste, he refused and instead published the speech himself.
In this speech, he questioned not only the caste system but also the unwillingness of even progressive Hindus to fully break with the idea of caste.
He urged the oppressed communities to rise, get educated, and assert their rights rather than wait for others to uplift them.
Education, he said, was the key to self-respect and empowerment.
Ambedkar also believed that political power alone was not enough unless it was supported by social reform.
That’s why he worked tirelessly for both political representation of Dalits and their social upliftment.
He fought for the rights of the depressed classes to access public water, temples, and education.
He also played a crucial role in the framing of the Indian Constitution, where he ensured legal protections against caste discrimination.
The inclusion of the Right to Equality, the abolition of untouchability under Article 17, and the guarantee of fundamental rights to all citizens were deeply influenced by Ambedkar’s vision.
However, Ambedkar eventually realized that mere legal reform was not enough to destroy the deep-rooted caste mentality.
That is why, toward the later part of his life, he made a personal and political decision to leave Hinduism and convert to Buddhism along with hundreds of thousands of his followers.
He chose Buddhism because he believed it was a religion based on equality, compassion, and rational thought—values that directly opposed the caste-based inequality of Hindu society.
His conversion was not just a religious act but a strong political and social statement against caste oppression.
Q 2. Analyse Ambedkar view on village.
Ans. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s views on the Indian village are both bold and deeply insightful.
Unlike the romanticized vision of villages that many nationalist leaders and thinkers held, Ambedkar saw the Indian village through a lens of realism shaped by his own experiences as a member of a marginalized community.
While thinkers like Mahatma Gandhi often glorified the village as the soul of India, Ambedkar strongly disagreed with this idea.
For him, the village was not an ideal space of harmony and simplicity but rather a site of deep social injustice, particularly for Dalits and other oppressed communities.
His view was grounded in the harsh realities of caste-based exclusion, discrimination, and violence that existed in rural India.
Ambedkar believed that the village was not a symbol of Indian unity or tradition but a microcosm of caste hierarchy.
He famously remarked that the Indian village is “a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness, and communalism.”
This strong statement captures his sense of frustration and disillusionment with the way rural life was organized.
In his view, villages were not places of collective well-being but rather tightly controlled caste-based societies where the lower castes, especially the untouchables, were treated as less than human.
They were not allowed to draw water from common wells, enter temples, or even walk on the same streets as upper castes.
In many villages, untouchables were forced to live on the outskirts, cut off from the rest of the community both physically and socially.
Ambedkar’s understanding of village life came not from theory, but from observation and personal experience.
Born into a Dalit family, he had firsthand knowledge of how caste operated at the grassroots level.
His experiences of humiliation and social exclusion in childhood shaped his entire worldview.
He saw that the village, far from being a peaceful or moral place, was a space where caste-based oppression was most rigid and visible.
While urban areas allowed for some degree of anonymity and mobility, the village was controlled by caste norms that were hard to break.
It was here that social discrimination was most direct and unavoidable.
Ambedkar also believed that villages were resistant to change.
While cities could become spaces for modern ideas, democratic institutions, and social mobility, villages remained largely stagnant.
He felt that the grip of caste was tighter in rural areas, where traditional values and customs held more authority.
Education, modern law, and social reform had a harder time reaching villages, and this was a serious obstacle to building an egalitarian society.
In Ambedkar’s view, the glorification of the village was a dangerous illusion because it distracted from the need to confront the deep structural inequalities rooted there.
His criticism of the village was also tied to his larger vision of modern India.
Ambedkar believed in progress through constitutional democracy, education, industrialization, and urbanization.
He did not believe that India could become a modern and just nation by looking backward or idealizing traditional structures like the village or the caste system.
Instead, he argued that real progress lay in breaking away from oppressive traditions and embracing rationality, equality, and social justice.
He saw urbanization as a potential tool for diluting caste rigidity and providing more opportunities for marginalized communities.
It’s important to understand that Ambedkar’s criticism of the village was not a rejection of rural people, but of the oppressive structures that ruled rural life.
He had deep sympathy for the poor and the oppressed, but he refused to ignore the reality that most of this oppression was built into the social fabric of village life.
Unlike Gandhi, who believed that strengthening village life would lead to national regeneration, Ambedkar believed that without attacking the caste system in villages, no real social change could occur.
His focus was on transforming rural life by removing the roots of inequality and creating a society based on equal rights and dignity for all.
Ambedkar’s views on villages also influenced his work as the chairman of the drafting committee of the Indian Constitution.
The constitutional provisions that aimed to abolish untouchability, ensure equality before the law, and provide safeguards for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were shaped by his understanding of rural injustice.
He knew that unless legal and institutional frameworks were put in place, the social evils that dominated village life would continue unchecked.
In recent years, Ambedkar’s critique of the village has gained renewed relevance.
Many scholars and activists now recognize that rural India still struggles with caste-based discrimination, gender inequality, and lack of access to education and healthcare.
His insights remind us that development must be inclusive and that rural upliftment cannot succeed without addressing the deep-rooted social issues that Ambedkar exposed.
Far from being outdated, his thoughts offer a powerful framework for understanding the challenges of rural transformation in India today.
Assignment-II
Q 3. Analyse Ambedkar’s contribution towards gender equality in India.
Ans. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar is widely remembered as a champion of Dalit rights and social justice, but one of the most profound yet less frequently acknowledged aspects of his legacy is his contribution to gender equality in India.
Ambedkar understood that the struggle for social justice would be incomplete without addressing the discrimination faced by women.
His efforts to uplift and empower women were rooted in the same spirit of justice and equality that inspired his fight against caste oppression.
He believed that a just society must treat all its members equally, regardless of caste or gender, and he worked throughout his life to ensure that women were granted the rights and respect they deserved.
Ambedkar’s commitment to gender equality was visible from his early years. He grew up in a society where women, especially from lower castes, were doubly marginalized—first for their caste, and second for their gender.
He recognized that the burden of caste-based discrimination often fell heaviest on women, who were subjected to social restrictions, lack of education, economic dependence, and even physical violence.
For Ambedkar, the liberation of women was as essential as the annihilation of caste, and he saw both struggles as deeply interconnected.
He believed that until women were freed from the chains of patriarchy, society as a whole could not progress.
One of the most significant areas where Ambedkar worked to advance gender equality was in the framing of the Indian Constitution.
As the chairman of the drafting committee, he ensured that the Constitution of India guaranteed equal rights to women.
The fundamental rights outlined in the Constitution—especially the right to equality before the law, non-discrimination on the basis of sex, and the right to personal liberty—were strongly influenced by Ambedkar’s vision.
These provisions gave women a legal foundation to fight against centuries of injustice and discrimination.
Ambedkar saw the Constitution not just as a political document but as a moral commitment to building an inclusive society.
However, Ambedkar didn’t stop at theory or legal language. He also worked actively to bring concrete changes to women’s lives through legislation.
One of his most groundbreaking initiatives was the Hindu Code Bill.
This set of laws aimed to reform Hindu personal law by granting women the right to property, divorce, and inheritance, among other rights.
These were radical ideas at the time, especially in a deeply patriarchal society where women were often treated as the property of their husbands or fathers.
Ambedkar argued that without legal reforms in family and personal law, women could never achieve true equality.
Although the bill faced massive opposition and was not passed during his tenure, Ambedkar’s efforts laid the groundwork for later reforms.
His resignation from the Nehru cabinet in protest of the delay in passing the Hindu Code Bill showed his deep commitment to women’s rights.
Ambedkar also emphasized the importance of education for women.
He believed that education was the most powerful tool to break the cycle of dependency and oppression.
He famously said, “I measure the progress of a community by the degree of progress which women have achieved.”
He encouraged women from all backgrounds, particularly Dalit women, to educate themselves, become self-reliant, and participate in public life.
Through his writings, speeches, and social initiatives, he constantly urged women to fight for their rights and stand up against both caste and gender oppression.
One of the most remarkable aspects of Ambedkar’s approach to gender equality was his inclusive and intersectional vision.
Long before the term “intersectionality” became widely used, Ambedkar recognized that women’s issues could not be separated from caste and class.
He understood that the experience of an upper-caste woman was very different from that of a Dalit woman, and he focused his efforts on uplifting those at the bottom of the social ladder.
In his speeches at women’s conferences, he addressed topics like child marriage, domestic violence, and access to education, while also highlighting how caste made these problems worse for Dalit women.
Ambedkar also created space for women in his own political and social movements. Dalit women played important roles in the social reform activities he led, and he encouraged them to speak, organize, and lead.
He believed that the empowerment of women was not just a women’s issue, but a societal one that needed the involvement of all progressive forces.
His efforts to create a political platform that addressed both caste and gender were visionary and far ahead of his time.
Q 4. Discuss Ambedkar’s understanding of untouchability.
Ans. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s understanding of untouchability was not just intellectual or academic—it was personal, deeply emotional, and shaped by his lived experiences as a member of the so-called “untouchable” community.
Born into a Dalit family in 1891, Ambedkar faced discrimination from a very early age.
He was denied water in school, made to sit separately from other students, and was often treated as an outsider in his own land.
These incidents were not isolated; they were a part of the larger system of untouchability that was deeply embedded in Indian society.
As Ambedkar grew older and gained education, he began to critically analyze the roots, structure, and consequences of this cruel practice.
His writings, speeches, and activism reflect a detailed and thorough understanding of untouchability as a social, religious, and psychological problem.
Ambedkar viewed untouchability as a unique form of social exclusion that was far more degrading than other forms of oppression.
For him, it was not just about being poor or disadvantaged—it was about being seen as polluted and inhuman.
He pointed out that untouchables were not simply a lower caste but a group considered outside the caste system altogether, treated as if they had no dignity or right to exist on equal terms.
They were denied access to temples, schools, public wells, and even roads.
They had to live on the outskirts of villages and often had to announce their presence with bells or brooms to avoid “polluting” upper-caste Hindus.
This kind of systematic humiliation left deep scars, both on individuals and the community.
One of the most striking aspects of Ambedkar’s analysis was his identification of religion as the root cause of untouchability.
He firmly believed that untouchability was a product of the Hindu caste system, sanctioned and perpetuated by religious texts like the Manusmriti.
He was deeply critical of Hinduism for creating and justifying such rigid social hierarchies.
In his work, “The Untouchables: Who Were They and Why They Became Untouchables?” Ambedkar argued that untouchability had religious and cultural roots that stretched back centuries.
According to him, the untouchables were originally part of the same society but were pushed out and branded as impure due to religious reasons—particularly for refusing to follow Brahmanical authority or for taking up occupations that were considered “polluting,” like handling dead animals or cleaning.
Ambedkar did not stop at identifying the problem; he also provided a path for its solution.
He believed that social reform would not be enough unless it was accompanied by legal and political empowerment.
As a member of the Constituent Assembly and the chief architect of the Indian Constitution, Ambedkar ensured that untouchability was not only condemned morally but also abolished legally.
Article 17 of the Indian Constitution, which outlaws untouchability in any form, stands as a direct result of Ambedkar’s struggle.
He insisted that no country could call itself civilized if it allowed such a cruel practice to continue.
At the same time, Ambedkar understood that laws alone could not change deep-seated social attitudes.
He believed that true change would come only through education, economic empowerment, and political representation.
He tirelessly worked to promote education among Dalits, believing that it was the key to breaking the chains of caste.
He opened hostels, supported scholarships, and spoke passionately about the need for Dalits to become literate, skilled, and self-reliant.
For him, education was not just about learning; it was a form of resistance, a way to demand one’s rightful place in society.
Another major step in Ambedkar’s fight against untouchability was his call for Dalits to embrace a different religion.
He felt that as long as Dalits remained within the Hindu fold, they would never be seen as equals.
After years of study and introspection, he chose Buddhism as the path of liberation. In 1956, along with hundreds of thousands of followers, Ambedkar converted to Buddhism in a historic ceremony.
For him, Buddhism offered a religion based on equality, compassion, and rationality, unlike the caste-ridden structure of Hinduism.
His conversion was not just a spiritual move but a bold political and social statement against the system that had oppressed his people for centuries.
Ambedkar also encouraged Dalits to unite and fight for their rights. He founded political parties like the Scheduled Castes Federation to give voice to Dalit issues in the political space.
He believed that without a strong and united political presence, Dalits would always be ignored by mainstream parties.
He wanted Dalits to stop seeking charity and instead demand justice and representation. He often said, “We are not asking for mercy; we are asking for our rights.”
Q 5. Discuss Ambedkar’s critique on monetary economy in colonial India.
Ans. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s critique of the monetary economy in colonial India reflected his deep understanding of economics and his concern for the socio-economic well-being of the common people, especially the oppressed classes.
While he is most popularly remembered for his contribution to law, social justice, and the Indian Constitution, Ambedkar was also a trained economist, having earned his D.Sc.
in Economics from the London School of Economics and a Ph.D. in Economics from Columbia University.
His work on India’s monetary economy, particularly during British rule, reveals how he viewed the financial structure of colonial India as exploitative and deeply flawed.
Ambedkar believed that the monetary policies of the British government in India were not designed to promote growth or economic equality, but rather to serve the interests of the Empire at the cost of Indian prosperity.
One of Ambedkar’s most important economic works is his book The Problem of the Rupee: Its Origin and Its Solution, written in 1923.
In this work, he analyzed the instability and confusion around India’s currency system under British rule.
He criticized the colonial government for adopting the gold exchange standard rather than the gold standard, which he believed led to artificial control over the value of the rupee.
According to him, this created a monetary imbalance that hurt India’s trade, increased inflation, and destabilized the rural economy.
Ambedkar argued that currency should reflect the real economic conditions of a country and not be controlled to benefit a foreign power.
He also emphasized that a stable monetary system was essential for long-term development, and he suggested reforms based on sound economic principles, including moving towards a managed currency system that would benefit Indian industries and workers.
Ambedkar also raised concerns about how the colonial monetary system impacted the agricultural sector, which was the backbone of the Indian economy.
He pointed out that the fluctuation in the value of the rupee severely affected peasants, who had to deal with inconsistent prices for their produce and rising debt burdens.
The lack of credit support and the exploitative moneylending practices only worsened their situation.
Ambedkar highlighted how economic distress caused by a manipulated currency system had a direct social impact, particularly on lower-caste and marginalized farmers.
He believed that a just monetary policy should protect these vulnerable groups rather than worsen their suffering.
Another significant aspect of Ambedkar’s critique was his analysis of colonial taxation policies and public finance.
He noted that the British were more focused on extracting wealth from India than on reinvesting it in the country’s development.
Heavy land revenue taxes, limited welfare spending, and minimal industrial development created an economic structure that stifled growth and deepened inequality.
Ambedkar was one of the few thinkers of his time who argued that political freedom alone was not enough; economic freedom and self-reliance were equally important for a nation’s progress.
He believed that unless India developed its own financial systems and institutions, true independence could not be achieved.
In essence, Ambedkar’s critique of the monetary economy in colonial India was rooted in his belief that economic justice was a necessary part of social justice.
He saw the monetary system under British rule as a tool of control, which not only drained India’s resources but also pushed the poor and marginalized deeper into poverty.
His ideas remain relevant even today as they remind us that monetary policy must be shaped not just by abstract theory or elite interests, but by the real needs of the people.
Ambedkar’s economic writings laid a foundation for thinking about finance and development from a human-centric, justice-oriented perspective.
Assignment-III
Q 6. Ambedkar’s view on social democracy.
Ans. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s view on social democracy was deeply rooted in his vision of justice, equality, and human dignity.
For Ambedkar, social democracy meant much more than just a political framework—it was a way of life that rested on three key values: liberty, equality, and fraternity.
He believed that political democracy, represented by voting rights and parliamentary institutions, would be meaningless if it did not lead to social and economic equality in the lives of ordinary citizens.
In his famous speech to the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949, Ambedkar warned that India was entering a phase of political democracy but was still deeply unequal in social and economic terms.
He urged the nation to bridge this gap by embracing social democracy and ensuring that justice was not confined to the Constitution but practiced in everyday life.
Ambedkar was particularly concerned that caste, class, and religious hierarchies in Indian society could threaten the foundation of democracy if left unchallenged.
He argued that unless all citizens were treated equally and given the same opportunities, true democracy would never take root.
For him, social democracy was about empowering the oppressed and marginalized, ensuring equal rights for women, eliminating caste discrimination, and promoting education and social reform.
His emphasis on fraternity—the spirit of brotherhood—was central to his vision, as he believed that mutual respect and a sense of shared humanity were essential for building a cohesive and democratic society.
Ambedkar’s idea of social democracy continues to inspire movements for justice and equality in India and beyond.
Q 7. Citizenship
Ans. Citizenship is a fundamental concept that defines the relationship between an individual and the state.
It gives a person not only a legal identity but also a set of rights and responsibilities within a particular country.
A citizen is someone who belongs to a nation and, in return, enjoys protection under its laws and is expected to contribute to its welfare and uphold its values.
The idea of citizenship has evolved over time, from being limited to a few privileged groups in ancient societies to becoming more inclusive and democratic in modern states.
In today’s world, citizenship is not just about holding a passport or voting in elections; it is also about participating actively in society, respecting the rights of others, and promoting justice and equality.
In India, citizenship is defined by the Constitution, which grants every citizen certain fundamental rights such as the right to equality, freedom, and protection under the law.
It also expects citizens to fulfill duties like respecting the Constitution, promoting harmony, protecting the environment, and contributing to the nation’s development.
Citizenship can be acquired by birth, descent, registration, or naturalization. However, it is not merely a legal status—it carries a deeper meaning of belonging, responsibility, and participation.
Good citizenship involves being aware of social issues, standing up against injustice, and working for the common good.
In a diverse country like India, where people come from different backgrounds, the idea of citizenship plays a crucial role in uniting people under the shared identity of being part of one nation.
Q 8. Ambedkar’s view on small holding.
Ans.Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s view on small holdings in agriculture was shaped by his broader concerns about social justice, economic inequality, and the empowerment of marginalized communities, particularly Dalits and landless laborers.
He recognized that the majority of Indian farmers owned very small plots of land, which were often unviable for sustaining a family due to their limited size, low productivity, and lack of access to modern tools and resources.
Ambedkar believed that the mere distribution of land to the landless, while morally justified, was not enough to bring about real change unless it was accompanied by institutional and structural support.
He argued that small holdings, when operated individually, led to economic inefficiency and deepened rural poverty, as they prevented farmers from taking advantage of economies of scale.
To overcome these problems, Ambedkar advocated for collective farming or state-managed agriculture.
In his vision, the state would take ownership of agricultural land and lease it to cooperative farming groups, ensuring fair distribution and efficient use of resources.
He believed that such an arrangement would reduce exploitation by landlords and moneylenders, increase productivity through modern techniques, and improve the overall standard of living for farmers.
Ambedkar’s approach was both economic and moral—he wanted to create a just system where every person had equal opportunity, not just in theory but in practice.
His concern with small holdings was thus not only about land, but about transforming rural India into a more equitable and productive space, where agriculture served the interests of the people, not just the privileged few.
Q 9. Ambedkar’s view on federalism
Ans. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s view on federalism was grounded in practicality, unity, and the need to balance power between the Centre and the states.
As the principal architect of the Indian Constitution, Ambedkar played a critical role in shaping India’s federal structure.
He understood the vastness and diversity of India—linguistic, cultural, regional, and social—and recognized that a completely centralized or entirely decentralized system would not suit such a complex society.
Therefore, Ambedkar supported a unique model of federalism that would preserve national unity while allowing regional autonomy to address local needs effectively.
Ambedkar described India as a “Union of States” rather than a federation formed by the agreement of independent states.
He believed that the Indian federation was not the result of an agreement between states like in the United States, but a creation of the Constitution.
This meant the Indian Union was indestructible, and no state had the right to secede. However, this did not mean Ambedkar ignored state autonomy.
He ensured that the Constitution provided for a dual system of government, where powers were clearly divided between the Centre and the states through the Union, State, and Concurrent Lists.
Q 10. Parliamentary democracy
Ans.Parliamentary democracy is a form of government in which the power to make laws and decisions rests with a parliament elected by the people.
In this system, the executive branch, which includes the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers, is drawn from the legislature and is responsible to it.
The government must have the confidence of the majority in the legislature to remain in power.
This means that the ruling party or coalition must continuously prove that it has the support of the majority of elected representatives in the parliament.
If it loses that support, it can be removed through a vote of no confidence, leading to either a new government being formed or fresh elections being called.
In India, parliamentary democracy is the backbone of the political system and operates at both the central and state levels.
It is based on the principles of representation, accountability, and transparency.
Citizens elect their representatives through free and fair elections, and these representatives, in turn, form the government and make laws on behalf of the people.
One of the key strengths of this system is that it allows for regular checks and balances through debates, questions, and discussions in the parliament.
IGNOU BESE 142 Free Solved Assignment 2024