‘Civis Indianus sum’?Ambedkar on democracy and territory during linguistic reorganization (and partition)

Abstract

This article considers Ambedkar's ideas about the implementation of democracy in India, in the context of the linguistic reorganization of provincial administrative boundaries. In doing so, it looks to emphasize the importance of territorial configurations to Dalit politics during this period and, in particular, the consequences of ‘provincialization’, which has received little attention within the existing literature. Rethinking space by redrawing administrative territory provided Ambedkar with one potential avenue through which to escape the strictures of Dalits’ minority status. In this vision, linguistic reorganization (and partition) were harbingers of greater democratization and potential palliatives to the threat of Hindu majority rule at the centre. In turn, however, Ambedkar simultaneously came to perceive the creation of these new administrative spaces as marking a new form of provincial majoritarianism, despite his best efforts to form alliances with those making such demands. In this sense, the article also seeks to address some of the shared processes behind linguistic reorganization and partition as two related forms of territorial redrawing. In the face of these demands, and the failures of both commensuration and coalition politics, Ambedkar turned to the idea of separate settlements for Dalits, whereby they might themselves come to constitute a majority. Whilst such a novel attempt at separation and resettlement was not ultimately realized, its emergence within Ambedkar's thought at this time points towards its significance in any history of caste and untouchability in twentieth-century South Asia.

B. R. Ambedkar on Caste, Democracy, and State Action

“…1 Ambedkar was a complex and prolific figure with wide-ranging substantive interests. The latest research has reflected this, with some of the most notable studies exploring such varied topics as Ambedkar’s understanding of the relationship between practices of untouchability and the organization of physical space (Cháirez-Garza 2014; Godsmark 2020), his theorization of the relationship between Brahminism and patriarchy (Rege 2013), his fascinating adjudication between Buddhism and Marxism (Skaria 2015), and the philosophical and rhetorical elements of his ultimate conversion to Buddhism (Kumar 2015; Stroud 2017).…”

“… 23. For a thorough historical account of Ambedkar’s thinking on the subject of separate settlements as well as the wider context in which he made his interventions, see Godsmark 2020, 418–428. While I have emphasized the economic justifications Ambedkar put forward, Godsmark rightly notes that separate settlements were also held out “as a potential antidote, where Dalits might constitute a demographic majority themselves” (418).…”