Nation, Nationalism and Inclusive Citizenship
The question of the nation and nationalism occupied a central place in B. R. Ambedkar’s political thought, but his approach differed fundamentally from dominant nationalist discourses in India. For Ambedkar, the nation was not a cultural or spiritual given, nor was nationalism an unquestionable moral virtue. Instead, both had to be critically examined through the lens of social justice, equality, and citizenship. He consistently argued that a nation cannot be built on social exclusion, graded inequality, or the denial of dignity to large sections of its population.
Ambedkar’s reflections on nationhood emerged from his deep engagement with the realities of caste, minority rights, and constitutional democracy. He challenged the assumption that political unity automatically produces social unity, and warned that nationalism, when detached from social reform, can become a tool of domination rather than emancipation.
The Idea of the Nation: Social Foundations over Cultural Unity
Ambedkar rejected the romantic and culturalist conception of the nation that defined India primarily as a civilizational or religious unity. He argued that a nation is not merely a shared history, culture, or sentiment, but a social organization grounded in relations of equality and mutual respect. In a society fragmented by caste hierarchies, the claim of national unity, in his view, was deeply problematic.
For Ambedkar, Indian society lacked the basic social conditions necessary for nationhood. Caste, by enforcing endogamy, segregation, and social distance, prevented the emergence of a collective social life. He famously argued that caste is “anti-national” because it destroys social cohesion and fraternity. A society divided into hierarchical groups cannot easily transform itself into a moral community of equals.
Thus, Ambedkar inverted the dominant nationalist argument: instead of assuming the nation as a pre-existing reality, he insisted that nationhood must be consciously constructed through social transformation. Without annihilating caste and establishing social equality, political claims of nationhood remained superficial.
Ambedkar’s Critique of Nationalism
Ambedkar’s critique of nationalism was not a rejection of collective political identity, but a warning against uncritical and exclusionary nationalism. He was deeply suspicious of nationalism that demanded sacrifice and unity without addressing internal injustices. In such forms, nationalism often masked the interests of dominant social groups while silencing marginalized voices.
He pointed out that Indian nationalism frequently prioritized freedom from colonial rule while ignoring the unfreedom experienced by Dalits, women, and minorities within Indian society. For Ambedkar, nationalism that does not confront social oppression reproduces inequality under a new political framework.
Ambedkar was particularly critical of majoritarian nationalism, which sought to define the nation in religious or cultural terms. Such nationalism, he argued, undermines democracy by converting numerical majority into moral authority. True nationalism, in contrast, must be rooted in constitutional values rather than cultural homogeneity.
Citizenship as the Core of the Nation
In Ambedkar’s political philosophy, citizenship occupies a more central position than nationalism. He believed that the strength of a nation lies not in emotional attachment or cultural symbols, but in the status and rights of its citizens. Citizenship, for him, was the institutional expression of equality and dignity.
Ambedkar conceptualized citizenship as inclusive, rights-based, and constitutionally guaranteed. He rejected any notion of citizenship based on birth into a particular religion, caste, or culture. Instead, citizenship had to be grounded in universal principles of justice, liberty, and equality.
Importantly, Ambedkar emphasized that citizenship is not merely a legal status but a social condition. Formal rights mean little if social practices deny individuals the ability to exercise those rights. Hence, inclusive citizenship requires not only constitutional provisions but also social reform and state intervention to dismantle entrenched hierarchies.
Inclusive Citizenship and Minority Rights
Ambedkar’s idea of inclusive citizenship was shaped by his concern for minorities and marginalized communities. He argued that democracy is meaningful only when minorities feel secure and respected. Citizenship, therefore, must protect individuals not just from the arbitrary power of the state, but also from the tyranny of the social majority.
He consistently advocated constitutional safeguards, legal remedies, and institutional mechanisms to ensure that historically oppressed groups could participate as equal citizens. This included reservations, fundamental rights, and strong legal protections against discrimination.
Ambedkar rejected assimilationist models of citizenship that demanded cultural conformity. Instead, he supported a pluralist framework in which diversity could coexist with equality. Inclusive citizenship, in his view, allows individuals to retain their identities while enjoying equal moral and political standing.
Nationhood through Constitutional Morality
A key concept linking Ambedkar’s ideas on nation and citizenship is constitutional morality. He believed that a democratic nation must be sustained by respect for constitutional values rather than by emotional nationalism. Constitutional morality requires citizens and institutions to act in accordance with principles of justice, restraint, and mutual respect.
For Ambedkar, constitutional morality was especially important in a society emerging from deep social inequalities. It functioned as an ethical guide to transform social relations and prevent the abuse of power. Only when citizens internalize constitutional values can a nation become stable, inclusive, and democratic.
Thus, Ambedkar envisioned the Indian nation not as a cultural unity forged in the past, but as a constitutional project oriented toward the future—a project that demands continuous struggle against inequality and exclusion.
Conclusion: Reimagining Nation and Nationalism
Ambedkar’s ideas on nation, nationalism, and inclusive citizenship offer a radical rethinking of political community in India. He shifted the focus from cultural unity to social justice, from emotional nationalism to constitutional ethics, and from abstract nationhood to lived citizenship.
In Ambedkar’s vision, a true nation is one in which all individuals—regardless of caste, religion, gender, or social origin—can participate as equals. Nationalism, if it is to be morally defensible, must serve this inclusive vision rather than undermine it. His thought remains deeply relevant in contemporary debates on citizenship, minority rights, and the meaning of nationalism in a democratic society.
References
- Ambedkar, B. R. Annihilation of Caste.
- Ambedkar, B. R. States and Minorities.
- Ambedkar, B. R. Speech in the Constituent Assembly Debates.
- Gore, M. S. The Social Context of an Ideology: Ambedkar’s Political and Social Thought.
- Omvedt, Gail. Liberty, Equality and Community: Dr. Ambedkar’s Vision of New Social Order.
- Rodrigues, Valerian (ed.). The Essential Writings of B. R. Ambedkar.
