Ambedkar’s essay demands proactive destruction of caste, viewing it as a barrier to democracy. Yet the Constitution, of which he was an architect, codifies caste through reservations, transforming fluid identities into rigid legal silos. The result? A fragmented society enshrining caste as an eternal tool of power, perpetually nursing division at its ever-flowing breast, contradicting the imperative to eradicate it

Unveiling the paradox

In the annals of modern Indian thought, few documents capture the tension between aspiration and reality as starkly as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s ‘Annihilation of Caste’ juxtaposed against the Constitution. The former demands dismantling caste hierarchies, while the latter entrenches them through reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). This paradox reveals a flaw in India’s legal framework—a system that perpetuates inequality under the guise of equity, nourishing elite beneficiaries while denying true justice to the masses.

By codifying caste, the Constitution contradicts the goal of caste eradication, fostering identity-based privileges. ‘Social justice,’ often a pretext for lowered standards, produces inefficiencies in education, governance, and progress. Advocates invoking Ambedkar’s legacy selectively celebrate both his critique and this compromise. A truly egalitarian society requires replacing the Constitution, which entrenches caste, with a framework that prioritizes universal equity.

The birth of annihilation of caste

‘Annihilation of Caste’ is an undelivered speech written in 1936 by B.R. Ambedkar, which he self-published as a book. The organisers of Jat-Pat Todak Mandal (Society for the Break-Up of Caste System), an anti-caste Hindu reformist organisation in Lahore, found the text objectionable—so scandalous, intemperate, and incendiary in promoting conversion out of Hindutva (Sanatana Dharma). Upon Ambedkar’s refusal to change even a comma, they cancelled the conference. In July 1936, M. K. Gandhi refuted it in his Harijan journal’s article ‘A Vindication of Caste,’ calling it fantasy, perverted scholarship, and intellectual dishonesty.

Contradictions in the man and in his method

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, born into the relatively privileged Sakpal family of the Mahar caste (his father a Subedar in the Army, a high position then), benefited from the very system he would later decry. He availed educational opportunities beyond most dreams, thanks to upper-caste benefactors, earning degrees from Pune’s Elphinstone College, New York’s Columbia University, the London School of Economics, and Gray’s Inn, London.

In 1897, at Elphinstone High School, his Marathi Brahmana teacher, Krishnaji Keshav Ambedkar, gifted him his surname ‘Ambedkar’ out of fondness. Baroda’s Maharaja Sayajirao Gaikwad, a Kshatriya, bankrolled his advanced studies and employed him in Baroda’s State Service. Yet, Ambedkar spun tales of relentless oppression by Hindu society. Why? He milked the very Hindu system he vilified for personal gain, political power, and cozying up to forces bent on splintering Hindu unity and pushing conversions.

This personal paradox mirrors the chasm between ‘Annihilation of Caste’ and the Constitution, revealing contradictions not just in the man but in his method and vision. Ambedkar’s essay demands proactive destruction of caste, viewing it as a barrier to democracy. Yet the Constitution, of which he was an architect, codifies caste through reservations, transforming fluid identities into rigid legal silos. The result? A fragmented society enshrining caste as an eternal tool of power, perpetually nursing division at its ever-flowing breast, contradicting the imperative to eradicate it.

Constitutional entrenchment of caste

Fast forward to 1950: the Constitution emerges as India’s legal lodestar, promising equality but enshrining caste-based reservations—quotas in education, employment, and legislatures for SCs, STs, and later OBCs. By enumerating castes and tribes and tying benefits to them, it transforms fluid social identities into rigid legal categories. Logically, if the goal is annihilation, codifying caste defeats it. This constitutional fix deepens social divides, breeds bias, and sows conflict. It also fosters dependency, akin to a mother who feeds her young from her breast but traps them in eternal infancy, denying them the chance to stand alone.

The word ‘caste’ appears 72 times and ‘tribe’ (a synonym for caste) 109 times, totalling 181 instances in the Constitution. This pervasive focus underscores how deeply embedded caste categories are in our constitutional framework. Thus, far from making India an egalitarian society, the Constitution enshrines ‘caste’ (tribe) in stone, balkanising it down to the village level.

Reservations’ flawed promise

Even after 75 years, reservations have failed to deliver real social justice to the underprivileged. While substantially boosting SC/ST representation in civil services and politics, most benefits have been cornered generationally by privileged elites, including advanced castes within each category. For STs, elites like Meenas, Banjaras, and Santhals claim the lion’s share, depriving the truly marginalised. An OBC sub-categorisation commission on found that 10-25% of sub-castes receive the bulk of benefits, with 37% entirely excluded. These ‘scheduled and backward’ elites oppose any relook at reservations, fearing loss of their monopoly, despite the significant damage they have caused to society’s fabric.

Reservations also lower educational and recruitment standards producing certificate-holders sans academic skills while compromising efficiency in governance, health, and progress. Far from aiding the marginalised masses, reservations disproportionately harm them. Lowered teacher standards yield substandard educators in government schools and plummet quality. Affluent families flee to private schools; the poor remain, receiving inferior education. Armed with barely any real education, just certificates, they are unfit for any employment except government jobs under reservation. Where is the justice? This vicious loop extends to health and governance, mocking the marginalised as its primary victims.

Caste-based electoral politics, driven by reservations, fosters casteism, deepening social divisions, animosities, and undermining societal health. It promotes identity-based patronage, complicates governance, and fragments society instead of fostering unity. The constitutional enshrinement of caste-based reservations sparks a frenzied clamour among castes to be classified as SCs, STs, or OBCs, seeking privileges. This scramble for backwardness, far from ending caste, drives a race to entrench victimhood, monetising marginalization for benefits. This spectacle mocks the vision of an egalitarian society, cementing caste as a permanent fixture and fueling division and dependency over unity and merit.

Quality education: The true nourishment denied

Education is the great democratising and uplifting force in society. So, the true path to social justice, whatever that slippery term really means, lies in delivering top-quality education to marginalised children through free, compulsory, and intensive programs. This approach would boost their learning levels and arm them with the academic tools to compete on equal footing. With the best education and skills in hand, individuals escape marginalisation, and so do their entire communities. Yet reservations do the opposite: they block access to quality education, leaving people academically stunted and blocking real progress. True upliftment means weaning away from the teat of caste dependency, toward universal excellence, not settling for a seat at the table of mediocrity.

Conversion rights: religion yes, caste no?

Hindus inherit both religion and caste at birth. Article 25 grants religious conversion as a fundamental right. Yet Articles 14, 15, 16, 330, 332, and others imply caste (tribe) status is immutable. If both are inherited, why permit religious but not caste mobility? Why not allow conscience-driven caste conversion (mobility) to escape discrimination, as most castes claim? Why stratify Hindu society by barring internal mobility? Is it hypocrisy, or an anti-Hindu agenda, allowing Hindu religious conversions outward but not caste mobility within?

The tragedy of hypocrisy in Ambedkar’s shadow

This hypocrisy mirrors today’s social justice discourse: activists invoke Ambedkar in anti-caste rallies, wielding ‘Annihilation of Caste’ as scripture against hierarchy, yet defend constitutional caste-based reservations as sacrosanct. This isn’t betrayal—it’s the tragedy of half-measures, eroding credibility. If annihilation means eradication, not accommodation, a caste-imbued Constitution negates the vision. It monetises marginalisation, letting ‘reserved’ elites thrive while masses languish. True advocacy demands consistency: abandon Annihilation of Caste or Constitutional Casteism. You can’t have both. For a casteless society, abandon the Casteist Constitution for an egalitarian, casteless one—or call the bluff.

India’s inflection point

India stands at an inflection point: after 75 years of constitutional governance, caste lingers as scar and scaffold. Ambedkar’s Annihilation of Caste advocates total uprooting; the Constitution he helped birth perpetuates it. The contradiction is in the man and his method. Cry foul about caste by weaving false atrocity narratives but milk and monetise it—the mammaries of the constitutional casteism. High time to revisit reservations entirely, devising efficient, non-caste-based affirmative action and best-quality free education to uplift the marginalised. But that is possible only by discarding the casteist and anti-Hindu Constitution for an egalitarian one rooted in our ancient indigenous civilisational ethos. Only then can we wean from toxic sustenance and nurse a united robust nation.

(The author is a retired IPS officer and former Director, CBI. Views are personal.)