Faith against Reason: Ambedkar, Hinduism and the Failure of Social Democracy in India
Abstract
B.R. Ambedkar’s Riddles in Hinduism (1954–55) represents one of the most radical intellectual interventions in modern Indian thought. Written as an “exposition to enlighten the masses,” the work subjects Hindu religious philosophy to sustained rational scrutiny and exposes its role in legitimizing caste hierarchy, patriarchy, and social stagnation. This paper revisits Riddles in Hinduism to critically examine contemporary Indian society, marked by persistent caste inequalities, gender subordination, and the political consolidation of Hindutva. Drawing upon constitutional provisions, National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, debates on caste census, and post-Independence political developments, the paper argues that India failed to undertake the social revolution envisioned by Ambedkar. Instead of dismantling caste and religious authority, post-colonial politics preserved Brahmanical social order while selectively adopting democratic institutions. The rise of majoritarian nationalism since the 1990s—and its consolidation after 2014—has further entrenched religious consciousness as a tool of political mobilization, fragmenting society along caste and communal lines. The paper concludes that Ambedkar’s critique remains profoundly relevant, as Indian democracy continues to privilege faith over reason, symbolism over substantive equality, and political power over social justice.
1. Introduction
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar occupies a unique position in Indian intellectual history—as a constitutionalist, social revolutionary, economist, and one of the sharpest critics of Hindu religious orthodoxy. Among his vast corpus, Riddles in Hinduism stands out for its uncompromising rejection of Hindu theology as a moral and rational foundation for society. Unlike reformist critiques that sought to reinterpret scripture or recover an imagined egalitarian past, Ambedkar questioned the very legitimacy of religious authority in organizing social life.
Written during 1954–55, in the final years of his life, Riddles in Hinduism was intended as a direct challenge to what Ambedkar identified as the intellectual stagnation of Hindu society. He described Hinduism as “a complex congeries of creeds and doctrines” lacking coherence, moral consistency, and rational foundation. His aim was not merely academic critique but social transformation—what he termed the liberation of the Hindu mind from dogma.
More than seventy-five years after Independence, the relevance of Ambedkar’s riddles is striking. Despite constitutional guarantees of equality and justice, Indian society remains deeply stratified by caste, gender, and religion. The political resurgence of Hindu majoritarianism, particularly after the 1990s and decisively after 2014, has re-centred religion as the primary axis of political identity. This paper revisits Riddles in Hinduism to analyse contemporary India, arguing that the unresolved contradictions Ambedkar identified continue to shape the Indian polity.
2. Ambedkar’s Intellectual Project: Religion, Reason and Social Power
Ambedkar’s critique of Hinduism must be understood as part of a broader Enlightenment-inspired commitment to reason, historical inquiry, and ethical universality. He rejected the notion that religious belief should enjoy immunity from rational examination. In Riddles in Hinduism, Ambedkar interrogates the origins, authority, and moral content of Hindu scriptures, exposing contradictions within and between the Vedas, Upanishads, Smritis, Puranas, and Tantras.
Central to his argument is the claim that religious authority in Hinduism is manufactured and mutable, not divinely ordained. The declaration of the Vedas as apaurusheya (not of human origin), their elevation to infallibility, and the subsequent accommodation of contradictory texts reveal a strategic process rather than a coherent theology. Ambedkar viewed these shifts as responses to changing social and political contexts, aimed at preserving Brahmanical supremacy.
Religion, in this formulation, operates as ideology—naturalizing hierarchy, sanctifying inequality, and discouraging dissent. Ambedkar’s insistence that Hindu society was incapable of reforming itself without rejecting its religious foundations directly challenged both orthodox Hinduism and liberal nationalist narratives that celebrated Hindu tolerance and pluralism.
3. Caste as the Structural Core of Hindu Society
Ambedkar’s most enduring contribution lies in his analysis of caste as a system of graded inequality. Unlike class, caste is hereditary, endogamous, and religiously sanctioned. It regulates occupation, marriage, social interaction, and access to resources.
3.1 Constitutional Framework and Its Limits
The Constitution of India attempted to address caste injustice through a range of provisions:
Article 14 guarantees equality before the law.
Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination on grounds of caste, while Article 15(4) enables affirmative action.
Article 17 abolishes untouchability.
Article 46 directs the state to promote the educational and economic interests of SCs and STs.
Articles 330–342 provide political representation and legal recognition.
Despite these safeguards, caste continues to structure Indian society. Ambedkar had warned that constitutional morality could not survive in a society governed by religious morality. The persistence of caste-based exclusion demonstrates the limits of legal reform in the absence of social transformation.
3.2 NCRB Data and the Reality of Caste Violence
Data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) consistently highlights the vulnerability of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Crimes against SCs and STs include atrocities linked to land ownership, access to water, inter-caste marriages, and political assertion. While reporting has improved, conviction rates remain low, reflecting institutional biases and social pressure.
These patterns confirm Ambedkar’s argument that caste violence is not aberrational but systemic. The law formally recognizes equality, yet social power continues to operate through caste hierarchies.
4. Gender, Patriarchy and Religious Authority
Ambedkar’s critique of Hinduism is inseparable from his analysis of women’s oppression. He argued that caste purity depended on controlling women’s sexuality, labour, and mobility. Religious codes regulating marriage, inheritance, and chastity were central to maintaining social hierarchy.
4.1 Upper-Caste Patriarchy
Upper-caste Hindu society historically confined women to domestic roles while glorifying ideals of sacrifice, obedience, and chastity. Ambedkar noted the contradiction between goddess worship and the systematic subjugation of real women. This contradiction persists today, as religious symbolism coexists with gender-based violence and exclusion.
4.2 Dalit and Adivasi Women
Dalit and Adivasi women experience multiple forms of oppression—caste, class, and gender. NCRB data reveals disproportionately high levels of sexual violence against SC/ST women, often linked to caste assertion. These acts are not merely criminal but deeply political, reinforcing social hierarchy.
Hindutva discourse, which idealises women as bearers of culture and honour, further restricts women’s autonomy while deflecting attention from structural inequality.
5. Post-Independence India: The Aborted Social Revolution
Ambedkar warned that political democracy without social democracy would be unsustainable. Post-1947 India validated this concern. While the nationalist movement achieved political sovereignty, it left the social order largely intact.
The Congress party, dominated by upper-caste leadership, prioritized political stability over radical social reform. Land reforms were diluted, caste structures in villages preserved, and religious authority left unchallenged. Socialist and centrist parties, despite progressive rhetoric, failed to confront the religious foundations of caste.
As a result, caste adapted to democratic institutions instead of being dismantled by them. Electoral politics became a means of negotiating caste power rather than abolishing caste hierarchy.
6. The 1990s: Mandir Politics and Communal Mobilization
The Ram Janmabhoomi movement marked a turning point in Indian politics. Religion was transformed into a mass mobilizing force capable of overshadowing economic inequality and social injustice. The demolition of the Babri Masjid and subsequent communal polarization demonstrated the political potency of religious symbolism.
Ironically, large sections of the marginalized were mobilized for a project that reinforced the very social order that oppressed them. Muslims were constructed as the primary “other,” diverting attention from caste exploitation within Hindu society.
Ambedkar had anticipated this danger. He argued that religion could be weaponised to prevent class and caste solidarity, ensuring the persistence of hierarchy under the guise of cultural unity.
7. Hindutva After 2014: Majoritarianism and Caste Fragmentation
Since 2014, Hindutva ideology has gained unprecedented institutional power. While projecting Hindu unity, it has deepened internal caste divisions through strategic mobilization:
Jat vs non-Jat in Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh
Yadav vs non-Yadav in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar
Maratha vs non-Maratha in Maharashtra
Patidar agitation in Gujarat
These conflicts reveal that Hindutva does not eliminate caste; it reorganizes caste competition while maintaining Brahmanical ideological dominance. The rhetoric of Sanatan Dharma presents hierarchy as timeless tradition, insulating it from democratic critique.
8. The Caste Census Debate
The demand for a caste census has re-emerged as a critical political issue. Proponents argue that without empirical data, social justice policies remain arbitrary and ineffective. Opponents claim that caste enumeration entrenches divisions.
Ambedkar’s position is clear: caste cannot be annihilated by ignoring it. The refusal to collect caste data serves dominant interests by rendering inequality invisible. Resistance to caste census reflects a deeper unwillingness to confront the structural realities of Indian society.
9. Ambedkar in Contemporary India: Symbol without Substance
Ambedkar’s presence in contemporary India is paradoxical. He is celebrated through statues, commemorations, and official rhetoric, yet his radical critique of religion and caste is systematically sidelined. His image is appropriated to legitimize political forces fundamentally opposed to his vision of social democracy.
This symbolic appropriation represents the ultimate betrayal of Ambedkar’s legacy: reverence without adherence, celebration without transformation.
10. Conclusion
Riddles in Hinduism remains a profoundly unsettling text because it challenges the moral foundations of Indian society. Ambedkar’s critique exposes religion as ideology, caste as structural violence, and democracy as hollow without social equality.
Contemporary India, rather than resolving Ambedkar’s riddles, has institutionalized them. Religion continues to dominate public conscience; caste remains resilient; women remain subordinated; and reason is subordinated to faith.
Ambedkar’s warning endures: a society governed by religious dogma cannot sustain liberty, equality, or fraternity. Until Indian democracy confronts this truth, social justice will remain a constitutional promise rather than a lived reality.
References
1. Ambedkar, B.R. (1936): Annihilation of Caste.
2. Ambedkar, B.R. (1948): The Constitution of India: Draft Articles.
3. Ambedkar, B.R. (1955): Riddles in Hinduism, unpublished manuscript.
4. Dirks, Nicholas (2001): Castes of Mind. Princeton University Press.
5. Guru, Gopal (2009): “Archaeology of Untouchability,” Economic & Political Weekly.
6. Jaffrelot, Christophe (1996): The Hindu Nationalist Movement in India.
7. NCRB (various years): Crime in India. Government of India.
8. Omvedt, Gail (1994): Dalits and the Democratic Revolution.
9. Teltumbde, Anand (2018): Republic of Caste.
