What did Ambedkar Mean When He Spoke of Burning the Constitution of India?

Read The Wire's special series on the occasion of Ambedkar Jayanti here. 

On the occasion of Ambedkar Jayanti, it is important to explode the myth that he wanted to burn the constitution. 

In support of such an assertion, Dr B. R. Ambedkar’s quote, “I shall be the first person to burn it out” is often invoked by several people, entities and specially Hindutva leaders who are always deriding and assailing the constitution for the purpose of reviewing it and replacing it with a new one.

That quote is part of his speech he delivered in the Rajya Sabha on September 2, 1953, on the Andhra State Bill for the formation of separate Andhra Pradesh on the basis of the Telugu language following the death of Potti Sriramulu who sat on an indefinite fast demanding the creation of the state and eventually sacrificed his life. While expressing his sorrow at the sad passing away of Sriramulu, Ambedkar scathingly pointed out that in the Bill there were no provisions for empowering the governor of the proposed state of Andhra Pradesh to protect the Scheduled Castes, minorities and linguistic minorities from the onslaught of majoritarian-induced communalism. He asked:

“What provision has my honorable Friend (Union home minister K.N. Katju who piloted the Bill) made for the purpose of granting protection against tyranny, against oppression, against communalism, that is sure to be rampant not only in Andhradesh but everywhere in the States similarly situated?”

Ambedkar reminded him of his duty “to see that every citizen is well protected against the tyranny of the majority…”

Katju while replying to the discussion on the Bill told Ambedkar that his suggestion ran counter to the constitution of India which he had drafted by making it mandatory for the governor of a state to function only on the aid and advice of the government of the day. Katju remarked that by accepting the suggestion of Ambedkar – to vest the governor with special powers to protect minorities and other categories – the very basis of the functioning of the governors as unelected entities would be negated.

Ambedkar’s line of argument that there should be safeguards for minorities flowed from his sensitive understanding of their vulnerabilities in India where people professing a particular faith or speaking a specific language would be in majority and remain in advantageous position vis-à-vis minorities. In his several works including his 1945 constitution, he presciently provided stringent provisions to deal with people who would issue calls for social and economic boycott of minorities and employ several measures and the instrumentality of law in that direction.

In 1953 he remarked in the Rajya Sabha that the constitution and democracy would not be imperilled if the constitution would be amended and special powers would be given to the governors in the pattern of the Canadian constitution and British conventions for protection of linguistic minorities. His statement that he would burn the constitution was made in face of the nauseating reminder that he was the author of the constitution. A glance at the details of what he said in the Rajya Sabha would contextualise his remarks.

“It is,” he asserted, “by placating the sentiments of smaller communities and smaller people who are afraid that the majority may do wrong, that the British Parliament works”. 

Then he added:

“Sir, my friends tell me that I have made the Constitution. But I am quite prepared to say that I shall be the first person to burn it out. I do not want it. It does not suit anybody.” He then sensitively observed, “But, whatever that may be, if our people want to carry on, they must not forget that there are majorities and there are minorities, and they simply cannot ignore the minorities by saying, 'Oh, no. To recognize you is to harm democracy? I should say that the greatest harm will come by injuring the minorities”.

Those words resonate in India of 2025 in the context of calls issued by BJP leaders and several other Hindutva entities for genocide of Muslims and their complete exclusion from the social and economic realms. In other words, Ambedkar’s statement that he would burn the constitution should be seen in the context of the inadequacy of measures to protect the minorities.

Ambedkar, deep in his heart, valued the constitution. It was evident later on March 19, 1955 when he while speaking in the Rajya Sabha on the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Bill, 1954. He said:

“If I may say so, and I say it with a certain amount of pride that the Constitution which has been given to this country is a wonderful document.” 

“It has been said so,” he proceeded to add with emphasis, “not by myself, but by many people, many other students of the Constitution”. 

While affirming that “it is the simplest and the easiest,” he revealed, “Many, many publishers have written to me asking me to write a commentary on the Constitution, promising a good sum”. 

“But I have always told them that to write a commentary on this Constitution is to admit that the Constitution is a bad one and an un-understandable one. It is not so. Anyone who can follow English can understand the Constitution. No commentary is necessary.”

When a member of Rajya Sabha recalled his statement that he would burn the constitution, Ambedkar replied with a flourish,

“We built a temple for a god to come in and reside, but before the god could be installed, if the devil had taken possession of it, what else could we do except destroy the temple? We did not intend that it should be occupied by the Asuras.

“We intended it to be occupied by the devas. That is the reason why I said I would rather burn it”.

When another Member asked if he wanted to destroy the devil instead of the temple, he said:

“You can not do it. We have not got the strength. If you will read the Brahmana, the Sathapatha Brahmana, you will see that the gods have always been defeated by the Asuras, and that the Asuras had the Amrit with them which the gods had to take away in order to survive in the battle”.

He then addressed the chair and remarked that his attention was being diverted to all sorts of issues to which he did not want to enter and preferred to speak on the constitution amendment Bill.

All those remarks of Ambedkar clearly establish that he valued the constitution and his statement concerning the burning of the constitution need to be seen as mere posture which has been superseded by remarks on March 19 – “If I may say so, and I say it with a certain amount of pride that the Constitution which has been given to this country is a wonderful document.”

In fact in his last speech in the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949, B.R. Ambedkar asked:

“On the 26th of January 1950, India would be a democratic country in the sense that India from that day would have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people…What would happen to her democratic constitution? Will she be able to maintain it or will she lose it again?”

Saving the constitution has become a people’s issue on the occasion of its 75th anniversary. We need to save it from what Ambedkar described as devils so that “We the people” who gave the constitution are enshrined as deities in the temple of democracy.

S.N. Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to the President of India K.R. Narayanan.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.