Talk:B. R. Ambedkar

School segregation

In early life section, it says They were not allowed to sit inside the class. In his book Waiting for Visa, he says For instance, I knew that in the school I could not sit in the midst of my class students according to my rank but that I was to sit in a corner by myself. This suggests that he was allowed inside the class but had to sit in corner.

Either the sentence can be removed, since the line before it mentions untouchable children were segregated, or rewritten that Ambedkar was made sit in corner by himself.--Krutarth (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

He's been hagiographed to death and unlike Gandhi he was a grandiose figure; it is hard to know what the truth was. He was after all the recipient of an elite education (Elphinstone Bombay, Columbia, LSE); the discrimination was very likely not so extreme as have deprived him of an education altogether which was the case with most Dalits, even the very talented ones. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Youre calling Ambedkar grandiose? Your degrees are useless. I hope you suffer like the idiot you are. 2409:40C0:101D:A2F8:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

But, regardless, being a Dalit in late 19th-century early 20th-century India, he had to have experienced discrimination, perhaps even a more humiliating kind than one of merely having sit outside the classroom. Dalits are still discriminated against in manifold ways. Will look for sources. Thanks for posting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Misleading Introduction of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar – Urgent Revision Needed

Hey Wikipedians,

I’ve noticed a problem in the introduction of Dr. Ambedkar's article, specifically the phrase "headed the committee drafting the Constitution of India from the Constituent Assembly debates." This phrasing is misleading and historically inaccurate. Why is it phrased as "from the Constituent Assembly debates"? What exactly mean by that? First we should understand this that Ambedkar’s work on drafting was not derived from these debates. To more clarify, the Drafting Committee (headed by Ambedkar) first created the draft, which was then presented to the Constituent Assembly for debates and amendments if needed. Ambedkar’s primary contribution was in drafting the Constitution itself, not just participating in the debates. This phrasing definately mislead readers into thinking his role was limited to the debates when, in reality, he played a central role in drafting the Constitution.

I got very frustrated to see this little little misleading things. I actually wonder why this type of phrase is used very often here and there? What actually Editor was trying to convey to readers? I’m sorry for saying this, but certain elements of society have a long history of attempting to minimize or limit Ambedkar’s influential work and his actual achievements. No wonder this page faces vandalism and is locked. This could be an instance of such an attempt, if it was not unintentional.

I urge that the phrase 'from the Constituent Assembly debates' be removed to more accurately reflect his critical role in drafting the Constitution.

If additional details are needed, they can be expanded in the main article. Callmehelper (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The Indian constitution is based roughly, some 70% to 80%, on the Government of India Act, 1935. Many sections of the Act were taken verbatim, including the Indian Penal Code, formulated by the 30-something Thomas Babington Macaulay more than a century earlies (ca. late 1830s). The Directive Principles of State Policy of the Indian constitution, including fundamental rights, are largely based on the Nehru Report of 1928. The preamble is based in part on the US Constitution and in part on the Irish (1937). (See also Dominion_of_India#Framing_the_new_constitution)

Comparison of Irish preamble (1937) and Indian (1950)

Without the religious bit, the Irish Preamble says: We, the people of Éire, ... seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations, Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution. And the Indian (1950) says: We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens: justice, social, economic and political; liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation; in our constituent assembly this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution.

There were many committees in the Constituent Assembly. The earliest to be created—in late 1946—were the Steering Committee, Budget Committee, Business Committee, Committee on Fundamental Rights, Order of Business committee. A President of the Assembly was elected (Rajendra Prasad), and a constitutional adviser, Sir Benegal Narsing Rau, one of the giants of constitutional jurisprudence, who had earlier drafted the Constitution of Burma, i.e. after the separation of Burma from the Raj in 1937. By early 1947, there was a States Committee to formulate the degree of federalism in the political integration of the princely states. The Partition of India was as yet not certain. Ambedkar was not in any of these committees. On 22 January 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru, as Interim Prime Minister of India proposed an Objectives Resolution, was to be readied for what was the called "Independence Day," i.e. 26 January, on which in 1930, the Indian National Congress had declared Purna Swaraj, and which later in tribute to its history, became India's Republic Day. Nehru's resolution read:

Objectives Resolution proposed by Jawaharlal Nehru, 22 January 1947

This Constituent Assembly declares its firm and solemn resolve to proclaim India as an independent Sovereign Republic and to draw up for her future governance a Constitution :` WHEREIN the territories that now comprise British India, the territories that now form the Indian States, and such other parts of India as are outside British India and the States as well as such other territories as are willing to be constituted into the Independent Sovereign India shall be a Union of them all; and WHEREIN the said territories, whether with their present boundaries or with such others as may be determined by the Constituent Assembly and thereafter according to law of the Constitution shall possess and retain the status of autonomous units, together with residuary powers, and exercise all powers and functions of government and administration, save and except such powers and functions as are vested in or assigned to the Union, or as are inherent or implied in the Union or resulting therefrom-, and WHEREIN all power and authority of the Sovereign Independent India, its constituent parts and organs of government, are derived from the people; and WHEREIN shall be guaranteed and secured ;to all the people of India justice, social, economic, and political; equality of status, of opportunity, and before the law; freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship, vocation, association and action, subject to law and public morality; and WHEREIN adequate safeguards shall be provided for minorities, backward and tribal areas, and depressed and other backward classes; and WHEREBY shall be'-maintained the integrity of the territory of the Republic and its sovereign rights on land, sea and air according to justice and the law of civilised nations; and this ancient land attain its rightful and honoured place in the world -and make its full and willing contribution to the promotion of world peace and the welfare of mankind.

The first committee Ambedkar was on was the Advisory Committee, created on 24 January 1947; it had 72 members, and Ambedkar was in the subgroup representing the Scheduled Castes, along with Jagjivan Ram and five or six others (see here).

On 22 July 1947, Nehru proposed in the assembly that the Lion capital of Ashoka at Sarnath (see here and here), but without the lotus base, be the emblem of the future Republic of India, and the Wheel of Dharma on the abacus under the addorsed lions be the central visual feature of the new flag. Ambedkar had no role in that either. Sir Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, who was also a leading member of the Constituent Assembly (representing the United Provinces, on account of his Vice-Chancellorship of the Benares Hindu University), advised Nehru.

On 29 August 1947, two weeks after India's independence, a drafting committee was selected. By that time Benegal Narsing Rau, as the Constituent Assembly's Constitutional Adviser, had prepared a first draft of the Constitution of India. This was formally presented in October 1947. The drafting committee's task was "to scrutinise the draft of the text of the Constitution of India prepared by the Constitutional Adviser (i.e. B.N. Rau) giving effect to the decisions taken already in the Assembly and including all matters which are ancillary thereto or which have to be provided in such a Constitution, and to submit to the Assembly for consideration the text of the draft Constitution as revised by the Committee". This was the drafting committee's formal job description. (Scroll all the way to the bottom here) Ambedkar was the head of this committee. Between October 1947 and February 1948, the drafting committee then checked, reworded, copy-edited, clarified or footnoted for further clarity, Rau's First Draft. This became the Draft Constitution of India, which was then again debated and tweaked by the Constituent Assembly Debates, and then re-tweaked by the Drafting Committee. By that time, Rau had left, and a number of the other members had either become plagued by ill-health or died, so the burden of this work fell primarily on Ambedkar. (See here)

Ambedkar did stalwart work in producing the final document, especially during the last year, but none of the seminal ideas of India's constitution were his. Those were already in the British Bill of Rights, the American and Irish Constitutions, the Government of India Act, 1935 (which served as the Dominion of India's constitution from 15 August 1947 to 25th January 1950), and the Indian National Congress's Constitution (1930) based on the Nehru Report (1928), and ultimately in the many ideas, speeches and discussions of the giants of India's epic anti-colonial nationalism from 1885 to 1947. What we say in the lead is fairly accurate.

Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You give all those explanation which prove that ambedkar isn't the sole who wrote all the constitution. Well it's fact. We all should agree on that. That's not my problem.

As you know whats my problems . My problems arises form the phrase "from the constituent assembly debates" . What the people think by reading it ? stick to that my point. Who comes first the drafting committee or the cosntituent assembly debates?

You are saying there is a lot of commitee where ambedkar isn't part of , contribute a lot to the constitution of india . Which is highly true. There is a lot things allready had done by the political figures like Nehru or constitutional advisor B N Rau etc .

Then the question come what's the need of then drafting committee ?

It's need to scrutinized in detailed what allready had done. Just for example if you know when objective resolution was proposed by Nehru ji before way before drafting committee then in that objective resolutions starting line were like we the people of India sovereign independent republic which was change to Sovereign Democratic Republic by drafting committee , also the term like Fraternity is also add in preamble by drafting committee. Similarly a lot of changes happened to B N Rau initial draft to make a perfect draft to go for a constituent assembly debate to finalised the Constitution of India. That's the need of drafting committee to analyse previous works and if needed make changes and produce a final draft.

Anyone who is the student of history know what part of constitution is borrowed from where and there we know what part of constitution is from British, American , Irish , Canadian etc etc. Here is not that issue. Issue is this is Ambedkar wikipedia page not constitution of india wikipedia page. Here We give that credit to ambedkar that belongs to him like chairman of drafting committee who drafted the constitution of india.

We are not here on other topics like what all others great leaders and freedom fighters contribute for the nation building and contribute the basic foundations for constitution of india.

Nehru ji credit will go in constitution of india topic for their immense works like nehru report, Asoka chakra, Asoka stambh , objective resolutions for preamble etc. Similarly B N RAU got all the deserving credit to him in his wikipedia page and constitution of india page.

Please don't argue with me in that topic that what other all the Major works like freedom movement, Asoka pillar as our national emblem or Asoka chakra in our flag, preamble from objective resolutions , initial draft etc are not done by ambedkar. This is true, but This is not we are here for.

Please understand the perspective here .

People read the phrase" from the constituent assembly debates " and definately will be mislead by thinking that first constituent assembly debates happened then it was drafted by drafting committee. Completely reverse what was happened historically. That's my problem. If the perception of people by reading this phrase would be like oh there are multiple commitee and discussion happened before drafting committee that the phase "from the constituent assembly debates" is taking about then we wouldn't be taking about this issue. But if look at history the there is nothing like "constituent assembly debates" before drafting committee. There is nothing like hyperlink that phrase to those debates who happened before formation drafting committee. It's wasn't . And this is the difference I want to make. You will not find a single article where this type of wording " ambedkar headed the committee which drafted the constitution from constituent assembly debates" found.This is very wrong. Wording like this seems so much awkward to read. This pharse will change the whole perspective . This has to be changed.

Please understand from my point of view.

So much regards. Callmehelper (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

If you want to be more accurate, we can say,

B. R. Ambedkar was an Indian jurist, economist, social reformer and political leader who headed the committee which produced the final draft of the Constitution of India from the debates of the Constituent Assembly of India on the first draft produced by Benegal Narsing Rau, the Assembly's Constitutional Adviser. Ambedkar served as Law and Justice minister in the first cabinet of Jawaharlal Nehru; and inspired the Dalit Buddhist movement after renouncing Hinduism.

(Rau had already drafted the Constitution of Burma in 1937. To produce the first draft of India's constitution, Rau had traveled to Europe, the UK, Ireland, and America and met with the leading constitutional scholars of the day. Ambedkar himself said:

The credit that is given to me does not really belong to me. It belongs partly to Sir B.N. Rau the Constitutional Advisor to the Constituent Assembly who prepared a rough draft of the Constitution for the consideration of the Drafting Committee.

)

This is about as far as I'm prepared to go. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

PS I am going to bed now. Good night. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I support the proposed wording. Not to forget that Ambedkar entirely rejected any involvement in the development of the constitution by 1952. - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Support for proposed wording isn't surprising here. As your reason is completely baseless. Not Forget, Ambedkar always was in favour of amendments and development of constitution.

Read the article for better clarity -

Reference 1 Reference 2 Callmehelper (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

this discussion is going now out of hand of mine. It's now becoming again unsettled battle between B N Rau and Ambedkar which I wasn't expecting to be honest.

Before this argument, you are telling me about all those essential works by great leaders and all those commitee work that shaped Indian constitution. Now at the end result come as B N Rau ?

What about all those 22 committee made by constituent assembly for the works on different different aspects of constitution? Like Union Commission committee which deals with federal structure and governance , Fundamental Rights Committee work on Fundamental right etc etc.

These 22 committee works finally made a foundations of constitution that ultimately was compiled , structured by B N Rau to make an initial Draft for discussion along with his additional works which he has from different parts of world as he has constitutional expertise which help him in to draft in final shape. Then giving credit more to 22 committee rather than B N isn't a fact ?

What's the wrong in this if we write in the the B N Rau wikipedia page introduction as the " he initially drafted the constitution of india based on the works of 22 committee appointed by constituent assembly"  ? What is wrong in that?

I hope you will get my point that I want to make . If this type of discussion will happen then credit never go to anyone.

I simply wanted that the phrase should be like that - who headed the committee drafting the constitution of india for simple and best understanding without creating any confusions.

Although I haven't so much issues for this now. Now it becoming more problematic. So better to leave as it is.

I also hope that there must be neutral wikipedian who come and see every perspective from historical point of view and solve this problem. Till then singing off.....

Best Regards. Callmehelper (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

That *is* the NPOV version. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

It's interesting to see that you claim yourself of speaking from NPOV , yet you presented quote here in a selective manner which change its full meaning. In that Full Speech of Ambedkar acknowledges all the peoples, members etc that deserves their contributions not just B N Rau.

(You should read Ambedkar's full speech )

Cherry picking from that speech seems now deliberate attempt to prove own interests .

Also , B N Rau allready drafted the constitution of Burma in 1937 ? Really ? Check your fact.

Hope you bring some intellectual honesty in your argument for healthy discussion.

Best Regards. Callmehelper (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

the fowler guy references foreign authors. Just click on the references. 2409:40C0:28:9255:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Request for Administrator Review of Recent Edits on Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's Page

I am writing this to review the recent edits made to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s Wikipedia page, specifically regarding the removal of the descriptors "economist" and "jurist" from the introduction, as well as the reframing of his contributions to credit B.N. Rau indirectly.

० Concern about Economist and Jurist ;

Editor remove the word Economist and Jurist with justification in editing summary that " he didn't really have a career as economist" , and smartly remove the word Jurist as well without giving justification of that.

But Probably editor didn't aware of Ambedkar's economic achievement. He pursued two PhD in economics . One from Colombia university and One from London School Of Economics . His scholarly work, such as The Problem of the Rupee: Its Origin and Solution (1923), remains foundational to India's economic policy, particularly influencing the establishment of the Reserve Bank of India. Also he continuously involved in economic discourse through reforms, policy proposals, including land reforms , labour rights , taxation policies etc . Even in the wikipedia page there is a Topic named 'Economics' about his many more contributions in economic field . Here anyone can read. So in all aspects, I feel he deserve to be called as economist.

Also what about Jurist ? Why removing it without justification ? He was the First Law and Justice Minister of Independent India . He had a central role in Drafting the constitution of India . Reference 1 2 there are many books written on him about his contribution as Law Maker. But still removing word Jurist seems like demonstrate him from a narrow or atleast not neutral perspective.

• Not based alone B N Rau's Draft ;

Recent edit sounds like drafting committee make draft based only on initial draft prepared by B N Rau. But that not true historically.

For clarity, i want to make my argument a short and concise but aligned with stages of event historically ;

[ It began with the Objectives Resolution proposed by Jawaharlal Nehru on 13 December 1946, which outlined the guiding principles for an Independent Sovereign Republic and was adopted on 22 January 1947. More than 20 committees, such as the Union Powers Committee and Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee, etc headed by great leaders like Nehru, Patel, etc established to address specific issues. Their reports, submitted by August 1947, provided critical inputs on fundamental rights, the federal structure, and minority protections.

Based on these reports, B. N. Rau, as the Constitutional Adviser, prepared an initial draft by October 1947 within a month . On 27 October 1947, the Drafting Committee began scrutinising the draft prepared by the B N Rau with other notes, reports, and memoranda. After making changes, the committee submitted its final Draft Constitution to the President of the Constituent Assembly on 21 February 1948. After the Draft Constitution was submitted to the President of the Constituent Assembly, it was published and circulated among the public. Many comments, critiques, and suggestions were received. Based on this , again On 26 October 1948, the Committee reprinted and resubmitted the version of the Draft Constitution that had been submitted on February 21st, 1948, along with a set of amendments that required to clauses. Now this Draft was open for Assembly discussion. Extensive clause-by-clause debates in the Constituent Assembly from November 1948 to October 1949 refined the document further. Following revisions, the final Constitution was adopted on 26 November 1949 and enacted on 26 January 1950. That's the All the event that I want to address. ]

Now Comes the Question that is it valid to say that drafting committee is drafted constitution based on draft by B N Rau only? I don't think so.

One point also is that there are multiple draft made by drafting committee within 2 years based on many suggestions, memorandum,criticisms, etc revised after revised .

Also there are very little information on B N Rau role in how much he alone contributed in preparing initial draft. Joint Secretary S N Mukharjee and B N Rau produced this Draft Constitution in just a month. This quick turnaround time could be explained by the fact that this was more of an exercise in compilation of Committee reports, rather than from scratch drafting. This is the major issue when we credit B N Rau ji more than Ambedkar's drafting committee itself work . Also he was never been a drafting committee member nor any constituent assembly member. Very little book written on him is the another reason why we do not know about his actual original insertion in initial draft at larger context .

Apart from all this , if we still want to give credit to B N Rau as the initial drafter of constitution and make foundation for the drafting committee . It's okay. But why this all mentioning in ambedkar introduction ? It's a Draft committee who work start from initial draft, not Ambedkar alone started it. So this type of credit to B N Rau should be in when we discussed Drafting Committee role n all. (Infact which already has in that page). Again putting his role in Present Introduction is looking like promoting B N Rau role rather than who was Ambedkar. My point is B.N. Rau’s contributions as a constitutional adviser are well-documented, the edits appear to exaggerate his role at the expense of Ambedkar's pivotal contributions.

So Removing word like Jurist , economist and adding B N Rau role in introduction do seems like personal bias rather than NPOV. So I request a review of these edits by an impartial administrator to determine if they align with Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and factual accuracy. Noticing some editor who has administrative privileges making edit like this , which raises concerns about the potential misuse of authority to push a particular narrative. So please review these recent edits and make them perfect from NPOV.

Regards . Callmehelper (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, you're replying to a troll. Look at his references he references little known foreign sources rather than Ambedkar's own books. Report this page if we can. 2409:40C0:28:9255:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

One Discussion

I revised one speech of this page. where earlier speech looks like following -

Ambedkar say in his concluding speech;

The credit that is given to me does not really belong to me. It belongs partly to Sir B.N. Rau the Constitutional Advisor to the Constituent Assembly who prepared a rough draft of the Constitution for the consideration of the Drafting Committee."

After revised it look like this -

The credit that is given to me does not really belong to me. It belongs partly to Sir B.N. Rau the Constitutional Advisor to the Constituent Assembly who prepared a rough draft of the Constitution for the consideration of the Drafting Committee. A part of the credit must go to the members of the Drafting Committee who, as I have said, have sat for 141 days and without whose ingenuity to devise new formulae and capacity to tolerate and to accommodate different points of view, the task of framing the Constitution could not have come to so successful a conclusion. Much greater share of the credit must go to Mr. S. N. Mukherjee , the Chief Draftsman of the Constitution. His ability to put the most intricate proposals in the simplest and clearest legal form can rarely be equalled, nor his capacity for hard work. He has been an acquisition to the Assembly. Without his help this Assembly would have taken many more years to finalise the Constitution. I must not omit to mention the members of the staff working under Mr. Mukherjee. For, I known how hard they worked and how long they have toiled sometimes even beyond midnight. I want to thank them all for their effort and their co-operation.

why this is necessary ?

i simply think as speech is out of copyright n all . and this is the wikipedia page of ambedkar so what he say in speech should be highlighted well enough. Like how he give credit to the many peoples including other members for their efforts and contributions. Right now it's only one line of speech is there which seems odd. If this would be the page of B N Rau then it should not be necessary to extend this speech.

So since this page is made for Ambedkar then his speech should not be limited to crediting one person if he give credit to many members, because it creates totally different intention.

now when i extended this speech, some editor think its not necessary and they revert it and just say it is undue. which seems odd.

i am worried that why don't you want to show a little more context of that speech?

so please discuss here , why you want to revert and what i did wrong things by adding it ?

Regards Callmehelper (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Longer version is WP:UNDUE. Capitals00 (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Capitals00

again giving me a lecture of WP:UNDUE policy.

i think i am the one who is following this policy sincerely.

Look at first paragraph of WP:UNDUE ;

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.

Now Instead of showing all others important credits , just picking one line from speech which is taking about B N Rau is really following the rule of fairly representation of all significant point ?

As speech mention many important members role. like S N mukharjee role as chief draftsman , all other members role for 141 days. staffs workers role etc.

Actually a very long speech was delivered by ambedkar, but i put a little extended form of that speech that looks more balanced. it's not even longer. (Longer version would be way longer)

ultimately , all my point is either make little more extension to that speech then it would work as per se WP: BALANCE.

or anyone have problem with it then just removed that whole speech.

ultimately what ambedkar want to tell through speech if not mentioned in his wikipedia page then it would ultimately go worthless for readers.

• B N Rau part is mentioned in his Page. it's okay. why mentioning about his line only here? it make no sense.
• It's ambedkar page , let them speak little more than just a line.

I feel, that people here in his page when read the only one line of that speech, will make totally different intention of his speech.

ultimately what matters is the intention behind it.

my intention is to make speech more balanced.

those who don't want to extend, don't really answer what their intentions behind it.

i am over now.

Give your NPOV.

Regards. Callmehelper (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

3O Response: We don't usually include lengthy quotes in Wikipedia articles. If there is a secondary source that discusses that section of the speech, and inclusion of what that secondary source says would be due in an article about Ambedkar, rather than an article about the speech, then it should be included. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I dont know who this person is with the access to lock and edit the page. His biase and stupidity 152.58.0.201 (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

That would be an administrator. The Wikipedia:Rough guide to extended confirmed protection explains decision process that limits editing to extended confirmed users. It is intended to prevent the biases and stupidity of vandals & unneutral editors. Peaceray (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately the author/administrator is a biased, stupid and a vandal himself, as you can see from the speech linked above. The guy is deliberately misrepresenting facts. His hate shows. 2409:40C0:101D:A2F8:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, @Fowler&fowler, kindly explain your concern for this edit, how this is fall under WP:ONUS, instead of all three highly reputable sources ?

For more Context : The line "Chief architect of Indian constitution" was there for over decades 1 2 until your this edits changed that title by claiming this title goes for Indian Act 1935, a totally your WP:OR or WP:SYN without any reliable source.
Now you want me* to reach for concensus for restoring that edit?
Explain your concern with scholarly and reputable facts, why you Edit and this is now fall under ONUS.
I am pinging Admins for this; @RegentsPark , @Vanamonde93 @Utcursch and @Valereee
Kind regards. Callmehelper (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Enough sources were provided here to this false claim. You are simply rehashing the already resolved discussion. Capitals00 (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I am sitting in a sixth floor hospital room, overlooking through tall window a long lake to my left as to my right my wife receives chemotherapy. I apologize my short message. This is an issue of due weight. Wikipedia policy is indicated in WP:TERTIARY which speaks to the role of introductory textbooks in finding it

Metcalf, Barbara D.; Metcalf, Thomas R. (2014). A Concise History of Modern India. Cambridge University Press. pp. 231–232. Hammered during the intense debates of a constituent assembly which sat from 1947 to 1949, India's constitution established a set of principles and institutions that have governed the country's political life. Under it as Nehru sought to create a "modern" free India, the country decisively repudiated much of its colonial heritage. Elements of the old colonial style of governance nevertheless persisted under the new order. Some 200 articles of the Government of India Act, 1935, for instance, were incorporated into the new constitution. … All were agreed that the new India must be a democratic land with universal suffrage and freedom of press and speech. Troubled however by the persistent discrimination against the untouchables and other disadvantaged groups, the Congress Party took steps to insure that these groups had a voice in the new constitutional order. One was the appointment of the distinguished 'untouchable' leader Dr B. R. Ambedkar to chair the drafting committee of the constitution.. Google Scholar citation index 1091 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

So you see of 200 articles of the original 395 were taken from the GoI Act 1935, Ambedkar can’t be the architect. Moreover the Directive Principles of State Policy are based on the Nehru report of 1928, which was written by Jawaharlal Nehru, though the committee waschaired by his father. The preamble based on the Irish constitution some sentences verbatim. How then is Ambedkar the architect? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I haven't the time to examine the sources exhaustively at this moment, but I want to note that F&F's version isn't uncharitable to Ambedkar at all; it is just lighter on the sort of flowery language common to popular biography. That said, it's probably worth noting that he is commonly seen as the architect of the constitution; that, at least, isn't in dispute. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

He’s not mentioned much in the pre-2000 sources. My general sense is that his star rose after the Hindu nationalists came to power in the 1990s. Boosting him officially and also Bhagat Singh and Subhas Bose became a way of undermining Nehru. See Britannica for example. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

By the late 80s and early 90s, reservations for backward classes in government jobs increased, and Ambedkar very likely received credit or homage for it. He did fight for greater rights for the the untouchables, or the outcastes, and a place for them in the constitution, but by the 1990, he was seen to be a champion of other non- Forward castes generally. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Admittedly what I'm going to say is not backed by sources, but, during all of my rather long sentient life, quite a bit of it before the rise of The Hindu nationalists, I thought of Ambedkar as the chief architect of the Indian constitution. FWIW and you can do what you will with that. RegentsPark (comment) 19:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  Hello, @RegentsPark, @Fowler&fowler and @Vanamonde93 ,
  My three sources are enough for the claim Ambedkar being "Chief architect". It doesn't matter that sources are before the rise of hindu nationalist or after Hindu nationalism as far as scholarly books and Publishers are concerned, all three (Christophe Jaffrelot, Gail Omvedt and Ramchandra Guha) are arguably one of the most respected scholars (about modern India) in and outside the India.
  I don't think i have to defend much. However I want to address some points that people often neglect some facts intentionally or unintentionally.
  People should also remember these points for the consideration of Ambedkar as architect or not , irrespective of his knowledge or expertise while being a draft committee head -
  4 Points (source - author Prof. Vivek Kumar)
  

  • The Constituent Assembly passed the Constitution in two years, 11 months and 17 days. That means Ambedkar was part of the assembly for 1,081 days.He was defending the Articles of the draft for 165 days, during 11 readings and worked for 141 days as the chairman of the drafting committee.

  • The drafting committee had seven people. T.T. Krishnamachari, a respected member of the Constituent Assembly, highlighted that of the seven, six members could not contribute anything because of their resignation, ill health and because they were preoccupied with other work. Ambedkar bore the burden of drafting the Constitution alone.

  • In his 8,334-word address to the Constituent Assembly on November 4, 1948, he said that when the draft constitution was prepared and put to the scrutiny of various groups, there were 7,635 suggested amendments. He read all the suggestions and discarded 5,162 as he found them to be of no consequence. He incorporated the remaining 2,473 amendments into the draft.

  • Ambedkar stood up nine to 10 times in the assembly daily to defend the articles of the Constitution. On some days, he stood up 25 to 26 times either to move a motion, to move a supplementary, or to answer a question and change the argument.

    
    These are one of the facts that makes him the principal architect , regardless of what Indian Act 1935 or any other Acts or committee's tirelessly works give very important contributions.
    Also look at the Nehru comments on Ambedkar:

  He is often spoken of as one of the architects of our Constitution. There is no doubt that no one took greater care and trouble over Constitution-making than Dr Ambedkar - [on 6 December 1956].

  source - p.14 Aakash Rathore (Penguin India)
  
  I don't think there is single reputable news sources exists in India that disregard this facts. Reuters, BBC , The Hindu 1 2, The Indian express etc.
  Govt sources websites 1 tribute to him with that title.
  It's not like that, you never ever find a sentence like this for Nehruji in any scholarly book –

  "Nehru was *a principal leader* of the Indian nationalist movement in the 1930s* and 1940s."
  But you will find this sentence in his wikipedia page in one of the starting introductory line - see

  
  That all , i have to say for now.
  Kind Regards. Callmehelper (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  Instead of addressing the previous debunking of your claims, you are now simply creating false balance. Yes Jawaharlal Nehru was always considered as the leading figure of Indian independence movement after Mahatma Gandhi not just today but since the beginning of that time. See:

  • British Broadcasting Corporation (1940). The Listener. British Broadcasting Corporation. Pandit Nehru is , after Gandhi , India's best - known political leader , and while he was in Prague during the Czech crisis in 1938 , he was officially invited to visit Germany .
  • Saturday Review of Literature. Saturday Review Associates. 1940. Anything that Jawaharlal Nehru might write would have a certain interest and significance ; after Gandhi , he is the outstanding leader of the Indian nationalist movement.

  The same cannot be said for Ambedkar. He clearly started getting called a chief architect of the constitution after the rise of Bahujan and Hindu nationalist politics. It is the same as Vallabhbhai Patel being called "Unifier of India" for decades now, but the article on princely states as well as his article confirms he was not one. Capitals00 (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Callmehelper: As for Nehru being a principal leader of the nationalist movement in the 30s and 40s, it is my handiwork. It was taken from Britannica during the days when we used it as a benchmark. It was fairly closely paraphrased. Britannica still says in its lead paragraph, "He was also one of the principal leaders of the Indian Independence Movement during the 1930s and ’40s. Please give me some credit. I don't make such elementary errors in sourcing.

  As many historians and constitutional law experts have said since the 1950s,

  • about 70% of the Indian constitution was taken from the Government of India Act, 1935 (which was the last (and some say only) real constitution of the Raj, though it did not have a preamble); moreover, some of the articles were taken verbatim, because the British had framed the language so carefully, especially the articles of state repression. This is mostly the handiwork of Patel who wanted a strong center, especially after the dispute with Pakistan had begun over Kashmir in October 1947.
  • another 10% to 15%, the Directive Principles of State Policy, the fundamental rights foundation, was based on the Indian National Congress constitution of 1930, in turn based on the Nehru Report, 1928..
  • 10%, the Preamble owes a great deal to the US and especially Irish preambles, the last one strikingly so, even in its sentence structure. (Please compare them.)
  • The remaining 5% to 10%, at least at that time, the abolition of untouchability and reservation of legislative seats for what were then called the depressed classes, and after the promulgation of the constitution, came to be called Schedule Castes and Tribes, was owed to a combination of Nehru and Ambedkar. The Indian Constituent Assembly had abolished untouchability before India's independence, see here, i.e. before Ambedkar came to join it as an ordinary member, let alone before Nehru made him the chair of the drafting committee. Nehru was already the interim prime minister.

  • As for sources, in everything I have written on WP, I have adhered to two principles:

  • WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which is WP's gold standard for reliability. Ramchandra Guha is a popular historian, a author of trade books published by Penguin or Random House. Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf, on the other hand, are scholars, two of the most reputable on modern India.
  • WP:TERTIARY, which is WP policy for matters of due weight. Note the role of introductory textbooks, which M&M's A Concise History of Modern India, CUP, 2014, which is read in colleges and universities around the world, very much is and which nothing published by Guha constitutes. Anyway, it is past my bedtime. I will examine a couple of other introductory textbooks on Indian history, ones that have been used in the history section of the FA India, Burton Stein (and David Arnold)'s A History of India, Oxford/Wiley-Blackwell, and Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal's Modern South Asia: History and Politics, Routledge, 2006. From what I remember, they don't say anything extravagant about Ambedkar's role either. But that tomorrow. Good night. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler, Pls don't try to mislead the actual point of criticism of mine about Nehru's WP starting line.
  The line *He was the principal leader of Indian national movement in the 1930s and 1940s* is totally different from what Britannica say. The line try to implies the feeling of Nehru is *the principal leader* in 1930s, which is not supported by any credible or even poor sources. 1930s was the pick of Revolutionary leaders (Gandhi, M. Azad, Patel and Bose from INC itself , but still Nehru ji become the principal leader ?). If the edit was done by f&f as you claim, then you should deserved the credit for putting WP:OR
  * You also deserve the credit for putting wrong claim about B.N. Rau that he already draft the constitution of Burma in 1937*.
  * You also deserve the credit for discrediting Ambedkar role as Jurist and Economist which is then corrected after my intervention in talk page.
  After all this minor or major errors, If the ultimately F&f's claim of I don't make such elementary errors in sourcing. have a face value then it must be concerning.
  # Opinion - The problem with f&f, is that he try to be* as rationale, logical, applying all the WP Policy to avoid or discrediting Ambedkar but at the same time he don't even hesitate to use Tertiary sources (Britannica) in the WP:LEAD and that too in a fabricated manner. (like removing the line "also one of the" ) for Boosting Nehruji. Opinion end
  Also if f&f have to accept the policy of WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:RS then it shouldn't have problem with my three sources that i provided for Ambedkar being "Chief architect", atleast i am not putting any kinda a WP:OR or WP:SYN :
  

Putting WP: Scholarship based sources again with quotation

page 110: Many credit him as the father of the Constitution, hailing him as the modern Manu who gave India a new and democratic regime. Some of these go further to argue that any changes in the Constitution would be an affront to Ambedkar. (... ) Perhaps the most intelligent and balanced view is that of Nehru’s biographer Michael Brecher, who described Ambedkar as the chief architect, or more correctly, the field general of the campaign for a new Constitution. Ambedkar: Towards an Enlightened India (2017 , Penguin UK)by Gail Omvedt) page 04: This scenario unfolded in India after independence. Democracy was immediately captured by the dominant classes. Bhimrao Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Indian Constitution, in his capacity as the chairman of the Drafting Committee, highlighted this contradiction in a famous speech to the Constituent Assembly in 1949, a relevant portion of which has been cited as an epigraph to this introduction. India's Silent Revolution - (Columbia University Press) by Christophe Jaffrelot Page 288 : Apart from piloting the Constitution of India through a sometimes fractious Assembly, Ambedkar made one other important contribution as law minister. This was to oversee the drafting of a new law that would, for the first time, allow Hindu women to choose their marriage partners, to divorce them if necessary, and to inherit a fair share of ancestral property. These reforms only came into effect after Ambedkar resigned from the Cabinet in 1951. But he was their principal architect, as he was of the Constitution itself. Makers of the Modern India (2013) - Harvard University Press by Ramchandra Guha

Kind regards. Callmehelper (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Also There are some points to be considered for Ambedkar that how much he played the crucial role in the assembly;

Try to understand that 1947 to 1949 era of constitution Assembly w.r.t Ambedkar

SOURCE–"Dr. Ambedkar: The Man and His massage (1991) - Prentice-Hall of India by Sudharshan Agarwal". -

page no 5: Dr. Ambedkar, as the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, had to answer many points raised by the Members. Being a man of vast political experience, he spoke with authority and was heard with rapt attention by the Members of the Assembly. He spoke elaborately on the various provisions made in the Draft and on the various amendments moved by the Members.

• Continue: Ambedkar was always ready to answer points raised by the Members. The President of the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, would often turn to him and say, "Would you like to comment," "Would you like to throw light on this issue," or "Dr. Ambedkar will now reply." In fact, it would not be wrong to say that he had the final say in all matters concerning the Constitution during the debates in the Constituent Assembly.

p.6; He would often intervene in the debate to explain the provisions contained in the Draft. Sometimes he would himself move certain amendments to the Draft. It was not that the Members always praised the provisions contained in the Draft. Many of them criticised the Draft Constitution and moved amendments. If Dr. Ambedkar was convinced, he would accept those amendments, but if he was not in favour of a particular amendment, he would say, "Sir, I said, I oppose it." Dr. Ambedkar was well versed in constitutional theories and, therefore, while speaking in the Assembly, he would not only provide answers to objections raised by the Members but would also explain to them the philosophy behind those provisions.

• Also during 2 years Constituent Assembly debates, Ambedkar dominated singnificantly for his vast knowledge of expertise in law and indian society Just for example, on 4 June 1949 , The Hindustan Times published article which is used a reference in the page 314 of book "The Indian Constitution (Oxford University Press)". by Granville Austin, arguably the most respected historian about Indian Constitution. - article say -

  Ambedkar's manner towards the Assembly was often quite haughty, although his explanations when he chose to give them were brilliantly lucid. He was described as explaining a minor point 'with the air of a Sherlock Holmes making things clear for his Watson'. - 4 June 1949 -The Hindustan Times

  You can take the quote in both way postively or negatively. But it's a fact that in most cases, he held strong decision-making power because of his legal expertise and the position he held as chairman of drafting committee. and that's make him the "chief architect".

Regards. Callmehelper (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

You are engaging in WP:SYNTH. What do we know is, that Ambedkar himself accepted that the Indian constitution was mostly a copy of Government of India Act (1935). He said: "As to the accusation that the Draft Constitution has reproduced a good part of the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935, I make no apologies. There is nothing to be ashamed of in borrowing. It involves no plagiarism. Nobody holds any patent rights in the fundamental ideas of a Constitution."[1]

Who was the major architect of 1935 act? That was Samuel Hoare. On April 1, 1937 the provinces of British India came under the new Indian Constitution, which was chiefly the work of Sir Samuel Hoare (TIME, June 29, 1936)."[2]

I am sure you don't disagree that you are technically wrong with your arguments. Capitals00 (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Capitals00, I think we don't have to give so much stress on Govt. of India Act 1935, because even we accept as a fact that mostly administrative parts of Indian constitution is based on that 1935 Act, we will reach no where near conclusion.

• As far as 1935 Act is concern, it doesn't came from air, it's a long due and largely based on 1933 White Paper which further based on long discussions of Round table conferences held by British and Indian representatives. for more info
• Also the 1935 Act don't discuss fundamental rights, Directive principles, Preamble etc, and this acts is predominantly for administrative perspectives, not accepted by Indian leaders. Nehruji famously said that a machine with strong brakes but no engine and Charter of Slavery ref, so if Ambedkar said that "As to the accusation that the Draft Constitution has reproduced a good part of the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935, I make no apologies." what's wrong in that? This suggests that credit goes to Drafting Commitee for incorporating good part of 1935 Act into Our constitution for better administrative.

OPINION : I find it funny that @Capitals00 decide to give credit as a major architect of 1935 to Samuel Hoare based on a article of 1936 by Time but he can't accept the fact that reputable scholars accept Ambedkar as the chief architect of Indian constitution, which itself a contradictory and tends towards intellectual dishonesty.

Regards. Callmehelper (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

1935 act cannot be ignored. It was the basis of the Indian constitution. You have been already told that the credit you are trying to give is not only technically misleading, but is also rejected by various reliable sources.[3] Attacking other editors will not change that. I have also mentioned that you also discover sources that say Vallabhbhai Patel was the "unifier of India", but that is also technically misleading. Capitals00 (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Capitals00 ,None of the sources discussed about Ambedkar being "Chief architect". One is quint article, opinion based , not scholarly in nature. and others sources claim of Ambedkar as not Father of Constitution is debatable, also publisher and years matter which is poor in all other sources. None of sources address "the chief architect" point.

You have been already told that the credit you are trying to give is not only technically misleading, but is also rejected by various reliable sources How ? who told me this ? Who are the *scholarly credible sources* rejected ?

• You are saying that scholars like Gail Omvedt , Christophe Jaffrelot, Eleanor Zelliot and Ramchandra Guha research and published their books in Columbia University Press, Harvard University Press, Penguin UK are less reliable and it was debunked by some 1970s book with publishers like "Vishal Publication or World press Private or one opinion article which don't even discuss the point ??? If your answer is Yes, then i understand your points and we should end this discussion now and let's leave this discussion upon admins.

Regards. Callmehelper (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Those sources are refuting your claim that Ambedkar was "the chief architect of the constitution", while your sources are not discussing the dispute in question. Capitals00 (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Many prominent Raj and early post-colonial India historians consider GOI35 a significant portion of India's constitution. However, much of this apportioning is related to the more administrative- or surveillance-related aspects of the constitution, not the ideology- or human rights- or ideals-related aspects. The Indian Penal Code, written by the 30-something Thomas Babington Macaulay in the 1830s and promulgated in the 1860s, is a case in point. The IPC, a codification of English Common Law, was written by a master of early 19th-century English prose. It was thought unwise to tamper with it, until, of course, the Hindu Nationalists did so recently.

This is an issue of due weight, as reliable sources support different viewpoints. Wikipedia policy and guidance for determining due weight is laid out in WP:TERTIARY, which especially recommends introductory college-level (or sometimes graduate-school level) textbooks that are read around the world, as they are vetted for neutrality before publication. Only such textbooks are used in the Wikipedia featured article (or FA) India, which is Wikipedia's oldest country FA, now 20 years old. What I propose to do in a subpage of my user page is to examine the introductory text books that were used in revising the article's history sections before some landmarks: (a) the article's last featured article review in 2011, (b) the article's the Wikipedia Front Page Appearance on October 2, 2019, Gandhi's 150th anniversary, and (c) the article's forthcoming featured article review. I will add short quotes and Google Scholar citation indexes. Once complete, we can see if we might not find some areas of common emphasis. Admittedly, I am engaging in this exercise more to help us during the forthcoming FAR, but it will also be useful in this article. I will post the link to that user subpage here soon.Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

PS user:Callmehelper May I request that you not ping me? I don't find exchanges with you to be particularly helpful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler (sorry for pinging), You are doing nothing but trying to divert the whole conversation again and again. I don't understand that why you think that the one who had to start everything from scratch, deserved to be called as architect and Since Indian Constitution has many parts came from GOI35 then Ambedkar can't be architect ?

This is very flawed argument, because by this logic no one in the world called to be architect of constitution wrt to their country , simply the reason is throughout the Modern world, no country have constitution who don't borrow or used provisions from past. For Example, The US Constitution is heavily based on The British common law and Magna Carta, then according to f&f, James Madison is not the architect of US Constitution ?

Pls accept this as a fact that The architect "don't invent bricks", "they designed the final structure".

Also, I think that Wikipedia Prioritize more WP:Scholarship and WP:SECONDARY than any textbook or WP:Tertiary.

All my sources are so much scholarly, highly reputable publishers, and explicitly mentioned Ambedkar as a "Chief architect", but still f&f don't accept it, clearly seems like either you don't give much attention to Indian constitution history around 1947 to 1950 or You have prejudices about Ambedkar that Since Ambedkar got popularity when subaltern politics increased in around 80s and 90s so they started calling him "architect of constitution" and now scholars like Christophe Jaffrelot, Gail Omvedt or Ramchandra Guha also accepted. But This is Wrong.

Ambedkar is being called as "Chief architect" way ahead of this Bahujan Politics, even before the death of Ambedkar (1956).

See For Example; the first book which is written about Ambedkar is "Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar:Life and Mission (1954)". by Dhananjay Keer in which he mentioned multiple time with this "chief architect" descriptions. quoting-

Page-397: An Untouchable who was kicked out from carts and segregated in schools in his boyhood, who was insulted as a professor, and ousted from hotels, hostels, saloons, and temples in his youth as a despicable Mahar, and who was cursed as a British stooge, despised as a heartless politician and devil, hated as a reviler of the Mahatma, and decried as an Executive Councillor, became the first Law Minister of a free nation and the chief architect of the Constitution to define the will, aim, and vision of India. It was a great achievement and a wonder in the history of India.

Now i don't think there is any disagreement. Also no sources provided against this except some borrowing type things fallacy.

Also i noted in Christophe Jaffrelot, a globally recognised political scientist, give some more insight in recent trends changes in Indian politics through the book - "Dr. Ambedkar and untouchability (C. Hurst, 2005)"., i am quoting some of the paragraph-

• Introduction: Before continuing, a disclaimer needs to be made. This work attempts to challenge the ‘sanitisation’ of Ambedkar, whose role in history has often been reduced by right-wing forces to being the ‘architect’ of the Indian Constitution, a position he later deplored. Ambedkar has been sanitised and nationalised by erasing his activism in favour of Dalits and his opposition to Congress and Gandhi, among other things. In the same way, the construction of thousands of statues depicting him with a copy of the Constitution under his arm also tends to reduce Ambedkar to a servant of the nation.

• p 11: However, with the help of Congress politicians, Rajendra Prasad in particular, Ambedkar was given another seat in the Bombay Legislature on 23 July 1947. A few days later, Ambedkar became the first Minister of Law in independent India. On 29 August 1947, Ambedkar was appointed Chairman of the Drafting Committee for the new Constitution. After two years of work, the Constitution was adopted on 26 November 1949. As noted before, Ambedkar is highly esteemed and remembered for his performance as the ‘architect’ of the Constitution.

• Paga 184: Together, Dalit and nationalist narratives have decontextualised Ambedkar's politics during Partition. By portraying him solely as a hero or as a nationalist, the complex nature of Ambedkar as a politician and individual has been largely forgotten. They have also given space for the survival of misleading stories in which Ambedkar joined the Nehru government due to the goodwill of Congress.

• same page (184):As I have shown, Ambedkar resorted to desperate measures in desperate times. He approached various national and international figures and organisations to secure political safeguards for Dalits. Ambedkar saw in Partition the loss of two great political allies, the Muslim League and the colonial government. He feared that without the colonial protection and the political support of Muslims, Dalits would suffer as they would live in a perpetual 'Hindu Raj'. In such a setting, the power of the Hindu majority would be fixed, and political alliances would be useless.

• continuation: Despite his efforts, Ambedkar's political alliances did not come through. He was forced to decide on how to pursue the interests of his people without the support of Muslims and the British in Independent India and eventually was forced to collaborate with Congress. Thus, remembering Ambedkar only as the Father of the Constitution is doing him a disservice.

Today's history go beyond of this argument that Ambedkar is regarded as chief architect. No any sources till provided which actually disregard this title 'claim' throughout this discussion

My gut feeling say that this is not a disputable title for Ambedkar, otherwise the scholars like Gail Omvedt, or Ramchandra Guha must be talk about the dispute, the fact that they are saying very easily in the book, proves that this isn't a dispute and this title used for him very earlier times even before his death as i shown above.

This is all i have to say , and by this conversation, i am assuming that Admins will analyse it very closely because initial argument was about that he is not architect now abundant reputable scholars and publishers confirm the claim, the argument is now tends to shifting towards this is WP:Undue case n all. This is not acceptable. This title must be used in a WP:LEAD. as it describes his legacy more impactful, even more in recent decades. There are multiple sources scholarly with reputable publishers, news outlets, GOVT websites etc mentioned explicitly "the chief architect " and can't be denied by diverting line like "this should be mentioned in textbook or WP:Tertiary" because as far as i know the WP Policy, it give more priority high quality Secondary source for this type of discussion.

Kind regards. Callmehelper (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Callmehelper, F&F requests you not to ping them, and the next thing you do is ping them to a wall of text. That is disruptive. Please do not ping them here again.

Admins will not analyse a conversation very closely to determine who is right about a content issue. Admins do not deal with content. They are not some final arbiter of what is or isn't included in an article. Admins deal with behavior. If you believe there is a behavior issue, you can bring it to WP:AE. If the issue is with content, you can follow the WP:Dispute resolution process. Valereee (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee apologise for pinging f&f. If the issue is with content and involvement of more than two user then I should go for DRN but here I don't understand how to proposed a dispute resolution? can you help ? Callmehelper (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Callmehelper, that page explains the process, but here's what it says:

1. If there are more than two people in the dispute, you can ask for more input on related WikiProjects. In this case that would probably be WP:WikiProject India or WP:WikiProject Biography or WP:WikiProject History. Although frankly you aren't likely to get anyone to voluntarily read this wall of text.
2. You can open a Wikipedia:Requests for comment and advertise it, if you have something very specific to discuss, such as 'should X be added to the article based on source Y saying "[quote]]".
3. You can go to WP:RSN if the argument is over the usability of a source.

FWIW: shorter is better. Learning to write short is a valuable persuasive skill here. No one wants to read 10K words in order to understand your point. I'm not going to do more than skim, but it seems the argument is over the phrase "chief architect". You ought to be able to state that argument in about a dozen words, and then provide the three best sources that support that argument. (And if the argument is not about that phrase, I don't really care. It's just an example.) Valereee (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee, I think right now i am trapped in a loop. Because it was a simple case of adding "chief architect" line and f&f didn't like that (as he removed that line earlier), so i give them reliable sources and now i think matter was solved. because other one or more senior editor comment in this discussion that it's should hardly a dispute. but still i do extensive discussion. And now if i again go for request for comments or discussion in WP India then i will again replying the same things (probably go long again) and then probably users don't want to read (TL:DR). I want now final resolution by admins/seniors who can look this discussion or whom i tagged in starting conversations rather than going again for discussion. pls do help in reaching concensus now. pls Callmehelper (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The decision

Hello Valereee,

I consider you a sympathetic administrator (i.e. to all points of view) whose friendly acquaintance I first made in the early days of the Kamala Harris page some four or five or six years ago.  You are someone I respect very much.  So, I'm a little perplexed by your decision to allow, as an administrator, the inclusion of a popular characterisation, "chief architect," in this article's lead.  You say you discern a majority of 2 to 1 in the discussion.  RegentsPark, whom I have known for 17 years and consider a sympathetic and highly respected administrator, says his view is not based on examining sources.  Vanamonde, whom I also highly respect and have known for a dozen years, says the same.  I'm perplexed that you have acted as an arbitrator.  This isn't very reassuring.  You should have stopped after saying that admins don't mediate content disputes.  

I haven't made this post lightly.  Indeed, walls of text are not helpful in talk page discussions, and I apologize for the part I played in their addition; still, as Wikipedians, our views are nothing if they are not based on sources.  In my case, I've more or less single-handedly written Dominion of India, during which the Constitution of India was crafted.  See in particular Framing the new constitution and Dominion Constitution and Government.    I spent yesterday reexamining the sources, over  a dozen of the best textbooks to be sure.  The constitution of India is a many-spendored document with many influences, among which are the Government of India Act, 1935; the leaders of the Indian National Congress, which led the campaign for India's independence, many of whom were lawyers by training, but most notably Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel.  The Indian National Congress, however, comprised high-caste and high-class people.  B. R. Ambedkar,  a highly talented member of India's Dalits (then "untouchables" or "outcastes") and their leader, was given a privileged position in the constitution-making process in great part to make the political and economic future of the new India more inclusive.  However, he did not take a leading part in the independence struggle; he only tried to ensure that the Dalit community received a just outcome during the waning days of the Raj. 

Ambedkar was no doubt a principal contributor to India's constitution, but he was not the chief architect of the elaborate and intricate document.  I have been sympathetic to Ambedkar (see the pictures and captions of him I added in Dominion of India), but we can't overstate his role. I don't think easy buzzwords are what Wikipedia is about. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)