Talk:B. R. Ambedkar

Request for comment on infobox image change

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is unanimous consensus that File:Colorised Ambedkar.png should not be used, and that the current image (File:Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar.jpg) should remain. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

---

The present image may not be the best image we have of Ambedkar. It is unusually close-up for a portrait and is of side profile. If we agree to change the image, then this I feel is a good candidate. Consider taking part in the consensus.

This is a colorised image out of a public domain image that was already available on Commons. I don't know if this info is important but the colourisation happened online from the website https://hotpot.ai/

Appu (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose (Summoned by bot) – The relevant pages here are: Wikipedia:Image use policy (in particular, WP:IMGCONTENT), and the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images (especially MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE), and ideally any decision to keep or change the image should be based on them. I don't agree with the description above that the current image is a side profile (it's more like 3/4). The fact that the proposed image has been artificially manipulated means it may not represent reality but a colorising editor's preference. Based on MOS:LEADIMAGE which says, "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic" and the fact that the colorised image is not natural, I oppose changing the image. (Even if it were not colorised, I would still oppose the change, as I believe the current image is a better quality representation.) Mathglot (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  Appu, just a procedural note: this Rfc lacks an Rfc question at the top. Please read WP:RFCBEFORE about preparing for an Rfc, and WP:RFCNEUTRAL about writing the Rfc question. In my opinion, the Rfc should start with a simple question, such as: "Should the current image of Ambedkar at the top of the article be replaced with File:Colorised Ambedkar.png?". Your argumentation in favor of one position or the other goes in a separate comment beneath the neutral statement that opens the Rfc, usually as a bullet item and the word Support or Oppose in bold font. Don't worry, you're still pretty new and you can't be expected to know everything right away, but just try to keep it in mind for next time. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose (Summoned by bot) – @Appu: In addition to above concerns, which I share to some degree, can you please provide evidence that the photo is licensed under a compatible license? The source image is public domain, but colourisation by hotpot.ai is likely to be a transformative work, which would put the colourised version under new term of copyright. Based on an (admittedly) casual look at the service's website, I was unable to ascertain that images produced by the service are licensed under a compatible license. Melmann 21:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  Melmann, good point. I added a question about this at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Mathglot (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose (Summoned by bot) apart from any copyright issues which MAY apply, it's a poor image and inferior to the current B+W photo. Pincrete (talk) 05:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Current image is fine. I really don't see any reason to change it, especially with a picture that doesn't actually look as good as the current one. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Okay with the current image. Sea Ane (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Current image is way better. Peter Ormond 💬 15:24, 5 November 2021 (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.

Name

Wouldn't be correct transcription of the name Bhimrav … ? Regards, —Mykhal (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No wt are saying aa.. 2409:4071:4D42:EDC1:8401:CBF3:9AD2:84E4 (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Request for change in IPA transliteration of 'Babasaheb'

The IPA transliteration given for Babasaheb is incorrect. The word is written in Marathi as well as Sanskrit as बाबासाहेब, which when converted to Latin script through ISO 15919, results in 'Bābāsāheb', and when compared with Help:IPA/Sanskrit, gives the correct IPA transliteration as [baːbaːsaːɦeb].

Therefore I request that [bʌbəsɑheb] be changed to [baːbaːsaːɦeb]. Thank you SomePacifisticGuy (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Central Provinces

@Fowler&fowler: The text of the article says: Ambedkar was born on 14 April 1891 in the town and military cantonment of Mhow (now officially known as Dr Ambedkar Nagar) in the Central Provinces (now in Madhya Pradesh).

References

The source cited for this does not mention that it was in Central Provinces. The source says: Bhim Rao Ambedkar was born on April 14, 1891 in Mhow, a garrison town close to Indore–the capital of a princely state of the same name which was to be incorporated into the province of Madhya Bharat (contemporary Madhya Pradesh) after independence. Please can you make a suitable correction.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The latter is correct, but sidesteps the Central India Agency question. Indore State was a part of the Central India Agency, commonly just called "Central India," just as Jaipur State was a part of Rajputana Agency, commonly called "Rajputana," or Porbandar a part of Kathiawar Agency; all the "Agencies" were groupings of princely states, which the British oversaw with residents. "Madhya Bharata" was the name given to Central India during the period of the Dominion of India (from 1947 to 1950, and probably for some time thereafter until Madhya Pradesh came into being which incorporated both Central Provinces and Central India and maybe a few other small political units. You may view its map in Dominion_of_India#Dominion_Constitution_and_Government. Mhow on the other hand was a British garrison town in a princely state. I'll check if it had any independent existence outside of CIA; if it did, it might explain why Jaffrelot is resorting to that circumlocution. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The Census of India, 1891, the year Ambedkar's birth, mentions Central India and Mhow in paragraphs 14 and 15 in volume 1, Intro, published 1890, page 177. This is not a reliable source but gives a feel for that time, at least in the official document. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

And the enumeration, published 1892, says on page 22], that Mhow (cantonment), Indore State, Central India, increased in population by 4.5K from the previous census of 1881. I wonder if baby Bhimrao was counted in it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I see, (I was going to remove that [Central Provinces] though went per article body) but agencies have not been added in infoboxes and with other details such as district et al are just WP:OVERLINKING (all of which were recently added). Reduced them from infobox per MOS and removed the mention of Province from body. Gotitbro (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2022

Add the category "Category:Marathi people" as Dr. BR Ambedkar had Marathi heritage as mentioned in article GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done--Krutarth (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2022

He was a social reformer ,activist 117.215.149.37 (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2022

Change "literary translation" to "literal translation" in the intro. Jānis Barbans (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I don't see that prose in this article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2022

Under the section about the LSE, could we add a link to his LSE student file, which you can freely download from here? https://www.lse.ac.uk/library/assets/documents/Ambedkars-LSE-student-file.pdf That PDF link is presented on this page, in case that is a better link https://www.lse.ac.uk/library/whats-on/exhibitions/educate-agitate-organise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politicscurator (talk • contribs) 09:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Politicscurator: We can't really add it to the article main body, as it is a primary source. I am delighted to add it to the external links. I read much of that file and was impressed by how highly his professors rated him. A man of considerable genius he certainly was, one in a million. Thank you for posting this and for the link. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you! Politicscurator (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2022

Bharataratn Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Mr. Jyoshil (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Instead of B. R. Ambedkar use Bharataratn Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Mr. Jyoshil (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: We don't use titles in article names. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2022

The local description of this page is Former minister of law and justic in india But it should be 'The Father of Indian Constitution'. Please do this change. Shreyas143 (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The Greatest Indian Shreyas143 (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2023

Babasaheb Dr. B.R. Ambedkar did not get his surname from a Marathi Brahmin Teacher whose surname was Ambedkar. There is evidence for proving that. Babasaheb got his surname from his village's name.Babasaheb Dr.B.R. Ambedkar's elder brother Bala also had this surname which is mentioned in the official documents. so, please remove this error of information from the Wikipedia Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's page's Early life Part. This can lead to a controversy also because it is fake information that is present on that Wikipedia page.So, change the information that Babasaheb Dr. b.R. Ambedkar got his surname Ambedkar from a Marathi Brahmin Teacher whose surname was Ambedkar to the information that Babasaheb Dr. B.R. Ambedkar got his surname Ambedkar from his village's name "Ambadawe". 43.231.55.155 (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for confirming this information? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2023 (3)

Babasaheb Dr. B.R. Ambedkar did not get his surname from a Marathi Brahmin Teacher whose surname was Ambedkar. There is evidence for proving that. Babasaheb got his surname from his village's name.Babasaheb Dr.B.R. Ambedkar's elder brother Bala also had this surname which is mentioned in the official documents. so, please remove this error of information from the Wikipedia Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's page's Early life Part. This can lead to a controversy also because it is fake information that is present on that Wikipedia page. The change should be done from Wikipedia page named Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's Early life Part. Please change "His Marathi Brahmin teacher, Krishnaji Keshav Ambedkar, changed his surname from 'Ambadawekar' to his own surname 'Ambedkar' in school records" to "His original surname was Sakpal but his father registered his name as Ambadawekar in school, meaning he comes from his native village 'Ambadawe' in Ratnagiri district." 43.231.55.155 (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2023

please add a link to an article on Mooknayak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooknayak sumedhdmankar (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The Mooknayak article needs some substantial work; until it's clear that it's notable as a separate subject from B.R. Ambedkar, linking it may not make sense. Lizthegrey (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Mooknayak is a newspaper started by B. R. Ambedkar in 1920. Mooknayak is B. R. Ambedkar's own newspaper. then how it is not notable.

Ref 1

Ref 2

Ref 3 sumedhdmankar (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Added wikilink. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much sumedhdmankar (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2023

Change

""On 25 November 1949, Ambedkar in his concluding speech in constituent assembly said:[74]

"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."

To

“…however good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot.

…The Constitution can provide only the organs of State such as the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The factors on which the working of those organs of the State depends are the people and the political parties they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes and their politics.”" Ericbana19sdk (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

seems like this page is a deliberate attempt at misrepresenting and dismissing Ambedkar of his achievements. The most important part is omitted while the most popular tweets by idiots are taken as references. This is not only not intellectual honesty, but intellectual suicide. Ericbana19sdk (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done No reason provided to replace the verified quotation. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Have already given the reason. The quote misreprents Ambedkar's position as the top Constitution authority and influence. His comment is only partial and not full. Why is only that part which he credits his team and BN Rau prominently displayed and not the whole quote, which is much more contextual is helpful?

Again a very sad and deliberate mischief. 103.76.57.20 (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@103.76.57.20 Dr b r ambedkar born in Maharashtra 45.252.73.140 (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Heading is Wrong.

The heading written is wrong. So please take note of that it's not only B.R.Ambedkar but it is Dr.B.R.Ambedkar. Because Man's reputation is considered by its Educations. And we Indians inspired from Dr.B.R.Ambedkar through his Education. So I hope you can change the heading in correct manner. Thank you. 112.79.73.64 (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please see MOS:DOC. Rasnaboy (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2023

Religion - Hindu Atheist Rebel (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

removing Barrister-at-Law

@GuardianH: hello.

Looking at your edits, it looks like you are deliberately omitting the mention of Ambedkar's barrister degree, why? Your edits - 6 August 2023 and 22 January 2024.

In 1922, Ambedkar was called to the bar and became a "barrister-at-law". source. 2409:4042:806:ACAA:38B2:7060:FC8B:DDE4 (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

He was called to the bar there, but did not earn a degree as you mentioned. GuardianH (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Isn't Grays Inn Ambedkar's alma matter as you deleted? Is Barrister-at-Law a degree? 2409:4042:806:ACAA:927:3ABE:CF77:6CD4 (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a little different in the UK. They may study there, but being called to the bar does not mean earning a degree. A Barrister-at-Law is a profession, not a degree. GuardianH (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

OK. But Ambedkar studied law at Gray's Inn, and that should be mentioned in the article's infobox, along with Columbia University and LSE. 2409:4042:806:ACAA:ADD4:7751:95CC:297A (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Inns of Court are not usually displayed in the infobox, unless the subject spent more than the usual amount of time there. It's more like gaining an accreditation there rather than receiving a formal education. When I added it to the infobox originally, I thought it might add some value, but it just extends this rather long infobox. GuardianH (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Who helped in 1952

You should mention which party elected ambedkar as rajiyasabha member. Jana santha parent party of bjp. HariHaran Honest (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 March 2024

The Two tallest statues of B. R. Ambedkar must be included in the article

On 14 April 2023, a 125 feet tall statue of Ambedkar was installed in Hyderabad city of Telangana, which is situated on a 50 feet high base building. On January 19, 2024, a 125 feet tall "Statue of Social Justice" of Ambedkar was installed in Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, which stands on an 81 feet high platform. The Ambedkar statues in Hyderabad and Vijayawada are the fifth and fourth tallest statues in India respectively. In May 2026, a 450 feet tall "Statue of Equality" of Babasaheb Ambedkar will be ready at Indu Mill in Mumbai, which will be the second tallest statue in India and the third tallest in the world.

206 feet tall Statue of Social Justice in Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh

175 feet Ambedkar Statue in Hyderabad, Telangana

2409:4042:271D:9BCF:21A6:B070:3299:6E01 (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll see if I might be able to incorporate this somehow. GuardianH (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@GuardianH: Any update on this? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

•  Done. Capitals00 (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Capitals00:, Thank you for adding the information about the statue in Vijayawada to the article.

Looks like you didn't add the Hyderabad statue information on the talk page into the main article. The article already has some information about the Hyderabad statue, but it is insufficient. The article does not mention the height of the statue, nor the height of its base. Also wiki linking is not done.

The article should also have photos of both the Ambedkar statues in Hyderabad and Vijayawada. Please think positive.

@GuardianH:

157.33.222.253 (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

References

When was B R Ambedkar awarded with Yugpurush

Italic 103.183.90.156 (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done It is unclear what you want done. Peaceray (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Social

Br ambedkar biography 2409:4070:478C:B7C2:D9F1:5E52:F5B1:3A0D (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2024

"We should remove the whole paragraph where Indira, the wife of jagjivan Ram mentioned that ambedkar persuaded jagjivan Ram to talk to Mahatma Gandhi for the giving him a post in a cabinet of Nehru ministry. It has no any valid evident it's just a personal view even jagjivan Ram never mentioned that. We all know how ideologically both Ambedkar and jagjivan Ram are different poles apart." Callmehelper (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. It is accurately attributed and reliably sourced. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2024

• Gandhi vs Ambedkar- Poona Pact on separate constituencies for Dalits related articles

Meesevawarangal.in (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2024

This articles states that Ambedkar's book Pakistan or The Partition of India was published in 1945. This is an error. It was published in 1940 and later republished in 1945 and 1946. In the Works section of the article there is text which states "Pakistan or The Partition of India (1945)." Please change (1945) to (1940). My source is this PDF of the book provided by the Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/attach/amb/Volume_08.pdf ArmenTheQuoteGuy (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

In WorldCat, the 1946 edition of Pakistan or The Partition of India seems to be consistently listed as the 3rd edition, but there is no listing for the first edition:

• https://search.worldcat.org/formats-editions/78265520?limit=10&offset=1&orderBy=publicationDateAsc

I did find listings for the 1945 edition as the 2nd edition:

• https://search.worldcat.org/formats-editions/4919436?limit=10&offset=1&orderBy=publicationDateAsc

Is it possible that the title of the book was originally Thoughts on Pakistan? That was published in 1941.

• https://search.worldcat.org/formats-editions/863633176?limit=10&offset=1&orderBy=publicationDateAsc

Peaceray (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

This seems to confirm the first publication & change in title:

• Tejani, Shabnum (2013). "The Necessary Conditions for Democracy: B R Ambedkar on Nationalism, Minorities and Pakistan". Economic and Political Weekly. 48 (50). Economic and Political Weekly: 111–119. ISSN 0012-9976. JSTOR 24479052. Retrieved 2024-08-03. In Pakistan or the Partition of India, originally published as Thoughts on Pakistan in 1941, a year after the Lahore Resolution or the so-called 'Pakistan demand', Ambedkar considered at length what made a nation.

Peaceray (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done I added the edition where applicable. Here are the gist of the changes that I made:

*Pakistan or The Partition of India (1945), originally published as Thoughts on Pakistan (1941)

Note that there is a copyright discrepancy at archive.org/details/pakistanorthepar035378mbp/page/n7/mode/2up & archive.org/details/thoughtsonpakist035271mbp/page/n5/mode/2up. I chose to go with the copyright of the first edition from the first edition. Peaceray (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 September 2024

https://www.ambedkaritetoday.com/2019/12/the-name-ambedkar-was-not-given-by-brahmin-teacher.html/amp 122.172.84.11 (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done First, the ambedkaritetoday.com hardly appears to be a neutral source. Second, as the credit at the bottom indicates, Editors Note – This Article was appeared first on QUORA written by Shekhar Bodhakar a anti caste activist. As WP:QUORA indicates, Quora is a Q&A site. As an Internet forum, it is a self-published source that incorporates user-generated content, and is considered generally unreliable. Peaceray (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2024 (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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2024

Sushant Gaikwad Satara (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC) Ambedkar surname was given by Ramaji Sapkal the Father Of Babadaheb.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.RegentsPark (comment) 18:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 November 2024

Remove 'Brahmin' from Marathi Brahmin Teacher, Krishnaji Keshav Ambedkar. That was unnecessary and might cause confusion in ideology DINO BOSCO (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Reliably sourced content. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 November 2024

marathi brahman Sushant Gaikwad Satara (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC) marathi teacher

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. LizardJr8 (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

One Discussion

I revised one speech of paragraph. previous one;

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."

now revised 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 do it need ?

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. like how he give credit to the many peoples including staffs n all for their efforts and contribution.

If this would be the page of B N Rau then it should not be necessary to increase his 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.

now some think its not necessary and they revert it and just say it unnecessary. which seems odd.

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 lecture of WP:UNDUE.

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.

Just picking one line from speech which is about B N Rau is not following the rule of fairly representation of all significant point.

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.

a very long speech is given by ambedkar, but i put a little extended form of that speech that looks more balanced. it's not even longer. (Longer 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 his line only here? it make no sense.
• It's ambedkar page buddy, let them speak little more than just a line , LOL.

I feel really ironic, that people here in his page want to creating different intention of his speech by limiting it. and those who want to extend a little bit then these people are giving the lecture of different different policy of Wikipedia.

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.

YO , @Fowler&fowler look at this , how do you see this simple yet exxeggerating conversation.

Give your NPOV.

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