Ambedkar vs. B.N. Rau: The Architect and the Engineer of India’s Constitution 

Ambedkar vs. B.N. Rau: The Architect and the Engineer of India’s Constitution 

Introduction 

In recent years, a quiet but persistent historical revisionism has emerged regarding India’s constitutional origins. The debate centers on a seemingly academic question: who truly deserves credit as the principal author of the Indian Constitution? On one side stand those who advocate for Sir Benegal Narsing Rau, the distinguished constitutional advisor who prepared the preliminary draft. On the other are those who recognize Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar as the primary architect of this foundational document. But this is far from merely an academic dispute; it represents a deeper ideological struggle over India’s founding narrative and the recognition of Dalit agency in the formation of the modern Indian state. The question itself reveals much about how we understand constitutional history—do we value the technical framework or the transformative vision that animates a living document of governance? 

This article examines the historical evidence to separate factual contributions from political propaganda, exploring how both men’s expertise shaped the Constitution while acknowledging why Ambedkar deserves recognition as its chief architect. Beyond establishing factual clarity, this analysis seeks to illuminate how the Constitution emerged not just as a legal framework but as a social manifesto aimed at transforming a deeply stratified society into a progressive, democratic republic. 

Historical Context and Appointment 

The creation of the Indian Constitution occurred during a turbulent historical period marked by Partition, mass displacement, and the immense challenge of building a unified nation from diverse princely states and provinces. In this fraught context, the Constituent Assembly faced the monumental task of creating a governance framework for what would become the world’s largest democracy. 

Sir Benegal Narsing Rau was appointed Constitutional Advisor in 1946, bringing impeccable credentials to the role. A former judge of the Calcutta High Court and prime minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Rau had extensive experience in constitutional matters, having contributed to the drafting of the Government of India Act of 1935 . He was a scholar of comparative constitutional law who embarked on an international research journey, consulting with prominent jurists like Felix Frankfurter of the U.S. Supreme Court and studying various constitutional models from around the world . His mandate was technical and preparatory: to produce a preliminary draft that would serve as a working document for the Constituent Assembly. By February 1947, Rau had submitted his draft containing approximately 240 articles, organized largely around the administrative framework of the Government of India Act of 1935 . 

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s appointment as Chairman of the Drafting Committee in August 1947 came at a more complex political moment. Despite his earlier election from Bengal, Ambedkar had lost his Constituent Assembly seat after Partition redistributed territories. His reinstatement to the Assembly resulted from political negotiation and, notably, Mahatma Gandhi’s intervention, who recognized that no Constitution would claim legitimacy without the representation of Scheduled Castes . Ambedkar brought to the role not only legal acumen but a lifetime of advocacy for the oppressed. He had established himself as a formidable constitutional thinker through his work with the Southborough Committee, the Simon Commission, and the Round Table Conferences . As Chairman of the Drafting Committee, Ambedkar’s mandate was fundamentally different from Rau’s: he had to transform a technical draft into a workable social contract that would command consensus across India’s diverse political landscape. 

B.N. Rau’s Contributions: The Constitutional Engineer 

B.N. Rau’s contribution to the Indian Constitution can be best understood as that of a skilled constitutional engineer who designed the initial blueprint. His draft provided the structural framework and organizational foundation upon which the Constituent Assembly would build. As a civil servant with extensive experience in administration and law, Rau approached the constitution-making process with technical precision rather than political vision. 

Rau’s preparatory work was undeniably thorough. His draft organized the basic structure of government, delineating the relationship between executive, legislative, and judicial branches . He incorporated elements from various constitutional models he had studied—the federalism of Canada, the directive principles from Ireland, and the fundamental rights from the United States, though in a non-enforceable form . His consultation with Justice Felix Frankfurter of the U.S. Supreme Court notably influenced the due process clause in Article 21, with Frankfurter advising against its inclusion to prevent the judiciary from unduly impeding social legislation . 

However, Rau’s draft had significant conceptual limitations. It contained no enforceable fundamental rights, placed little emphasis on social justice or equality, and offered only a skeletal framework for parliamentary democracy . His preamble spoke vaguely of promoting the “common good” without invoking the powerful ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity that would eventually define the Constitution’s moral vision . Rau completed his assigned task by February 1947, and though the Assembly occasionally sought his advice on specific points thereafter, his direct involvement substantially diminished after this point . 

Critically, Rau operated from a position of technical expertise rather than democratic mandate. He was not an elected member of the Constituent Assembly and therefore did not participate in its debates or decision-making processes . His was a supportive role—essential, but ultimately subordinate to the political vision of the Assembly’s elected representatives. 

Ambedkar’s Transformative Role: The Moral Architect 

If Rau provided the constitutional skeleton, Ambedkar breathed into it the breath of social democracy. As Chairman of the Drafting Committee, Ambedkar transformed a technical administrative blueprint into a transformative document with moral vision and social purpose. This transformation required not only legal expertise but profound insight into the social pathologies that had plagued Indian society for centuries. 

Ambedkar’s approach to constitution-making was informed by his lived experience of caste discrimination and his lifelong scholarship on issues of social justice. Where Rau saw constitutionalism primarily as a mechanism for governance, Ambedkar understood it as an instrument of social emancipation. Under his leadership, the Drafting Committee expanded Rau’s 240-article draft into a comprehensive 395-article Constitution, significantly enlarging its scope and vision . This expansion reflected Ambedkar’s conviction that the Constitution must not only organize government but must actively secure justice—social, economic, and political—for all citizens. 

Ambedkar’s specific contributions to the constitutional text were profound and foundational: 

• Enforceable Fundamental Rights: Ambedkar recognized that without judicial enforcement, rights remained merely theoretical. He championed the inclusion of Articles 32 and 226, which guaranteed citizens the right to approach the Supreme Court and High Courts for enforcement of fundamental rights, calling Article 32 the “very soul” of the Constitution . 

• Social Justice Provisions: Ambedkar ensured the inclusion of Article 17 abolishing untouchability, and Articles 15 and 16 expanding equality clauses to prohibit discrimination and provide for reservations . These provisions represented a direct constitutional assault on the caste system that had marginalized millions. 

• Directive Principles of State Policy: While Ambedkar had initially wanted these principles to be justiciable fundamental rights, he ultimately secured their place as guiding ideals in governance, directing the state toward establishing social and economic democracy . 

• Moral Vision in the Preamble: Ambedkar transformed Rau’s technical preamble into a moral manifesto, emphasizing justice, liberty, equality, fraternity, and the dignity of the individual . 

Beyond these specific contributions, Ambedkar shouldered the immense labor of steering the drafting process through turbulent times. T.T. Krishnamachari, a member of the Drafting Committee, noted that the burden of the committee’s work fell disproportionately on Ambedkar, who worked up to 18 hours daily despite severe illness . Ambedkar personally defended nearly every clause of the Draft Constitution before the Assembly, demonstrating mastery of constitutional law and capacity to build consensus among sharply divided interests . 

Key Differences Between Rau’s Draft and the Final Constitution 

The transformation from Rau’s preliminary draft to the final Constitution reveals the profound ideological shift that occurred under Ambedkar’s leadership. The following comparison illustrates key differences: 

This comparison demonstrates how Ambedkar and the Constituent Assembly transformed a technical administrative blueprint into a transformative social document. The additions and revisions reflect a constitutional philosophy that views governance not merely as a mechanism for order but as an instrument for social change and individual emancipation. 

The Political Context and Motivations Behind the Debate 

The contemporary effort to recast Rau as the primary author of India’s Constitution reflects more than historical reinterpretation; it represents an ideological project with deep political implications. This revisionism seeks to minimize Dalit contribution to India’s founding moment, thereby containing Ambedkar’s radical legacy and reclaiming constitutional authorship for upper-caste privilege. 

Ambedkar himself explicitly acknowledged Rau’s contribution in his final address to the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949, stating: “The credit that is given to me does not really belong to me. It belongs partly to Sir B.N. Rau, the Constitutional Adviser to the Constituent Assembly who prepared a rough draft of the Constitution for the consideration of the Drafting Committee” . This statement demonstrates both Ambedkar’s intellectual honesty and his understanding of the collaborative nature of constitution-making. Yet significantly, he referred to Rau’s work as a “rough draft“—a starting point rather than a finished product . 

The historical record shows that leaders across the political spectrum—including Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, and Rajendra Prasad—publicly acknowledged Ambedkar’s central role in the constitution-making process . Contemporary observers recognized that while Rau provided invaluable technical assistance, it was Ambedkar who provided the political leadership and moral vision necessary to transform the draft into a viable constitutional order. 

This revisionist narrative also overlooks the fundamental nature of constitutional creation in democracies. As Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde notes, “No Constitution is written by one person. It is created through the collective deliberation of all social forces represented in a Constituent Assembly” . The attempt to identify a single author misunderstands the collaborative process of constitution-making while simultaneously seeking to diminish one contributor in favor of another. 

Conclusion: Reclaiming Constitutional History 

The debate between Ambedkar and Rau’s respective contributions to the Indian Constitution represents more than historical curiosity—it engages with fundamental questions about India’s democratic identity and the continuing struggle for social justice. The historical evidence clearly demonstrates that while both men made essential contributions, their roles were distinct and complementary. Rau served as the capable constitutional engineer who drafted the initial technical framework, while Ambedkar emerged as the visionary architect who infused that framework with democratic spirit and social purpose. 

The Constitution that emerged from this process bore Ambedkar’s distinct imprint in its commitment to justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. His speeches in the Constituent Assembly repeatedly emphasized that political democracy would remain precarious without social and economic democracy—a warning that remains urgently relevant today. He envisioned the Constitution as an instrument not merely for governing but for transforming Indian society, dismantling hierarchical structures, and creating conditions for genuine equality. 

Understanding this history matters because constitutions derive their authority not only from their legal force but from their moral legitimacy. Recognizing Ambedkar’s central role acknowledges that India’s founding document emerged from the struggles and aspirations of those who had been historically excluded from power. This recognition strengthens the Constitution’s transformative potential and reinforces its commitment to building a more just society. 

As India continues to grapple with challenges of inequality, discrimination, and social exclusion, returning to Ambedkar’s constitutional vision provides critical resources for renewal. The attempt to diminish his role represents not just historical inaccuracy but a weakening of the Constitution’s foundational promise. Honoring Ambedkar as the primary architect of India’s Constitution does not diminish other contributors like Rau, but rather acknowledges the truth that the most enduring constitutional frameworks emerge when technical expertise serves moral vision.