Caste’s guardians hold power with no check against oppressing the producers

Evidence

Ambedkar disagrees with Plato on many levels. He is not convinced that there are only three qualities on the basis of which a soul can be divided. He believes that the multitude of human characteristics is so complex that it is impossible to identify and categorise them. He also points out that different characteristics become more or less important in the same person at different times. His criticism is also what was later popularised as the problem of the ‘one-dimensional man’ by Herbert Marcuse (1964/1991). From his experience of caste, Ambedkar’s critique is that in such an arrangement where most of the power is vested with the guardians and the remaining with the auxiliaries (the ‘twice-born’ Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas in the caste context), there is no mechanism to ensure that they will not oppress the producers (Shudras and Untouchables). — Ambedkar, B R, Annihilation of Caste_ The Annotated…, 1114

Categorization

• XREF: The claim that ruler-classes with unchecked power inevitably oppress echoes Ambedkar’s core argument in Annihilation of Caste proper and resonates with the broader power-concentration critiques elsewhere in the library.
• SEED: Ambedkar’s reading of Plato’s tripartite soul as a theoretical blueprint for caste could seed a piece on how hierarchical social orders borrow prestige from abstract philosophy.