Formal constitutionalism can obstruct rather than advance revolutionary change

Evidence

Using the Constitution as a subversive object is one thing. Being limited by it is quite another. Ambedkar’s circumstances forced him to be a revolutionary and to simultaneously put his foot in the door of the establishment whenever he got a chance to. His genius lay in his ability to use both these aspects of himself nimbly, and to great effect. Viewed through the prism of the present, however, it has meant that he left behind a dual and sometimes confusing legacy: Ambedkar the Radical, and Ambedkar the Father of the Indian Constitution. Constitutionalism can come in the way of revolution. And the Dalit revolution has not happened yet. We still await it. Before that there cannot be any other, not in India. — Ambedkar, B R, Annihilation of Caste_ The Annotated…, 104

Categorization

• XREF: Directly addresses the reader’s interest in whether and how caste annihilation succeeded — here the author argues the revolution remains unfinished. — connects to: Deliberative democracy is agonal dissent atop constitutional consensus, not consensus-seeking talk. — Jürgen Habermas, A New Structural Transformation of the…, 19; Neumann’s Marxism coexisted with reformist hopes for constitutional restoration — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 934; Structural constitutional rules resist change despite eroding functional justification (+2 more)
• DEEPTHINKING: The claim that constitutionalism can impede revolution, from within the legacy of the man who wrote the constitution, is a genuinely paradigm-shifting observation about the limits of formal equality.