Who Was the Real Architect of the Indian Constitution? Dr. Ambedkar vs B. N. Rau

In recent years, especially on social media and among casteist revisionist circles, there has been a growing attempt to dilute and distort the legacy of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. These narratives push the claim that figures like B.N. Rau, Prem Behari Narain Raizada, or Dr. Rajendra Prasad, not Ambedkar, were the real architects of the Indian Constitution. The goal is clear: to question Ambedkar’s widely accepted role as the “Father” or “Architect” of the Constitution by suggesting it was either overstated or politically manufactured.

This article directly challenges that propaganda, breaks down the hollow logic behind these claims, and reaffirms Ambedkar’s foundational and irreplaceable role in shaping the Indian Constitution, while also acknowledging the contributions of others without letting them be inflated beyond fact.

Understanding the Roles: All Contributions Are Not Equal

Let’s set the record straight—contribution doesn’t mean equivalence, and not every role deserves the same weight.

B.N. Rau was the Constitutional Advisor to the Constituent Assembly. He prepared a preliminary draft by referencing foreign constitutions, useful, yes, but far from final. His draft was neither binding nor adopted as-is. Crucially, he was not a member of the Constituent Assembly, not part of the Drafting Committee, and never debated or defended a single clause on the Assembly floor.

Prem Behari Narain Raizada was a skilled calligrapher who handwrote the final version in elegant script. His work was artistic, not constitutional. Let’s be clear, he beautified the text, he didn’t build it. No involvement in the ideas, debates, or framing.

Dr. Rajendra Prasad, as President of the Constituent Assembly, played a procedural and ceremonial role—he presided, but he didn’t draft. He facilitated, not formulated.

Now, contrast all this with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who was appointed Chairman of the Drafting Committee. This was not a symbolic post. He led 141 committee meetings, engaged in relentless debates, reviewed over 7,500 amendments, and defended the Constitution clause by clause on the Assembly floor. He gave it structure, soul, and vision.

That’s not contribution—it’s authorship. Leadership. Architecture.

A Contemporary Witness Speaks: T.T. Krishnamachari, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, and Shri Pattabhi Sitaramayya Set the Record Straight

For those still clinging to revisionist fantasies, let the words of three eminent contemporaries, T.T. Krishnamachari, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, and Shri Pattabhi Sitaramayya, bring clarity. These aren’t reflections made years later by biographers or loyalists. These are real-time, first-hand acknowledgements from respected members of the Constituent Assembly, spoken during the actual drafting of the Constitution.

T.T. Krishnamachari, a prominent parliamentarian and witness to the process, laid it out plainly in the Constituent Assembly:

“The House is perhaps aware that of the 7 Members nominated by you, one had resigned from the House and was replaced. One died and was not replaced. One was away in America, and his place was not filled up, and another person was engaged in State affairs, and there was a void to that extent. One or two people were far away from Delhi, and perhaps reasons of health did not permit them to attend. So it happened ultimately that the burden of drafting this Constitution fell on Dr. Ambedkar, and I have no doubt that we are grateful to him for having achieved this task in a manner which is undoubtedly commendable.”

This is not hearsay. This is not mythologising. It is a direct, eyewitness account from a contemporary participant. And it affirms what historical records and official proceedings have long made clear: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar bore the intellectual and organisational responsibility for drafting the Indian Constitution.

Dr. Rajendra Prasad, President of the Constituent Assembly, echoed this sentiment on the eve of the Constitution’s adoption:

“… Sitting in the Chair and watching the proceedings from day to day, I have realised, as nobody else could have, with what zeal and devotion the members of the Drafting Committee, and especially its Chairman, Dr. Ambedkar, in spite of his indifferent health, have worked. We could never make a decision which was or could ever be so right as when we put him on the Drafting Committee and made him its Chairman. He has not only justified his selection but has added lustre to the work he has done.”

Shri Pattabhi Sitaramayya, another member of the Assembly, paid rich tribute to Babasaheb’s unmatched intellectual power and moral resolve:

“… What a steam-roller intellect he brought to bear upon this magnificent and tremendous task; irresistible, indomitable, unconquerable, levelling down tall palms…, whatever he felt to be right he stood by, regardless of consequences.”

These statements, made during the foundational moment of our republic, leave no room for doubt or distortion. Dr. Ambedkar’s pivotal role wasn’t a posthumous construction; it was recognised, celebrated, and recorded by those who saw it unfold. Anyone still questioning his leadership in shaping the Constitution either hasn’t read the record or is choosing to ignore it.

What About B.N. Rau? Let’s Ask the Questions Revisionists Avoid

For those parroting the propaganda that B.N. Rau was the “real architect” of the Indian Constitution, let’s put the facts on the table—and ask the critical questions they conveniently ignore:

Was B.N. Rau ever a member of the Drafting Committee?
No. He was a Constitutional Advisor—not a decision-maker, not a drafter. He submitted a preliminary draft. That’s where his role ended.

Did B.N. Rau defend the draft clause-by-clause in the Assembly?
Absolutely not. It was Ambedkar who stood in Parliament, faced the fire, countered every objection, and defended the Constitution with logic, vision, and grit.

Was B.N. Rau part of the Fundamental Rights Committee or the Minorities Sub-Committee?
No. He had no role in the crucial committees that shaped the social, political, and ethical backbone of the Constitution. Ambedkar was at the heart of both, and that’s where India’s real constitutional soul was forged.

Why did Ambedkar acknowledge Rau in his speech?
Because Ambedkar had integrity and humility, not because he was passing off credit. He said:

“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. 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.”

Let’s be clear: gratitude doesn’t rewrite authorship. Acknowledging Rau’s input as a starting point doesn’t make him the architect. Rau gave the raw stone, and Ambedkar sculpted it into India’s constitutional identity.

And finally, if Rau was the architect, then why do Parliament records, scholarly works, and contemporary leaders unanimously recognise Ambedkar as the Constitution’s father?
→ Because titles aren’t given—they’re earned. And Ambedkar earned it by carrying the weight, doing the intellectual labour, and giving shape to the Republic’s foundation.

This isn’t about hurt sentiments—it’s about historical truth. Stop using footnotes to rewrite headlines.

Dr. Ambedkar’s Broader Contributions: Far Beyond the Drafting Committee

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar wasn’t just the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, he was the moral and intellectual compass of the entire Constitution-making process. His contributions shaped the very foundation of Indian democracy:

• Fundamental Rights: He fought relentlessly to enshrine civil liberties—freedom of speech, equality before law, protection against discrimination—believing these were non-negotiable pillars of democracy.
  
• Social Justice & Reservations: He was the strongest voice for affirmative action, securing constitutional safeguards and reservations for Scheduled Castes and Tribes to correct centuries of structural oppression.
  
• Women’s and Minority Rights: Ambedkar insisted that a modern India must guarantee dignity and equal treatment to all, especially women and religious minorities, not just in theory, but through enforceable constitutional provisions.
  
• Parliamentary Democracy: He played a central role in shaping India’s parliamentary form of government, emphasising accountability, checks and balances, and the rule of law over majoritarianism or centralised authoritarianism.
  

As noted in the Eminent Parliamentarians Monograph Series published by the Parliament of India, Ambedkar wasn’t just writing a legal document—he was drafting a social revolution. He gave India not just a Constitution, but a blueprint for justice, equality, and democratic governance.

Who Truly Built the Constitution? Let’s Be Honest.

The recent efforts to sideline Dr. B.R. Ambedkar by propping up figures like B.N. Rau, Prem Behari Narain Raizada, or even Dr. Rajendra Prasad as the “real” architects of the Constitution are not only intellectually dishonest, they are politically motivated distortions of historical truth.

Yes, Rau was a competent advisor who provided a comparative draft. Yes, Raizada was a brilliant calligrapher whose handwriting gave the document visual beauty. Yes, Prasad’s presiding role helped the Assembly function. But none of them conceived, debated, defended, or constructed the Constitution’s content like Ambedkar did. Their contributions were supporting roles, valuable, but not foundational.

There’s a reason why history remembers only one man as the “Architect of the Indian Constitution”: because Ambedkar carried the intellectual and political weight of building a democratic framework for a deeply unequal society. He turned principles into enforceable rights. He faced opposition from all sides, caste elites, conservatives, and religious majorities and still held the line for liberty, equality, and justice.

Let’s be absolutely clear:
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar is not celebrated because of his caste. He is celebrated despite it, in a country where caste has always tried to erase minds like his.

The attempts to undermine him today are not about “truth” or “accuracy”. They are modern expressions of the same upper-caste anxieties that once resisted his inclusion in the process. This isn’t historical revision—it’s casteist erasure in academic disguise.

To deny Ambedkar his rightful place is not just wrong, it’s a betrayal of the very Constitution he built.

One important question we must ask today is this:

Why are Brahmins now so desperate to hijack the title of the “Architect of the Indian Constitution”? To understand the root of this desperation, we need to revisit Indian history, not the sanitised version found in textbooks, but the deeper civilizational conflict that has shaped this land for centuries.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar once said, “The history of India is nothing but a history of the mortal conflict between Buddhism and Brahminism.” This conflict isn’t just a thing of the past—it is alive, well, and roaring even in 2025. And it will remain relevant for generations to come, because it’s not a political disagreement; it’s a civilizational struggle.

Discrediting the Buddha

Buddha was one of the earliest voices to rise against the dukkha—the suffering and inequality faced by human beings. His teachings were rooted in compassion, reason, and human experience. Long before the so-called Vedic religion took shape, Buddhism had already emerged as a powerful spiritual and social force. But when Vedic Brahminism began to assert itself, it faced a challenge: the mass appeal and moral strength of Buddha’s path. So, Brahmins began a long campaign to discredit the Buddha.

They falsely claimed that Buddha was just a “reformer” within their fold, someone who deviated from the Vedic path. But this is a historical distortion. In fact, the Buddha’s path was completely independent, grounded in lived experience, not in blind ritual or divine authority.

Interestingly, even the word “Ved” comes from the Prakrit word “Vedna,” which means pain or feeling. Over time, this was transformed and co-opted by Brahminical tradition to mean “knowledge” or “revelation.” But originally, it was deeply connected to human suffering, something Buddha directly addressed.

And here’s a critical fact: There is no archaeological or manuscript evidence of any Vedic scriptures, no Vedas, no Smritis, before the 10th century CE. What we do have is a rich, well-documented Buddhist legacy, stone inscriptions, manuscripts, stupas, and art that dates back to the 3rd century BCE and beyond.

So when Brahmins couldn’t erase the Buddha’s influence through facts, they turned to myth-making and distortion. But history remembers.

Vilify Buddhists in Hindu Texts

The vilification didn’t stop there. In the Valmiki Ramayana, it was written that kings must punish Buddhists and atheists like thieves. The advice was clear: a ruler must crush non-Vedic people. Brahmins were instructed to avoid all engagement with such communities.

Later, in the Kalki Purana, they went even further. It was declared that the final incarnation of Vishnu—Kalki—would be born to destroy Buddhists and wipe Buddhism from the Earth. But when destruction didn’t work, they changed tactics.

Assimilate and Appropriate

When Buddhist influence couldn’t be erased, Brahmins tried to appropriate it. They made Buddha the ninth and some scriputer its 20th -21th avatar of Vishnu—a direct insult to his anti-Vedic stance. The same trick was used with Sant Ravidas and Kabir.

They wrote that Ravidas, a leather-working Dalit saint, was a Brahmin in a past life—an attempt to “purify” his legacy. With Kabir, they claimed he was the abandoned child of a Brahmin widow and adopted by a Muslim weaver family—again, trying to bring him back into the Brahminical fold. This is how they co-opted the Bhakti Movement.

Target the Constitution

Now, let’s come to the Constitution of India. When it was first adopted, Brahmins, Hindu nationalists, and RSS ideologues openly opposed it. They claimed it lacked “Hinduness” and that it was a “copy-paste” document from Western constitutions. Some even demanded that Manusmriti—a text of caste-based slavery, be brought back as the foundational law of India.

When these attempts failed, they began attacking the Constitution itself. Then came the next phase: They tried to change it. They attempted to dilute its values, redefine secularism, and strip away protections for marginalized communities. But here too, they failed—because the Constitution stood strong.

And now? Now they are forced to accept it. But here lies the problem—how can they accept a national document authored by an “untouchable” (a former Buddhist)? A man who shook the very foundations of Brahminism? Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, once treated as untouchable, who reclaimed his dignity by embracing Buddhism, now stands as an unshakable symbol of resistance. And that single fact pierces the Brahminical ego.

The Final Tactic: Replace the Author

That’s why, today, they are trying to replace Ambedkar with B.N. Rau, a bureaucrat who played an advisory role. This is their last trick: If you can’t destroy the document, erase the author. Paint B.N. Rau as the true architect, and push Ambedkar into the background.

But this tactic is nothing new. It’s old wine in a new bottle. From Buddha to Ravidas, from Kabir to Ambedkar—the Brahminical system has always used three steps: Discredit. Vilify. Assimilate. Today, in 2025, they’re using it against the Constitution of India itself.

The Real Question

So now the question comes to you:
Will you let them erase Ambedkar from history the way they tried to erase Buddha?
Or will you speak up?

Sources: Constituent Assembly Debates, Granville Austin’s “The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation,” Parliament of India Monographs, Ambedkar’s speeches, Valmiki Ramayan, Kalki Puran, The Kabir and the Bhakti Movement and official government archives.

Writen by Rajat Mourya