Which one of the following is NOT correct about B.R. Ambedkar?

Answer & explanation

Correct answer: option 3

The correct answer is Option (3) → After the partition violence, Ambedkar argued in support of separate electorate.

Option (1) He was a lawyer. — Correct statement. He was the lawyer and economist B.R. Ambedkar, a very important member of the Assembly.

Option (2) On the advice of Gandhi, he was asked to join as a Law Minister. — Correct statement. Though a political opponent of the Congress under British rule, he was asked at Independence, on the advice of Mahatma Gandhi, to join the Union Cabinet as law minister.

Option (3) After the partition violence, Ambedkar argued in support of separate electorate. — Incorrect statement. During the national movement Ambedkar had demanded separate electorates for the Depressed Castes, but after the Partition violence he too no longer argued for separate electorates.

Option (4) He was the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution. — Correct statement. As law minister he served as Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution.

NCERT (2026-27): “1.2 The dominant voices … Besides this Congress trio, a very important member of the Assembly was the lawyer and economist B.R. Ambedkar. During the period of British rule, Ambedkar had been a political opponent of the Congress; but, on the advice of Mahatma Gandhi, he was asked at Independence to join the Union Cabinet as law minister. In this capacity, he served as Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution. Serving with him were two other lawyers, K.M. Munshi from Gujarat and Alladi Krishnaswamy Aiyar from Madras, both of whom gave crucial inputs in the drafting of the Constitution.…

3.3 ‘We were suppressed for thousands of years’ … After the Partition violence, Ambedkar too no longer argued for separate electorates. The Constituent Assembly finally recommended that untouchability be abolished, Hindu temples be thrown open to all castes, and seats in legislatures and jobs in government offices be reserved for the lowest castes. Many recognised that this could not solve all problems: social discrimination could not be erased only through constitutional legislation, there had to be a change in the attitudes within society. But the measures were welcomed by the democratic public.”