Ambedkar on Anti Immigrant Politics and Border Militarization

by Kumar Gaurav

B. R. Ambedkar spent much of his life fighting systems that excluded people by birth, restricted mobility, and denied dignity to those considered outside the boundaries of the dominant social order. Although his struggle took place inside India’s caste society, the principles he articulated travel far beyond that context. When placed alongside the anti immigrant politics shaping the United States, the United Kingdom, and Europe today, his framework becomes a powerful way to understand the ethical crisis unfolding at global borders. From the United States attempt to build a wall along its southern border to the United Kingdom’s plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, contemporary border policies raise fundamental questions that Ambedkar spent his life addressing. He would have viewed many of these practices as modern forms of exclusion by birth, rooted not in democratic values but in fear, hierarchy, and a narrow definition of national belonging.

Ambedkar believed that equality was the foundational principle of any real democracy. Equality for him was not restricted to political rights. It also meant equal moral worth and a commitment to protect the lives and liberties of vulnerable groups. When he wrote that democracy is “a mode of associated living,” he meant that individuals tied together in a political community owe each other mutual respect and protection. Anti immigrant politics, which portrays entire categories of people as threats solely because of their birthplace or background, stands in direct opposition to this principle. Ambedkar would have identified the logic behind these policies as the same logic he fought in caste society: assigning value to individuals based on inherited identity.

Take the United States debate over immigration and border security. The decision to build a wall along the Mexico border was justified through claims that migrants were dangerous or undesirable. Ambedkar would have rejected this entire framing. He consistently argued that democracy cannot reduce people to stereotypes or collective judgments. He also warned that fear driven politics tends to create permanent divisions that weaken democratic culture. In his critique of caste, he pointed out that social hierarchies are maintained through repeated claims that some groups are naturally inferior or threatening. The rhetoric surrounding the wall, which treated migrants as an undifferentiated mass of risk rather than as human beings with rights, mirrors this logic closely.

He would also object to the idea that borders justify exceptional treatment. Ambedkar believed that the rule of law applies universally and should not be suspended simply because individuals come from another land. Policies that separate children from parents, detain asylum seekers indefinitely, or deny them due process would violate his core belief in the dignity of the person. He would view the use of state power at the border through the same lens that led him to critique oppressive laws in colonial India. In both cases, the issue is not national security but the morality of a state that treats certain people as unworthy of protection.

The United Kingdom’s Rwanda deportation plan raises even more direct concerns. Under this policy, asylum seekers who reach the UK could be sent thousands of miles away to Rwanda regardless of their individual circumstances. This effectively denies them meaningful asylum rights and treats their presence as a burden to be offloaded elsewhere. Ambedkar worked tirelessly to ensure that India’s Constitution protected the rights of minorities, migrants, and those without social power. He believed that a democratic state must offer refuge and fairness to those escaping violence and persecution. A policy that relocates vulnerable people to another country simply to discourage migration would violate this responsibility completely.

Ambedkar’s idea of social exclusion also helps explain how he would interpret the larger trend of border militarization. He argued that social hierarchies survive not only through explicit discrimination but through the creation of psychological and physical barriers. In caste society, segregation was enforced through rules about where people could live, what they could touch, and which spaces they could enter. Modern border walls serve a similar symbolic purpose: they draw a line between those who are accepted and those who are permanently outside the circle of national belonging. Ambedkar would not ignore the differences between caste and immigration policy, but he would see a shared structure. Both use inherited identity to determine who deserves protection and who is denied it.

Across Europe, the use of surveillance, fortified borders, pushbacks at sea, and detention centers reflects a continent struggling to reconcile its democratic values with a fear driven response to migration. Ambedkar emphasized that a society’s treatment of the weak exposes its true character. A state that relies on deterrence, intimidation, or cruelty to manage migration betrays its commitment to equality. He would argue that Europe’s policies toward refugees from Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia reveal a hierarchy of human worth shaped by race, religion, and geopolitics. When certain groups are treated as security threats before they are treated as human beings, democracy loses its moral foundation.

Ambedkar also warned that policies rooted in exclusion damage the majority as well. When a society normalizes harsh treatment of outsiders, it becomes easier to extend those practices inward. Rights weaken for everyone. In his writings, he described how caste society harmed both the privileged and the oppressed by reducing human relationships to rigid categories. Border militarization creates a similar dynamic. When a state expands its detention powers, surveillance systems, and enforcement apparatus for migrants, those tools can be redirected domestically. Ambedkar would see this as a predictable slide toward authoritarianism.

There is another dimension to Ambedkar’s perspective that applies to this debate. He believed that migration is a natural human response to inequality and injustice. Throughout his life, he fought for Dalits to have the freedom to move, work, and live where they chose. He argued that mobility is essential for dignity. Modern anti immigrant politics attempts to freeze people in place, treating movement as a privilege rather than a right. This contradicts his belief in human agency and the importance of expanding opportunities rather than restricting them.

Ambedkar never dismissed the need for orderly governance or legitimate security measures. He understood that states must regulate entry and maintain social stability. But he insisted that these goals must be pursued without violating the principles of equality, liberty, and justice. Policies like the US wall or the UK Rwanda plan, which rely on fear and deterrence rather than fairness and due process, would fail this test completely.

His work offers a clear conclusion. Anti immigrant politics and border militarization represent a crisis of democratic ethics. They divide people based on birthplace, deny protection to the vulnerable, and expand state power in ways that undermine constitutional values. Ambedkar would view these developments not as isolated political choices but as symptoms of a deeper moral failure. When a society begins to treat entire categories of people as dangers to be managed rather than as individuals with rights, it moves closer to the systems of exclusion he fought all his life.

Ambedkar’s framework reminds us that democracy is not defined by borders but by how a nation treats those who stand at its doorstep.