Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Commentary engages Ambedkar's Navayana Buddhism's ethical framework in International Relations, suggesting alternative perspectives.
This commentary engages Aparna Devare’s argument that B.R. Ambedkar’s Navayana Buddhism off ers a non-Western ethical vocabulary for International Relations, moving beyond his usual framing as the architect of theIndian constitution and a pioneering Dalit leader. It situates Ambedkar’s reinterpretation of Buddhism as anticipatingstructural violence theory and challenging secular, state-centric IR. The commentary extends Devare’s analysis byintroducing Rahul Sankritayan’s parallel Buddhist-Marxist cosmopolitanism and Savita Ambedkar’s role andcontribution to his legacy, while critically interrogating how Buddhist majoritarian violence in Sri Lanka and Myanmarcomplicates Navayana’s universalist claims, and ultimately positioning Ambedkar as a theorist of hierarchy, dignity,and moral community for reimagining international political ethics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Swati Parashar (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: