Breaking down the question
The question seeks the main features of Ambedkar's argument for the annihilation of caste, drawn principally from his 1936 undelivered address of that title. The word features invites an organised exposition of his diagnosis of caste and his prescription for its abolition, rather than a biographical sketch.
A strong answer treats Ambedkar not merely as a reformer but as a social theorist who identified the mechanism sustaining caste and located its roots in religious sanction. The examiner rewards candidates who capture both his analysis — why caste endures — and his radical remedy — why nothing short of annihilation will do.
For fuller treatment, see the note on the features of the caste system.
How to approach it
Open by placing Annihilation of Caste in context — a text written for, but never delivered to, a reform conference, marking Ambedkar's break with piecemeal reform. Then set out the features as a sequence of linked propositions.
Move from his conception of caste as graded inequality, through endogamy as its sustaining mechanism, to his critique of the Chaturvarna ideal and of the Hindu scriptures that sanction caste. Then present his prescription — inter-caste marriage, inter-dining, and ultimately the rejection of the religious sanction itself. Close with his contrast with Gandhi and an assessment.
Model answer
Ambedkar's Annihilation of Caste, written in 1936, is the sharpest theoretical assault on caste in Indian social thought. Several linked features define his position.
First, he conceived caste as a system of graded inequality. Caste is not a horizontal division of labour but a vertical hierarchy in which each stratum ranks above the one below and below the one above. This gradation, he argued, is caste's cruellest device, for it dissipates the will to revolt — every group has someone beneath it to look down upon, so no united front against the system can form.
Second, he identified endogamy as the essential mechanism that sustains caste. Where classes are open, castes are closed by the prohibition on inter-marriage. The superimposition of endogamy on an otherwise fluid society, he argued, is what creates and reproduces caste. It follows that the surest route to its destruction is the breaking of this rule.
Third, he offered a radical critique of the Chaturvarna. The ideal of the four varnas, defended by reformers as an original division by aptitude, he rejected as unworkable and inherently unequal; in practice it fossilises into thousands of hierarchical, hereditary castes. A society graded by birth, he held, can never be a society of equals.
Fourth, he located caste's tenacity in its religious sanction. Caste survives because it is invested with divine authority by the Shastras and the Smritis. Since Hindus observe caste as a matter of religious duty, no purely economic or political reform can dislodge it. The reformer must therefore confront the scriptures themselves.
From this diagnosis flows his prescription. Superficial remedies — inter-dining and inter-caste dining — are insufficient. Inter-caste marriage, by dissolving endogamy, is the real solvent of caste, fusing separate groups into a common kinship. But even this cannot succeed while the religious sanction stands. Hence his most radical demand: the destruction of the belief in the sanctity of the Shastras, and the reconstruction of Hindu society on the rational and moral foundations of liberty, equality and fraternity. His eventual conversion to Buddhism was the logical culmination of this rejection of religiously sanctioned hierarchy.
Fifth, his vision was avowedly reconstructive and democratic. Ambedkar tied the annihilation of caste to democracy itself, understood not merely as a form of government but as a mode of associated living, of shared experience across social boundaries — impossible in a caste-ridden order that forbids such association.
His position stood in pointed contrast to Gandhi, who sought to reform caste from within by abolishing untouchability while retaining varna. For Ambedkar, this was inadequate: untouchability could not be ended while its parent, caste, survived, and caste could not survive an assault on its religious roots.
In sum, the main features of Ambedkar's views are his analysis of caste as graded inequality sustained by endogamy and religious sanction, and his prescription of inter-caste marriage and the rejection of scriptural authority as the only genuine means of annihilation. His enduring contribution is to have shown that caste is not a problem of individual prejudice but of an entire moral and religious order requiring reconstruction.
Examiner's perspective
Examiners look for a candidate who reads Ambedkar as a theorist, not just an icon. The marks concentrate on the analytical features — graded inequality, endogamy as the sustaining mechanism, and the religious sanction of caste — and on the corresponding remedy of inter-caste marriage and rejection of scriptural authority.
A strong script quotes his conception of democracy as associated living and sharpens the argument through the contrast with Gandhi's varna reform. Precision about the 1936 text, a logical progression from diagnosis to prescription, and British spelling lift the answer. Vague praise without the mechanism of endogamy or the critique of religious sanction keeps a script in the middle band.