In November 1949, as India was undertaking the mammoth task of drafting a Constitution, a sense of relief and patriotic enthusiasm was palpable in leaders across the political spectrum.
However, Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, the chief architect of India’s Constitution, laid out a warning: “On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognising the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions?”
“Independence is no doubt a matter of joy. But let us not forget that this independence has thrown on us great responsibilities,” Ambedkar said. Decades later, his observations resonate on issues ranging from the delimitation debate to recent UGC regulations.
On society
Dr Ambedkar argued that to make our political democracy successful, we must have social democracy at its very base. “What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life which recognises liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life,” he said.
Ambedkar had reiterated the idea of social democracy throughout his public life. While speaking with Voice of America in 1956 on the prospects of democracy in India, insisted that the roots of democracy are not to be searched for in the form of government, parliamentary or otherwise.
He stated that democracy is primarily a mode of associated living, and hence the roots of democracy are to be searched for in “social relationship, in the terms of associated life between the people who form a society.” “To put it briefly, when we speak of ‘Society,’ we conceive of it as one by its very nature. The qualities which accompany this unity are praiseworthy community of purpose and desire for welfare, loyalty to public ends and mutuality of sympathy and co-operation.”
He then asked if these ideals are to be found in Indian society and answered: “The Indian Society does not consist of individuals. It consists of an innumerable collection of castes which are exclusive in their life and have no common experience to share and have no bond of sympathy… The existence of the Caste System is a standing denial of the existence of those ideals of society and therefore of democracy.”
In one of his most profound undelivered speeches, Annihilation of Caste, Dr Ambedkar outrightly said: “You cannot build anything on the foundations of caste. You cannot build up a nation, you cannot build up a morality. Anything that you will build on the foundations of caste will crack and will never be a whole.”
On federalism
India is today dealing with a delimitation deadlock. There is a sense of federal anxiety among some southern states about losing their fair share in Parliament. Ambedkar reflected on some of these broader concerns in Thoughts on Linguistic States.
One of his most critical remedies was regarding parliamentary representation. He suggested that every state should have equal representation in the Upper House (Rajya Sabha), as in the US, where every state has equal representation in the Senate. He also suggested that the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha should have equal voting power on Money Bills.
He was afraid that, owing to the asymmetrical seat distribution in Rajya Sabha, the north would override the interests of the southern states. Dr Ambedkar spoke in Parliamentary debates on what was then the contentious issue of states’ reorganisation: “In the United States, the population of the various States differs. In some States it is small, and in some States it is big. But the Americans do not mind it on account of the fact that the States have equal powers.
The Lower House has the same power as the Upper House, and all the States have equal representation in the Upper House without reference to population. In the Senate, they have equal representation.
Here, what is the position? Under our Constitution, there is no such equality at all. Every State has not the same power, and the Upper Chamber has no powers at all, so far as finance is concerned. It may happen – it is very likely – that the States in the northern area may combine together on an issue on which the southern States of India do not agree. What is likely to happen in that event? In that event, the north, if I may say so, will over-ride every proposition in which the southern States are interested,” he said.
His second concern was about the consolidation of the northern states and balkanisation of southern states. He wrote, “What the Commission has created is not a mere disparity between the States by leaving UP and Bihar as they are, by adding to them a new and a bigger Madhya Pradesh with Rajasthan it creates a new problem of North versus South.”
He suggested that Madhya Pradesh and Bihar should be divided into two states, which indeed came to be in the future. He also strongly made the case for dividing UP into three units, with Meerut, Kanpur, and Prayagraj as their respective capitals. It is worth noting that in 2011, the then UP Chief Minister Mayawati passed a resolution in the Assembly calling for the state to be divided into four parts: Harit Pradesh, Awadh Pradesh, Bundelkhand, and Purvanchal. However, the then Union government under the Congress-led UPA did not support the demand.
On a society that resists safeguards
A few months back, the Central government faced major resistance against the University Grants Commission (UGC) guidelines to prevent discrimination in university spaces.
This episode presented a classic example of constitutional morality versus public morality. An attempt to correct historical wrongs of discrimination, backed by evidence of institutional atrocities against students from reserved castes in universities, led to outrage from dominant social groups.
In What Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables, Dr Ambedkar touched upon this debate against safeguards and reservation for the backward classes and compared the attitudes of the governing class of France and Japan with that of India.
He wrote: “In France, when the Revolution broke out and demanded equality the governing class in France voluntarily came forward to give up its powers and its privileges and to merge itself in the mass of the nation…
Accordingly the Damiyos (Japanese Governing class) charged with the spirit of nationalism and anxious not to stand in the way of national unity, came forward to surrender their privileges and to merge themselves in the common mass of people.”
He added, “How does the governing class in India compare in this behalf with the governing class in Japan? Just the opposite. The governing class in India has no such intention of making any sacrifice on the altar of Indian Freedom. Instead of surrendering its privileges in the name of nationalism, the governing class in India is using or misusing the slogan of nationalism to maintain its privileges.”
The author is a Master’s student of Development at Azim Premji University and works with BAWS.in, a virtual library of Ambedkar’s writings and speeches.
Dr Ambedkar argued that to make our political democracy successful, we must have social democracy at its very base. “What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life which recognises liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life,” he said.
Share
