Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Last week, people across the country observed Mahaparinirvan Diwas, or the death anniversary of the architect of the Indian Constitution, Dr Bhimrao Ramji ‘Babasaheb’ Ambedkar, who passed away on December 6, 1956. His death came less than two months after he had converted to Buddhism — ‘Parinirvan’ can be translated as ‘nirvan’ after death, or freedom from the cycles of life and death.
Throughout his writings and speeches, Dr Ambedkar elaborated on ideas of anti-casteism, democracy, the dignity of the oppressed, social mobility, etc. His landmark text, Annihilation of Caste, takes a critical look at the existence of the caste system in India, and why it must go for the country to fully transition into a democracy.
The book has been a part of various courses in universities, cutting across disciplines. Apart from academia, the book has served as an introduction to the anti-caste movement and its ideals and objectives to many generations of Indians. Dr Ambedkar’s ideas have also found a place in many competitive examinations over the years, including UPSC-CSE and its PSIR optional paper.
Here, we take a look at one of its most potent quotes, “Fraternity is only another name for democracy”, and explain the meaning behind it.
In Annihilation of Caste, Dr B R Ambedkar has written:
“An ideal society should be mobile, should be full of channels for conveying a change taking place in one part to other parts. In an ideal society there should be many interests consciously communicated and shared. There should be varied and free points of contact with other modes of association. In other words there should be social endosmosis. This is fraternity, which is only another name for democracy. Democracy is not merely a form of Government. It is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience. It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards fellowmen.”
In its most literal sense, fraternity refers to a feeling of friendship and mutual support that exists between members of a group. In the context of Dr Ambedkar’s writings, it also refers to individuals in Indian society breaking free of the caste system and practising social harmony and contact in a freer and more inclusive way.
“An ideal society should be mobile” is a direct indictment of the caste system, wherein people are restricted to a certain position in society by virtue of the family they are born into. Dr Ambedkar adds that there should be “channels for conveying a change taking place” and “varied and free points of contact with other modes of association”. The caste system involves stringent rules regarding contact and communication between different castes and sub-castes. For Ambedkar, a democratic nation meant the removal of such hierarchies.
This vision was encapsulated in the phrase “social endosmosis”, or the freedom to move about and through different groups in society, which Dr Ambedkar likened to the idea of fraternity. He envisioned a society where there was social contact independent of the caste hierarchy, with individuals free to form associations which would not be negatively impacted by their ‘birth’ position.
The Preamble to the Constitution says that the Indian republic aims to promote fraternity, “assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation”. So, even though the Preamble is not a legally enforceable document, fraternity has been enshrined as a core Constitutional value.
Moreover, the Preamble also specifies that the nation will secure not just political and economic justice for its citizens, but also social. This is significant, keeping in mind the context of deep divisions in Indian society.
In his last speech to the Constituent Assembly in 1949, Dr Ambedkar said, “Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural course of things. It would require a constable to enforce them.” It is clear here that he saw the development of fraternity amongst Indians as the only way to move past not just the caste aggressions, but also communalisation and polarisation, which had already seeped into the fabric of Indian society when the Constitution was written.
Our Constitution makers aspired for a social revolution along with a political revolution — to build a society with a secure foundation that was constantly evolving, one which was democratic in every sense of the word. This has not translated into a sustained change in many individuals’ and communities’ lived experiences, with rampant discrimination present at almost every stage of society.
