Today is Ambedkar Jayanti and the country rightly pays homage to one of its greatest sons on his 132nd birth anniversary. B R Ambedkar’s contribution not just in drafting the Constitution but in giving India a vibrant democracy is unparalleled. His contribution to public life as a jurist, lawyer, professor, parliamentarian, minister and social reformer has been immense.
Rajendra Prasad, president of Constituent Assembly and first President of free India, gave this compliment to Ambedkar on November 26, 1949: “Sitting in the chair and watching the proceedings day-to-day, I have realised, as nobody else could have, with what zeal and devotion the members of the Drafting Committee and especially its Chairman, Dr Ambedkar, in spite of his indifferent health, have worked. We could never make a decision which was or could be ever so right as when we put him in the Drafting Committee and made him its Chairman. He has not only justified his selection but has added lustre to the work which he has done.”
In the Constituent Assembly debates, Ambedkar’s intellectual prowess shines through. He constantly articulated in favour of the rights of the citizen and emphasised remedies to enforce them. The debates also reflect a keen mind with remarkable and prophetic wisdom. He continuously spoke about the problems that existed and may confront the nation in the future and forewarned us, the People of India, to be mindful of them. On this special day, it would be a fitting tribute to remind ourselves of his words.
Giving his opening speech on December 17, 1946 he said, “… our difficulty is not about the ultimate future. Our difficulty is how to make the heterogeneous mass that we have today take a decision in common and march on the way which leads us to unity.” He suggests: “…let us leave aside slogans, let us leave aside words which frighten people. Let us even make a concession to the prejudices of our opponents, bring them in, so that they may willingly join with us on marching upon that road, which as I said, if we walk long enough, must necessarily lead us to unity.” Fearing the absence of reconciliation between Hindus and Muslims, he quotes Edmund Burke: “First sir, permit me to observe that use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again; and a nation is not governed which is perpetually to be conquered” and says “these are weighty words which it would be perilous to ignore. If there is anybody who has in his mind the project of solving the Hindu-Muslim problem by force, which is another name of solving it by war, in order that the Muslims may be subjugated and made to surrender to the Constitution that might be prepared without their consent, this country would be involved in perpetually conquering them.”
The journey of the drafting of the Constitution thus began and took two years, 11 months and 17 days to complete.
Ambedkar presented the Bill on November 25, 1949, to amend the Government of India Act, 1935 by introducing the Draft Constitution, which was finally discussed on that day. Speaking on the Draft, he had this to say: “We have prepared a democratic Constitution. But the successful working of democratic institutions requires in those who have to work them the willingness to respect the viewpoints of others, capacity for compromise and accommodation.”
But Ambedkar forewarned future generations with these words: “It is because of the discipline of the Congress Party that the Drafting Committee was able to pilot the Constitution in the Assembly with the sure knowledge as to the fate of each article and each amendment. The Congress Party is, therefore, entitled to all the credit for the smooth sailing of the Draft Constitution in the Assembly…” He then says, “Because I feel, however good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot… Who can say how the people of India and their parties will behave?”
Fearing that India may lose democracy he said, “It is quite possible for this new-born democracy to retain its form but give place to dictatorship in fact. If there is a landslide, the danger of the second possibility becoming actuality is much greater.” To maintain democracy, he advocated: “The first thing in my judgment we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation, and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods.”
“The second thing we must do is to observe the caution which John Stuart Mill has given to all who are interested in the maintenance of democracy, namely, not ‘to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with powers which enable him to subvert their institutions’. There is nothing wrong in being grateful to great men who have rendered life-long services to the country. But there are limits to gratefulness.” He warned, “For in India, Bhakti, or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.”
“The third thing we must do is not to be content with mere political democracy. We must make our political democracy a social democracy as well. Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it a social democracy.”
To Ambedkar, social democracy meant a way of life which recognises liberty, equality, and fraternity as the principles of life, which he called a trinity and said they could not be separated from each other. He felt, in economic and social life we continue to deny “the principle of one man one value” He asked “How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life?” “…If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril.”
To him, fraternity was of great importance. It meant “a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians — of Indians being one people”. This, according to him, was the principle that “gives unity and solidarity to social life”. He felt it was difficult to achieve because, “…in India, there are castes. The castes are anti-national. In the first place because they bring about separation in social life. They are anti-national also because they generate jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste.”
He said, “Independence is no doubt a matter of joy.” But that Independence “has thrown on us great responsibilities.”
He concluded his speech by telling citizens that “if we wish to preserve the Constitution in which we have sought to enshrine the principle of Government of the people, for the people and by the people, let us resolve not to be tardy in the recognition of the evils that lie across our path and which induce people to prefer Government for the people to Government by the people, nor to be weak in our initiative to remove them. That is the only way to serve the country. I know of no better.”
Let us thank the almighty for giving India this great noble soul and let us resolve to follow the path shown by him.
The writer is a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India and former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association
