Babasaheb Ambedkar's version of democracy depicts a society devoid of any glaring inequality. According to him, there must not be a class that has got all the privileges and a class that has got all the burdens to carry.
Statue of Dr BR Ambedkar, the Father of the Indian Constitution PTI
DALIT LEADER AND A MARXIST
Anjali Chauhan
UPDATED: 15 APR 2022
As we celebrate yet another birth anniversary of Babasaheb BR Ambedkar, while lamenting the state of democracy in our country, it’s instructive to look back at his vision of democracy and analyse where we are going wrong.
Jean Dreze stressed that the future of Indian democracy depends a great deal on the revival of Babasaheb’s visionary conception of democracy. Ambedkar strongly believed that democracy is always changing its form and is always in flux. He believed that modern democracy not only places a check on an autocratic rule, but also brings about the welfare of the people.
He moved a step forward from Walter Bagehot, for whom democracy was a government by discussion and from Abraham Lincoln, for whom democracy was a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Ambedkar defined democracy as “a form and a method of government whereby revolutionary changes in the economic and social life of the people are brought about without bloodshed”.
Related Stories
Why Ambedkar Converted to Buddhism
Five Films On The Life Of Dr BR Ambedkar
Keeping Ambedkar’s Legacy Alive, One Story At A Time
For the successful functioning of such a democracy, he puts forward certain conditions. Firstly, there must not be any glaring inequalities in society and there must not be an oppressed class. There must not be a class that has got all the privileges and a class that has got all the burdens to carry. At present, in the post-pandemic world, we are experiencing increasing socio-economic inequalities which are making democratic nations mere empty vessels.
Secondly, he emphasized on the existence of a strong opposition. Democracy means veto power. Democracy is a contradiction of hereditary authority or autocratic authority, where elections act as a periodic veto in which people vote out a government and opposition in parliament act as an immediate veto that curbs the autocratic tendencies of the government in power. Unfortunately, we now witness the weakening of democracy with a weakened opposition.
He also argued that parliamentary democracy develops a passion for liberty; liberty to express one’s thoughts and opinion, liberty to lead a respectful life, liberty to do what one values. But we can see a parallel fall of India in the Human Freedom Index along with a weakened opposition and consequently falling democratic credentials.
In its annual report on global political rights and liberties, US-based non-profit Freedom House downgraded India from a free democracy to a "partially free democracy". A Sweden-based V-Dem Institute said India had become an "electoral autocracy", and later described as a "flawed democracy". India has slipped two places to 53rd position in the latest Democracy Index published by The Economist Intelligence Unit.
Ambedkar also upheld equality in law and administration. Likes should be treated likely and there should be no discrimination based on class, caste, gender, race and so on. He brought forward the idea of constitutional Morality. For him, the constitution contains only the legal skeleton, but the flesh is what he calls constitutional morality. Noted academic Pratap Bhanu Mehta sums up Babasaheb’s idea of constitutional morality as a state marked by self-restrain, respect for plurality, scepticism about the authoritative claims to popular sovereignty and open culture of criticism. But India is now facing fundamentalism and growing intolerance towards oppressed groups and communities.
Lastly, Ambedkar stresses that democracy requires a functioning moral order in society, a vibrant public conscience, as there is no place for the tyranny of the majority over the minority in a democracy .
For him, parliamentary democracy was the negation of hereditary rule. However, the hereditary rule has modernised itself into dynasticism to suit the present time. This was made visible by Christophe Jafferlot, who profiled the 17th Lok Sabha to find out that a number of elected representatives belong to some political families across parties.
Ambedkar's vision of democracy needs to be rediscovered to fight hatred, violence, sectarianism and fundamentalism, to use it as a shield against casteist and religious fanaticism. To realise democracy not in its narrow sense, not only by counting votes while conducting elections but as Babasaheb in his vision explains it: “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 our fellow men.”
(Anjali Chauhan is a PhD scholar from the University of Delhi.)
UPDATED: 15 APR 2022
As we celebrate yet another birth anniversary of Babasaheb BR Ambedkar, while lamenting the state of democracy in our country, it’s instructive to look back at his vision of democracy and analyse where we are going wrong.
Jean Dreze stressed that the future of Indian democracy depends a great deal on the revival of Babasaheb’s visionary conception of democracy. Ambedkar strongly believed that democracy is always changing its form and is always in flux. He believed that modern democracy not only places a check on an autocratic rule, but also brings about the welfare of the people.
He moved a step forward from Walter Bagehot, for whom democracy was a government by discussion and from Abraham Lincoln, for whom democracy was a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Ambedkar defined democracy as “a form and a method of government whereby revolutionary changes in the economic and social life of the people are brought about without bloodshed”.
Related Stories
Why Ambedkar Converted to Buddhism
Five Films On The Life Of Dr BR Ambedkar
Keeping Ambedkar’s Legacy Alive, One Story At A Time
For the successful functioning of such a democracy, he puts forward certain conditions. Firstly, there must not be any glaring inequalities in society and there must not be an oppressed class. There must not be a class that has got all the privileges and a class that has got all the burdens to carry. At present, in the post-pandemic world, we are experiencing increasing socio-economic inequalities which are making democratic nations mere empty vessels.
Secondly, he emphasized on the existence of a strong opposition. Democracy means veto power. Democracy is a contradiction of hereditary authority or autocratic authority, where elections act as a periodic veto in which people vote out a government and opposition in parliament act as an immediate veto that curbs the autocratic tendencies of the government in power. Unfortunately, we now witness the weakening of democracy with a weakened opposition.
He also argued that parliamentary democracy develops a passion for liberty; liberty to express one’s thoughts and opinion, liberty to lead a respectful life, liberty to do what one values. But we can see a parallel fall of India in the Human Freedom Index along with a weakened opposition and consequently falling democratic credentials.
In its annual report on global political rights and liberties, US-based non-profit Freedom House downgraded India from a free democracy to a "partially free democracy". A Sweden-based V-Dem Institute said India had become an "electoral autocracy", and later described as a "flawed democracy". India has slipped two places to 53rd position in the latest Democracy Index published by The Economist Intelligence Unit.
Ambedkar also upheld equality in law and administration. Likes should be treated likely and there should be no discrimination based on class, caste, gender, race and so on. He brought forward the idea of constitutional Morality. For him, the constitution contains only the legal skeleton, but the flesh is what he calls constitutional morality. Noted academic Pratap Bhanu Mehta sums up Babasaheb’s idea of constitutional morality as a state marked by self-restrain, respect for plurality, scepticism about the authoritative claims to popular sovereignty and open culture of criticism. But India is now facing fundamentalism and growing intolerance towards oppressed groups and communities.
Lastly, Ambedkar stresses that democracy requires a functioning moral order in society, a vibrant public conscience, as there is no place for the tyranny of the majority over the minority in a democracy .
For him, parliamentary democracy was the negation of hereditary rule. However, the hereditary rule has modernised itself into dynasticism to suit the present time. This was made visible by Christophe Jafferlot, who profiled the 17th Lok Sabha to find out that a number of elected representatives belong to some political families across parties.
Ambedkar's vision of democracy needs to be rediscovered to fight hatred, violence, sectarianism and fundamentalism, to use it as a shield against casteist and religious fanaticism. To realise democracy not in its narrow sense, not only by counting votes while conducting elections but as Babasaheb in his vision explains it: “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 our fellow men.”
(Anjali Chauhan is a PhD scholar from the University of Delhi.)
India remembers Ambedkar, but for disadvantaged groups little has changed
by Alessandra De Poli
Born 131 years ago, the Indian jurist fought for social equity for Dalits, Adivasi and women. Indian politicians like to cite him, but in practice nothing is being done to improve the situation of the poorest, who, according to the latest studies, are still discriminated with respect to the economy, healthcare and law. An award to honour him has not been given for years.
New Delhi (AsiaNews) – Yesterday India marked the 131st anniversary of the birth of Bhimrao Ramji “Babasaheb” Ambedkar, father of the Indian Constitution, an activist for Dalit, Adivasi and women’s rights who lived in the first half of the 20th century.
Political leaders and prominent individuals paid tribute to Babasaheb, the Respected Father. Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that yesterday was a day to “reiterate our commitment to fulfilling his dreams” of social justice. President Ram Nath Kovind described Ambedkar as “the architect of the Constitution” who “laid the foundation for modern India”.
Yet, after the Modi administration came to power in 2014, the Ambedkar awards have not been handed out, and Ambedkar’s dreams have not been turned into reality; Dalits (scheduled castes, formerly known as untouchables) and Adivasi (scheduled tribes) still lag behind in terms of economic opportunity, legal protection as well as access to water and sanitation.
Ambedkar, a convert to Buddhism, was born Bhimrao Ramji Ambavadekar (later changed to Ambedkar) into a Mahar family, a Dalit caste. Between 1913 and 1917 he studied economics at Columbia University in New York and at the London School of Economics and also trained in the law at Gray's Inn, London.
After India’s independence in August 1947, he became Law Minister and set out to draft India’s republican constitution, to ensure a broad spectrum of civil and individual rights and freedom and abolish “untouchability”.
The constituent assembly included in the final text the principle of positive discrimination thereby reserving certain public service positions for members of disadvantaged castes and tribes. However, since the constitution was adopted (1950), little has changed for such groups.
According to a recent government report, the upper castes own over 60 per cent of small and medium-sized enterprises; by comparison, scheduled castes (Dalits) own 6.8 per cent and scheduled tribes (Adivasi) only 2.1 per cent. Scheduled castes and tribes are India’s historically disadvantaged ethnic and social groups.
Discrimination against these groups is clear even in Indian law, a situation acknowledged by Orissa High Court Chief Justice S Muralidhar who says that Indian laws are drafted in such a way that they penalise the poor.
More than half of the people awaiting trial are from disadvantaged groups, he told a conference yesterday. About 21 per cent of the prison population belongs to a scheduled caste, while 37.1 per cent belongs to "Other Backward Classes”, a collective term used by the Government of India for the disadvantaged. More than 17 per cent of the people on trial and 19.5 per cent of the detainees are Muslims.
In late March, Indians commemorated the anniversary of Ambedkar’s satyagraha (non-violent resistance) of 1927. At the time, lower caste Indians were not allowed to use water in public places used by upper caste Indians.
Ambedkar drank water from a tank in front of everyone in the city of Mahad, near Mumbai (then Bombay), and invited Dalit women to wear sari like women from upper castes.
Despite the struggles, official government data show that members of scheduled castes and tribes as well as Muslims have a shorter life span, with discrimination as the main cause.
About 26 per cent of upper caste children suffer from malnourishment, a percentage that rises to 40 per cent for scheduled castes and tribes, worse than in sub-Saharan Africa (30 per cent).
For women, access to hospital care varies according to social status and religion. Yet it is precisely the poorest sections of the population who need public services the most, argues Preshit Ambade, a public health policy researcher.
Developing an efficient welfare system based on Ambedkar’s concept of social equity would benefit a country with below than average socio-economic indicators.
But poverty and marginalisation are not aspects of Indian life that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government wants to show.
The Dr. Ambedkar National Award was created in 1993, followed three years later by the Dr. Ambedkar International Award, assigned each 14 April to individuals and organisations fighting inequalities in accordance with Babasaheb Ambedkar’s ideas.
Yet for the past eight years, the award has not been assigned, officially for “administrative reasons”, The Wire reported.
According to the Ambedkar Foundation’s guidelines, the call for submission of names takes place months before the award is given.
Everyone in India has used Ambedkar’s name for electoral purposes, but so far no one has said anything about the award not being handed out.
Born 131 years ago, the Indian jurist fought for social equity for Dalits, Adivasi and women. Indian politicians like to cite him, but in practice nothing is being done to improve the situation of the poorest, who, according to the latest studies, are still discriminated with respect to the economy, healthcare and law. An award to honour him has not been given for years.
New Delhi (AsiaNews) – Yesterday India marked the 131st anniversary of the birth of Bhimrao Ramji “Babasaheb” Ambedkar, father of the Indian Constitution, an activist for Dalit, Adivasi and women’s rights who lived in the first half of the 20th century.
Political leaders and prominent individuals paid tribute to Babasaheb, the Respected Father. Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that yesterday was a day to “reiterate our commitment to fulfilling his dreams” of social justice. President Ram Nath Kovind described Ambedkar as “the architect of the Constitution” who “laid the foundation for modern India”.
Yet, after the Modi administration came to power in 2014, the Ambedkar awards have not been handed out, and Ambedkar’s dreams have not been turned into reality; Dalits (scheduled castes, formerly known as untouchables) and Adivasi (scheduled tribes) still lag behind in terms of economic opportunity, legal protection as well as access to water and sanitation.
Ambedkar, a convert to Buddhism, was born Bhimrao Ramji Ambavadekar (later changed to Ambedkar) into a Mahar family, a Dalit caste. Between 1913 and 1917 he studied economics at Columbia University in New York and at the London School of Economics and also trained in the law at Gray's Inn, London.
After India’s independence in August 1947, he became Law Minister and set out to draft India’s republican constitution, to ensure a broad spectrum of civil and individual rights and freedom and abolish “untouchability”.
The constituent assembly included in the final text the principle of positive discrimination thereby reserving certain public service positions for members of disadvantaged castes and tribes. However, since the constitution was adopted (1950), little has changed for such groups.
According to a recent government report, the upper castes own over 60 per cent of small and medium-sized enterprises; by comparison, scheduled castes (Dalits) own 6.8 per cent and scheduled tribes (Adivasi) only 2.1 per cent. Scheduled castes and tribes are India’s historically disadvantaged ethnic and social groups.
Discrimination against these groups is clear even in Indian law, a situation acknowledged by Orissa High Court Chief Justice S Muralidhar who says that Indian laws are drafted in such a way that they penalise the poor.
More than half of the people awaiting trial are from disadvantaged groups, he told a conference yesterday. About 21 per cent of the prison population belongs to a scheduled caste, while 37.1 per cent belongs to "Other Backward Classes”, a collective term used by the Government of India for the disadvantaged. More than 17 per cent of the people on trial and 19.5 per cent of the detainees are Muslims.
In late March, Indians commemorated the anniversary of Ambedkar’s satyagraha (non-violent resistance) of 1927. At the time, lower caste Indians were not allowed to use water in public places used by upper caste Indians.
Ambedkar drank water from a tank in front of everyone in the city of Mahad, near Mumbai (then Bombay), and invited Dalit women to wear sari like women from upper castes.
Despite the struggles, official government data show that members of scheduled castes and tribes as well as Muslims have a shorter life span, with discrimination as the main cause.
About 26 per cent of upper caste children suffer from malnourishment, a percentage that rises to 40 per cent for scheduled castes and tribes, worse than in sub-Saharan Africa (30 per cent).
For women, access to hospital care varies according to social status and religion. Yet it is precisely the poorest sections of the population who need public services the most, argues Preshit Ambade, a public health policy researcher.
Developing an efficient welfare system based on Ambedkar’s concept of social equity would benefit a country with below than average socio-economic indicators.
But poverty and marginalisation are not aspects of Indian life that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government wants to show.
The Dr. Ambedkar National Award was created in 1993, followed three years later by the Dr. Ambedkar International Award, assigned each 14 April to individuals and organisations fighting inequalities in accordance with Babasaheb Ambedkar’s ideas.
Yet for the past eight years, the award has not been assigned, officially for “administrative reasons”, The Wire reported.
According to the Ambedkar Foundation’s guidelines, the call for submission of names takes place months before the award is given.
Everyone in India has used Ambedkar’s name for electoral purposes, but so far no one has said anything about the award not being handed out.
No comments:
Post a Comment