�ݺ�ߣ

• Babasaheb Ambedkar (1 891-1 956) was born in the Mahar Caste in
Maharashtra on 14 April, 1891. He suffered all kinds of social
humiliations in childllood as well as in his subsequent life on account
of the stigma of untouchability. In the class room he was not allowed
to sit along with the rest of the students. He had to drink water only
in his hand- cup in school, poured by members of the upper castes
from above. Learning Sanskrit language was denied to him. Inspite of
all these hurdles, he successfully completed his graduation from
Bombay University and went on to do his Masters and Ph.D. froln
Columbia University in U.S.A. He was influenced by the liberal and
radical thought currents in America and Europe, more particularly
with the tliought that emerged following the French Revolution.
Struggles against racial discrimination in America helped his resolve to
fight against caste- based oppression in India. He came to be deeply
concerned with untouchability and caste system that prevailed in
India. At the same time, he probed the i~iipact that colonialis~n ]lad
on the economy, politics and social life of India.

• His M.A. dissertation on Administration and Finance of the East India
Company and his Ph.D. thesis on The Evolution of the Provincial
Finance in British India at Columbia Ulliversity and his
D.Sc.dissertation on ‘The Problem of the Rupee - its Origin and Its
Solution’ were brilliant contribution is to the analysis of colonial
economy and politics and to anti-colonial economic thought.

AMBEDKAR’S CONCEPTION OF SOCIAL
DEMOCRACY
• Ambedkar not only conceptualized democracy suited to
Indian conditions but also fought for realization of the
ideals of democracy. He addressed the question of social
dynamics arising out of the functioning of a democratic
government in an undemocratic society. He articulated the
concerns of people who were deprived of basic civil rights.
To understand his conception of democracy, we have to
look into his writings, speeches, struggles and his
involvement in nation-building (through his participation
at various levels in the British Indian government and
Independent India). In his efforts, we may find his quest for
real democracy.

•Social equality, freedom, associated living, just social
order and moral governance are recurring themes
in his writings and his struggles for liberation of
the oppressed. Ambedkar defines democracy
distinctly, addressing historical, political and social
specificities of India and puts it in a philosophical
way. He views democracy as a desired moral
principle of governance and suggests mechanisms to
enrich it for the common good. In other words,
Ambedkar aspires to nurture the culture of
democracy in all spheres of life. For him it is not just
an ideal but also a social necessity to build a good
society.

•Democracy is based on the doctrine of one man
one value. The fundamental principle of modern
democratic states is the recognition of the value
of the individual. It is based on the belief that
each individual has but one life, and full
opportunity should be accorded to each to attain
his maximum development in that life. Neither
of these propositions can be said to be part of
the accepted philosophy of aristocracy of India.1
According to Ambedkar, a democracy is quite
different from a republic as well as from a
parliamentary government.

•The roots of democracy lie not in the form of
government, parliament or otherwise. Before
adopting parliamentary democracy in India,
Ambedkar had critically evaluated the functioning of
parliamentary democracy in the West. He identified
that wrong ideologies and wrong organisations were
responsible for the failure of democracy in the
western countries that had adopted democracy as
a form of government. The rulers were always
drawn from the ruling class and the class that was
ruled never becomes the ruling class. So democracy
did not fulfill the hopes it held out to the common
man of ensuring to him liberty, property and pursuit
of happiness.

•Socialism is an alternative to parliamentary
democracy and many countries had
adopted this form of government. However,
Ambedkar was critical of this form of
government and identified it with
dictatorship. Ambedkar upholds
parliamentary democracy over socialism by
giving a new meaning to democracy. He
extended the spirit of democracy from
political to include both social and economic
domains.

•His conception of state socialism
internalized the principle of socialism and
carried it through the democratic form of
government. He favoured state socialism
without dictatorship and with
parliamentary democracy. He prescribes
state socialism through the law of
constitution. His vision of democracy is to
strike a balance between equality and
liberty so that associated living in a
pluralistic society is ensured.

•Ambedkar explains that parliamentary
democracy rests on four premises: a) The
individual is an end in himself. b) The
individual has certain inalienable rights,
which must be guaranteed to him by the
Constitution. c) The individual shall not be
required to relinquish any of his
constitutional rights as a condition
precedent to the receipt of privilege. d) The
state shall not delegate powers to private
persons to govern others.

•Ambedkar’s notion of parliamentary
democracy is not confined to political
domain only but deals with social and
economic issues too. He laid down the
following preconditions for the successful
working of modern democracy: 1) There
must be no glaring inequalities in the
society. There must not be an oppressed
and suppressed class. There must not be a
class which gets all privileges and a class
which gets all the burdens to carry.

•2) The opposition must be strong and
effective. Understanding B. R. Ambedkar 3)
Law and administration must be equal for
all. 4) Constitutional morality must be
observed.3 For Ambedkar, democracy is
more than a form of government. It is
primarily a mode of associated living. The
roots of democracy are to be searched in
social relationships, in terms of associated
life between the people who form a
society.4 He has this to say about society:

•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. The
existence of the caste system is standing
denial of the existence of those ideals of
society and therefore of democracy.5
The caste system depicts the evils which
cut at the very roots of democracy.

•According to him, Democracy is that
form and method of government
whereby revolutionary changes in the
economic and social life of people are
brought about without bloodshed.6 He
criticizes the dominant tendency that
views politics and ethics as two different
and unrelated realms. He suggests that
politics cannot be conceived separately
from ethics.

•He emphasizes democracy as a moral social order
rather than mere political governance. His view of
democracy connects both social and political aspects
as a part of common moral sphere. Ambedkar argues
that democracy requires a moral order in society. In
this direction, he further enriched his earlier
definition. According to him, 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.7

•Democracy is spoken of as free government. Free
government means that in vast aspects of social life
people are left free to carry on their life without
interference of law, or if law has to be made, then the
law-maker expects that society be founded on
morality to make the law a success. Ambedkar
observed that only Laski categorically proposes moral
order as the basis of democracy.8 Ambedkar further
adds that democracy requires ‘public conscience’.
Public conscience means conscience which becomes
agitated at every wrong, no matter who is the sufferer,
and it means that everybody, whether he suffers that
particular wrong or not, is prepared to join him in
order to get him relieved.9

•For Ambedkar, democracy is not merely a form of
government. It is essentially a form of society. A
democratic form of government pre-supposes a
democratic form of society. The formal framework of
democracy is of no value and would indeed be a misfit
if there were no social democracy.10 Ambedkar
believed that political and economic revolutions have
no meaning unless a social revolution takes place. He
cites examples from history that show that political
revolutions have always been preceded by social and
religious revolutions. In other words, he argued for
ethically constituted society for effective functioning
of democracy.

•In the Indian context, he argued for the abolition
of the caste system and viewed it as anti-social in
spirit for its divisive, discriminatory, hierarchical
and exploitative character. He further identified
that these features of the caste system are
regulated by the Hindu social order. To realize
social democracy, one requires an attitude of
respect and equality towards one’s fellow
human beings. The social organisation must be
free from rigid social barriers. Democracy is
incompatible and inconsistent with isolation and
exclusiveness.11

•Ambedkar observed that in Hindu society, there are
privileges for few and disabilities for the vast majority.
Hindu society offers no rights which the moral sense
of man could recognize. Ambedkar upheld social
democracy as viewed by M.G. Ranade. Ambedkar
believed that Ranade struggled to craft rights and
aimed to create a social democracy, without which
there could be no sure and stable politics. He further
endorses Ranade’s position that you cannot be liberal
by halves. You cannot be both liberal in politics and
conservative in religion. The heart and head must go
together.12

3 EQUALITY AS A PRIME VALUE OF
DEMOCRACY
•Ambedkar’s conception of social democracy
is based on the principles of equality, liberty
and fraternity. The idea of equality is a
fundamental value of democratic life. In
Ambedkar’s view liberty and fraternity are
derived from equality. He holds that where
equality is denied, everything else may be
taken to be denied. In other words, equality
pre-supposes democracy. According to
Ambedkar:

•Democracy is another name of equality.
Parliamentary democracy developed a
passion for liberty. It never made even a
nodding acquaintance with equality. It
failed to realize the significance of
equality and did not even endeavour to
strike a balance between liberty and
equality, with the result that liberty
swallowed equality and has made
democracy a name and farce.

• Ambedkar accenuates the necessary connection between
equality, liberty and fraternity as a key principle of
democracy and mandates a balance between them for the
success of democracy. Political thinkers recognized that
formal equality of citizenship is not enough for a
meaningful life. Democracy requires an equality of
democratic agency. Democracy is ideal for human beings
because it is the only form of society which at once
depends upon and provides for the organisation of free
communication. It demands equality, because it is only as
equals that men can communicate. Equality as a moral
ideal is necessary for realization of democracy in any sphere
of life especially in a society where inequalities are
internalized.

•In political theory, the idea of equality is addressed
in a limited sense, being mostly confined to political
equality and silent about economic equality.
Ambedkar extends the idea of equality to social and
economic realms. He argues for equality in a caste-
ridden society based on graded inequality. He calls
for equality of untouchable communities in terms of
dignity and self-respect. His notions of the individual,
the community and the religion are strikingly
different from those of others, in that he imbues
them with reason, justice and ultimately morality.

• Ambedkar observed that to realize democracy as an
ideal, Indian society has to overcome its social order which
is built on the principle of inequality. He pointed out that the
Hindu social order is reared on the following three principles:
Graded inequality. Fixation of occupations of each class
 
and its continuance by heredity. Fixation of people within

their respective classes.Ambedkar observed that to realize
democracy as an ideal, Indian society has to overcome its
social order which is built on the principle of inequality. He
pointed out that the Hindu social order is reared on the
following three principles: Graded inequality. Fixation of
 
occupations of each class and its continuance by heredity. 
Fixation of people within their respective classes.

•This scheme of graded inequality is designed and
preserved to maintain social inequality. The Hindu
social order leaves no choice to the individual. It fixes
his occupation. It fixes his status. All that remains for
the individual to do is to conform himself to these
regulations. Ambedkar observed that the principle of
graded inequality has been carried into the economic
field. ‘From each according to his ability; to each
according to his need’ is not the principle of Hindu
social order. The principle of the Hindu social order
is: From each according to his need. To each according
to his nobility. Every side of social life is protected
against the danger of equality.

Ambedkar viewed Hindu social order as based
primarily on class or varna and not on
individual worth; there is no room for individual
merit and no consideration of individual justice.
He further holds the position that inequality is
the official doctrine of Brahmanism and lower
classes have been suppressed remorselessly by
Brahmins. Ambedkar says: Hinduism is inimical
to equality, antagonistic to liberty and opposed
to fraternity.

•Ambedkar maintains that society has to discover
aptitudes and capacities of individuals and train them
progressively for social use. He emphasizes that there
are indefinite pluralities of capacities in an individual
which may characterize his persona. A society to be
democratic should pave the way to use all these
capacities of the individual. Social conditions
necessary for flourishing of democracy are : Social

equality, Economic security and Access to
 
knowledge. Ambedkar believes that the more equal
the social rights of citizens are, the more able they are
in utilizing their freedom.

• Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was one of the very important political thinkers
• and social revolutionaries that modern India has produced. He was
• undoubtedly the chief architect and the Chairman of the Draft
Committee
• of the Constitution of Republic of India. But his socio cultural values
• incorporated in the Indian Constitution, were only means to achieve
a
• higher goal i.e. the emancipation of millions of Dalit, which needed a
• complete annihilation of caste.

• Dr. Ambedkar believed the anti-caste struggle as fundamental,
• within the context of which the anti-colonial struggle of overthrow British
• rule had to be addressed. His assessment of the caste system was based on
• his critique of pre-colonial Brahminism which crystallized the hirerarchized
• caste system to facilitate the process of exploitation and to bring into
• existence the most in human system of untouchability. His agenda of anti-
• colonialism was therefore intertwined with the agenda of annihilation of
• caste. In the course of organizing anti-caste and anti-colonial struggle, he
• realized that the annihilator of caste was closely related to the critique of
• Hinduism itself.1

• If we try to look into Dr. Ambedkar's sociological approach to
• abolish untouchability we find that he picked up the mahad water tank
• issue, temple entry, opening of educational intuitions for Dalit and
• Backward castes as entry points to attack Brahmanical hegemonic
theory
• for exploitation, control and manipulation of the Dalit masses in order
to
• annihilate caste. He believed that Hinduism itself must be attacked to
bring

• down the edifice of caste and decided to leave the fold of along with
his followers. However, even after conversion the attitude of
orthodoxy towards the converts has not chan now described as
"untouchable Buddhists. So the stigma of has stuck to these
untouchables even when they have embr However one must view
their act of conversion as an express and revolt against the social
injust

• In the political field, he strongly prescribed the theory as a means to
provide social justice to the downtrodden. From theoretical point of
view democracy was most sensitive for political participation3 and
equal rights of citizenshi equality in the political domain was its main
concern. Howeve could not be pursued in isolation. To the extent that
soci stood in the way of attaining this goal, institutions and s that
operated on the assumptions of natural hierarchy and to be
dismantled. Giving people of all categories the right equally in the
political process thus called for extending s struggle against various
sort

�ݺ�ߣ

Ambedkar.pzdfgffdgsfdgsdfgfsdgsdgsrdfgfsdfgsfdffgsdptx

More Related Content

Ambedkar.pzdfgffdgsfdgsdfgfsdgsdgsrdfgfsdfgsfdffgsdptx