Home


Crowdfunding Countercurrents

Submission Policy

Popularise CC

Join News Letter

Defend Indian Constitution

CounterSolutions

CounterImages

CounterVideos

CC Youtube Channel

Editor's Picks

Press Releases

Action Alert

Feed Burner

Read CC In Your
Own Language

Bradley Manning

India Burning

Mumbai Terror

Financial Crisis

Iraq

AfPak War

Peak Oil

Globalisation

Localism

Alternative Energy

Climate Change

US Imperialism

US Elections

Palestine

Latin America

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

Kandhamal Violence

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

About Us

Disclaimer

Fair Use Notice

Contact Us

Subscribe To Our
News Letter

Name:
E-mail:

Search Our Archive



Our Site

Web

 

Order the book

A Publication
on The Status of
Adivasi Populations
of India

 

 

 

Meaningful Democracy: Dr. Ambedkar's Idea Of Swaraj

By Uttam Khobragade

16 April, 2015
Countercurrents.org

The nation has just celebrated the 125th Birth Anniversary of Dr. Ambedkar. It was a historical coincidence that when the struggle for Independence was at its peak, Dr. Ambedkar was fighting for the liberation of the Dalits. Naturally, both the sections for and against the emancipation of the Dalits treated Dr. Ambedkar’s struggle as only a struggle for the liberation of the Dalits, ignoring its importance in making Indian society overall a truly democratic society.

The independence of the country and formation of a modern nation have been equated with the establishment of a democratic polity. This is the reason why the world regards the French and Russian Revolutions as important milestones in the creation of independent Nation States. Democracy at its birth was a form of participatory government where all citizens took active part in governance through an assembly held regularly. With the expansion of the limits and size of the state, this was replaced by representative democracy, where people sent their elected representatives for purposes of governance.

Whether the process of regular elections actually results in a democratic nation is a debatable question. The French Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau expressed doubts and mocked British parliamentary democracy and its regular elections. He said, “The British are independent only on the day of the election; once elections are over they become slaves till the next election.” Democracy has long been facing the problem of how to overcome this shortcoming of the representative form of governance. Indeed, it is not uncommon in history to witness an elected government without a democratic society, and absence of sensitivity toward the people. This is referred to as an elected despotism – a concept summarized by Thomas Jefferson, the father of the American Constitution, who asked: “what is the difference between one despot and 176 despots…if government is not responsible to the people?”

If we consider this limitation of the electoral process in the Indian context, clearly simply having elections at regular intervals without socio-economic equality will not result in a truly independent country or meaningful democracy. Naturally, in that Indian society where 20% of the populations are denied access to education, access to wealth, and even access to drinking water, regular elections would not result in a democratic society. Can elections without that concomitant liberation of this large section of society result in a truly independent country? The fact remains difficult to dispute that Indian society was not a soil conducive to democracy. Dr. Ambedkar very succinctly told this to the Constitution Assembly while explaining his concept of constitutional morality: “Democracy is a top dressing on the soil of India which is essentially undemocratic.”

The nation should appreciate Dr. Ambedkar’s struggle within this background of Indian society and then assess his contribution to the making of Indian independence and democracy as a more meaningful proposition. Dr. Ambedkar explained his political philosophy in his address at the Round Table Conference in London in 1930, from which I quote at length:

“The Depressed Classes had welcomed the British as their deliverers from age long tyranny and oppression by the Orthodox Hindus. Has the British Government done anything to remove it? Before the British, we could not enter the temple. Can we enter now? Before the British, we were denied entry into the Police Force. Does the British Government admit us in the Force? Before the British, we were not allowed to serve in the Military. Is that career now open to us? There is certainly no fundamental change in our position.

We must have a Government in which men in power will not be afraid to amend the social and economic code of life which the dictates of justice and expediency so urgently call for. This role the British Government will never be able to play. It is only a Government which is of the people, for the people and by the people that will make this possible.

We feel that nobody can remove our grievances as well as we can, and we cannot remove them unless we get political power in our own hands. It is only in a Swaraj Constitution that we stand any chance of getting the political power into our own hands, without which we cannot bring salvation to our people.

The idea of Swaraj recalls to the mind of many of us the tyrannies, oppressions and injustices practiced upon us in the past and fear of their recurrence under Swaraj. We are prepared to take the inevitable risk of the situation in the hope that we shall be installed, in adequate proportion, as the political sovereigns of the country along with our fellow countrymen.”

Dr. Ambedkar perceived Indian democracy as not only a form of government but an instrument of social change. He defined democracy in his speech at Jalandhar where he said “Democracy is a form of Government which brings revolutionary changes in the lives of people without bloodshed”. Dr. Ambedkar was also aware that the failure to establish socio-economic equality will endanger democracy and he warned of this in his speech while presenting the Constitution. He said, “On 26th January, we will have equality in political life but there is stark inequality in social and economic life. Future Governments must remove this contradiction at the earliest. Otherwise the victims of this inequality will not hesitate to bring down the pillars of democracy”.

Dr. Ambedakar wanted a truly representative government which will establish socio-economic equality. This could not be possible unless the depressed classes sent their true representatives in the Parliament, for which separate electorates for this section was necessary. Dr. Ambedkar demanded this in his speech in 1930 and achieved it. How it was replaced by the present ineffective system of joint electorate system is a sad history which I don’t want to dwell upon. Suffice it to say that only a truly representative government where depressed classes elect their own representatives will ensure that socio-economic equality is established within any reasonable amount of time.

When Dr. Ambedkar got an opportunity to draft the Constitution he availed of this opportunity to make it obligatory for the government to strive for achieving socio-economic equality by incorporation of the directive principles in the Constitution, which is a unique feature of our Constitution. Dr. Ambedkar had the conviction that no government would ignore these directive principles. He expressed it thus:

“Directive principles may not be justicable in the court of law but they are justicable in the highest court of Democracy, that is the Court of the People.”

It is a historical failure that successive governments over the last 60 years could not implement this principle in letter and spirit, and have made democracy a farce where Adivasis and Dalits are still denied their basic human rights. Had the country understood the importance of socio-economic equality for having a meaningful democracy, the idea for which Dr. Ambedkar fought his entire life, perhaps the current resentment in the tribal belt could have been avoided. Dr. Ambedkar fought for a democratic society, the kind within which the liberation of the Dalits and Adivasis was inevitable. Societal and governmental efforts to achieve this would be a true tribute to Dr. Ambedkar on this occasion.

Uttam Khobragade is a retired IAS officer, Dalit activist and Executive President of Republican Party of India (Athawale).

Tags

Dr. Ambedkar






.

 

 

 




 

Share on Tumblr

 

 


Comments are moderated