Author – Dr. Grishma Khobragade

Dalits are never tired of projecting Ambedkar as the greatest of all the leaders. That, unfortunately, smacks of sectarian attitude and of their blind devotion to him. They need to understand that the measure of the greatness of any person could only be her / his contribution to better the human situation, in terms of the correct understanding of its ailment and contribution to cure it. What Ambedkar did could be seen in relation to the broad five currents in Indian politics of his times:

• The Reformists current that wanted to bring about development on the western pattern, possibly with the support of British imperialism,
• Congress, which represented Indian capital and which demanded self-rule under the domination of British imperialism,
• The Terrorist Nationalists who had taken up arms in their fight for freedom against British imperialism,
• The Communists who were trying to implant the Bolshevik revolution in India, and
• The Muslim League opened up a separatist front of Muslims.

All of them scarcely reflected an understanding of the Indian situation. For instance, none showed even a cursory concern about the problems of one-fourth of their countrymen who were forced to live worse than animals as ordained by their decadent religion. It was indeed surprising that although all craved for self-rule from the British, none concerned with the caste-system which basically was responsible in pushing the ‘Ambedkar’ as the Radical Thinker country repeatedly into slavery. None seemed to attempt an objective analysis of either the history or the present of this country.

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar envisioned his ideal in the famous three principles: liberty, equality and fraternity. They were the basis for the ideal society of his conception. (BAWS, 1/57). He denied that he had adopted them from the French Revolution. He said he had derived them from the teachings of Buddha. These principles were the clarion call of the French Revolution but later became the ideological props of the liberal bourgeoisie in Europe. According to Ambedkar the source of these principles is different from the French Revolution, familiar to Marx, there is a prima facie scope to argue that Marx’s ridicule does not apply to him. His conception of these principles is indeed substantially different from that associated with the liberal bourgeoisie. Actually, what Marx refers to are the slogans of liberty and equality of the bourgeois parliamentary democracy. There, ‘liberty’ is the liberty to contract and ‘equality’ refers to equality in the market. Ambedkar insists that the conception of the ideal society ought to have them all three together. The absence of any would not be acceptable to him. The ideal society of his dream could only be seen within a kind of spiritual frame. It would be interesting to compare this society with the communist society of Marx’s conception. Marx reached his inference following the dialectical track of historical materialism. In Ambedkar’ case, it was just his vision. Inevitably, he had to attribute the origin of them to some spiritual source.

For Ambedkar, they meant to denote the State of society sans exploitation and with an emotive ambience of fellow feeling. It was beyond him to describe this State further in concrete terms and much so to indicate the forms of struggle to reach it. Known for his obsession with pragmatism and belief that any definitive laws could not bind the flow of human history, he would avoid the speculative construction of this distant stage of human society. Not even Marx could describe what his dream communist society would be like beyond that it would be freed of the familiar contradictions. It essentially reflected a contradiction between human desire and material reality. It would be a disaster to derive the meaning of this ideal State of Ambedkar’s conception from what he did. He left that to posterity to decide as per their circumstances. But, rationally there could be little doubt that the vision of Ambedkar can only be realised in the communist society of Marx’s conception where most (not all) of the contradictions in human society would have been resolved.

Dalits ought to internalise this vision and strive for its realisation. Ambedkar had a radical enough interpretation of his principles of liberty, equality and fraternity so as to feel inadequacy even in Marxism. He said that Marxism supported only equality (BAWS, 3/462). He was in need of a body of thought that would give equal importance to all these three principles. He met it with a convenient conceptualisation of religion. It is paradoxical that a person who is rational enough not to bind the posterity with his vision volitionally binds himself with what is said more than 25 centuries before. It is natural to find ideals better articulated in spiritual spheres but it is equally true that these dream worlds are incapable to provide any clue for their realisation on the earth except for their pet prescription to ignore the material reality and imagine it happened in the mind. They run away from the fact that the evil humans suffer from are the attributes of the divisions in human society, and their abolition essentially calls for struggles by the sufferers against those who perpetrate sufferings.

Howsoever, inherently rational the religion may be or radical its interpretation maybe it cannot fully escape these limitations. It can be seen in relation to Buddhism handed down by Babasaheb Ambedkar with his radical interpretation. Notwithstanding the familiar quibbling around the Dhamma and Dhamma among Dalits, what remained of Buddhism with them is what would happen to any religion. It is a different question whether Marxism embodied Ambedkar’s ideals or not but it is certain that they are neither realisable neither through any kind of constitutional acrobatics nor through any religious practice.

SOCIALISM

Despite his ambivalence and reservations about the emphasis on the economic dimension in socialism, Ambedkar broadly remained a socialist. Some scholars do find little scope for suspecting his socialist credentials because of his disapproval of Russell’s criticism of property, his nonacceptance of Marxian formulations and his placement of social issues higher than the economic and political issues. He called the complaint 98 Modernization and Dalit Education: Ambedkar’s Vision against the love of money as ‘philosophy of sour grapes’ (BWAS 1/ 489) and ridiculed materialism as ‘the ideology of pigs’. This impression is moreover strengthened by his reservations to accept the economic interpretation of history.

But, in all fairness, it may be said that what he appears to mean is the integrative consideration of all the factors that are needed for any society to be based on liberty, equality and fraternity. Notwithstanding his variant conception, there should not be any doubt about his socialistic antecedents. His conception of socialism also underwent evolution. Once he had stated that there was hardly any difference between his socialism and communism. As such, his disagreement with the communists was about the means and not about the aim. He warns the communists that the classless society can emerge only after the emergence of a casteless society. It implies that his quarrel with the then communists was over the stages of the revolution. In the 1920s and 30s, these people had borrowed the communist dogma and parroted class struggle in utter disregard of reality. Ambedkar, on the contrary, was firmly rooted in it. They believed that the Soviet Russian model of the revolution was importable for bringing about a socialist revolution into India whereas Ambedkar realistically postulated that unless the consciousness of the working class was congenial for revolution, there was no question of it materializing. And, unless the caste system is destroyed, the creation of the pro-revolution consciousness was out of the question. His annoyance with the Bombay communists was large because of their dogmatic behaviour. It is unfortunate that the idea of classlessness that was latent in his agenda never really surfaced during his lifetime (Rao, 1979).

Ambedkar relies on the concept of ‘State’ for the materialisation of his conception of socialism. His conception of State is largely idealist. He wanted the State to intervene in the economic structure and its monitoring. He wanted to constitutionalise this State intervention so that it would not be subject to change any time with the whims of a simple majority vote in the legislation. Ambedkar who taught, “The lost rights cannot be regained by making appeals or requests to the robbers; it needs struggles”; did not say anything on how the oppressed people will get such strength as to create the constitutional provisions, that would put the class structure upside down. On behalf of his party – Scheduled Caste Federation, he had submitted a draft for the future constitution to the Constituent Assembly for independent India. It was published later as “States and Minorities”. This book has really aided students in understanding some aspects of his ‘Ambedkar’ as the Radical Thinker 99 conception of socialism. Nevertheless, one cannot afford to forget the constraints placed by the context in which it was written.

The context was that he had failed to get into the Constituent Assembly and was therefore anxious to strike a feasible and still radical note that could find the support of the vast majority of the have-nots which might then create some pressure either for its inclusion in the Constitution or for his entry into the Constituent Assembly. For some years, during the preceding turbulence of negotiations for transfer of power, he found himself totally marginalised. Notwithstanding the probable limitations of this draft, its provisions in operational terms were still very radical. The main provisions are:

• All important industries and services shall belong to the nation.
• Insurance industry shall be in the public sector and insurance will be compulsory for every citizen.
• Private sector and entrepreneurs shall have a role in the economy but it shall not be dominating.
• Nationalisation of land and promotion of co-operative farming on a collective principle.

These provisions, if implemented, would have gone a long way towards supporting a democratic revolution in the country. It would have limited inequality and exploitation in the economic and political sphere. Politically, it would have had a far-reaching impact.

Ambedkar till the end could not completely remove the Fabian influence (which he might have gathered while in England) on him. In his times, particularly before World War II, few people in India were well versed in Marxist philosophy. The knowledge of Marxism seldom exceeded some broad principles and ‘Stalin’s dictatorship’ painted by imperialists or the ‘revolt of the workers, the insurgency of the poor. Ambedkar also does not seem to have gone very far from this point. Without indulging into the debate of ifs and buts, there should not be any iota of doubt that the ideal society of his conception could materialise only through socialism.

STATE

Ambedkar’s conception of State reflects some amount of autonomy from the hegemony of the ruling classes. It is why he expected it to act as per the constitutional structure and endeavoured to incorporate the pro-Dalit bias into the Constitution. He must have realised the true nature of it, the boundaries of the autonomy and basic class bias of the 100 Modernization and Dalit Education: Ambedkar’s Vision State when he actually reached not only the Constituent Assembly but also became the chairman of its Drafting Committee. In his anxiety to secure some provisions in favour of Dalits, he accepted to be the ‘hack’ to write what was acceptable to the ruling caste-class representatives. He must have thought that within the given constraints he had done a good job of making the Constitution responsive to the needs of the downtrodden people.

Indeed, many of the provisions in the directive principles and elsewhere apparently bear a clear imprint of his zeal and owe their existence to him. But, even they had to be within the strategic space provided by the rulers. His realisation of the folly was near complete when he had to burst out in utter dejection at its ineffectual implementation, that he would be the first man to burn the Constitution as it was of no good to anyone. He was inaccurate, as the Constitution had proved good enough to the upper caste-class combine who had hegemonised complete political space in post-1947 India. He attributed it to the devils’ in the Congressmen who had occupied the constitutional ‘temple’ he and others had built. Had he lived a little longer, he would have realised that the ones that he considered his co-workers to build the temple were themselves the agents of the very devils.

He hoped to thwart the devil’s march by people’s power conceived in the form of a parliamentary party called the Republican Party of India. It was within the very precincts of the temple inhabited by devils and therefore it soon proved to be the devil’s feast. Ambedkar could not reach the point of understanding that the State is a mere instrument in the hands of the ruling classes to coerce the ruled ones into submission to their interests. Until the downtrodden themselves become the ruling class, they cannot expect the State to do good to them. Whatever good that appears to come to their share, in ultimate balance accrues to the other side in multiple measures.

The post-1947 State, which has never tired of propagandising its concern for Dalits and poor, has in fact been singularly instrumental in aggravating the caste problem with its policies. Even the apparently progressive policies in the form of Land Ceiling Act, Green Revolution, Programme of Removal of Poverty, Reservations to Dalits in Services and Mandal Commission etc. have resulted against their professed objectives. The effect of the Land Ceiling Act, has been in creating a layer of the middle castes farmers which could be consolidated in caste terms to constitute a formidable constituency. ‘Ambedkar’ as the Radical Thinker.

In its new incarnation, this group that has traditionally been the immediate upper-caste layer to Dalits assumed virtual custody of Brahminism in order to coerce Dalit landless labourers to serve their socio-economic interests and suppress their assertive expression in the bud. The Green Revolution was the main instrument to introduce capitalisation in the agrarian sector. It reinforced the innate hunger of the landlords and big farmers for land as this State-sponsored revolution produced a huge surplus for them. It resulted in creating geographical imbalance and promoting unequal terms of trade in favour of urban areas. Its resultant impact on Dalits has been far more excruciating than that of the Land Ceiling Act. The much-publicised programme for Removal of Poverty has aggravated the gap between the heightened hopes and aspirations of Dalits on one hand and the feelings of deprivation among the poorer sections of non-Dalits in the context of the special programmes especially launched for the upliftment of Dalits. The tension that ensued culminated in increasingly strengthening the caste-based demands and further aggravating the caste – divide.

The reservations in services for Dalits, notwithstanding its benefits, have caused incalculable damage in political terms. Reservations created hope, notional stake in the system and thus dampened the alienation; those who availed of its benefit got politically emasculated and in course consciously or unconsciously served as the props of the system.

The context of scarcity of jobs provided ample opportunity to reactionary forces to divide the youth along caste lines. Mandal Commission, which enthused many progressive parties and people to upheld its extension of reservation to the backward castes, has greatly contributed to strengthening the caste identities of people. In as much as it empowers the backward castes, actually their richer sections, it is bound to worsen the relative standing of Dalits in villages.

Thus, the State, its welfare mask notwithstanding, has viciously and consistently acted against Dalits and poor people. It is a piece of complete contra evidence to hopes of Ambedkar who strove to maximise and make use of the autonomous space of the State for the benefits of the have-nots, particularly Dalits. It is one thing to assume autonomous space but quite another to equate it with caste-class neutrality. Unfortunately, the Dalit political behaviour always reflected this erroneous notion of caste-class neutrality of the State. It has already caused great damage to the Dalit interests. The radical Ambedkar might have a strategy to use State for Dalit cause but would never see it as caste-class neutral.

DEMOCRACY

Ambedkar had unshakeable faith in democracy. In his conception of an exploitation-less society, democracy has an extraordinary role. Democracy means ‘one person, one vote’; and ‘one vote, one value’. Democracy means the empowerment of any person for participating in the process of decision-making relating to her/him, democracy means liberty, equality and fraternity – Ambedkar’s definition of democracy had such a tone. Because he presided over the making of the Constitution and is being projected as its chief architect, there is a misunderstanding that parliamentary democracy is what he wanted. But nothing could be farther from the truth than this. He himself spoke against parliamentary democracy. For instance, he defined parliamentary democracy as “voting by the people in favour of their owners and handing over the rights of ruling over themselves” (BAWS 10/36). This provides a glimpse of the expanse of his ideal, which certainly was much beyond the Indian Constitution or any commonplace understanding about him. His conception of democracy appears to be pure people-oriented. He showed that the bookish concepts of equality are detrimental to the disabled sections of society in the prevailing social setting and proposed a fundamental change in the concept of equality. It envisaged the complete abolition of inequality. His principle of positive discrimination is based on this very concept of equality. But the operational aspects of this concept involved the need for some kind of autonomous institution, which was met by ‘State’ and ‘religion’. It is necessary to stress that his greatness lies in the radicality of his conceptions, his vision of a human society sans any kind of exploitation; not in the remedies or apparatus, he proposed in the circumstances prevailing in his time.

References:

Agarawal, S.: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: The Man and his Message: A Commemorative Volume, Prentice-Hall of India, New Delhi, 1991.
Anand, Mulk Raj; and Zelliot: An Anthology of Dalit Literature, Gyan Publishing House, New Delhi, 1992.
Barill, C.: Social and Political Ideas of B.R. Ambedkar, Aalekh Publishers, Jaipur, 1977.
Carsten, F. L.: The Rise of Fascism, Methuen and Co., London, 1967.
Deshpande, Vasant: Towards Social Integration: Problems of Adjustment of SC Elites, Shubhada- Saraswat, Pune, 1978.
Barill, C.: Social and Political Ideas of B.R. Ambedkar, Aalekh Publishers, Jaipur, 1977.
Carsten, F. L.: The Rise of Fascism, Methuen and Co., London, 1967.
Das, Bhagwan: Socio-Economic Problems of Dalits, Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (ISPCK), Delhi, 1995.
Deshpande, Vasant: Towards Social Intergration: Problems of Adjustment of SC Elites, Shubhada- Saraswat, Pune, 1978.

The author is Head & Assistant Professor at the Department of English, B.K. Birla College, Kalyan