UNDERSTANDING AMBEDKAR'S
IDEA OF NATION & NATION BUILDING
Vivek Kumar
Assistant Professor
Jawaharlal
Nehru University, New Delhi-67
Let us accept the
fact that Babasaheb Ambedkar has been victim of a process of reductionism.
Mainstream media, academia and intelligentsia have played a dominant role in
this process of reductionism. As a result he has been viewed and reviewed only
as ‘a Dalit Leader’. Some progressive intellectuals have at the most called him
‘Chief Architect of the Indian Constitution’. In turn his contributions in the
spheres of understanding individual, caste, Hindu Social order, Problems of
Hindu Women and Indian minorities etc. from an alternative perspective has been
will fully blacked out. Above all his ideas about nation and nation building
have also not caught the imagination of the mainstream academia and
intelligentsia. Thanks to the Dalit movement led by the Dalit themselves;
Babasaheb Ambedkar has got such visibility which no other leader of modern India has. On the basis of association of masses
to a particular leader, number of statues erected by the individuals on their
own, and types of celebrations on the occasion of his birth and conversion
ceremonies and then commemoration on his Mahaprinibban day Ambedkar can be
termed as the omnipresent and organic leader of modern India. The poem below is self-explanatory how
colossal is the personality of Babasaheb has become. The poem is narrated at
the grassroots in the Hindi heartland
Baba the Great
Words to Dumb,
Ears to deaf,
Respect to Dalits,
Equal rights to women,
Alms of husband to Kastoorba,
Alms of life to Gandhi, Constitution to India,
Knowledge of Buddhist philosophy
to the world,
Such was Baba the great!
His colossal personality has forced the
mainstream academia and intelligentsia to nominally include Ambedkar in the
subject matter of social sciences. Yet his Ideas of Nation and Nation building
have not been looked into. Therefore this paper is a humble attempt to
understand the notion of nation and his contributions to the process of nation
building.
Ambedkar’s
Conception of Nation
Ambedkar was of the opinion that India
was not a nation but nation in the making. He made this fact very clear in
1930s during the tangle with Mohandas Karam Chand Gandhi on the issue of separate
electorates for Dalits. According to Ambedkar, “First of all there is no nation
of Indians in real sense of the word. The nation does not exist, it is to be
created, and I think it will be admitted that the suppression of a distinct and
a separate community is not the method of creating a nation” (Ambedkar 1991:
412). Again while speaking on the 26th November 1949 when the
Constituent Assembly was going to pass the Constitution of independent India he
argued, “[in the past] politically-minded Indian resented the expression “the
people of India.” They preferred the expression “the Indian nation.” I am of
opinion that in believing that we are a nation, we are cherishing a great
delusion” (Ambedkar 1994:216).He wondered, “How can people divided into several
thousands of castes be a nation?” (Ambedkar1994:1216-1217). One can argue on
what basis we can say this. According to him, “... 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 (Ambedkar 1994 1216-17). Therefore he suggested that “we
must overcome all these difficulties if we wish to become a nation in reality.
For fraternity can be a fact only when there is a nation” (Ambedkar 1994:
1216-7).
The logical question then would be what is
a nation according to Ambedkar? Before coming to that let us look how nation
has been defined by others. The idea of
Nation is very ancient. It means, ‘a people, a folk, held together by some or
all of such more or less immutable characteristics as common descent,
territory, history, language, religion, way of life or other attributes that
members of a group have from birth onward’(Patterson 1975:181). Ambedkar on
his part argued that race, language and country do not suffice to create a
nation. Then, according to him what more is needed to constitute a nation?
Answering this Ambedkar quoted Earnest Renan to define what a nation is? He
wrote, according to Renan “A nation is a living soul, a spiritual principle.
Two things, which in truth are but one, constitute the soul, this spiritual
principle. One is in the past, the other in the present. One is the common
possession of a rich heritage of memories; the other is the actual consent, the
desire to live together, the will to preserve worthily the undivided
inheritance which has been handed down…The nation, like the individual, is the
outcome of a long past of efforts, and sacrifices, and devotion… A heroic past,
great men, glory, ----- these form the social capital, upon which a national
idea may be founded. To have common glories in the past, a common will in the
present: to have done great things together, to will to do the like again, -
such are the essential conditions for the making of a people (Ambedkar
1990:35). Further Renan argues that, “an inheritance of glory and regrets to be
shared, in the future a like ideal to be realized; to have suffered, and
rejoiced, and hoped together; all these things are worth more than custom
houses in common, and frontiers in accordance with strategically ideas; all
these can be understood in spite of diversities of race and language... for
indeed, suffering in common is a greater bond of union than joy. As regards
national memories, mournings are worth more than triumphs; or they impose
duties, they demand common effort” (Ambedkar 1990:35).
Further Ambedkar also explained
the meaning and function of nationality. According to him, “Nationality is a
social feeling. It is feelings of a corporate sentiment of oneness which makes
those who are charged with it feel that they are kith and kin. This national
feeling is a double edged feeling. It is at once a feeling of fellowship for
one’s own kith and kin and an anti-feeling for those who are not one’s own kit
kin. It is a feeling of “Consciousness of kind” which on the one hand binds
together those who have it, so strongly that it over-rides all differences
arising out of economic conflict or social gradation and, on the other, severs
them from those who are not of their kind. It is a longing not to belong to any
other group. This is the essence of what is called a nationality and national
feeling” (Ambedkar 1990:31).
If we analyze the Indian nation in the
light of the above elements of nation, it becomes amply clear that Indian
nation did not exist as there was no sharing of the past and the will to share
the existential and experiential realties on the one hand between Dalits and
the so-called upper caste Hindus and on the other hand and between Muslims and
Hindus. With regard to relationship between Dalits and Hindus Ambedkar explained,
“There is an utter lack among the Hindus of what the sociologists call
“consciousness of kind”. There is no Hindu consciousness of kind. In every
Hindu the consciousness that exists is the consciousness of his caste. That is
the reason why the Hindus cannot be said to form a society or a nation… The
Caste System prevents common activity and by preventing common activity it has
prevented Hindus from becoming a society with a unified life and a
consciousness of its own being” (Ambedkar 1979: 50-51).
Secondly, in the light
of historical evidence of relationship between Hindus and Muslims are concerned
Ambedkar wondered, “Are there any common historical antecedents which Hindus
and Muslims can be said to share together as matter of pride or as matters of
sorrow…so far they have been just two armed battalions warring against each
other. There was no common cycle of participation for a common achievement.
Their past is a past of mutual destruction- a past of mutual animosity, both in
political as well as in religious fields” (Ambedkar 1990: 35). Ambedkar was
clear that while Hindus revere Prthiviraj Chauhan, Rana Pratap, Shivaji in
history the Muslims revere likes of Mohammed Bin Qasim, Aurenzeb etc. In
religious field argued he, “…the Hindus draw their inspiration from the Ramayan,
the Mahabharat, and Geeta. The Muslamans…derive their inspiration from Quran
and Hadis” (Ambedkar 1990”36). Besides lack of sharing between differing social
and religious groups women were also subjugated in Indian society. They were
also excluded from social political and economic institutions. In this manner by
taking these few examples we can argue that Ambedkar first highlighted the fact
why at all Indian nation did not exist. There may be many other facts on the
basis of which Ambedkar has proved that ‘Indian Nation’ did not exist> But I
think these three elements will be suffice to prove that that ‘Indian Nation’
did not exist in reality.
Ambedkar and Process of
nation building
Having said that ‘Indian Nation’ did not
exist let us now see Babasaheb Ambedkar’s scheme of nation building. At the out
set, the realization of the fact that India was not a nation
was the first step to realize the goal of nation building. Secondly, he argued
that forgetting the past can be another step forward in building the nation. He
again quoted Renan, for emphasizing the importance of forgetfulness as a factor
in the creation of a nation (Ambedkar 1990:36). Giving concrete example of
forgetfulness in the process of nation building Renan sighted the case of union
of Northern and Southern France, which was
result of use of force for nearly hundred years. But today very few remember
it. Therefore Renen had concluded that, “the essence of the nation is, that all
its individuals should have things in common; and also that all of them should
hold many things in oblivion” (Ambedkar 19090:37).
The third aspect of Ambedkar’s
scheme of nation building was that all the subjugated collectivities should be
granted their legitimate rights so that they should be free from subjugation.
In his own words, “Philosophically it may be possible to consider a nation as a
unit but sociologically it cannot but be regarded as consisting of many classes
and the freedom of the nation if it is to be a reality must vouchsafe that the
freedom of the different classes comprised in it, particularly those who are
treated as servile classes” (Ambedkar 1991: 201-202).
Fourthly, Ambedkar’s scheme of
nation building included the process of dismantling the privileges of the
governing elite and breaking their monopoly over the ‘political power in the
country’. Ambedkar had cautioned the Constituent Assembly about the dangers of
monopolizing of power by tiny group of people. He had opined that, “political
power in this country has too long been the monopoly of a few. This monopoly
has not merely deprived them of their chance of betterment; it has sapped them
of what may be called the significance of life.” (Ambedkar 1994: 1218).
Moreover, he also questioned the attitude of the governing elite in terms of
giving up their privileges for the process of nation building. He quoted the
attitude of the governing elite of the France
and Japan. How these governing elites gave up their
privileges in the interest of nation. Against the sacrificing attitude of the
governing elites of France and Japan Ambedkar highlighted the status quoits
attitude of Indian elite who was not ready to give up their privileges even for
the nation rather they were trying to preserve their interests by showing their
pseudo concerns for nation (Ambedkar 1991:224-5).
Under these circumstances Ambedkar as per
his scheme of nation building wanted three different collectivities that were excluded
or denied their legitimate rights to be included directly in the institutions
of governance and thereby into mainstream of society. In other wards the said
collectivities should be granted their legitimate rights which were due to
them. Though it is a fact that Ambedkar
had raised host of other issues which were significant in the process of nation
building I am restricting myself with only these three collectivities. The three
collectivities that come to my mind, and which form part of Ambedkar’s core
ideas of nation and nation building include:
Dalits
or ex-untouchables
Muslims
Hindu
Women
Dalits and the question of
their Self-representation.
It is a fact that Ambedkar did not raised
the problems related to aforesaid categories at one go. Rather he took their
problem as and when country faced a crisis. But it is certain that Ambedkar
started his carrier by highlighting the problems and issues of the Dalits. To
begin with he wanted self representation of the Dalits in the government, cabinet,
bureaucracy etc. Defining its importance, Ambedkar opined in his written
statement given to the Southborough Committee on franchise in 1919 that, “ As
the government is the most important field for the exercise of individual
capacities, it is in the interest of the people that no person as such should
be denied the opportunity of actively participating in the process of
government. That is to say popular government is not only government for the
people but by the people. To express the same in a different way,
representation of opinions by itself is not sufficient to constitute popular
government. To cover its true meaning it requires personal representation as
well. It is because the former is often found without the latter that the
Franchise Committee has to see in devising the franchise and constituencies for
a popular government in India, it provides for both, i.e., representation of
opinions and representation of persons” (Ambedkar 1979:247).
Inclusion of Dalits
and Backwards in the Civil Services
Similarly, Ambedkar advocated
reserved nominations for the Dalits in the civil services of the country along
with Mohammedans and non-Brahmins. Why he did so? In a written document
presented to the Simon Commission also known as Indian Statutory Commission, he
has explained why at all it is needed. To begin with, Ambedkar is again
concerned with the over- dominance of the Brahmins and allied castes in the
public services (Ambedkar 1982: 394). He argues that when the Dalits,
Mohammedans and non-Brahmins ask for their representation, the Brahmins and the
allied castes argue that the appointment should take through competition.
Ambedkar has questioned the very basis of such process of appointment through
competition as fair and argued, that,“ Those circumstances presuppose that the
educational system of the state is sufficiently democratic and is such that
facilities for education are sufficiently widespread and sufficiently used to
permit all classes from which good public servants are likely to be forthcoming
to compete. Otherwise even with the system of open competition large classes
are sure to be left out in the cold. This basic condition is conspicuous by its
absence in India, so that to invite Backward Classes to rely upon the results
of competitive examination as a means of entry into the public services is to
practice delusion upon them” (Ambedkar 1982: 395).
Therefore, Ambedkar went on to
support the representation of Dalits and non-Brahmins and Muslims on two
ground, i.e., administrative and moral. Discussing administrative basis for
reservation, he argued that, “Those who lay exclusive stress upon efficiency as
the basis for recruitment to them administration appears to be nothing more
than the process of applying law as enacted by the legislative” (ibid). But
according to him, “Administration in modern times involves far more than the
scrutiny of status for the sake of knowing the regulations of the state. Often
under the pressure of time or from convenience a government department is now-a
day entrusted with wide power of rule making” (ibid). Further, he argued that,
“It must be accepted as beyond dispute that such wide powers of rule-making
affecting the welfare of large classes of people cannot be safely left into the
hands of the administrators drawn from particular class which as a matter of
fact is opposed to the rest of the population in its motives and interests,
(which) does not sympathize with the living forces operating in them, is not
charged with their wants, pains, cravings and desires and is inimical to their
aspirations, simply because it comes out best by the test of education” (ibid)
.
Ambedkar highlighted the moral
evils arising out of the exclusion of a person from the public service by
quoting Gopal Krishna Gokhale, who had raised the same issue of exclusion from
public services for Indians. Emphasizing
the exclusion of Indians from public services, Gokhale had opined that, “A kind
of dwarfing or stunting of the Indians is going on under the present system. We
must live all days of our life in an atmosphere of inferiority and tallest of
us must bend in order that the exigencies of the exiting system may be
satisfied. The upward impulse…is denied to us. The full height to which our
manhood is capable of rising can never be reached by us under the present
system. The moral elevation which every self-governing people feel cannot be
felt by us. Our administrative and military talent must gradually disappear, owing
to sheer disuse, till at last our lot, as hewers of wood and drawers of water
in our own country is stereotyped” (quoted in Ambedkar 1982: 397). Drawing an
analogy between the Brahmins and allied castes with the foreign agency, i.e.,
the British, Ambedkar argued that, “Is it not open to the backward classes to
allege against Brahmins and allied castes all that was alleged by the late Mr.
Gokhale on behalf of Indian people against the foreign agency? Is it no open to
the Depressed Classes, the non-Brahmins and the Mohammedans to say that by
their exclusion from the Public Service a kind of dwarfing or stunting of their
communities is going on? Can they not complain that as a result of their
exclusion they are obliged to live all the days of their lives in an atmosphere
of inferiority, and the tallest of them has to bend in order that the
exigencies of the existing system may be satisfied? Can they not assert that
upward impulses which every school-boy of a Brahmanical community feels that he
may one day be a Sinha, a Sastri, a Ranade, a Pranjpe, and which may draw forth
from him the best efforts of which he is capable is denied to them? Can they
not indignantly assert that the full height to which their manhood is capable
of rising can never be reached by them under the present system? Can they not
lament that the moral elevation which every self-governing people feel cannot
be felt by them and that their administrative talents must disappear owing to
sheer disgust till at last their lot as hewers of wood and drawers of water in
their own country is stereotyped? The answer to these queries cannot but be in
the affirmative. If to exclude the advanced communities from entering into
public service of the country was a moral wrong, the exclusion of the backward
communities from the same field must be a moral wrong and if it is a moral
wrong it must be righted” (Ambedkar 1982: 395-6).
For inclusion of Dalits and other
marginal sections in the public services Ambedkar also highlighted that the
demand for Indianisation of public services did not rest on consideration of
efficient administration; rather, it was condemned as it was found to be
wanting in those qualities which make for human administration. It is
therefore, he pointed, that those who clamored for Indianisation of public
services are themselves opposed to inclusion of the Depressed and Backward
Classes (Ambedkar 1982: 395-6). That is why he proposed that, “A certain number
of vacancies in Superior Services, Class I and Class II, and also in the Subordinate
Services should every year be filled by system of nomination with pass
examination … Such nomination shall be reserved to the Depressed Classes, the
Mohammedans and the Non-Brahmins in order of preference herein indicated until
their numbers in the services reach a certain proportion” (Ambedkar 1982:398).
This was possibly first time any one had made a demand for reservation for
Dalits in the public services, though Ambedkar had already made a demand for
political representation as early as 1919. It is a fact that the Indian
National Congress did nothing worth mentioning for the reservation of the
Dalits during this period and even after the formation of Government in 1937.
The major development of the period is attributed to Ambedkar serving as member
for the Viceroys’ Executive Council. It was he who issued an office order in
1943 to reserve 8.33 per cent places in the Central Government Services for the
Dalits. In fact this order, which reserved the posts for the Dalits,
specifically had replaced an earlier general order for general preference for
the Dalits in their recruitment in the Services (Ambedkar 1990:475).
Necessity of Self
Representation
Why at all self representation was necessary. According to
Ambedkar, this was necessary because the aims, beliefs, aspirations, and
knowledge of the caste Hindus and the Dalits differ. That means, they do not
have like-mindedness. In his own words, “Between two Hindus, caste-like
mindedness is more powerful than the like-mindedness due their both being Hindus”
(ibid: 249). Therefore, he emphasized that there would be conflict of interest
among the Hindus and the Dalits and, hence, caste Hindus could never represent
the interest and opinion of Dalits if the latter did not get
self-representation.
Ambedkar wanted self representation of the Dalits because
he was also convinced that only the Dalits could voice these interests. In his
own words, “-as can be easily seen they can be represented by the untouchables
alone. They are distinctively their own interests and none can truly voice
them…Untouchability constitutes a definite set of interests which
the untouchables alone can speak for (ibid: 256)”. Secondly, the personal representation for the Dalits is
also important because, “A Government for the people, but not by the people, is
sure to educate some into masters and others into subjects…To be specific, it
is not enough to be electors only. It is necessary to be law- makers; otherwise
who can be law-makers will be masters of those who can only be electors” (ibid:
251). That is why; Ambedkar not only demanded separate electorate but also
reservation in the cabinet as well. According to him, “Just as it is necessary
that the Depressed Classes should have the power to influence governmental
action by seats in the Legislature so also it is desirable that the Depressed
Classes should have the opportunity to frame the general policy of the
Government. This they can do only if they can find a seat in the cabinet. The
Depressed Classes therefore claim that in common with other minorities, their
rights to be represented in the Cabinet should be recognized. With this purpose
in view the Depressed Classes propose: that in the Instrument of Instructions
an obligation shall be placed upon the Governor and the Governor-general to
endeavor to secure the representation of the Depressed Classes in the
Cabinet”(Ambedkar 1991: 52).
Gandhi’s Opposition of
Dalits’ Self Representation
Gandhi
opposed the representation of the Dalits by special constituencies. He
emphasized that the special representation to the Untouchables (Dalits), “Will
create a division in the Hinduism which I (Gandhi) cannot possibly look forward
to with any satisfaction whatsoever” (Ambedkar 1991: 69). In fact he was ready
to accept the conversion of the Dalits to any other but was not ready to grant
representation based exclusively on their votes though the same existed for the
other minorities. He opined, “I do not
mind Untouchables, if they so desire, being converted to Islam or Christianity.
I should tolerate that, but I cannot possibly tolerate what is in store for
Hinduism if there are two divisions set forth in the villages. Those who speak
of the political right of Untouchables do not know their India, do not know how Indian Society is
today constructed, and therefore I want to say with all the emphasis that I can
command that if I was the only person to resist this thing I would resist with
my life” (quoted in Ambedkar 1991: 69).
To avoid the exclusion of the Dalits from the process of nation
building, Ambedkar asked for the inclusion of Dalits through their
representation in the different institutions of governance and education.
Therefore the real function of the representation or reservation according to
Ambedkar was one of the functions of “Nation Building”.
Dalits and their
Rights as a Citizen
Ambedkar along with the self- representation of the Dalits
wanted to establish the rights of the Dalits. That is why he used to wonder why
at all some people ask what the interests of Dalits are or do the Dalits also
have interests? Defining the interests of the Dalits, Ambedkar opined that,
“The untouchables are usually regarded as objects of pity but they are ignored
in any political scheme on the score that they have no interest to protect. And
yet their interests are the greatest. Not that they have large property to
protect from confiscation. But they have their very persona confiscated. The
socio- religious disabilities have dehumanized the untouchables and their
interests at stake are therefore the interests of humanity. The interests of
property are nothing before such primary interests… The untouchable is not even
a citizen. Citizenship is a bundle of rights such as (1) personal liberty, (2)
personal security, (3) right to hold private property, (4) equality before law,
(5) liberty of conscience, (6) freedom of opinion and speech, (7) right to
assembly, (8) right of representation in a country’s Government and (9) right
to hold office under the State … These are the interests of the untouchables”
(Ambedkar 1979: 255-6).
Ambedkar and His
Political Parties
It is not that Ambedkar only demanded the self
representation for the Dalits and emphasized their rights as free citizens of India
rather he also established number of political parties and organizations, one
after the other, for capturing the political power and also organizing people. As
far as his political parties he started with Independent labor party, which he
established in 1936. Then he established Scheduled Caste Federation in 1942. And last but not the least Ambedkar laid the
foundation of Republican Party of India, which was subsequently formed in 1957.
With his effort he tried to carve out a broad based Dalit political community
which possessed the power of number of votes. Not only that he also mooted the
idea that political power can be used for the amelioration of Dalits.
Inclusion of Muslims in the Constituent Assembly
Along with the representation of
Dalits and Backward castes in the structures of State Ambedkar was strong votary
of inclusion of Muslims in the Constituent Assembly. His position came to fore
when he vehemently pleaded their inclusion in spite Muslim league has announced
their desire for a separate state. Ambedkar emphasized non-violent method for
the inclusion of the Muslims in the Constituent Assembly.
While speaking in the Constituent
Assembly, which met for the first time to move a resolution for making the
Indian Constitution, he along with other members of the Constituent assembly
was of the opinion that it would not proper for the Assembly to proceed to deal
with the resolution of framing the constitution of free India while Muslim
League was absent. In fact he pointed out a particular Para
of the resolution which could prevent Muslim League from entering in the
Constituent Assembly (Ambedkar 1994: 9-10).
He was aware of the diversity and
division in the population of India
but he was of the opinion that every group should be included in the process of
taking some decision about the nation. He aired the same in the constituent
assembly that “…Our difficulty is
not about the ultimate future. Our difficulty is how to make the heterogeneous
mass that we have to-day take a decision in common and march on the way which
leads us to unity. Our difficulty is not with regard to the ultimate, our
difficulty is with regard to beginning…therefore, I should have thought that in
order to make us willing friends, in order to induce every party, every section
in this country to take on to road it would be an act of greatest statesmanship
for the majority party even to make a concession to the prejudices of people
who are not prepared to march together and it is for that, that I propose to
make this appeal. …Let us even make a concession to the prejudices of our
opponents, bring them in, so that they may willingly join us on marching upon
that road, which as I said, if we walk long enough, must necessarily lead us to
unity…I want all of us to realize that whether we are right or wrong, whether
the position that we take is in consonance with our legal rights…This is too
big a question to be treated as a matter of legal rights…We should leave aside
all legal considerations and make some attempt, where those who are not
prepared to come, will come. Let us make it possible for them to come”
(Ambedkar 1994). Therefore he made an appeal that, “ …that another attempt may
be made to bring about a solution of the dispute between the Congress and the
Muslim League. This subject is so vital, so important that I bam sure it could
never be decided on the mere basis of dignity of one party or the dignity of
another party” (Ambedkar 1994 ). Ambedkar
was of the opinion that the dignity of a nation is above the political parties
and individuals. He argued, “When deciding the destinies of nations, dignities
of people, dignities of leaders and dignities of parties ought to for nothing.
The destiny of the country ought to count for everything” (Ambedkar 1994: 12).
Ambedkar was very agitated on the
Congress and Muslim League impasse. He was very clear that the problem should
be solved as soon as possible. For which he played down the violence. He spoke
with anguish, “…I do not know what plans the Congress party…has in its mind? ...
It seems to there are only three ways by which the future will be decided.
Either one party will surrender to another. The other way would be negotiated
peace and the third way would be open war…certain members of the Constituent
Assembly…are prepared to go to war. I must confess that I am appalled at the
idea that anybody in this country should think of solving the political
problems of this country by the method of war. I do not know how many people in
this country support that idea. … (if) people…do, is because most of
them…believe that the war …would be a war on the British…But…if war comes in
this country …it will not be a war on the British. It will be a war on the
Muslims. It will be a war on the Muslims or…probably worse, It will a war on a
combination of the British and the Muslims” (Ambedkar 1994:13).
In this conflict between Congress
and Muslim league to bring down the temper of the house down Ambedkar quoted
from Burke who had rejected the idea of violence applied by the British in
conquering the colonies, “…the use of force 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…next objection is its
uncertainty. Terror is not always the effect of force and an armament is not a
victory. If you do not succeed, you are
without resource for, conciliation remains; but, force failing no further hope
of reconciliation is left. Power and authority are sometimes brought by
kindness; but they can never be begged as alms by an impoverished and defeated
violence” (Ambedkar 1994 :13 -14). Therefore Ambedkar concluded, “If there is
any body 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 conquest would not be once and for ever” (Ambedkar 1994: 14).
Despite the division and
animosity of different groups Ambedkar was convinced about the unity and
development of nation. He looked very confident when he spoke, “ …I have got
not the slightest doubt in my mind as to the future evolution and the ultimate
shape of the social, political and economic structure of this country. I know
to-day we are divided politically, socially and economically. We are group of
warring camps and I may go even to the extent of confessing that I am probably
on of the leaders of such a camp. But, Sir, with all this I am quite convinced
that given time and circumstances nothing in the world will prevent this
country from becoming one. With all our castes and creed I have not the
slightest hesitation that we shall in some form be a united people. I have no
hesitation in saying that notwithstanding the agitation of the Muslim League
for the partition of India some day enough light would dawn upon the Muslims
themselves and they too will begin to think that a United India is better even
for them” (Ambedkar 1994: 9). Such was commitment of Ambedkar when it came to
the process of nation building.
Rights of Hindu Women
Apart from securing the rights
for the Dalits, Other backward castes and Muslims in the processes of nation
building Ambedkar, as the first Law Minster of the independent India,
introduced a Bill to safeguard the rights of Hindu women. The bill was
envisaged to secure a dignified and equal status for the Hindu women with
number of clauses. There were rights of inheritance and maintenance. There were
laws against dowry. Instead of Polygamy Monogamy was made legal. The Hindu
marriage became a contract instead of sacrament. The consent of wife was to be
made compulsory in the event of adoption. By all these rights Ambedkar had
envisioned to empower Hindu women and hence a strong nation. The Hindu Code
bill introduced in the Parliament gives the insight, what and how Ambedkar had
thought about empowering Hindu women. He had mooted that, “In the order of
succession to a deceased Hindu, the bill seeks to make four changes. One change
is that widow, the daughter, widow of a pre-deceased son, all re given the same
rank as the son in the matter of inheritance.
In addition to that, the daughter also is given share in her father’s
property (Ambedkar 1995:6). Ambedkar in his proposed Hindu code Bill attempted
to, “Consolidate the different categories of Srtidhan into one single category of property and laid down the
uniform rule of succession” (Ambedkar 1995:7).
Ambedkar was opposed to dowry and
conscious of the treatment meted out to girls because of dowry. While moving
the Bill in the Parliament he opined, “All the members of the House know…how
girls who bring enormous lot of property…by way of dowry or Stridhan or gift are treated…with utter
contempt, tyranny and oppression” (Ambedkar 1995: 8). Therefore Ambedkar mooted
that, “property which is given as dowry…shall be treated as a trust property,
the use of which will censure to woman and…neither her husband not the
relations of her husband will have any interest in that property” (ibid).
Provision of separate maintenance
for the woman who lives away form her husband was also made by Ambedkar. The
bill recognized that there are circumstances where the wife has lived from the
husband, and she can claim separate maintenance from the husband. Following are
conditions in which a wife can claim maintenance; 1.Suffering from a loathsome
disease, 2. If he keeps a concubine, 3. If he is guilty of cruelty, 4. If ha
abandoned her for two years, 5. If he has converted to another religion
(Ambedkar 1995 8-9).
As far as the Hindu Marriage is
concerned he introduced the idea of civil marriage. He opined that the code
will dispenser with case and sub-caste in the event of Civil-Marriage. He
argued, “Marriage under this Bill is valid irrespective of the caste or
sub-caste of the parties entering to marriage” (Ambedkar1995:9). Further
Ambedkar abolished polygamy, which was permissible under the existing Hindu
Law. He argued, under the new law it is monogamy which is prescribed” (ibid: 10).
Ambedkar also introduced the provision to dismantle the sacramental status of
the Hindu marriage in which it cannot be dissolved. He made it a contract by
introducing the provision of divorce. Ambedkar introduced seven grounds of
divorce 1. Desertion, 2. Conversion to another religion, 3.Keeping concubine or
becoming a concubine, 4.incurably unsound mind, 5. Virulent and incurable form
of leprosy, 6. Venereal diseases in communicable form, 7. Cruelty (ibid: 10).
Addressing the question of adoption, “under the code” he made the consent of
the women necessary for the husband (ibid).
In this manner Ambedkar envisaged
to empower the Hindu women. It is pertinent to note here that Indian parliament
did not pass different clauses pf Hindu Code Bill tabled my Ambedkar and he had
to resigned form Nehru cabinet as the first Law Minster of independent India.
This is testimony to the fact how much Ambedkar was committed to the cause of
Indian women. It is heartening to note that subsequently most of the clauses
proposed by Ambedkar in the Hindu Code were passed one by one by the Indian
Parliament.
Future of the Indian Nation
It is no that Ambedkar was
worried only about the contemporary issues of nation and nation building, but
he was having a future vision of the Indian Nation. He was aware of the
pitfalls in the future path of the Nation. He had carved out certain principles
for the future state and society in India
which included:
Self Introspection by the Indians
Adherence to Constitutional means
Denunciation of Hero worship
Establishment of Social and Economic democracy along with Political
Democracy
Dismantling the monopoly of elites in the realm of political power
Self Introspection by the Indians
While speaking on the last day
when Constitution of India was to be finally passed he told the Constituent
Assembly about disturbing historical facts of Indian society. In a way he was
worried about the future of Indian society and was pointing out to Indians to have
self introspection. He argued “… my mind is so full of future of our country...
On 26th January 1950,
India will be
an independent country (Cheers). What would happen to her independence? Will
she maintain her independence or will she lose it again?... It is not that India
was never an independent country. The point is that she once lost the
independence she had. Will she lose it second time? It is this thought which
makes me most anxious for the future. What perturbs me greatly is the fact that
not only IndiaSind
by Mahomamed-bin-Kasim, the military commanders of King Dhar accepted bribes
from the agents of Mohommed-Bin-Kasim and refused to fight on the side of their
King. It was Jaichand who invited to Mahommed Ghori to invade India
and fight against Prithvi Raj and promised him the help of himself and the
Solamki kings. When Shivaji was fighting for the liberation of Hindus, the
other Maratha nobleman and Rajput Kings were fighting the battle on the side of
Mogul Emperors. When the British were trying to destroy the Sikh Rulers, Gulab
Singh, their principal commander sat silent and did not help to save the Sikh
kingdom. In 1857, when a large part of India
had declared a war of independence against the British, the Sikhs stood and
watched the event as silent spectator” (Ambedkar 1994: 1213-14). It is very
difficult to imagine that any other leader of his time had such canny eye on
the nature and character of people of India
and had given a clarion call to Indian masses for self introspection.
has once before lost her independence, but she lost it by the infidelity and
treachery of some of our own people. In the invasion of
In the same vein Ambedkar asked “Will
history repeat itself? … that in addition to old enemies in the form of castes
and creeds we are going to have many political parties with diverse and
opposing political creeds. Will Indians place the country above their creed or
will they place creed above country? I do not know. But this much is certain
that if the parties place creed above country, our independence will be put in
jeopardy a second time and probably be lost for ever. This we must all
resolutely guard against. We must be determined to defend our independence with
the last drop of our blood…What would happen to her democratic Constitution?
Will she be able to maintain it or will she lose it again…It is not that India
did not know what Democracy is. There was a time when India
was studded with republics, and even where there were monarchies, they were
either elected or limited. They were not absolute. It is not that India
did not know parliaments or parliamentary Procedure. A study of the Buddhist
Bhiku Sanghas discloses that not only there were Parliaments-for the Sanghas
were nothing Parliaments- but the Sanghas knew and observed all the rules of
Parliamentary Procedures known to modern times…This democratic system India
lost. Will she lose it second time? I do not know, but it is quite possible in
country like India-where
democracy from its long disuse must be regarded as some thing quite new-there
is danger of democracy giving place to dictatorship. It is quite possible for
this new born democracy to retain its form but give place to dictatorship
becoming actually is much grater” (Ambedkar 1994: 1215).
Adherence to Constitutional Means
Further Ambedkar vision for
maintaining democracy included adherence to constitutional means. He argued, “If we wish do maintain democracy
not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do? The first thing…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
satyagrah. 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. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no
justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but
anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us” (Ambedkar 1994:
1215).
Denunciation of Hero worship
Similarly Ambedkar was strictly
against Hero worship as far as the future of nation was concerned. He saw
danger to democracy if people develop habit of hero worship. That is why he
emphasized, that “we must …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” (Ambedkar 1994: 1215). Further
Ambedkar argued that 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. As has been well said by the Irish Patriot Daniel O’Connel, ‘no
man can be grateful at the cost of his honor, no woman can be grateful at the
cost of her chastity and no nation can be grateful at the cost of its
liberty’. This caution is far more
necessary in the case of India
than in the case of any other country, for in India,
Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part
in its 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” (Ambedkar 1215).
Establishment of Social and Economic democracy along with Political
In the event of establishing the
democracy Ambedkar opined that we should stretch our political democracy to
social and economic as well. He argued that “we must… not…be content with mere
political democracy. We must make sure our political democracy a social
democracy as well” (Ambedkar 1994: 1216). Ambedkar went on to define social
democracy as well. In his own words, “What does social democracy mean? It means
a way of life which recognizes liberty, equality and fraternity as the
principles of life. These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are
not to be treated as separate items of trinity” (Ambedkar 1994: 1216 ). Another
significant contribution of Ambedkar in the process of establishment of social
democracy is his explanation of nature of three cardinal principles of
democracy i.e. liberty, quality, and fraternity. He opined, “They form a union
of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat the
very purpose of democracy. Liberty
cannot be divorced from equality, equality cannot be divorced liberty. Nor can
liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity. Without equality liberty
would produce the supremacy of the few over many. Equality without liberty
would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty and equality could
not become a natural course of things…We must begin by acknowledging the fact
that there is complete absence of two things in Indian society. One of these is
equality. On the social plane, we have in India
a society based on the principle of graded inequality which means elevation of
some and degradation of others. On the economic plane, we have s society in
which there are some who have immense wealth as against many who live in abject
poverty” (Ambedkar 1994 : 1216).
Finally he exalted, “On the 26th of January 1950,
we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have
equality and in social economic life we will have inequality. In Politics we
will be recognizing the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value.
In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic
structure, continue to live this life of contradiction? How long shell we
continue to live this life of contradictions? If we continue to deny it for
long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must
remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who
suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy
which…”The second thing we are wanting in is recognition of the principle of
fraternity. What does fraternity mean? Fraternity means a sense of common
brotherhood of Indians-If Indians being one people. It is the principle which
gives unity and solidarity to social life. It is difficult thing to achieve”
(Ambedkar 1994: 1216-17)
Dismantling the monopoly of elites in the realm of political power
Dismantling the monopoly of the
upper strata was also one of the main instrument of building the nation for
Ambedkar. He opined, “ there can be no gainsaying that political power in this
country has too long been the monopoly of a few. This monopoly has not merely
deprived them of their chance of betterment; it has sapped them of what may be
called the significance of life. These down-trodden classes are tired of being
governed. They are impatient to govern themselves. This urge of
self-realization in the down-trodden classes must not be allowed into a class
struggle or class war. It would lead to a division of the House. That would a
day of disaster. For, as has been by Abraham Lincoln, a house divided against
itself cannot stand very long. Therefore the sooner the room is made for the
realization of their aspiration, the better for the few, better for the
country, the better for the maintenance for its structure. This can only be
done by the establishment of equality and fraternity in all sphere of life.
People are fast changing…They are getting tired of government by the people.
They are prepared to have Government for the people…If we wish to preserve the
constitution in which we have sought to enshrine in 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” (Ambedkar 1994:. 1218).
This is necessary because the
upper strata in Indian Society unlike the other society are not willing to give
up there power. Ambedkar sighted example
from French and Japanese society, where upper strata had given their privileges
when their country was passing through the crisis. He argued that in France
the a good part of Nobles and Clergy sat with commons and voted by head giving
up their valuable privileges (Ambedkar 1991: 225 ). Similarly, in Japan
the Japanese society is divided into Damiyos, Samurai, Hemin an Eta standing
one above the other in an order of graded inequality. But when the Japanese
society was transformed between 1855 to 1870 from feudalism to modern the
Damiyos , “ Charged with the sprit of nationalism and anxious not to stand in
the way of national unity came forward to surrender their privileges and to
merge themselves in the common mass of people ” (Ambedkar 1991: 225). But
Ambedkar was very critical of Indian governing Class who were misusing the
slogan of nationalism to maintain their privileges.
Conclusion
It is well known fact that the
so-called upper castes led by Indian National Congress and Mohandas Karamchand
Gandhi were first opposed the separate electorate for the Dalits and their
representation in the cabinet. Secondly the so-called upper castes were also
against the representation of Dalits, Backward Castes and Muslims in the
bureaucracy. Thirdly Congress led by so-called Upper Castes were also opposed
to the inclusion of Muslims in the Constituent Assembly. The so-called upper castes were opposed to
the representation of Dalits, Backward Castes and Muslims in the structures of
powers and in the processes of nation building because of their vested interest
of monopolizing power. But they used a very emotional basis for their
opposition by arguing that it divides the nation on the basis of caste and
religion. Ambedkar tried to expose the mischief of the ruling elite in India
by showing them their face that India
is not a nation. Not only has the paper also showed that how he fought
relentless battle for getting their wrights established. We can also conclude that Ambedkar was aware
of how to build a nation and preserve the democracy. He made people and elites
of the nation aware of the dangers ahead of the country. Then he also suggested
how people can preserve their freedom. He gave a five fold path (akin to
panchsheel) to do the same which included Self Introspection by the Indians, Adherence
to Constitutional means, denunciation of Hero worship, Establishment of Social
and Economic democracy along with Political Democracy and last but not the
least dismantling the monopoly of elites in the realm of political power.
References:
Ambedkar, B., R., On Constitutional Reforms: Evidence
before the Southborough Committee. In Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and
Speeches Volume 1. Education Department,
Government of Maharashtra Mumbai, 1979.
--------------------, 1989, The Indian Ghetto-The Centre of
Untouchability, in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches Vol. 5,
Education Department, Government of Mharashtra, Mumbai.
------------ A
Nation Calling for home: In Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Volume
8. Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai,
1990.
--------- What
Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables? In Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Writings and Speeches Volume 9, Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai, Mumbai.
-------- Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Writings and Speeches Volume 2,
Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai, 1982.
---------, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches Volume 13, Education Department, Government of
Maharashtra, Mumbai, 1994.
---------, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches
Volume 14 (Part One), Education
Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai, 1995.
Patternson, W, 1987, On the
Subnations of Western Europe in N. Glager (eds.), Ethnicity theory and Experience,
Harward University Press, Cambridge.
Vivek Kumar (Assistant Professor)
Center for the Study
of Social Systems, School
Of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal
Nehru University, New delhi-67 This article was forwarded by Mr. M. S. Bahal POSTED ON MAY 22ND, 2007 |
