#babasaheb

WAS

GAUTAM

BUDDHA

TRULY ENLIG

HTENED?

EXPLORE THE SIGNIFICANT

OVERSIGHT OF DR, BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR

IN PART 2 OF OUR SERIES ON THE

My final words of advice to you are “educate, agitate and organize;” have faith in yourself.

With justice on our side I do not see how we can lose our battle.

The battle to me is a matter of joy. The battle is in the fullest sense spiritual. There is nothing material or social in it. For ours is a battle not for wealth or for power. It is a battle for freedom. It is a battle for the reclamation of the human personality.

“...it is quite possible in a country like India – where democracy from its long disuse must be regarded as something quite new – there is danger of democracy giving place to dictatorship. It is quite possible for this newborn democracy to retain its form but give place to dictatorship in fact.” These lines are excerpted from Dr Ambedkar’s famous speech “The Grammar of Anarchy”, delivered on November 25th 1949, the eve of the adoption of the Indian Constitution. In this address, Babasaheb defined the difference between a real democracy and a facile one and laid down certain principles that he expected the future generations to adhere to, if they wished for the Indian constitutional democracy to coincide in form and in fact.

It was indeed amid much pomp and publicity that in 2015, the 125th birth anniversary of Dr Ambedkar, the current government decided to attest the tag of National Constitution Day to November 26th. It was just one of the many ways in which governments, over the years, have tried to appropriate the idea of Ambedkar for their vested interests without giving any thought to his ideals. Seen in this context, it becomes important to analyse whether today’s democratic India has lived up to the expectations of the architect of its constitution.

The first principle that Ambedkar mentioned in his speech was that in a real democracy, progress should be brought about only through constitutional methods. He sought an end to methods of Non-Cooperation and Civil Disobedience which, unless restricted, could paralyze development and saw protests as a symbol of facile democracies. Today’s India is far from realising that goal. We are a country that protests at the drop of a hat. However, more often than not, these protests, far from stifling development, have been used to coerce those in power to take the right step. Be it the 2011 anti-corruption dharnas pushing for passage of appropriate legislations or the CAA-NRC protests or the more recent anti-farm law sit-ins appealing for retraction of unpopular legislations, agitations against the ruling dispensations have been the guiding light of our democracy, seeking adherence to the constitution. So does this mean Ambedkar was wrong in his assessment of protests? No. In his speech, Babasaheb, while advocating for an end to unconstitutional protests, specifically spelled out that when there is no possibility of achieving change through constitutional means, resorting to unconstitutional methods was the only way forward. When constitutionally elected governments show apathy towards the needs or worse, go against the wishes of the very people who put them in power and constitutionally established courts and politically established opposition also leave people in the lurch, the only recourse left for the people is to mobilise and swerve those in power in the right direction. Thus, the very fact that today mass mobilisations and protests are needed to exhort governments to do what they’re elected to do, points towards the disuse and misuse of constitutional machinery.

His second prescription of eschewing the deification of leaders, is perhaps also the most pertinent advice in contemporary times. Today we have downgraded ourselves into a nation of hero-worshipping fanatics, divinizing our political leaders to the point where we fail to accept that they can ever err and ignore them when they actually do so. Living in times when being anti-Modi is routinely equated to being anti-India, Babasaheb’s warning that in politics Bhakti is a sure road to eventual dictatorship rings truer than ever.

Finally, Ambedkar in his speech, recommends us to evolve into a social democracy i.e., we mustn’t be content with the mere political sanction of liberty, equality and fraternity, but should strive to make these ideals, a way of life. Acknowledging the chasm between ‘constitutional guarantees’ and ‘social realities’, Babasaheb had famously remarked that India would, on January 26th 1950, enter into a life of contradictions where political equality would stand in contrast with socioeconomic inequalities. In calling for a social democracy, it was this gap that he sought to bridge. However, it is the sad reality of our times that, even in this aspect we have failed him. 70 more 26th Januarys have passed since that observation was made and still, we find ourselves stuck in the same quagmire. Obdurate lines of caste, class and religious inequalities have been redrawn by politically motivated leaders who find benefit in refusing to let these lines fade; Sectarian affiliations continue to override national unity, crumpling up the ideal of fraternity. And liberty, attacked by both state and non-state actors, has become a mere chimaera.

Man is mortal. Everyone has to die some day or the other. But one must resolve to lay down one’s life in enriching the noble ideals of self-respect and in bettering one’s human life. We are not slaves. Nothing is more disgraceful for a brave man than to live life devoid of self-respect.