“Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realise that our people are yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic” (Ambedkar 2004: 484).
This creation of a constitutional morality went into the grand project of making India a democratic nation. Apprehensions were many. Journalists, British ex-officials, and political theorists all believed that India was too diverse to survive and sustain as a nation. According to political scientist Robert Dahl, that India ‘could sustain democratic institutions seems, on the face of it, highly improbable’ and lacked ‘all the favourable conditions.’ ‘India has a well-established reputation for violating social scientific generalisations’, wrote another American scholar but there are enough ‘grounds for scepticism regarding the viability of democracy in India.’[i]
Within this sceptical environment, Ambedkar took up the task of channelling out a democratic path for the emerging nation – India. Ambedkar’s life and writings provide an understanding of the multiple terrains of this challenge. Focusing on some of his crucial writings, this article explores his ideas on democracy and demonstrates their relevance in the current context.
The concept of democracy
Democracy, he writes, is another name for equality. It is not restricted to the political field only but includes social and economic democracy. He contends that the reason for the collapse of parliamentary democracy in Italy, Spain and Germany and survival in England and the USA is the greater degree of social and economic democracy in the latter. Ambedkar’s arguments reflect the authority of erudition and knowledge.
Ambedkar’s emphasis on social and economic democracy was significant for a nation and its leaders, often divided on the issue and sceptical about a deeply unequal society’s political fate. The awareness of the tensions inherent in an undemocratic social reality and the ideal of democracy is evident in the writings, speeches, etc. of the leaders then.
Engaging with the question of problems and failures of parliamentary democracy as a mode of organising a nation he writes, “the discontent against parliamentary democracy is due to the realisation thatit has failed to assure to the masses the right to liberty, property or the pursuit to happiness” (Ambedkar 2004: 62). He explains further that ideologically liberty came to be defined and sanctified only in terms of the individual’s freedom to enter into a contract. This did not factor in unequal conditions and relations that denied this freedom; and the impact of the freedom of contract on the unequally placed members of the contract. In other words, from the perspective of the weak, democracy failed to provide an equal footing to the poor. The conditions of contract were thus missing. The second failure is the inability to realise that political democracy cannot be sustained without social and economic democracies.
Ambedkar also argues that to implement democracy, a democratic form of organisation is required. Thus, there is a distinction between democratic principles or ideas and democratic structures. The success of democracy is dependent on whether it can assure liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness to the masses. This lies in its ability to displace the governing class from its position of power.
He argues that “[T]he existence of a governing class is inconsistent with democracy” (Ambedkar 2004:63). He criticises Western writers and political thinkers for a reductionist view of democracy based on constitutional morality, adult suffrage and frequent elections alone. In fact, he states that given that the monopoly of power and prestige rests with the governing class, adult suffrage and frequent elections are no bar against the governing classes acquiring positions of power and prestige. Herein comes the importance of safeguards and alternate machinery in securing democratic government. Different social structures demand different strategies to attain the ultimate aim of democracy – dislodging the governing class and preventing them from remaining the governing class forever.
Democratic machinery based on Adult Suffrage
Ambedkar’s concepts and ideas about democracy can be seen as a part of his attempt to build an inclusive nation where the old governing class of traditional elites was not in a position to reproduce past caste and community-based hierarchies. Therefore, in his advocacy of adult suffrage, he raised the concern about the fate of the ‘untouchables’ or Dalits in an elected polity. Ambedkar was aware that the peasants and Depressed castes were both mostly illiterate and non-propertied.
Sensitive to the polarisation in the system of separate electorates, Ambedkar thought that “territorial electorates and separate electorates are the two extremes which must be avoided in any scheme of representation that may be devised for the introduction of a democratic form of government in this most undemocratic country” (Ambedkar 2004: 91). He favoured a joint electorate with reserved seats as he saw it to be more representative wherein all voters within a given territory would vote for candidates from a particular community and less antagonistic as it would mean that support would come from other communities as well. As far as his demand for separate electorate was concerned, he had made it clear that a separate electorate would be demanded if the Commission decided to go ahead with restricted instead of adult franchise. Even at the First Round Table Conference, it was because of the complete impossibility of the introduction of adult franchise, the Congress’ and Gandhi’s attitude towards the ‘untouchables’, made Ambedkar change his stance in favour of a separate electorate only to negotiate with Gandhi in favour of a joint electorate with reservations for the Depressed Classes in the Poona Pact in 1932. [iii]
Dr Ambedkar was quick in adopting alternative paths to reform depending on the specific context. A separate electorate, he argued with reference to the demand of Muslims for a communal electorate, would lead to further polarisation of the majority and minority communities. His position favouring a joint electorate with reservations can be better understood if we engage with his ideas on adult franchise. Adult suffrage, for him, was a matter of political justice and expedience.[iv] In terms of political justice, it enabled the marginalised to bring their concerns and voices into the legislative process, which might otherwise go unaddressed. He saw it as crucial in breaking the monopoly of the ruling class in education and power. He was clear that a Parliament with a restricted electorate would favour the ruling elite, forming an oligarchy instead of a democracy.
Class issues were as central in Ambedkar’s writings as caste. Thus, he rejected the notion of granting voting rights to propertied classes for such a system he had argued, would keep on reproducing hierarchies in society. Adult franchise, in his opinion, was one way in enabling change in society. He saw adult franchise as an alternative to communal electorate.
Constitutional Morality, Nationality and Nationalism
Deliberating in the Constituent Assembly, Ambedkar had responded to the scepticism regarding the fate of nations lacking a constitutional morality. According to him, the establishment of a constitutional morality was crucial because this meant that the fundamentals or basics upon which the Indian society was to be structured were not the traditional ascriptive identities of caste, class and gender. It was instead a part of creating a new identity; a new set of morals; a re-structuring of relations. It meant re-organising the principles or fundamentals on which the Indian society would rest. This structure aimed to break away from the past hierarchies and adopt Constitutional principles of liberty and equality and fraternity.
He was wary of the idea of traditional villages as models of democracy. He argued, “That they have survived through all the vicissitudes may be a fact. But mere survival has no value. The question is on what plane have they survived. Surely on a low, on a selfish level. I hold that these village republics have been the ruination of India… What is the village but a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism? I am glad that the Draft commission has discarded the village and adopted the individual as the unit” (Ambedkar 2004: 486).
Ambedkar saw the village as the centre of discrimination based on caste, class and gender. Thus, Villages posed an impediment to equality, liberty, fraternity – the essential values of democracy. The traditional Indian village was incompatible with the three principles of democracy – liberty, fraternity and equality. It was hierarchical in structure; reproduced inequalities; and discriminated against people based on caste, class and gender, thereby annihilating the possibility of a fraternity.
Aspects of social life that were earlier determined by custom and religion such as law, justice, education, marriage, inheritance, etc. had to be now dealt within the framework of the drafted constitution. Ambedkar’s struggle to annihilate caste can be seen in his advocacy of a Central law instead of multiple laws catering to groups and sub-groups within the Hindu fold; similarly, the creation of a single, integrated judiciary to ensure equality of every individual before the law.
Safeguarding rights of minorities and the marginalised was crucial in terms of the success or failure of this project. However, to assume that he was against the concerns of the majority is erroneous. He had argued for fraternal relationships between all sections in an inclusive framework. Ambedkar was not an advocate for a separate nation for minorities. The country had already experienced the horror of separatist politics resulting in the creation of India and Pakistan.
In his characteristic rationalistic line of argumentation on the merit of the Muslim League’s call for a separate nation for the Muslims, he stated that although the claim was valid, it was not the only solution. Differentiating between nationalism as a sentiment for the creation of a separate national entity and nationality as the awareness of a separate identity, Ambedkar argued that it was possible to have a nationality without nationalism. [v] Ambedkar perhaps found this true for the Dalits in India as he highlighted in his speech, “One is that minorities are an explosive force which, if erupts, can blow up the whole fabric of the State… The other is that the minorities in India have agreed to place their existence in the majority… It is for the majority to realise its duty not to discriminate against minorities” (Ambedkar 2004: 487).
Conclusion
Ambedkar’s writings are more relevant today than ever before as both nationalism and democracy are being reinterpreted as majoritarianism and populism. His effort in conceptualising and implementing truly democratic principles aimed at creating an inclusive national identity through a healthy and co-operative process. The emphasis was on sharing power in the new structural organisation and breaking the monopoly of power by preventing its concentration and reproduction through a governing class. The majority community is very much a part of the democratic nation as are the minority communities, including the Dalits and women.
Notes and references:
[i] Guha, Ramachandra. India After Gandhi: The History of the World’s Largest Democracy. Pan Macmillan. New Delhi. 2008.
[ii] Chakravarty, Sumit. Nehru’s Struggle for Secularism, http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article5699.html, accessed on 10.04.2016 at 11:10 am.
[iii] Ambedkar, B.R. The Essential Writings of B.R. Ambedkar, ed. Valerian Rodrigues. Oxford University Press. India. 2004. 6-17.
[iv] Ambedkar, B. R. The Essential Writings of B.R. Ambedkar, ed. Valerian Rodrigues. Oxford University Press. India. 2004. 66-67.
[v] Ambedkar, B.R. The Essential Writings of B.R. Ambedkar, ed. Valerian Rodrigues. Oxford University Press. India. 2004. 459-469.
***
Pallavi Ghosh has completed her M.A. in Sociology from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). She has previously worked with Down To Earth’s supplement Gobar Times, the Economic Times and Business Standard.