Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s Philosophy of Constitutionalism as an Instrument of Justice: Social,Economic and Political

Introduction

The formative years of Dr B.R. Ambedkar, popularly known as Babasaheb, are significant for these offer an indication about the future development of his persona, his journey of mind and his indomitable spirit. The story of his life is indeed instructive. Babasaheb was an exceptional child who went on to shape his own life and also of his fellow beings.

Life and Times

Charles Dickens (1812–1870), the famous novelist and social critic, through his fictional character Pip in his book, Great Expectations, reveals the all-pervasive character of injustice. Pip says ‘there is nothing so finely perceived and finely felt as injustice’ (Dickens, 2008; also quoted in Sen, 2009, p. vii). The untouchables in India faced injustice very deeply and at every stage of their life. They found it very disturbing as it made them feel and experience that they were subordinates not only in status but also in opportunities. It goes to the genius of Babasaheb that he fought it bravely as a political leader and reflected upon it in more than 20 books that he wrote—a testimony to his analytical mind and strong commitment to transform society and politics.

As is well known, Babasaheb was born in a poor Mahar untouchable caste family on 14 April 1891 to Ramji Maloji Sakpal and Bhimabai. Babasaheb’s father Sakpal was then serving in the Indian Army at the Mhow cantonment. He was a follower of Kabir. He insisted that his children read something every day which elevated them. Accordingly, Ambedkar and his elder brother were required to read aloud every evening some portion of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata before going to bed. Sakpal was also deeply convinced that modern education is the sole instrument of advancement available to the youth and he put young Babasaheb in a School in Satara where his Brahmin teacher changed his name from ‘Ámbavadekar’ to ‘Ambedkar’.

Babasaheb’s sharpness of mind came to be soon noticed. Thanks to the munificence of the then Maharaja of Baroda, he was educated in Bombay now Mumbai, where he obtained his B.A. in 1912. Impressed by the promise shown by the young Ambedkar, the Maharaja of Baroda sent him for higher studies to the United States. He joined Columbia University in New York where he did his Masters and wrote a thesis titled ‘Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis, and Development’ in 1916. He was a voracious reader. His worldview was largely shaped in the democratic environment of New York and the precincts of Columbia University. It is said that he spent his meagre savings on the purchase of second-hand books and that he collected more than 2,000 books during his stay in the United States.

Babasaheb’s sense of loyalty brought him back to Baroda where he served the Maharaja initially as his Military Secretary. Shortly thereafter, the Maharaja of Kolhapur took interest in him and helped him to go to London to study Law. On his return, Ambedkar enrolled himself at the Bombay High Court and soon he developed a good legal practice.

Babasaheb was born at a time when two movements, one political and the other social and literary, were taking place. The establishment of the Indian National Congress in 1885 was a landmark political event that heralded anti-colonial struggle against the British rule in India. There was also a literary and social movement. This movement had begun in Bengal in the early 19th century which advocated and worked for literacy for all, removal of untouchability, and welfare of women of all sections of society. Alongside, Babasaheb continued to take a deep interest in the cause of the dalits and politics. In 1927, he was nominated to the Bombay Legislative Council. In 1936, Babasaheb founded the Independent Labour Party. He also published his book, The Annihilation of Caste, during that time.

During his stay at Bombay, Babasaheb’s talent came to the notice of the British rulers. He was appointed as Member of Viceroy’s Council, a position that he held during 1942–1946. The dawn of freedom was on the horizon, and the Constituent Assembly was set up to draw the Constitution of India. The first Government of Independent India under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru invited Babasaheb to be the first Law Minister of India, which he accepted and was sworn in on 15 August 1947. On 29 August 1947, he was appointed Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee. This was a recognition of his political stature and quality of his mind.

It is worth mentioning that Mahatma Gandhi played a significant role as he wanted that the cabinet should be broad-based. As Ramachandra Guha writes:

It is said that when the British left these shores, Gandhi told his colleagues that ‘freedom has come to India, not to the Congress party’. This statement was immediately acted upon by his two chief lieutenants, Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel. Patel played a key role in peopling the Constituent Assembly with legal experts who had no previous party or political affiliation. On his part, Nehru inducted into the Union Cabinet politicians who had vigorously opposed the Congress in the past (and were to do so again in the future). They included B.R. Ambedkar of the Scheduled Caste Federation, R.K. Shanmukham Chetty of the Justice Party, and Syama Prasad Mukherjee of the Hindu Mahasabha. In this ecumenism, the Congress was being faithful to the spirit of its founders… (Guha, 2010)

It is being increasingly and universally recognised that Babasaheb served the country admirably in the discharge of his duties in the government and the Constituent Assembly. The Constitution of India—a great social and political document—is the finest expression of Babasaheb’s and his colleagues’, understanding of India as much as of their wisdom.

Babasaheb attached great importance to social equality in building a modern India. In his quest for equality, he went ahead to embrace Buddhism—an indigenous religion—in preference to Christianity or Islam. On 14 October 1956, he and his wife were formally converted to Buddhism at Nagpur. Later, he converted half a million of his followers who had gathered around him to Buddhism. Earlier, in 1955, he had founded the Buddhist Society of India. He wrote his last book, The Buddha and his Dhamma, and gave its copyright to the Buddhist Society. On 6 December 1956, this great son of India breathed his last in sleep at his home in Delhi.

Why Do We Celebrate Dr B.R. Ambedkar?

Do we celebrate his life and deeds because he was a jurist and the chief architect of the Indian Constitution; a political leader who espoused the cause of the oppressed and downtrodden; an original thinker and philosopher who wrote extensively on history and politics, economics and polity management; and an institution builder, able editor and teacher? The answer is in the affirmative. But it is much more than that, particularly in the context of the overwhelming challenge of reduction of social and economic inequality that India and several countries face. The uniqueness of Babasaheb’s contribution to political thought and the nature of his leadership need to be appreciated in the context of the following two perspectives: first, Babasaheb understood and eloquently expressed the inherent nature of the conflict between unequal society and ideals of equality. It may be that several other dalits and tribals went through the pain of this inequality more deeply than even Babasaheb, but none articulated it in a manner that he did. Second, the pain of inequity that found expression during the period of epic freedom struggle could have forced a person to adopt a violent path but Babasaheb chose and advocated Constitutionalism and democracy as principal instruments for emancipation from this pain, suffering and injustice. In my view, these two reasons make Babasaheb a special person who deserves a revisit by students and scholars, civil servants and public leaders to his life and thoughts.

In Babasaheb’s reflective spirit and, as it has been over 70 years of our Republic, let us seek new interpretations of Ambedkar’s philosophy of Constitutionalism to meet the challenges of today.

Constitutionalism

Constitutionalism is closely connected with liberalism. The rule of law is central to the idea of Constitutionalism. It aspires to create a social and political order that seeks to provide justice to all sections of society. The state system is particularly required to work for the promotion of justice.

The development of thought processes regarding Constitutionalism in India needs to be appreciated in the context of transformation in religion and politics that were set afoot since the 19th century. In many ways, Raja Rammohan Roy (1772–1830) was the founder of the philosophy of Indian Constitutionalism as he advocated the right of women to education, the abolition of the pernicious system of sati, and liberal transformation in society. Swami Vivekananda (1863–1902) redefined religion as the service of the poor and set up the Ramakrishna Mission in 1897 to work for the provision of education and health care in remote areas. In the realm of politics, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, Syed Ahmad Khan, Maulana Abu Kalam Azad and B.R. Ambedkar were prominent leaders who sought several reforms in the social order and ceaselessly worked towards it. Ambedkar famously observed: ‘I measure the progress of a community by the degree of progress which women have achieved’. ²

It may be recalled that India is an ancient land and has a rich culture and strong traditions. Indian society threw up a unique pattern of social development, along with the formation of states in small geographical units in different parts of India. A four-fold division of social classes known as varnas was one of its distinct features. People were divided up into Brahmins, the priestly class; Kshatriyas, class of warriors; Vaishyas, class of merchants; and Shudras, the working class. The Vedic sages and seers made it a social code and called it ‘varnashrama dharma’.

A second critical social development in India was the emergence of jaatis, or what came to be known as castes. Jaatis are segmentary endogamous occupational groups, essentially subdivisions of the four basic varnas. Almost everyone belongs to some jaati, from priests of different types to traders and farmers.

The varna and the jaati system formed the bedrock of Indian society and severely limited the power of the State to penetrate and control it. This enduring character of the Indian social structures gives India’s democracy a certain degree of stability, but at the same time poses formidable challenges for the creation of an equal society—a tenet of the Indian constitutional system.

The debates of Constituent Assembly (1946–1949) reveal the concerns and wisdom of 389 eminent people drawn from different parts of India for democracy, constitutionalism and social revolution as they were entrusted with the responsibility of framing the Constitution for India with Dr B.R. Ambedkar, as the Chairman of the Drafting Committee and Dr Rajendra Prasad as the President of the Constituent Assembly. The task was closely linked with the challenge of bringing to an end the oppressive social system, according the dignity of life to every person and formulating a document that would usher India into the modern era. The challenge had three interrelated facets: First, consolidation of national unity was a matter of great importance and urgency. The second area was how to reform the social system which had several undignified practices that had persisted for centuries sanctioned by scriptures as well as rituals alongside the removal of widespread poverty and illiteracy. Third, the members were also concerned with India’s standing in the world as a nation state.

The Constituent Assembly debates show that the Hon’ble members were deeply influenced not only by the Government of India Act 1935 and the British Parliamentary system but also by the American War of Independence and the Constitutionalism that followed it, along with the French and Russian revolutions.

Democracy, Constitutionalism and Constitutional Morality

All those who aspire to rule or govern with the consent of the people recognise democracy as the principal guarantor of political legitimacy. Democracy is desirable because it nurtures development and is mindful of justice. Democracy alone provides a credible covenant for an egalitarian and inclusive social order.

In all democratic countries, sovereignty lies with the people. However, the concept of Constitutionalism demands that elected representatives and government officials act in terms of the limitations on power and the procedures which are set out in the Constitution. This is called constitutional morality. Invoking the Greek historian and philosopher Grote, Ambedkar observed in the Constituent Assembly and I quote:

By constitutional morality Grote meant ‘a paramount reverence for the forms of the Constitution, enforcing obedience to authority acting under and within these forms yet combined with the habit of open speech, of action subject only to definite legal control and unrestrained censure of those very authorities as to all their public acts, combined too with a perfect confidence in the bosom of every citizen amidst the bitterness of party contest that the forks of the Constitution will not be less sacred in the eyes of his opponents than in his own. (Ambedkar, 1948)

In India, a nascent democratic nation state and a highly diverse country, the need was to demonstrate that unity could be built by respecting its differences in terms of religion, language and ethnicity, and that democracy itself would become a uniting factor. This was well recognised. This democracy popularly referred to as Lok Shahi (public rule) would empower all Indians and help build ‘the noble mansion of free India where all her children may dwell’. The minorities, particularly the Muslims, would have full dignity and all rights for Indian democracy would have to be secular.

It may be mentioned that there was no unanimity over the type of Constitution India should have either within the Constituent Assembly or outside. The communists wanted a kind of ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ that prevailed in the Soviet Union. The socialists aspired for the acquisition of land in the public interest without payment of compensation to zamindars and landlords and free distribution of acquired land to the landless and the poor. Even after the Constitution was adopted, there was agitation in some parts of the country against it, calling it a ‘capitalist’ document. Some communist organisations advocated a violent path to overthrow the State to attain their objective of the rule of the proletariat.

It is true that Indian society had long neglected the tribal people and was indeed oppressive towards the dalits. B.R. Ambedkar realised that the members of his community could not secure justice in a society where untouchability and inequality had been institutionalised purportedly based on Hindu scriptures. Babasaheb, like other dalit leaders before him, encouraged religious conversion for securing social justice and equality. He led a large band of followers to embrace Buddhism to escape social and religious tyranny. It must be said of the greatness of Ambedkar that he abhorred the path of violent revolution like some of his communist contemporaries. Ambedkar went on to assert that the battle of the dalits for social and civic rights could not wait for a revolution to take place at a future date in history. It had to begin at once. As a means of achieving those rights, he prescribed Constitutionalism.

Justice, Democracy and Social Revolution

Justice is rightly viewed as fairness and equity. This can be secured only by just laws and just institutions. Only just laws and just institutions can secure people to behave in conformity with laws. B.R. Ambedkar viewed justice in a broader perspective in the context of Indian democracy and related it to society, polity and economy. He talked of social justice, political justice and economic justice. He also highlighted the need for constitutional morality.

Constitutional morality is of enormous value for both the formulation of just laws and their interpretation by the courts and for implementation by the executive. This would also induce people to demand the proper functioning of institutions of governance. Ambedkar rightly reflected: ‘Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realize that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic’ (Ambedkar, 1948).

Democracy is ‘government by discussion’, but it must also be seen more generally in terms of the capacity to enrich reasoned engagement through the availability of information and the feasibility of interactive discussions. Democracy has to be judged not just by the institutions that formally exist but by the extent to which different voices from diverse sections of the people are heard and entertained.

When we try to determine how justice can be advanced, there is a basic need for public reasoning, involving arguments coming from different quarters and divergent perspectives. An engagement with contrary arguments is a sine qua non of public reasoning.

On 19 November 1863, President Abraham Lincoln had declared in his famous Gettysburg Address: ‘We here highly resolve that … government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the Earth’. ³ What does it mean? In the Indian context, it is quite clear that elections through which people send their representatives to panchayats, state legislatures and Parliament, secure an adequate government by the people. How do we achieve the government of the people and for the people? The government of the people is secured as Indians through due processes fill up positions not only in legislatures but also in the judiciary, in permanent civil services, police and the armed forces. Besides executives in public sector undertakings and private enterprises and other social organisations are all Indian citizens. But the crucial question is the government for the people. And it is here that the objectives of the Constitution, the purposes of democracy and their relevance become vital especially in a country such as ours, with social and economic inequities and scarce resources. The government for the people has various connotations. B.R. Ambedkar understood all this when he said in the Constituent Assembly:

The Constitution can provide only the organs of State such as the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The factors on which the working of those organs of the State depend are the people and the political parties they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes and their politics. Who can say how the people of India and their parties will behave? Will they uphold constitutional methods of achieving their purposes or will they prefer revolutionary methods of achieving them. (Ambedkar, 1948)

In another context, Ambedkar highlighted, ‘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’ (Ambedkar, 1948).

The Constitution of India gave the right to vote to every citizen and went on to prohibit the State from ‘discriminating against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them’ (Article 15). Article 17 declared that ‘untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of “untouchability” shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law’. But several challenges remained both in society and the economy. For tackling these, directions were enshrined in the Constitution. Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution under Directive Principles of State Policy go on to make social revolution objective explicit.

Article 38 stipulates that ‘State to secure a social order for the promotion of the welfare of the people –

The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life.

Article 39 enumerates certain principles of policy to be followed by the State:

that the citizens, men, and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood;

These two articles have the objective of securing social justice in India. The situation in India at the time of the commencement of democracy was one of social inequality. This point was well made by B.R. Ambedkar in the following words:

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 and economic life we will have inequality. In politics, we will be recognizing the principle of one man one vote, and one vote one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? 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 this Assembly has so laboriously built up. (Ambedkar, 2008)

It is pertinent to look at the realities on the ground in two areas: land reforms and affirmative action.

Looking Ahead

The Constitution of India is a landmark document given to India under the title ‘We the People of India’ and put into operation on 26 January 1950, a day appropriately called Republic Day. The Constitution embodies the movement of profound transformation in India’s ageless history. As Jawaharlal Nehru put it, ‘When the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance’. It sought to create a new India.

The Constitution matters to each citizen as well because it provides structures of governance as well as shaping the direction of our politics and political parties. Of course, it gives us justiciable fundamental rights. Most of the time the political interests are ‘short-term’, and they become shorter particularly at the time of impending elections where freebies dominate the thought processes of political parties in power. Sometimes the political interest is of longer-term. In all these, the Prime Minister of the country and Chief Ministers of States are crucial players.

We are painfully aware that the Constitution and the Supreme Court, did not prevent India from the dark days of the emergency during 1975–1977. It was public conscience that threw out the political regime that had promulgated the emergency. Thomas Jefferson has caught this phenomenon beautifully when he writes: ‘And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?’ (quoted in Singh, 2017, p. 188). The task of arousing ‘public conscience’ was accomplished by Jayaprakash Narayan, a freedom fighter, democrat and social thinker, and the youth of the country acting in concert under his leadership.

It is heartening therefore to note that the behaviour of successive governments over Ram Janmabhoomi land in respect of the Supreme Court’s orders symbolises our political culture’s commitment to the very idea of the primacy of the Supreme Court’s adjudication. At the same time, it is also true that in the formulation of most important policies, the Supreme Court would have almost nothing to say about them as they fall within the purview of the legislative and executive organs of the state.

It is time for national leaders in politics, in academia, in the media, in the market to ponder over the unfulfilled agenda for the promotion of B.R. Ambedkar’s vision of promotion of justice, social, economic and political. Social and economic inequality is a matter of basic concern and significant consequence for the nation. Human miseries that could be elevated, inequities that continue at times even cascade into disasters. This is more distressing given the innovations in technology enhancing our capacities to move faster to fulfil constitutional duties.

Politicians rather than the people they serve are the ones who achieve justice. Let people be given access to justice, social, economic and political in full measure.

In every democracy, good governance does not happen automatically. It has to be demanded by citizens and delivered by the State system. Babasaheb knew this and thought ahead of his times and came forward with fresh ideas. Several of his ideas were adopted. The Reserve Bank of India set up in 1934 has an imprint of ideas presented by Babasaheb in a paper presented before the Hilton Young Commission. Similarly, provisions for the Finance Commission in the Constitution; setting up employment exchanges in the country; and several other measures such as education to girl child, Hindu Code Bill bear the stamp of his thinking.

Public goods and the delivery of quality services are at the heart of a successful democracy. Towards this, the common people must put pressure on the political class and the executive. For the sustenance of a democratic system, it is essential to have an alert citizenry. The citizens must be mentally prepared to engage with issues and even join nonviolent protest movements if necessary, to keep democratic institutions functioning in terms of the grammar of democratic governance. It is important to have multiple articulate voices of citizens, media and non-governmental organisations. The key institutions of democracy—the courts, the media, the Election Commission, the audit organisation and the Public Service Commission—need to remain independent. Civil servants must have the freedom to work for securing the public good. Every citizen must accept that various communities living in India are allowed to follow their religion, speak their language, and celebrate their festivals.

One feels grateful to the founding fathers of the Republic for having provided ‘one person, one vote, one value’. This political equality has given all sections of society fair representation in the Lok Sabha, the State Legislatures, and Panchayats and the power to elect persons of their choice. People must elect able and compassionate persons to public office who formulate policies and programmes for the good of the people with clarity to meet future challenges of enforcement of rule of law, environment and climate change, geopolitics, economic development and livelihood.

A ‘billion mutinies and a billion negotiations’ take place almost daily in India, a diverse and multi-layered country. This phenomenon helps ensure attention to the needs of the poor. There is, however, a requirement to expand exponentially the frequency and reach of these “negotiations” to cover the entire population. It is hoped that tomorrow’s India will be a country free of the scourges of hunger, illiteracy and poverty. In this backdrop, the issue of inclusion becomes extremely important. The marginalised sections of society must have a voice in decision-making.

Conclusion

Let me conclude with Babasaheb’s spiritual quest and political philosophy and their linkages. B.R. Ambedkar was a unique personality of 20th century India. Besides being the principal writer of the Constitution, he was a social revolutionary, author, original thinker, institution builder and more. In the highest traditions of our culture, the spiritual quest is very significant. After he retired from public office in 1951, he devoted the remaining years of his life to studying the life and teachings of Lord Buddha. His last book The Buddha and His Dhamma, published after his death in 1957, is a monumental work. R.R. Bhole, Chairman, People’s Education Society, in the ‘Foreword’ to this book, hails it ‘as the culmination of his labours on this earth’ (Bhole, 1957).

Babasaheb reflected on one occasion that goes on to give us a glimpse of the linkage of his political philosophy with his spiritual quest. He wrote:

My social philosophy may be said to be enshrined in three words: liberty, equality, and fraternity. Let no one, however, say that I have borrowed my philosophy from the French revolution. I have not. My philosophy has roots in religion and not in political science. I have derived them from the teachings of my Master, the Buddha. (Sirswal, 2011)

Babasaheb inspired millions of Indians and continues to do so. All of us are, indeed, indebted to him for giving us a forward-looking Constitution, a document that has kept us moving on the democratic path firmly all these years and holds great promise for our future well-being as well.

Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar was indeed a multi-faceted genius. He successfully combined several roles. It was T.S. Eliot (1964), the famous poet, who wrote: ‘To do the useful thing; to say the courageous thing; to contemplate the beautiful thing: that is enough for one man’s life’. Babasaheb accomplished all these and more.

I am reminded of the character of Karna in the epic Mahabharata—a book that Ambedkar recited every evening as a child at the insistence of Sakpal, his father. In Rashmirathi, Ramdhari Singh Dinkar has put it appropriately about Karna which in my view equally applies to Ambedkar. He writes:

विक्रमी पुरुष लेकिन, सिर पर

चलता ना छत्र पुरखों का धर,

अपना बल तेज जगाता है,

सम्मान जगत से पाता है।

सब उसे देख ललचाते हैं,

घर विविध यत्न अपनाते हैं।

(Dinkar, 1967, p. 40)