2021 മാർച്ച് 27, ശനിയാഴ്‌ച

Dr.. B.R. Ambedkar & Social Justice

The life of Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (14 April 1891 - 6 December 1956) is a saga of his rise from dust to glory and from the lowest social hierarchical order to the position of the ‘architect of Indian Constitution’ for which the University of Columbia conferred on him the degree of LL.D (honoris causa) in 1952. It also provides insight into his long and often bitter struggle for breaking the tyranny of caste in Hindu society and raising the position of the down-trodden.

Dr. Ambedkar’s vision of Social Justice emanates from his quest for a ‘Just Society’, which is based on the idea of a casteless society. It was his constant search for a just social order, incredible hard work and unflinching belief in self help and self dependence that look him to the infallible heights where he had to be acknowledged and recognized by one and all as the crusader against the social evils, the liberator of the down trodden and also the architect of the Indian Constitution.The Indian society of Dr. Ambedkar’s time denied equality by granting special privileges to Brahmins and other higher castes and denying the shudras the right to own property and to educate and protect them. They did not have liberty to read, write, worship and also to pursue a vocation and own property. In the absence of freedom and equality, the social system encouraged confinement and compartmentalization. As a result, there was complete absence of fraternity besides equality and liberty - the trinity which constitute social justice in the views of Dr. Ambedkar. He firmly believed that justice couldn’t be conceived in absence of any of the three.

In this special commemorative volume of ‘World Focus’ on Dr. B. R. Ambedkar & Social Justice: National and Global Perspective, an effort has been made to explore Dr. Ambedkar’s ideas for bringing out the essence of his visionary conceptualization of social justice and their relevance in contemporary national and global scenario through an analysis of his various theoretical propositions, which are dispersed in his writings on caste system, Hindu social order, equality, liberty, fraternity, human rights, social democracy, law, religion, the State and the minorities. The aim is to locate these ideas on a systematic terrain as well as to critically assess them in the contemporary context.

Recalling Dr. Ambdekar’s struggle for Social Justice, both in pre-Independent India, and in the Constituent Assembly and more importantly to ponder over its continued relevance today is always a rewarding and satisfying exercise. A modest effort has been made here to put together the immensely relevant yet highly comprehensive views of Dr. Ambedkar as brought out by the contributors to this volume so as to construct his vision of social justice in the contemporary national and global perspective.

Prof. Sushma Yadav
IIPA
Guest Editor

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar & Social Justice

SOCIAL JUSTICE: AMBEDKAR’S VISION

SUSHMA YADAV AND NIDHI YADAV

Indian society and politics had always been caste ridden. In the past, there existed no such area of governance where caste as political, social, economic, educational and cultural factor was not present. Even today after more than fifty years of introduction of Republican Constitution, the caste factor is dominant in every sphere of life of the people of this country. Before the commencement of Ambedkar era, there were the untouchable Hindus in India, who due to Hindu social system, had, remained socially graded, economically impoverished, politically suppressed, religiously ostracized and indefinitely excluded from educational and cultural opportunities. They were condemned to the lot of serfs and deprived of all human rights.

AMBEDKAR! THOU SHOULD'ST BE LIVING AT THIS HOUR

K. Biswas, IAS (Retd.)

The arduous but indefatigable struggle of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar for social justice has essentially two objectives: dignity and emancipation of the untouchables, who though are euphemistically called dalit these days. They stand discriminated, despised and degraded in every sphere of life, social, economic, political, spiritual, cultural and emotional. He wanted to vest those millions of deprived with dignity, which was possible only if they were liberated from Hindu subjugation, a gift of caste system. But his agenda has been tampered with and and platform invaded. Those who claim to be followers of his ideals have not lived up to his expectation. In whichever walks of life they are they have not been sincere with commitment to his ideology. They have failed carry the caravan ahead. The dalits, who have made mark in any sphere of life should have devoted themselves to uplift those who have fallen behind as co-travellers in the onward march.

INDIAN CONSTITUTION AND THE RIGHT TO SOCIAL JUSTICE

Kush Kalra & Priyanka Barupal

Social Justice is the recognition or greater good to a larger number without deprivation or accrual of legal rights. If such a thing can be done, then social justice must prevail over any technical rule. The concept of social justice is central and integral to the Constitution and it is assumed to be to be a basic structure of the constitution which cannot be whittled down, altered or done away with in view of the Doctrine of Basic Structure propounded in Kesavananda Bharati case. The concept whether Social Justice is and should be a basic feature provoke and excite lawyers, judges and jurists at both ends of the spectrum into a hot debate.

AMBEDKAR’S THOUGHT ON SOCIAL JUSTICE AND ITS RELEVANCE IN THE PRESENT CONTEXT IN INDIA

Prof. A. P. Pandey

Dr. Ambedkar, an Indian Jurist, political leader, philosopher, thinker, anthropologist, historian, orator, prolific writer, economist, scholar, editor revolutionary and a revivalist for Buddhism in India is portrayed as a leader of the 'dalit' community and nothing else. Partly it is the fault of the Indian Political leadership in the post in dependent era. India has been implementing social justice programmes through its reservation policy which is in reality a problematic one from its very inception. All human beings are equal by birth but few people constructed caste system based on occupations which contributed to the evil practice of untouchability.

DR. AMBEDKAR’S VIEW ON SOCIAL JUSTICE AND CHALLENGES BEFORE IT

Raghunath Prasad Saket

Dr. Ambedkar was the champion of social justice in India. In his opinion the cause of injustice in Indian society is caste and caste is created/ followed by the support of Hindu religion. In India Scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, other backward castes and religious minorities face denial of their basic human rights at the hand of upper castes Hindus. Dr. Ambedkar thought that all types of oppression, denial, exploitation and injustices can be removed by the state. In this regard he made many provisions in constitution of India for SC/ST/OBC/Religious minorities, women and children and State has been given duty and responsibility of protecting, promoting and safeguarding the interest of weaker sections of society.

MAKING OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: AMBEDKAR’S VISION AND REASON

Dr Anil Kumar Mohapatra

‘Constitution of India’ and ‘Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar’ –the two terms are regarded as synonymous. One reminds an Indian of the other and vice versa. Both remain immortal in the pages of history of modern India and also in the minds of her people. For his laborious, intellectual, humanistic, and legalistic contribution to the framing of the Indian Constitution, Dr. Ambedkar was hailed by the then members of the Constituent Assembly of India (and is also regarded by the present generation as well) as ‘the present Manu’ when some others acknowledge(d) his preeminent role by terming the Constitution as the ‘Bhim Smrithi’.

MUSAHARS IN THE VORTEX OF CHANGE: AN INTERROGATION THROUGH THE AMBEDKAR’S NOTION OF SOCIAL JUSTICE

Anirudh Prasad

Social justice means equal social opportunities available to everyone to develop their personalities associated with equality and social rights. The issues of social justice has affected various developmental policy as well as whole development of social welfare programme for the down trodden and weaker sections of society. The present paper elucidates the impact of various developmental programmes based on the notion of social justice as propounded by B. R. Ambedkar, launched by the government of Bihar and Samanwaya Ashram, a social work institution, to the cause of Musahars in the Bodh Gaya region of Bihar.

DALIT ACCESSING ENGLISH: AN ASSESSMENT OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE POLICY IN INDIA

M. Sabur Ali

Since colonial period, English language has acquired higher status among Indians as it is tool for empowerment. Now, everyone in India is dependent on English for their economical mobility. English is the functioning language in the most institutions of India, be it Administration or Education. English has acquired the second language status in India and now it has no more an image of an alien language. But official language policy implementation still speaks about rejection of English even though English is dominant union official language.

SOCIAL JUSTICE AND THE PARADIGM FOR INCREASING EFFECTIVENESS OF LEARNING - TEACHING EXPERIENCE IN INSTITUTIONS WITH DIVERSITY

Dr. Hari Mohan Sharma & Ravinder Goel

The composition of class rooms in colleges and universities is undergoing a structural change. Majority of the students in the class are now from sections that have been and are discriminated against in society either on the basis of caste or gender or physical disability or class or language. The attempt of the government to increase gross enrolment ratio in higher education and attempts of wider sections of society to climb the economic ladder will sharpen these class room differences even more in coming times.

“LET POETRY BE A SWORD” – DR. AMBEDKAR AND DALIT RESISTANCE FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

Ashutosh Kumar Vishal

Dalit poetry has emerged as a weapon for Dalit liberation. Dalit writings as a whole are an integral to Dalit movement for social justice. It is full of pain and suffering meted on Dalits in daily lives. But to limit it to anger and protest will be incorrect as these poems are full of hopes and aspirations of a better future , a society where an individual has full control of his/her life and where he/she can open its wings and shore freely without any fear. Dalit poetry marks a journey to creation of Bharat (India) where all people irrespective of caste, creed, religion and sex can claim on the nation.

Dr Ambedkar on Religion: The Contemporary Context

Dr. Shri Prakash Singh

In the present political scenario the use of the word 'Dharma' has become controversial because the sect, community, worship method and the English word 'Religion' have become synonyms of `Dharma. These synonyms have narrowed our thinking. Therefore, the original concept regarding the use of the word. 'Dharma' has been relegated to past and even remembering the same is considered as the sign of orthodoxy, conservative, illiberal and unprogressive. The flag bearers of social justice by way of calling 'Dharma’ or religion as unuseful, unnecessary, illogical and addiction have made religious consideration very narrow and controversial.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's Critique of Mainstream Political Discourse

Dr. Anuradha Mukherjee

The nationalist discourses in colonial settings have a tendency to enlarge and emphasize the infallibility of traditional values in order to thwart the hegemony’s claims of cultural supremacy. So it is not surprising to see the nationalist discourses of the Third World countries centring upon patriarchal, elitist and conservative views prescribed for the nation as the correct national imagery of liberation. At the same time, it is the colonial institutions that are the usherers of the new national narratives, woven around the past glories, like the educational institutions, the printing press, and the various public platforms shaped in the western political model.

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar: Idea of Social Justice and Affirmative Action

Dr. Deepak Yadav

Dr. Ambedkar was a victim of caste discrimination. His parents hailed from the Hindu Mahar caste, which was viewed as "untouchable" by the upper class. Due to this, Ambedkar had to face severe discriminations from every corner of the society. The discrimination and humiliation haunted Ambedkar even at the Army school, run by British government. Fearing social outcry, the teachers would segregate the students of lower class from that of Brahmins and other upper classes. The untouchable students were often asked by the teacher to sit outside the class.

Dr. Ambedkar and Empowerment of Women

Dr. Chittaranjan Mallik

To make women free and independence, to give them justice and bring them par with men has been a major concern since ancient past. Interestingly, to address the issues of women’s condition was a part of the vision of the social reformers starting from Buddha, who preached equality among men and women by denying the sacredness of the Vedas. Later, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule set up schools to give educational rights to the women and untouchables.

Ambedkar, Social Justice and Indian Constitution

Dr. Vinod Khobragade

To establish an egalitarian social, economic and political order in the diverse societies like ours, Ambedkar’s rational philosophy of social justice has been the greatest influence and inspiration which has cast major impact on the depressed classes or Scheduled Castes in India especially in the direction of making them cognizant of their rights, the way to live a respectful life and the class consciousness. The impact of Ambedkar’s philosophy has been so high that, he has been worshiped every day alongwith Lord Buddha by the millions of people in India. Nobody, perhaps, in the world has achieved such ‘godly reverence’ amongst his contemporary fellow leaders.

Ambedkar and Nation Building

Dr. Biswaranjan Mohanty

The significant role played by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar in his different capacities has left a lasting imprint on the social and Political needlepoint of India. He ignited the imagination and dreams of millions through the concepts he deployed and the intellectual clarity with which he negotiated with the world.

Social Justice: Ideas of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

Janmejay Sahu

Mostly the people are being treated with discrimination in size, color, caste, religion, race in the society because of they are mostly uneducated, from lower strata of the society, poorest of the poor who are not aware about laws, its practical use in life that creates a social disorder and inequality among them however, the need of the social justice is an inevitable which is the only weapon to prosper the people towards their active participation in the development and mainstream of the society.

Dr .B. R. Ambedkar’s Perception of Social Justice and Human Rights

Dr. Suresh Chandra Patel

B. R. Ambedkar, Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, the messiah of the downtrodden and backward classes was born on 14^th Of April 1891 at Mhow in the state of Madhya Pradesh. The Ambedkars originally belonged to Ratnagiri District in the Konkan region of present Maharashtra. He is a rare example of few people who manages to reach the pinnacles of success in the midst of poverty and disadvantages. Dr. Ambedkar was born at a time when the backward castes in India suffered untold miseries.

THE AMBEDKARITE IDEOLOGY AND THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

Dr. Shailaja Menon

According to Ambedkar the essentials of a free social order were set by the French revolution. The term of association between individuals in a society must be founded on the principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. For him democracy is more than a form of government. Democratic society is characterized by absence of stratification of society into classes and the social habit on the part of individuals and the groups which ready for the continuous readjustment of recognition of reciprocity of interest.

SOCIAL JUSTICE AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: RESERVATION LAW IN PRIVATE SECTOR

Dr. Indira Athawale

UPA Government after election in 2004 had thought about affirmative action in private sector. The basic principles were as Preserve, Protect and Promote Social harmony and to enforce the law without fear deal with all fundamentalist elements who seek to disturb the social peace. Another principle was to provide equality of opportunity particularly in education and employment for SC, ST & OBC. To implement affirmative action in private sector the government initiated dialogue with industrialists.

ENLIGHTENED DEMOCRACY& AMBEDKAR

Dr. Rajkumar

This paper seeks to explore Dr. Ambedkar’s vision of an enlightened democracy operationalized through his hypothesis of education, agitation and organisation. Ambedkar philosophy has remained the most important milestone of Dalit politicisation and assertion. His struggle against the political subjugation and social oppression meted out to the untouchables along with other caste victims is the principled and prominent democratic movement against cultural and social tyranny in the country. He advised the people to follow the path of Buddham, Dhammam and Sangham meaning education, agitation and organisation.

Social Justice: Origin of A Perspective and Ambedkar’s Notion of Social Justice

Dr. Parsanjeet Kumar

The term social justice comes up frequently in circles concerned with political and economic policy. In common usage, the term is rarely taken as expressing a debatable position, but as a statement of a fundamental axiom of value in political and economic life. State has a fundamental role to play to construct a just society. India has been implementing social justice through its reservation policy. In India Ambedkar was a great contributor who addressed this issue in different ways. His just society is based on equality, liberty and fraternity. But present scenario shows a gloomy picture of his idea. The present paper is an attempt to understand the concept of social justice and discuss on Ambedkar’s notion of social justice.

BR Ambedkar’s ‘tireless efforts’ towards equality, social justice made him a pioneer: UN official

By: PTI | United Nations |
April 14, 2018 2:14:06 pm

Baba Ambedkar photograph at the garba event.

Bhimrao Ambedkar’s “tireless efforts” towards ensuring excluded groups were politically and socially empowered made him a “pioneer” in the world and his vision of equality and social justice echoes the ambitions of the UN’s 2030 development agenda, a top UN official has said.

In his keynote address at a special event organised at the UN headquarters by India’s Permanent Mission to the UN on the occasion of Ambedkar’s 127th Birth Anniversary, UN Development Programme Administrator Achim Steiner said sustainable development was at the core of Ambedkar’s “egalitarian ethos”.

“Ambedkar understood that rising and persistent inequalities pose fundamental challenges to the economic and social well-being of nations and people,” he said yesterday.

“His tireless efforts to ensure that excluded groups were politically and socially empowered, that workers were fairly treated, and that every person had access to education, made him a pioneer in India and in other countries,” Steiner said.

He highlighted Ambedkar’s immense contribution to the vision of social justice and equality, saying this vision underpins the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

“Equality of opportunity and of access – critical to Dr Ambedkar’s vision of development for all – are at the heart of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” he said.

Steiner said that by placing ‘sabka saath, sabka vikas’ at the centre of its development agenda, the Indian government had demonstrated its “deep commitment” to upholding the ideals of the principal architect of the Indian Constitution.

“Incorporating the ideals of pluralism and inclusion, the Constitution was remarkable in its refusal to discriminate on the grounds of caste, creed, religion or gender,” Steiner said.

India’s Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador Syed Akbaruddin said as a crusader against all forms of prejudicial treatment of people on the basis of their identity, Ambedkar ensured that “India’s Constitution acknowledges the longstanding social injustices of the past and provides for measures of affirmative action to facilitate access to opportunities for disadvantaged sections of Indian society”.

“This conviction has stood the test of time. It has been the foundation on which the modern India thrives today with its myriad diversities,” Akbaruddin said at the event.

He said that with one-sixth of world’s population and bewildering diversity, India, while on the fast track of economic growth, continues to face multiple challenges, including chronic poverty of significant sections of its population and inequity of income and opportunities.

“This recognition strengthens our collective resolve to address these issues in a holistic manner, consistent with the ideals and institutional legacies of the founding fathers of our Republic like Ambedkar,” he said.

Steiner said that challenges still remained in ensuring equality of opportunity and of access.

“Many of the extremely poor live in remote communities and belong to marginalised groups facing multiple sources of social and economic deprivation. Biases in institutions, legal and economic systems and social norms are systemic drivers of discrimination and entrenched inequality,” he said.

He said it was a situation faced by disadvantaged groups in many countries, urban and rural, such as marginalised indigenous communities, ethnic minorities and persons with disabilities.

“Women and girls are disproportionately represented among those left behind,” he said.

Steiner stressed that automation, artificial intelligence and the innovations of the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ can help countries leapfrog towards more sustainable and equitable development trajectories.

“For this to happen governments, development actors, labour organisations and other stakeholders will need to shape, nurture and guide the innovation process. This will need to include investing in social protection and innovative approaches to improving public services,” he said.

Dr Ambedkar’s laws for social equality

Redistribution of social privileges in equitable terms will place all citizens on equal footing across all parameters

By TelanganaToday | B Maria Kumar | Published: 6th Dec 2019 12:18 am Updated: 6th Dec 2019 2:47 pm

There were three dauntlessly revolutionary yet extraordinary humane personalities born on this planet, who form the trinity of messiahs; of whom the reminiscence of one inevitably reminds the other two. Because of their deepest concern and most benevolent deeds for the amelioration of the condition of humanity as a whole, one stood out as the redeemer of the spiritually repressed whereas the second became the defender of the economically exploited and the third came to be known as the deliverer of the socially oppressed. They are Jesus Christ, Karl Marx and Babasaheb Dr Ambedkar, respectively.

Of all the injustices that pervade the whole humankind, there is one scourge, which Indians exclusively experience, is the de facto social inequality based on caste. Slavery was abolished by law in the 19th century British empire and America. The feudal system was wiped out in Russia by Marxist-Leninist ideology. Even though many political approaches, ranging from capitalism to communism and from socialism to conservatism, have emerged and reigned over different societies across the world, none seemed to work well to eliminate caste-oriented inequalities.

Economic Determinism

Marxian Communism had its standing on the principle of economic determinism. It has done wonders in certain countries because the class system that has been existing over there is entirely different from caste phenomenon. But in India, social structure is of casteist nature, which continued as a closed system since millennia. The doctrine of economic determinism has little to do with it. Despite having financial status or political power, it is not possible to realise social mobility since caste is characterised by societal determinism, that is to say, every fundamental aspect of life such as honour, dignity, esteem, achievement or even future is determined by one’s caste born into. It is on account of this crucial reason that Dr Ambedkar prioritised social equality over economic equality.

Economic equality may be the most sought-after humanistic ideology for the rest of the world but not primarily for India. Dr Ambedkar’s idea of reservations was aimed at assuring basic survival in a legally empowered manner. Associated with it was to educate and enlighten the downtrodden masses so as to deliver them from the bondage of ignorance. Economic equality helps survive alone but does not ensure a full-fledged life in essence. Life is a bigger canvas, encompassing liberty, freedom, fraternity, equity, fearlessness, etc, which are embedded in social equality.

An Example

Let us, for example, take the chemical process of ‘like dissolves like’, where polar molecules dissolve in polar molecules. But in the caste-ridden social set-up, there is no such easy feasibility of moving up on social ladder though there is upward mobility on economic ladder, because social conditions and economic criteria are like polar and non-polar systems that do not mix in normal circumstances.

Hence, for social equality, something more in addition to economic equality is required to be done. It involves the redistribution of social privileges in equitable terms, so as to keep all the citizens of India on equal footing in all parameters. But what is happening practically on the policymaking front is that it has no compatibility with societal diagnosis. The planners are agog with their economic models for treating societal illnesses. As a result, hydra effect as regards social divide, economic disparities and political inequality has been impacting the nation adversely to the extent of its fragility.

As the government’s measures are not sufficient and are not the right medicine for treating the social inequality-centred maladies, complications have been leading to further unanticipated negative effects due to the fact that economic development, as pointed out by an American sociologist, Mark Granovetter, will not be possible without judicious social relations. Consequently, social equality becomes all the more important and Dr Ambedkar’s law of 5 Rs makes the sole mantra for its attainment.

Five Rs

1. The first R, that is reservations (Constitutional), the brainchild of Dr Ambedkar, started operating during his times. This measure essentially aimed at creating an instant existential assistance mechanism for the lower castes along with provision for education. Unfortunately, as jobs are not adequately made available, the government’s efforts don’t seem to bring in the desired change in the lives of the downtrodden.

2. Next ‘R’ stands for reconstruction. Means of production and common resources such as land, capital, education, technical skills, entrepreneurial opportunities and partnership, which the people at the lowest rung of society have been deprived of since ages, need to be restored to them. After the abolition of slavery in America, President Abraham Lincoln executed various comprehensive programmes for the reconstruction of the lives of the blacks.

3. The objective of the third ‘R’, ie, reconciliation is that the lower castes must get integrated socially as well as emotionally into the Indian community at large without fears based on the caste system. The intent of reconciliation would be to sincerely emotionalise the perpetrators of caste-based fears and prejudices towards taking an honest note of their violations for expressing remorse. After apartheid was dismantled in South Africa, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was initiated with the motive of making the oppressors repent their past mistakes but not to punish them.

4. The fourth ‘R’ is for remedial marriages, which need to be solemnised in a casteless manner. Dr Ambedkar inferred that such marriages will expedite the annihilation of caste monster because such unions would break caste by cementing the feelings of oneness, the true ‘vasudhaivakutumbakam’. In Iraq, intermarriages between Sunnis and Shias were encouraged in order to build an inclusive nation.

5. The last ‘R’ denotes radical reformation. According to Dr Ambedkar, intercaste dining and intercaste marriages could eradicate the caste system only to some extent but not completely. For a definitive social equality, he felt that the documented notions on which castes were founded need to be destroyed. The 16th century’s Martin Luther-led Protestant Movement paved the way for the reformation of Roman Catholic Church. German sociologist Max Weber evidenced that the protestant interpretation of the Bible on work-ethic enabled Western Europe to successfully wriggle out of the clutches of scriptural rigidity so as to promote the spirit of capitalism.

(The author is former DG, Cyber Crimes, Bhopal)

Equality, dignity and justice

Political leaders paying tribute to B.R. Ambedkar at his statue at Daba Gardens in Visakhapatnam on the occasion of his birth anniversary this year.

13 MAY 2015 12:30 IST

UPDATED: 24 APRIL 2018 08:11 IST Ambedkar did not set such concepts as democracy and modernity in opposition to each other but bound them together symbiotically so that they could grow together.

ARGUABLY, Babasaheb Ambedkar is one of the few thinkers who continue to influence and shape people’s democratic aspirations such as freedom, equality, justice and dignity, all of which form the normative basis of modern India. It is quite interesting to note that there are more claimants than ever before to the legacy of Ambedkar. The competitive claims for the cultural and political ownership of Ambedkar, however, seem to be more rhetorical in nature than substantive in their thrust. In the context of the rituals of rhetoric, it becomes necessary to understand the more substantive nature of his legacy. As a part of this exercise, let me take on board certain concepts such as democracy and modernity that are crucial to understanding the relevance of Ambedkar’s legacy in contemporary India.

Before we actually deal with the conception of democracy and modernity in Ambedkar, it is necessary on our part to offer much-needed methodological clarification. One is theoretically aware about a certain kind of pragmatism that is associated with Ambedkar’s use of democracy and modernity. However, reducing Ambedkar’s thinking to pragmatism would amount to doing injustice to his transformative legacy, especially since the entire corpus of his writing is built around a set of normative principles. Hence, it would be grossly incorrect to read him only through the prism of pragmatisms. And yet we need to accept that Ambedkar does seem to use democracy and modernity in a pragmatic manner.

For Ambedkar, being pragmatic is not an arbitrary choice; in fact, it is conditioned by the cumulated disadvantages that he and the entire untouchable community suffered historically. The need to get the broken men (emphasis in original) out from the Bahishkrut Bharat (India of the ostracised) and include them into seamless (puruskrut) India without losing any further time and energy compelled Ambedkar to resort to the strategic use of these concepts. In order to achieve the objective of getting untouchables into the life of a nation, Ambedkar seemed to prioritise democracy over modernity. This sequence could also be defended on the ground that the horizontal or universal conception of equality that is internal to an egalitarian form of democracy would not entangle Dalits into questions such as “do Dalits need to first acquire merit in order to participate in democracy?” In fact, “nationalist elites” such as Bal Gangadhar (Lokamanya) Tilak did put merit on modernity as the compulsory condition for participation in democracy. Ambedkar, for the right reason, was apprehensive about prioritising modernity as a common criterion of participation. He rightly thought putting modernity before democracy would inordinately delay Dalit arrival to the democratic process. Hence, he summons not modernity but democracy on priority. To put it differently, he favours equality over merit.

However, in the post-Independence period, one finds Ambedkar changing the sequence, that is, putting modernity before democracy. In this essay, I seek to argue that Ambedkar does not raise a watertight binary opposition between democracy and modernity. On the contrary, he binds them together symbiotically so that such concepts grow together and not at the cost of each other. To put it differently, democracy as the sphere of equality converts opportunity into an asset or a merit. This particular essay, thus, seeks to address three important questions.

First, why does Ambedkar privilege democracy over modernity, particularly during the pre-Independence period? Secondly, why does he reverse this order in post-Independence India? Finally, does he find democracy and modernity inadequate in approximating to the reasonable aspirations of the underprivileged of India? If yes, then what are the grounds on which he finds limits in democracy as a governing principle of social and political relationships and in modernity as an organising framework of political institutions whose job it is to articulate the democratic principle?

Egalitarian democracy & constraining modernity

There are at least two core reasons that can help us understand why Ambedkar privileges democracy over modernity or equality over merit. First, his strategic move to summon democracy on priority has to be understood in terms of the genuine absence of any radical Left alternative in the early 20th century or the improbability of a communist revolution becoming a realisable goal in the immediate future. Arguably, in a communist revolution, it is people’s democracy that forces dialogue on modernity. To put it differently, such a revolutionary change seeks to eliminate the necessity of modernity as a gatekeeping device to defer the participation of those who are not as yet technically ready for participation. Communism does not keep the common masses waiting at the gate of democratic institutions just because they lack modern techniques to handle the business of democracy. In the context of Ambedkar’s thinking, one, therefore, is tempted to ask members of the present-day Indian Left whether they follow this enabling sequence when they form the politburos of their respective parties?

Secondly, Ambedkar would invoke an egalitarian form of democracy on priority simply because he thought it would be extremely difficult for the downtrodden, deprived, discriminated and decimated masses to enter the decision-making institutions should they be put to the modernity test. Thus, sociological reasons which are historically available prompted him to mount a critique of the “nationalist elite” who, according to Ambedkar, sought to privilege modernity or the language of merit over egalitarian democracy or the language of equality. In this regard, he points to the politics of modernity as a gatekeeping device as deployed by Lokamanya Tilak, who said: “If the lower castes manage to go to the legislature, what would they do in such places?” It is in this exclusionary sense that modernity becomes an ideology through which the socially dominant and politically privileged elite seeks to limit the gains of democracy to them.

However, it is interesting to note that in contemporary times, the “Mandalised” governing class at the level of the Central legislature seems to have obliquely followed Ambedkar and not Tilak. This allegiance to Ambedkar’s legacy is evident in the 73rd/74th Amendments to the Constitution. These twin amendments do not seem to insist on modernity as the precondition for women’s participation in democratic processes. If we followed Ambedkar’s principled pragmatism then, we would find the decision of certain State governments, such as the government of Rajasthan which is believed to have made certain education qualifications a precondition for political participation, highly objectionable. One finds in such decisions the intention to follow Tilak rather than Ambedkar.

Finally, in Ambedkar’s understanding, the principle of equality which is embodied in democracy is necessary because it enthuses the downtrodden about the need for the political activism that is necessary to interrogate the local configuration of power that entails Brahmanism and capitalism. Ambedkar considers Brahmanism and capitalism the two leeches that suck the blood of the common masses at the local level. To put it differently, Ambedkar suggests that nationalist attempts to prioritise modernity over democracy have a function to avoid interrogating both Brahmanism and capitalism. After creating a secure space for democracy or equality in the Constitution, thus making it at least formally safe for Dalits, Ambedkar then goes on to defend democracy though taking modernity seriously. As we shall see in the next section, Ambedkar treats egalitarian democracy as an enabling principle and makes it imperative on the part of the beneficiaries of such a principle to take modernity seriously. Ambedkar adds this caveat only to assign a certain degree of robustness to democracy itself.

Modernity precedes democracy

Ambedkar does not draw satisfaction from the democratic equality that makes its guest appearance only in a formal sense. In fact, he is committed to making democracy and the principle of equality more meritorious through the gains that serve as a benchmark, thus expanding equality into an attractive public good. Ambedkar believes that equality could be made meritorious only through continuous evaluation of institutions that assign concrete meaning to abstract principles of democracy. Evaluative practices are modern because they are aimed at making institutions stand tall with the help of merit. It is in this sense that Ambedkar overcomes the binary between democracy and modernity. Let us see in the following section how Ambedkar achieves this.

Ambedkar puts an additional premium on modernity with the sole intention of assigning merit to democratic institutions. In this regard, let me give just one example that will affirm that Ambedkar actually succeeded in overcoming the binary between democracy and modernity. He started educational institutions in Mumbai and Aurangabad in Maharashtra and recruited teachers on the basis of merit whenever they were available. Thus, he ended up recruiting teachers both from the upper castes and from his own caste. Ambedkar has become relevant especially in the context in which the modern educational institutions he established in Mumbai and Aurangabad are reported to have declined in terms of their merit. For those Dalits who are responsible for such a decline, it is a double loss. It is loss in modernity and also loss in democracy. The case of non-Dalits is different from that of Dalits. For Dalits, it is a comprehensive loss, but for non-Dalits, what is lost in modernity is gained in tradition—a single loss.

The upper-caste loss in modernity and subsequent gain through tradition tend to deny the principle of equality the advantage of merit. To put it differently, the failure in modernity creates resentment that in effect denies equality the advantage of merit as value addition. Let us look at this predicament of the Indian twice-born by citing Ambedkar’s own experience, which can be very well explained in terms of equality in search of merit.

Equality in search

of merit

Equality, on its way to becoming a concrete reality, creates many unreasonable adversaries. Claims to equality need to be acknowledged by its adversaries. In the Indian context, adversaries do not seem to offer recognition to claims of equality unless the latter acquires added value through the production of merit.

In this regard, Ambedkar himself has offered a couple of instances from his own experience relating to the opponents of the Hindu Code Bill (HCB) of which he was the main architect. It is argued that some scholars of the Vedas who claimed to themselves hermeneutic authority saw his efforts to draft the HCB as a kind of epistemological transgression. Such epistemic voices, which were quite vocal in 1951, opposed Ambedkar, not on the grounds of modernity (that he was not intellectually competent to interpret the Vedas) but on the grounds that he was an untouchable who had no right to either interpret the Vedas or listen to them. However, this trend seeks to disregard Ambedkar’s modernist calibre to intellectually fashion out an emancipatory agenda for women through the act of drafting the HCB. Misrecognition of Ambedkar’s claim to merit by the scholars concerned suggests that what is lost in modernity is a gain for tradition. To put it differently, such opponents of the HCB discounted Ambedkar’s claim with the intention of just retaining their social power not in the sphere of modernity; they invoked hermeneutic and epistemological rights that were made ritually available by tradition. In Ambedkar’s legacy, the HCB is a great step towards social reform; to bypass it is to make a farce of the Constitution and to build a palace on a dungheap. However, what we need to take into account is the fact that the judiciary does follow Ambedkar rather than the other lot while dealing with the feminist question of legal entitlement. This was evident in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court that accepted women’s right to a share in the property of the family. As Ambedkar’s drafting of the HCB suggests, the ideological content of the state must be anti-patriarchal. He wanted to rule out from the structure of the state the possibility of sedimented Brahmanism. Without this radically egalitarian core of ideology of the state, he argued, democracy in India would only be a top dressing on Indian soil.

The HCB is one instance that shows us equality is in search of merit. Ambedkar’s frustrating experience involving his failure to realise equality with the added value of merit continues to tragically resonate with modern-day Dalits, who fail to grow in the eyes of the Indian twice-born, howsoever meritorious they may be.

The unwillingness on the part of the other to appreciate Ambedkar’s efforts to combine equality with merit is also evident in his experience with a most modern personality, Jawaharlal Nehru. Ambedkar’s experience with the modernist claim of both Nehru and the Congress party led him to lament that he was not able to gain recognition for his calibre that sought to combine equality with merit. The Congress party no doubt solicited his support but this, on Ambedkar’s admission, was only the rhetorical accommodation into the opportunity structures that he considered peripheral. The most authentic biographer of Ambedkar, Changdeo B. Khairmode, has expressed Nehru’s lack of commitment to modernity. He says: “The Central government led by Pandit Nehru did not offer him opportunities that had more potential to convert them into an asset. He was capable and confident of handling not just law but other important portfolios such as finance, home and foreign.” It is in this context that Ambedkar observes that emotive criteria such as trust, friendship and capacity to please the party bosses do not add merit to the principle of equality. It is in this regard that one has to acknowledge the relevance of Ambedkar. The general picture one gets is that most parties seem to follow not the modernity or merit criterion but criteria that are parochially emotive and hence not modern.

Ambedkar’s egalitarian legacy would make a normative demand on those political parties which fail to take modernity seriously. Parties that fail to cultivate among its cadre a favourable disposition towards modernity as a criterion to brighten the future of democratic principle, therefore, need to be morally motivated to mobilise resources wherever such resources are available. Parties can show such cognitive generosity only on conditions that are genuinely liberal in their political practice. Taking such a moral lead requires putting aside narrow party ideological interests. After all, orienting oneself as Ambedkar did in favour of normative values such as equality, dignity and justice ultimately contributes to the well-being of both institutions and the nation.

Ambedkar’s legacy offers us the choice of an egalitarian state ideology and not the parochial ideology of some political parties. It is the ideology of the state, and not narrow, regressive party ideology, that should govern society and the nation. In fact, in his conception, party and its ideology and state ideology need to immerse in each other. Parties attempting to stamp out the egalitarian core will definitely undermine the radical legacy of Ambedkar.

For Ambedkar, democracy with the horizontal form of equality is the final vocabulary with egalitarianism as the interim ideal. Of course, for him, neo-Buddhism is the ultimate ideal.

(I thank Gurpreet Mahajan for helping to clarify the point relating to the theoretical relationship between equality and merit.)

Gopal Guru is a professor at the Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. He has authored two books with Oxford University Press: Humiliation: Claims and Context and The Cracked Mirror: An Indian Debate on Experience and Theory.

Notes and References

1. (1990): Writing and Speeches of Babasaheb Ambedkar, Vol. 7, Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai, p. 209.

2. Khairmode, C.B.: “Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar” (Marathi), Vol. 7, Mumbai: Maharashtra Sahitya Ani Sanskruti Mandal, p. 34.

3. This has been the common observation of Dalit scholars concerned not only of Aurangabad but in the whole of Maharashtra.

4. Khairmode, C.B. (1989): “Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar” (Marathi), Vol. 10, Mumbai: Maharashtra Sahitya Ani Sanskruti Mandal, p. 69.

5. Ibid, p. 108

Vision Of A Society Based On Liberty, Equality And Fraternity

B. R. Ambedkar's

From ‘Annihilation of Caste’, drafted in 1936, an undelivered speech by the principal architect of the Indian Constitution, who dedicated his life to reforming society.

From ‘Annihilation of Caste’, drafted in 1936, an undelivered speech by the principal architect of the Indian Constitution, who dedicated his life to reforming society

I would not be surprised if some of you have grown weary listening to this tiresome tale of the sad effects which caste has produced. There is nothing new in it. I will therefore turn to the constructive side of the problem. What is your ideal society if you do not want caste, is a question that is bound to be asked of you. If you ask me, my ideal would be a society based on Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. And why not?

What objection can there be to Fraternity? I cannot imagine any. An ideal society should be mobile, should be full of interest channels for conveying a change taking place in one part to other parts. In an ideal society there should be many interests consciously communicated and shared. There should be varied and free points of contact with other modes of association. In other words, there must be social endosmosis. This is fraternity, which is only another name for democracy. Democracy is not merely a form of government. It is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint, communicated experience. It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards one’s fellow men.

Any objection to Liberty? Few object to liberty in the sense of a right to free movement, in the sense of a right to life and limb. There is no objection to liberty in the sense of a right to property, tools and materials, as being necessary for earning a living, to keep the body in a due state of health. Why not allow a person the liberty to benefit from an effective and competent use of a person’s powers? The supporters of Caste who would allow liberty in the sense of a right to life, limb and property, would not readily consent to liberty in this sense, inasmuch as it involves liberty to choose one’s profession.

But to object to this kind of liberty is to perpetuate slavery. For slavery does not merely mean a legalized form of subjection. It means a state of society in which some men are forced to accept from others the purposes which control their conduct. This condition obtains even where there is no slavery in the legal sense. It is found where, as in the Caste System, some persons are compelled to carry on certain prescribed callings which are not of their choice.

Any objection to equality? This has obviously been the most contentious part of the slogan of the French Revolution. The objections to equality may be sound, and one may have to admit that all men are not equal. But what of that? Equality may be a fiction, but nonetheless one must accept it as the governing principle. A man’s power is dependent upon (1) physical heredity; (2) social inheritance or endowment in the form of parental care, education, accumulation of scientific knowledge, everything which enables him to be more efficient than the savage; and finally, (3) on his own efforts. In all these three respects, men are undoubtedly unequal. But the question is, shall we treat them as unequal because they are unequal? This is a question which the opponents of equality must answer.

From the standpoint of the individualist, it may be just to treat men unequally so far as their efforts are unequal. It may be desirable to give as much incentive as possible to the full development of everyone’s powers. But what would happen if men were treated as unequally as they are unequal in the first two respects? It is obvious that those individuals also, in whose favour there is birth, education, family name, business connections and inherited wealth, would be selected in the race. But selection under such circumstances would not be a selection of the able. It would be the selection of the privileged. The reason, therefore, which requires that in the third respect (of those described in the paragraph above) we should treat men unequally, demands that in the first two respects we should treat men as equally as possible.

On the other hand, it can be urged that if it is good for the social body to get the most out of its members, it can get the most out of them only by making them equal as far as possible at the very start of the race. That is one reason why we cannot escape equality. But there is another reason why we must accept equality. A statesman is concerned with vast numbers of people. He has neither the time nor the knowledge to draw fine distinctions and to treat each one equitably, i.e. according to need or according to capacity. However desirable or reasonable an equitable treatment of men may be, humanity is not capable of assortment and classification.

The statesman, therefore, must follow some rough and ready rule, and that rough and ready rule is to treat all men alike, not because they are alike but because classification and assortment is impossible. The doctrine of equality is glaringly fallacious but, taking all in all, it is the only way a statesman can proceed in politics—which is a severely practical affair and which demands a severely practical test.

Excerpted, with minor changes, from the undelivered speech ‘Annihilation of Caste’ written in 1936 by Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar

Bharat Ratna Babasaheb Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had been an eminent economist, prominent jurist, famous historian, strong anthropologist, renowned scholar, noted jurist, effective leader and most important a great visionary. He dreamt for a country where all can live together without any discrimination, without inequality or injustice. To give practical shape to his dream, he fought for the rights of each and every section of society not only during Britishers’ rule but also in independent India. He worked hard in writing Indian constitution and passing of different legislations (Acts) as first law minister in independent India. His visionary approach emanates from his thirst for just society, harmonized society and casteless society for which he emphasized on get and give education, organization and struggle. He focused on unity, equality and fraternity. Every word in his writings and speeches and his books paved the way for and opened the doors of success to every Indian. He focused on socio-economy democracy besides political democracy. However, different governments have tried to eradicate social and economic evils which were present in India since centuries and they are successful to some extent also, yet caste-based discrimination, increasing cases of atrocities against depressed sections of society and rising gap between ‘haves and haves not’ is a matter of concern for our country. The present paper tries to identify a inconsistency in present India and that India which was dreamt by Babasaheb Dr.B.R. Ambedkar. The author tries to collect and present some important data related to injustice, inequality and discrimination. The author tries to present some information on how social-economic evils still scrunch and clench India which is the biggest hurdle in the development of the nation and impede its growth journey.

KEY WORDS

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Discrimination, Atrocities etc.

I. INTRODUCTION

I like the religion that teaches liberty, equality and fraternity- Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar

The Preamble of the Indian constitution states that the Constitution exists “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and promote the general Welfare. It states that constitution derives its authority from the people of India and declares India as socialist, sovereign, secular and democratic. The justice, liberty, equality and fraternity are the objectives of the constitution. The terms sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic, republic in the Preamble suggests the nature of the state. The ideals of justice, liberty, equality, fraternity reflects the objectives of the Constitution . Babasaheb Dr. B.R.Ambedkar called Article 32 of the Indian Constitution i.e. Right to Constitutional remedies as 'the heart and soul of the Constitution '. The Preamble is called the heart of the constitution because it provides a short summary of all that is there in the constitution . The 42nd Amendment also amended Preamble and changed the description of India from "sovereign democratic republic" to a "sovereign, socialist secular democratic republic", and also changed the words "unity of the nation" to "unity and integrity of the nation". At present there are 448 articles in 25 parts, 12 schedules, 5 appendices and 98 amendments in the Indian Constitution as compared to when it was written it had 395 articles in 22 parts and 8 schedules at the time of commencement.

In spite of hard efforts of governments, NGOs, social organizations and several laws and provisions, we the Indians have failed in brining equality, justice and establishing fraternity in our country to a large extent particularly in context of SCST and women (of all castes and religions). We couldn’t be able to materialize the dreams of Babasaheb of making India which he dreamt about. There is big gap in the babasaheb’s dreamt India and real India. In the subsequent section, a brief discussion is made on this and other related issues.

II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND OBJECTIVES:

The present study is descriptive one and secondary sources of data have been used for collection of data particularly from official websites, e-newspapers, magazines, like- Bheem Patrika etc.

The objectives of the study are:

To understand the constitutional provisions available for justice, equality and fraternity.

To recognize the present situation of presence of socio-economic evils and identify the gap between the dreams of Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar and present real India

III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS:

Babasaheb Dr. B.R.Ambedkar sacrificed his whole life for the country and proved himself as a real countryman. He sacrificed his wife and four children for the country because he couldn’t give proper time to his wife and family due to his commitment and dedication towards making a new India (i.e. Bharat). In spite of facing grave poverty, he dreamt and worked to make a country where all can live together without any discrimination, without inequality or injustice. To give practical shape to his dreams, he fought for the rights of each and every section of society not only during Britishers’ rule but also in independent India. He studied in extreme conditions and set mileage stone at every sphere of his life. His achievements are outstanding and unreachable. He worked hard day and night in writing Indian constitution and passing of different legislations (Acts) as first law minister in independent India. His visionary approach emanates from his thirst for just society, harmonized society and casteless society for which he emphasized on get and give education, organization and struggle throughout life. He focused on unity, equality and fraternity. Every word in his writings and speeches and his books paved the way for and opened the doors of success to every Indian. He focused on socio-economic democracy besides political democracy.

A. Constitutional Provisions available for Justice, Equality and Fraternity:

The Constitution guarantees six fundamental rights to Indian citizens as follows:

(i) Right to equality ,

(ii) Right to freedom ,

(iii) Right against exploitation ,

(iv) Right to freedom of religion ,

(v) Cultural and educational rights , and

(vi) Right to constitutional remedies .

By Fundamental Rights is meant the rights which the Constitution guarantees citizens, and which manifest themselves in society as generally accepted basic values. Our fundamental rights include so- called rights of liberty. Our fundamental rights further include economic, social and cultural rights . The Article 32 of the Indian Constitution enshrines this provision whereby individuals may seek redressal for the violation of their fundamental rights, observation is true as far as it goes constitutional weapons, known as 'writs', for the enforcement of such rights of public duties.

Our Constitution provides equal rights and opportunities to every citizen of country and special safeguards are there for some sections of society, like- women, SCST, OBC, minorities etc. who had been exploited in the name of caste/religion since thousands of years. These are the people who were deprived of even basic facilities of food, shelter and clothing due to dirty/ narrow-mindedness of some contractors of religion. A democracy is based on the concept of federalism, which is the equal division of power in different groups. Hence, in order to balance the power flow in the country, the government has to provide special safeguard for some section of the society.

B. Present Situation of Socio-Economic Evils and Gap Between Babasaheb’s Dreamt India and Real India:

1. Women: in Indian Constitution and in Real India-

The principle of gender equality is enshrined in the Indian Constitution in its Preamble , Fundamental Rights , Fundamental Duties and Directive Principles . The Constitution not only grants equality to women, but also empowers the State to adopt measures of positive discrimination in favor of women. The constitution of India prohibits discrimination based on sex but it equally directs and empowers the government to undertake special measures for women. Though the position of women has improved in the last four decades, but still they are struggling to maintain their dignity and freedom. Presently Indian women are facing the toughest time mentally and physically, mainly due to unawareness and lack of knowledge of legal and constitutional rights of a woman. The Constitution provides many protection rights for women such as Protective discrimination in favor of women, Right to freedom of women, Right of women against exploitation, Rights of women under directives and political representations of women.

India has been named the most dangerous country in the world for women in a recent Thomson Reuters Foundation Survey 2018. It is a jolt to see India scoring worse than war-torn countries such as Afghanistan or Syria or monarchies such as Saudi Arabia, where women have few rights. Everyone expects more and better for women from India, the world’s largest functioning democracy. After all, the Indian constitution enshrines women’s rights to equality, including freedom of voice, movement and rights over their own bodies. India’s designation hurts national pride because it is a country where millions of smartly dressed women go to work in high-rise offices every day, where laws have changed to protect women and where women and men have spilled into the streets to protest against the grotesque rapes of toddlers, the gang rape of eight-year-olds, and of young women activists protesting at the trafficking of women.

The biggest contribution of the Thomson Reuters Foundation survey is that it reframes questions about the gender gap or gender equality into a question about women’s safety and danger. It is no longer a philosophical issue of rights. It simply asks: are women safe and free? It forces us to consider cultural forces and the implementation of laws that impact how women are actually treated in a culture, despite formal law, education, employment or income. India is in denial of the fact that a majority of its women do not feel safe alone on the streets, at work, in markets, or at home, even though they have learned how to cope with this existential anxiety. Maximum of educated young women in New Delhi (national capital of India) don’t feel safe and they don’t go out alone unnecessarily; come home at night before dark; get permission to go out; are always careful and alert; and they censor their speech, their clothes and their body posture, including whether or not they look men in the eyes.

The National Crime Records Bureau statistics for 2012 to 2016 show that approximately 40% of female reported rape victims were minors and 95% knew the rapist. The rapists belonged to the “circle of trust” of extended family and friends. Young girls have nowhere to go. The Indian women are in a constant state of vigilance, like- a country on terrorist alert. The Article 23 prohibits “traffic in human beings and beggar and other similar forms of labor”. The expression “traffic in human beings is evidently a very wide expression including the prohibition of traffic in women for immoral or other purposes. Also the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 has been enacted with the object of inhibiting or abolishing the immoral trafficking of women and girls. Articles 21 & 23 also impose the duty on state to identify, release and rehabilitate freed bonded laborers.

2. SC/ST in Indian Constitution and in Real India-

To uphold the Constitutional mandate and to safeguard the interests of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SCST), Special social enactments have come into force from time to time including privileges by way of reservations for them. The major legal enactments by Centre are: (i) Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955; (ii) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 was enacted in furtherance of Article 17 of the Constitution by which untouchability was abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. Further, in order to check and deter crimes against SCs/STs by persons belonging to other Communities, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was brought into force from 30th January, 1990. These enactments have extended the positive discrimination in favour of SCs and STs to the field of criminal law in as much as they prescribe penalties that are more stringent than for corresponding offences under Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other laws. For speedy trial of cases registered exclusively under these Acts, special centres have been established in the major States. In addition, in pursuance of the Constitution 65th Amendment Act, 1990, National Commission for SCs and STs was constituted w.e.f. 12th March, 1992 with wide functions and powers of Civil Court to take up matters which are of vital importance for socio-economic development of SCs and STs.

In spite of these laws, the graph of crime against SC/ST has been on increasing trend. The most important reason behind such cruelty is lack of proper contribution of SCST people in the whole system of country, be it judiciary, police or politics. Maximum of the powers and powerful designation vest in hands of non-SCST people and maximum of these people favor their own community/ caste people whenever such cases come to them and poor SCST people deprived of their rights and justice. The narrow mindedness is seen not only in illiterate people but also in highly educated person who are working at prestigious positions. They have readymade perception of hatred and superiority complex against SCST and such disease has been a part of their blood since thousands of years which can be purified only with the self-introspection and following love, peace, harmony, brotherhood and kindness (as taught by Lord Buddha).

As many as 47,338 cases of crime against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SCST) were registered in 2016 (reported by NCRB). Of these, charge-sheets were filed in 78.3% and conviction rate was merely 25.8%. In 2015, a total of 38,564 cases and 6275 cases were registered for alleged crime against SC and ST respectively in which conviction rate was merely 27.2 % and 19.8 % respectively. The rule 3 (v) of the SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995 specifies that with a view to prevent atrocities on members of SCST, if deemed necessary, can provide arms licenses to the members of SCST, but in reality such defense arms are not provided by the officials or government.

The Bihar state in India has highest rate of crime against SC/STs, and West Bengal the lowest (NCRB). Since 2014, crimes against SCs have increased one percent overall, although there was a steep rise of 5.5 percent in 2016. For crimes against SCs specifically, Madhya Pradesh is highest at 43.4 per cent, and West Bengal is lowest at 6 per cent. For crimes against the ST population specifically, Rajasthan is the highest at 12.9 per cent, with West Bengal being the lowest at 1.6 per cent. The police play a crucial role in ensuring that SC/ST populations are protected under The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. They are responsible for ensuring that a charge-sheet is filed once a case is reported, and that all cases are then investigated and forwarded to the hearing stage.

In 2016, a total of 39629 cases were filed by SCs, with the highest number being disposed of in Chhattisgarh (5479). A total of 6490 cases filed by STs were disposed of, with the highest disposal occurring in Madhya Pradesh (1805). Of all cases filed by SC/STs under the act, almost 30 percent are still pending investigation. On a state level, this proportion is highest for both SC and ST in Jharkhand (65.8% and 69.7% respectively). In contrast, some states record very low number of pending cases for SC and ST such as Madhya Pradesh (9.7% and 7%). The rate at which the police files charge-sheets for reports of violence against SCs and STs (78.3% and 81.3%) is also lower than the national rate of charge-sheeting (87.5%).

The judiciary is the body in charge of enforcing the rights of SC/STs under the Act, by conducting a fair trial and convicting the persecutor in case of guilt. Conviction rates for cases involving SC/ST atrocities are slightly below the All-India rate (21%) for STs (20.8%), and are significantly higher in cases involving SCs (25%). Conviction rates are particularly low in states of Karnataka, Odisha and Andhra Pradesh. However, there are still a large number of pending cases involving SC/ST atrocities, showing that justice is being delayed. States like Bihar show a very high pendency rate for both SC and ST cases (95.9% and 94%). Almost all states have a pendency percentage above 80%, representing an extreme backlog across the nation. At the police investigation stage, a total of 1063 cases were disposed of by the police due to a mistake of fact by the victim, or due to it being deemed a false case. Out of these cases, 691 of these took place in the state of Rajasthan. Further, amongst the cases disposed of by the courts, an interesting trend is seen for plea bargaining in cases of violence against SC/STs. In 2016, 38 cases were disposed of using the method of plea bargaining, and all of them were witnessed in the state of Rajasthan. The SCST people however alleged in many cases that the police and judiciary is a part of nexus and no security is provided to the SCST victims and due to threats from mighty people (often rich people, big landholders, politicians etc.), they used to compromise under compulsion. This is the one of the reason for low conviction rate and the guilty person/s roam free without fear because they are able to buy anything be it police or anything else.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Indian Constitution was written by Babasaheb Dr. B.R.Ambedkar with hope that with new constitution, the governments will be in a position to establish peace, love, harmony and brotherhood throughout the nation and there will be eradication of social- economic evils present in Indian society since thousands of years. He had a hope that one citizenship, one identity and one voting right will bring equality among people. He made large number of Articles in the constitution to safeguard the interests of women and down-trodden sections of society in the country. In-spite of these Articles and Acts, the graph of cruelty, atrocity and violence against women and SCST has been on increasing trend. However, different governments, NGOs and social organization have put their best effort to implement the constitution but it couldn’t be done in real sense, meaning thereby, the constitution is not implemented fully and in full spirit. Drastic changes have been seen social structure, living standard and rising income of the people, but maximum of people still have negative mentality/ approach against women and SCST and that is why number of atrocities, rapes, molestation, domestic violence, untouchability, incidents of insults have been increasing day by day (as clear from the data given in the paper). We, the people of India must read the preamble of the constitution, our fundamental rights and duties and other aspects of our constitution very carefully and implement in our daily life. This will help us to be an ideal Indian citizen and we will start respecting each and every citizen of our country without any prejudices and without any discrimination in the name of gender, caste, religion or region. Let’s follow the direction given by Lord Buddha, Satguru Ravidasji and other saints and move together with love, peace, harmony and brotherhood towards a prosperous India.

REFERENCES:

Jadhav Narendra, (2014). Ambedkar: Awakening India’s social conscience, Konark Publishers, New Delhi, pp. 453-463.

Dr. A. Padmanaban: Ambedkar’s life’s and legacy, Ambedkar and social justice, Vol. II, Published by Director Publication Division, Govt. of India. pp. 27.

Kuber, W.N. (1973). Dr. Ambedkar: A Critical Study, People’s publishing House, New Delhi.

Lal, Shyam (1998). “Ambedkar and Social Justice” in Shyam Lal and KS Sazena,(eds), Ambedkar and Nation Building, Rawat Publication, Jaipur, Quoted in A Ranjith Kumar, ‟ Ambedkar’s Notion of Social Justice-A Different Perspective ‟ , international journal of scientific and engineering research, December, 2011.

Ambedkar, B.R. (1989). “Women and Counter Revaluation”. “Riddles of Hindu Women” in Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speech, Vol. 3, Department of Education, Government of Maharashtra.

Arya Sudha (2000). Women Gender Equality and the State, Deep and Deep Publications, New Delhi. 2000.

Government of India: The National Policy for the Empowerment of Women (2001), Department of Women and Child Development, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi.

Haksar, Nandita (1986). Demystification of Law for Women, Lancer Press, New Delhi.

K. Kavita (2013). B. R. Ambedkar’ Role in Women Empowerment, Women Issues.

Limaye, Champa (1999). Women Power and Progress, B.R. Publishing Corporation, New Delhi.

Mathew, Thomas (1999) Ambedkar: Reform or Revolution, Segment Books, New Delhi.

P, Hemraj (2013). Dr. Ambedkar and Women Empowerment, Dalit vision.

www.ncrb.gov.in

www.theguardian.com

www.evaglobaldatabase.com

www.indianexpress.com

www.thewire.in

www.thetimesofindia.com

www.buddymantras.com

Corresponding Author