Ambedkar had warned about Indian democracy’s fragility. He must be heeded

His primary fight was against the evil of untouchability and casteism in the Hindu community. He was a severe critic of Mahatma Gandhi and the politics of the Indian National Congress for fighting only the external evil of foreign rule while ignoring the cancerous disease within the Hindu community. In his very first meeting with Gandhi, Ambedkar told him that he had no faith in great leaders and mahatmas. “History tells that mahatmas, like fleeting phantoms, raise dust, but raise no level.” Gandhi, on his part, expressed “the highest regard” for Ambedkar, and added, “He has every right to be bitter. That he does not break our head is an act of self-restraint on his part”.

The central question for Ambedkar was: Why was it that during their whole history, the Hindus did not feel ashamed about the practice of untouchability? Why did the great men of that faith not rise in revolt against such abominable caste inequality? Following a deep study of Hindu religious texts, he came to the conclusion that because of the religious sanctity provided to casteism, it was not possible to remove it. His undelivered lecture, later published as The Annihilation of Caste, was a severe critique of Hinduism. In 1935, he declared that though he was born a Hindu, he would not die a Hindu and indeed a few months before his death he led his flock of more than 4,00,000 to convert to Buddhism. But he remained deeply concerned that India was internally divided, that Hindu society was undemocratic and that it emphasised inequality and exclusion. He was worried that “if Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country”. Indeed, it was his effort to make this country a better place that underlay his labour in drafting the Constitution of India.

The role of chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution of India came to him as a pleasant surprise. He believed that law was a powerful instrument for social change and he brought to his task the vision of a new social order. Ambedkar worked to embed the objectives of liberty, equality and fraternity and the concept of dignity of the individual at the heart of the Constitution. He could not carry through some of his strongly-held ideas. He had to compromise on several issues; even nursing a resentment about having to work as a hack, and do what he was asked to do in the larger interests of the nation. In the end, though, the Constitution’s text, as it was finally passed, carried his stamp.

In his final speech in the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949, a day before it was adopted on November 26, 1949, he exuded a great sense of achievement. One of Ambedkar’s most important contributions, however, was a set of sharp, categorical warnings. His first warning was, “In politics, we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality… We must remove this contradiction at the earliest moment, or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which this Assembly has so laboriously built up”.

The second problem he highlighted was the complete absence of the principle of fraternity in our country: “How can people divided into several thousand castes be a nation?” Respect for the dignity of the individual is central to a good society. As a member of the Nehru Cabinet, Ambedkar felt that the prime minister was more focused on issues of economic development and not as much on social reconstruction. Rights are protected not by law, but by the social and moral conscience of the society.

Another warning was against the peculiar Indian habit of devotion or hero-worship of leaders, that is bhakti. As he emphasised, “Bhakti, in religion, may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.”

Given his deep sense of history and culture, Ambedkar was worried that there was a danger in India that democracy may give place to dictatorship. As he underlined, “It is quite possible for this new-born democracy to retain its form, but give place to dictatorship in fact. If there was a landslide of popular support, the danger of that possibility becoming an actuality is much greater”. It seemed almost prophetic. Critics are taking note of Indian democracy turning into electoral autocracy. The cumulative effect of corporate power, increasing inequality, communal hatred and the allowance given to mobs to humiliate others, poses a real danger.

Babasaheb warned that we need to recognise the evils that lie across our path and “which induce people to prefer government for the people to government by the people”. He asked us to be on guard against these evils and said “that is the only way to serve the country”. This warning from Babasaheb is particularly relevant now. Garlanding his statues or his ritual worship and ignoring his warnings would be hypocrisy.

The writer is retired professor of political science and head, B R Ambedkar Chair, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar