Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s visit to Columbia and its

Impact on making a Democratic Bharat

 This paper was presented by the under mentioned in the National Seminar on Century of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s journey to Columbia and its impact on Nation Building held on 17^th February, 2013 at Speaker’s Hall, Constitution Club, New Delhi. India

(Rajinder Kashyap)

New Delhi

 Abstract

 

Democracy literally means rule by the people. The term is derived from the Greek dēmokratiā, which was coined from dēmos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”) in the middle of the 5^th Century bc to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens. The etymological origins of the term Democracy hint at a number of urgent problems that go far beyond semantic issues. If a government of or by the people - a “popular” government - is to be established, at least five fundamental questions must be confronted at the outset, and two more are almost certain to be posed if the democracy continues to exist for long;

 

                                i.            What is the appropriate unit or association within which a democratic government should be established - a town or city or a country or a business corporation or a university or an international organization or all of these.

                              ii.            Given an appropriate association like who among its members should enjoy full citizenship or who should constitute the dēmos?

                            iii.            For what area the formed Demos would operate.

                            iv.            When citizens are divided on an issue, as they often will be, whose views should prevail and in what circumstances. Whether majority will always prevail or should minorities sometimes be empowered to block or overcome majority rule.

                              v.            If a majority is ordinarily to prevail, what is to constitute a proper majority – a majority of all citizens 0r a majority of voters.

                            vi.            The preceding questions presuppose an adequate answer to a sixth and even more important question: Why should “the people” rule? Is democracy really better than aristocracy or monarchy? Perhaps, as Plato argues in the Republic, the best government would be led by a minority of the most highly qualified persons - an aristocracy of   “philosopher-kings.” What reasons could be given to show that Plato’s view is wrong?

                          vii.            No association could maintain a democratic government for very long if a majority of the demos - or a majority of the government - believed that some other form of government were better. Thus, a minimum condition for the continued existence of a democracy is that a substantial proportion of both the dēmos and the leadership believes that popular government is better than any feasible alternative.

 

The issue deliberated in my paper pertains to the development of democratic ethos in the world during various periods and how the concept of representative government, civil rights, fundamental rights, voting rights, inclusive government and justice have evolved in various societies including Indian society. The paper also delves upon the thoughts which impacted the mind of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar when he went to Columbia University for higher studies and which subsequently were weaved into the governance system before and after independence. This paper would also throw light on the single handed responsibility held and performed with utmost aplomb, knowledge, dedication and commitment by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in framing the Indian Constitution. A portion of paper would also deal with the present situation of Democracy vis-à-vis challenges in Indian society and how these situations are taking away the life and soul of democratic ideals. Some thoughts on how the movement of attainment of dignified life as human being needs to be carried on by Dalits, Tribals, Backwards and Denotified Tribes have been put forth to move forward to attain Ambedkarits utopia to make this Bharat as Prabudha Bharat.

 

Introduction

 

Alexander Pope (21 May 1688 – 30 May 1744), an eminent 18th-century English poet, best known for his satirical verse and for his translation of Homer once stated in one of his verses;

 

…. For forms of government let fool contest,

The form is best which administer the best...

 

These lines, perhaps, he wrote when hectic discussions were going on in his country on the subject of government. It was good that many people did not agree with the views of Alexander Pope and kept on examining various aspects of government in various ages and enriched the thought process of generations on the idea of good governance. Both Despotic and Republicans in various times claimed that they represent the will of people but unfortunately good of people was quite a far from their hearts. Utmost greed and materialism led to gory practices of slavery in the world in almost every civilisation.

 

People from the very beginning have been persecuted on the basis of birth, caste, colour, race, religion, region, etc. in this land as well in other lands. In the Indo-Aryan society, almost one fifth of population was declared untouchable bereft of any rights.

 

The first recorded official persecution of Christians on behalf of the Roman Empire was in 64 AD, when, as reported by the Roman historian Tacitus, Emperor Nero blamed Christians for the Great Fire of Rome. According to Church tradition, it was during the reign of Nero that Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome. However, modern historians debate whether the Roman government distinguished between Christians and Jews prior to Nerva's modification of the Fiscus Judaicus in 96 AD, from which point practicing Jews paid the tax and Christians did not[1]  Christians suffered from sporadic and localized persecutions over a period of two and a half centuries. Their refusal to participate in Imperial cult was considered an act of treason and was thus punishable by execution. The most widespread official persecution was carried out by Diocletian. During the Great Persecution (303–311 AD), the emperor ordered Christian buildings and the homes of Christians torn down and their sacred books collected and burned. Christians were arrested, tortured, mutilated, burned, starved, and condemned to gladiatorial contests to amuse spectators.[2] The Great Persecution officially ended in April 311 AD, when Galerius, senior emperor of the Tetrarchy, issued an edict of toleration, which granted Christians the right to practice their religion, though it did not restore any property to them.[3] Constantine, Caesar in the Western empire and Licinius, Caesar in the East, also were signatories to the edict of toleration. During the rule of Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (reigned 306–337 AD), Christianity became a dominant religion of the Roman Empire. Historians remain uncertain about Constantine's reasons for favoring Christianity, and theologians and historians have argued about which form of Christianity he subscribed to. Although Constantine had been exposed to Christianity by his mother Helena, there is no consensus among scholars as to whether he adopted his mother's Christianity in his youth, or gradually over the course of his life and he did not receive baptism until shortly before his death.[4]  Constantine's conversion was a turning point for Early Christianity, sometimes referred to as the Triumph of the Church, the Peace of the Church or the Constantinian shift. In 313 AD, Constantine and Licinius issued the Edict of Milan legalizing Christian worship. The emperor became a great patron of the Church and set a precedent for the position of the Christian emperor within the Church and the notion of orthodoxy, Christendom, ecumenical councils and the state church of the Roman Empire declared by edict in 380.

 

This alliance of emperors with the Church went on for long time on mutual quid-pro-quo till the age of renaissance and resurrection and created a situation of extreme misery for common people. The clergies proclaimed Kings as a representative of GOD and legitimized all their misdeeds, in lieu of this favour, King showered extensive wealth and things of material joys including slaves and land on clergies. This mutual arrangement went on for many centuries shoving people in dark ages.

 

Voltaire in his famous satirical story Candide published in the year 1759, narrated heart rending position of common people. At one point Candide asks his rather brilliant servant Cacambo about the Jesuite of Paraguay, who tells him,”I was a scout (once a servant) in the College of Assumption, and I know los padres (how the reverend fathers govern) as well as I know the streets of Cadiz. And what an admirable domain it is (It’s a wonderful system they have).The kingdom is already upward of three hundred leagues in diameter, and divided into thirty provinces (There are thirty provinces in their kingdom, and it is more than three hundred leagues across) Los padres (The reverend fathers) own everything (the whole lot),the tribes nothing (and the people own nothing); Tis ( that’s what I call) a masterpiece of rational and justice (reason and justice). Why, I know of nothing so near to divine almightiness as los padres (I don’t think I have ever seen such godlike creatures as the reverend father: here they make was against the kings of Spain, and over in Europe they receive these same kings in their confessionals (They fight the Kings of Spain and Portugal over here and give them absolution in Europe). Here they kill Spaniards, and over there (in Madrid) they speed them their way to Heaven: ’tis exquisite! (Delightful isn’t it?)”[5]

 

A strong resentment was germinated in the exploited classes of people across the countries in the western world and people’s participation in governance once again gathered momentum. We need to know the various phases and periods in which these developments took place from old to modern time to understand the position in a proper perspective. Before moving ahead let’s find out as to what is Democracy.

 

Attributes of Democracy

 

While no consensus exists on how to define democracy, equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a central attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant principle is that of parliamentary sovereignty (while maintaining judicial independence). [6]

 

Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution.[7]

 

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally- either directly or through elected representatives - in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.

 

Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of which concern how the whole body of all eligible citizens executes its will. One form of democracy is direct democracy, in which all eligible citizens have direct and active participation in the decision making of the government. In most modern democracies, the whole bodies of all eligible citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called representative democracy. The concept of representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European Middle Ages, the Age of Enlightenment, and the American and French Revolutions [8]  

 

One theory holds that democracy requires three fundamental principles: 1) upward control, i.e. sovereignty residing at the lowest levels of authority, 2) political equality, and 3) social norms by which individuals and institutions only consider acceptable acts that reflect the first two principles of upward control and political equality.[9]

 

Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. Hence, democracy allows for political minorities to be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority" in the absence of legal protections of individual or group rights. An essential part of an "ideal" representative democracy is competitive elections that are fair both substantively and procedurally. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are considered to be essential rights that allow eligible citizens to be adequately informed and able to vote according to their own interests.[10]

 

            Democracy can also be characterized as a form of political collectivism because it is defined as a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives with its emphasis on notions of social contract and the collective will of the all voters.[11]

 

While democracy is often equated with the republican form of government, the term "republic" classically has encompassed both democracies and aristocracies.[12]

 

Evolution of Democracy

 

The term originates from the Greek word (dēmokratía) "rule of the people"[13],  which was coined from dêmos "people" and kratos "power" in the 5^th Century BCE to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens. The political system of Classical Athens, for example, granted democratic citizenship to an elite class of free men and excluded slaves and women from political participation. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship consisted of an elite class until full enfranchisement was won for all adult citizens in most modern democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19^th and 20^th Centuries.

 

Athenian Democracy

 

The term "democracy" first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought in the city-state of Athens.[14] Cleisthenes (508-507 BCE), a Greek political philosopher is referred to as the father of Athenian democracy responsible for establishing democracy in Athens. ^[15] Athenian democracy took the form of a direct democracy and it had two distinguishing features (a) the random selection of ordinary citizens to fill the few existing government administrative and judicial offices (b) a legislative assembly consisting of all Athenian citizens.[16] Range voting appeared in Sparta as early as 700 BC. The Apella was an assembly of the people, held once a month. In the Apella, Spartans elect leaders and made voting by range voting and shouting. Every male citizen of age 30 could participate. Aristotle called this "childish," as opposed to something sophisticated as using stone voting ballots the Athenians used. But in terms, Sparta adopted it because of its simplicity, and to prevent any bias voting, buying, or cheating that was predominant in the early democratic elections.

 

For a small city state of estimated 200,000 to 400,000 inhabitants of Athens, there were between 30,000 and 60,000 citizens. The exclusion of large parts of the population from the citizen body is closely related to the ancient understanding of citizenship and excluded women, slaves and foreigners and males under 20 years of age. Thus the number of ‘Demos’ was much smaller in the Athenian Democracy.

 

In his book, ‘Politics’, Aristotle contrasted rule by the many (democracy / polity), with rule by the few (oligarchy / aristocracy), and with rule by a single person (tyranny or today’s autocracy/monarchy). He also thought that there was a good and a bad variant of each system (he considered democracy to be the degenerate counterpart to polity). For Aristotle the underlying principle of democracy is freedom, since only in a democracy the citizens can have a share in freedom. In essence, he argues that this is what every democracy should make its aim. There are two main aspects of freedom: being ruled and ruling in turn, since everyone is equal according to number, not merit, and to be able to live as one pleases.

 

The Roman Republic and Democracy

 

At about the same time that popular government was introduced in Greece, it also appeared on the Italian Peninsula in the city of Rome. The Romans called their system a rēspūblica, or republic, from the Latin rēs, meaning thing or affair, and pūblicus or pūblica, meaning public - thus, a republic was the thing that belonged to the Roman people, the populus romanus.

 

Like Athens, Rome was originally a city-state. It expanded rapidly by conquest and annexation far beyond its original borders to encompass all the Mediterranean world and much of Western Europe, its government remained, in its basic features, that of a moderately large city-state. Indeed, throughout the republican era (until roughly the end of the first century bc). In the 1^st Century BC, Roman assemblies were held in the very small Forum at the centre of the city.

 

Although Roman citizenship was conferred by birth, it was also granted by naturalization and by manumission of slaves. As the Roman Republic expanded, it conferred citizenship in varying degrees to many of those within its enlarged boundaries. Because Roman assemblies continued to meet in the Forum, however, most citizens who did not live in or near the city itself were unable to participate and were thus effectively excluded from the dēmos. Despite their reputation for practicality and creativity, and notwithstanding many changes in the structure of Roman government over the course of centuries, the Romans never solved this problem.

 

The Romans used not only an extremely powerful Senate but also four assemblies, each called comitia (“assembly”) or concilium (“council”). The Comitia Curiata was composed of 30 curiae, or local groups, drawn from three ancient tribus, or tribes; the Comitia Centuriata consisted of 193 centuries, or military units; the Concilium Plebis was drawn from the ranks of the plebes, or plebeians (common people); and the Comitia Tributa, like the Athenian Assembly, was open to all citizens. In all the assemblies, votes were counted by units (centuries or tribes) rather than by individuals; thus, insofar as a majority prevailed in voting, it would have been a majority of units, not of citizens. Although they collectively represented all Roman citizens, the assemblies were not sovereign. Throughout the entire period of the republic, the Senate - an institution inherited from the earlier era of the Roman monarchy - continued to exercise great power. Senators were chosen indirectly by the Comitia Centuriata; during the monarchy, they were drawn exclusively from the privileged patrician class, though later, during the republic, members of certain plebeian families were also admitted.

 

Roman Republic contributed significantly to many aspects of democracy. A minority of Romans were citizens with votes in elections for representatives. The votes of the powerful were given more weight. Roman Republic was the first representative government in the western world to have a representative government, although it didn't have much of a democracy. Modern representative democracies imitate more the Roman than the Greek models because it was a state in which supreme power was held by the people and their elected representatives, and which had an elected or nominated a leader. Representative democracy is a form of democracy in which people vote for representatives who then vote on policy initiatives as opposed to a direct democracy, a form of democracy in which people vote on policy initiatives directly.[17]

 

Evolution of Democracy in the United Kingdom

 

The Parliament of England had its roots in the restrictions on the power of kings written into Magna Carta, 1215, England, which explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects, whether free or fettered – and implicitly supported what became English writ of habeas corpus, safeguarding individual freedom against unlawful imprisonment with right to appeal. The first elected Parliament was De Montfort's Parliament in England in 1265. As late as 1780, the Parliament was elected by a population of less than 3% and the power to call parliament was at the pleasure of the monarch. The power of Parliament increased in stages over the succeeding centuries. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 was enacted.

 

Nearly 20 centuries after Aristotle, English philosopher John Locke adopted the essential elements of the Aristotelian classification of constitutions in his Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690). Unlike Aristotle, however, Locke was an unequivocal supporter of political equality, individual liberty, democracy, and majority rule. He expounded a theory that Government - insofar as it is legitimate, represents a social contract among those who have “consented to make one Community or Government … wherein the Majority has a right to act and conclude the rest.” Two ideas - the consent of the governed and majority rule - became central to all subsequent theories of democracy. He further held that no government is legitimate unless it enjoys the consent of the governed, and that consent cannot be rendered except through majority rule.

 

This codified certain rights and increased the influence of Parliament. The franchise was slowly increased and Parliament gradually gained more power until the monarch became largely a figurehead. As the franchise was increased, it also was made more uniform, as many so-called rotten boroughs, with a handful of voters electing a Member of Parliament, were eliminated in the Reform Act of 1832.

 

Less than a century later, Locke’s views were echoed in the famous words of the United States Declaration of Independence - We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

In his work ‘On Liberty’ (1859) John Stuart Mill argued on utilitarian grounds that individual liberty cannot be legitimately infringed - whether by government, society, or individuals - except in cases where the individual’s action would cause harm to others. Mill wrote that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. Mill’s principle provided a philosophical foundation for some of the basic freedoms essential to a functioning democracy, such as freedom of association, and undermined the legitimacy of paternalistic laws, such as those requiring temperance, which in Mill’s view treated adult citizens like children. In the area of what he called the liberty of thought and discussion, another freedom crucial to democracy, Mill also argued, on utilitarian grounds, that legal restrictions on the expression of opinion are never justified. The “collision of adverse opinions,” he contended, is a necessary part of any society’s search for the truth. In another work, Considerations on Representative Government (1861), Mill set forth in a lucid and penetrating manner many of the essential features of the new type of government, which had not yet emerged in Continental Europe and was still incomplete in important respects in the United States. In this work he also advanced a powerful argument on behalf of woman suffrage - a position that virtually all previous political philosophers (all of them male, of course) had ignored or rejected.

 

Modern era France and its tryst with Democracy

 

In France, in 1789, after the Revolutionary, it adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and although short-lived, the National Convention was elected by all males in 1792.[18]  The establishment of universal male suffrage in France in 1848 was an important milestone in the history of democracy.

 

The French political theorist Montesquieu, through his masterpiece The Spirit of the Laws (1748), strongly influenced his younger contemporary Rousseau (see below Rousseau) and many of the American Founding Fathers, including John Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. Rejecting Aristotle’s classification, Montesquieu distinguishes three ideal types of government: monarchy, “in which a single person governs by fixed and established laws”; despotism, “in which a single person directs everything by his own will and caprice”; and republican (or popular) government, which may be of two types, depending on whether “the body, or only a part of the people, is possessed of the supreme power,” the former being a democracy, the latter an aristocracy.

 

According to Montesquieu, a necessary condition for the existence of a republican government, whether democratic or aristocratic, is that the people in whom supreme power is lodged possess the quality of “public virtue,” meaning that they are motivated by a desire to achieve the public good. Although public virtue may not be necessary in a monarchy and is certainly absent in despotic regimes, it must be present to some degree in aristocratic republics and to a large degree in democratic republics. Sounding a theme that would be loudly echoed in Madison’s Federalist 10, Montesquieu asserts that without strong public virtue, a democratic republic is likely to be destroyed by conflict between various “factions,” each pursuing its own narrow interests at the expense of the broader public good.

 

Another political theorist, Rousseau In his book, ‘The Social Contract (1762)’, asserted that democracy is incompatible with representative institutions, a position that renders it all but irrelevant to nation-states. The sovereignty of the people, he argues, can be neither alienated nor represented. “The idea of representatives is modern,” he wrote. “In the ancient republics … the people never had representatives.… The moment a people allows itself to be represented, it is no longer free: it no longer exists.” Despite these negative conclusions, Rousseau hints, in a brief footnote (Book III, Chapter 15), that democratic governments may be viable if joined together in confederations.

 

Situation in the United States of America

 

In the United States of America, founding fathers did not term the system as democracy but also shared a determination to root the American experiment in the principle of natural freedom and equality. The United States Constitution, adopted in 1788, provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties for some. In the colonial period before 1776, and for some time after, often only adult white male property owners could vote, enslaved Africans, most free black people and most women were not extended the franchise.[19] On the American frontier, democracy became a way of life, with widespread social, economic and political equality. However, slavery was a social and economic institution, particularly in eleven states in the American South, such that a variety of organizations were established advocating the movement of black people from the United States to locations where they would enjoy greater freedom and equality. In the 1860 United States Census the slave population in the United States had grown to four million, and in Reconstruction after the Civil War (late 1860s) the newly freed slaves became citizens with (in the case of men) a nominal right to vote. Till the year 1920’s, a number of litigations were filed by the slave owning whites in the Supreme Court of the USA to claim Africa - American slaves as chattel. Full enfranchisement of citizens was not secured until after the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) gained passage by the United States Congress of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

 

According to the American philosopher John Dewey, democracy is the most desirable form of government because it alone provides the kinds of freedom necessary for individual self-development and growth - including the freedom to exchange ideas and opinions with others, the freedom to form associations with others to pursue common goals, and the freedom to determine and pursue one’s own conception of the good life. Democracy is more than merely a form of government, however; as Dewey remarks in Democracy and Education (1916), it is also a “mode of associated life” in which citizens cooperate with each other to solve their common problems through rational means (i.e., through critical inquiry and experiment) in a spirit of mutual respect and good will. Moreover, the political institutions of any democracy, according to Dewey, should not be viewed as the perfect and unchangeable creations of visionary statesmen of the past; rather, they should be constantly subject to criticism and improvement as historical circumstances and the public interest change.

 

Participation in a democracy as Dewey conceived requires critical and inquisitive habits of mind, an inclination toward cooperation with others, and a feeling of public spiritedness and a desire to achieve the common good. Because these habits and inclinations must be inculcated from a young age, Dewey placed great emphasis on education, he called public schools “the church of democracy.” His contributions to both the theory and practice of education were enormously influential in the United States in the 20^th century. In his book ‘The Public and Its Problems (1927)[20]’ and other works, he contended that individuals cannot develop to their fullest potential except in a social democracy, or a democratic welfare-state. Accordingly, he held that democracies should possess strong regulatory powers. He also insisted that among the most important features of a social democracy should be the right of workers to participate directly in the control of the firms in which they are employed.

 

Given Dewey’s interest in education, it is not surprising that he was greatly concerned with the question of how citizens might better understand public affairs. Although he was a proponent of the application of the social sciences to the development of public policy, he sharply criticized intellectuals, academics, and political leaders who viewed the general public as incompetent and who often argued for some form of democratic elitism. Only the public, he maintained, can decide what the public interest is. In order for citizens to be able to make informed and responsible decisions about their common problems, he thought, it is important for them to engage in dialogue with each other in their local communities. Dewey’s emphasis on dialogue as a critical practice in a democracy inspired later political theorists to explore the vital role of deliberation in democratic systems.

 

From the time of Mill until about the mid-20^th century, most philosophers who defended democratic principles did so largely on the basis of utilitarian considerations - i.e., they argued that systems of government that are democratic in character are more likely than other systems to produce a greater amount of happiness or well-being for a greater number of people. Such justifications, however, were traditionally vulnerable to the objection that they could be used to support intuitively less-desirable forms of government in which the greater happiness of the majority is achieved by unfairly neglecting the rights and interests of a minority.

 

In his book ‘A Theory of Justice (1971)’[21], the American philosopher John Rawls attempted to develop a non-utilitarian justification of a democratic political order characterized by fairness, equality, and individual rights. Reviving the notion of a social contract, which had been dormant since the 18^th century, he imagined a hypothetical situation in which a group of rational individuals are rendered ignorant of all social and economic facts about themselves - including facts about their race, sex, religion, education, intelligence, talents or skills, and even their conception of the ‘good life’ - and then asked to decide what general principles should govern the political institutions under which they live. From behind this ‘veil of ignorance,’ Rawls argues, such a group would unanimously reject utilitarian principles - such as “political institutions should aim to maximize the happiness of the greatest number” - because no member of the group could know whether he belonged to a minority whose rights and interests might be neglected under institutions justified on utilitarian grounds. Instead, reason and self-interest would lead the group to adopt principles such as the following: (1) everyone should have a maximum and equal degree of liberty, including all the liberties traditionally associated with democracy; (2) everyone should have an equal opportunity to seek offices and positions that offer greater rewards of wealth, power, status, or other social goods; and (3) the distribution of wealth in society should be such that those who are least well-off are better off than they would be under any other distribution, whether equal or unequal. Rawls holds that, given certain assumptions about human motivation, some inequality in the distribution of wealth may be necessary to achieve higher levels of productivity. It is, therefore, possible to imagine unequal distributions of wealth in which those who are least well-off are better off than they would be under an equal distribution. These principles amount to an egalitarian form of democratic liberalism. Rawls is accordingly regarded as the leading philosophical defender of the modern democratic capitalist welfare state.

 

The unsolved old questions universal suffrage

 

New answers to the unsolved old questions universal suffrage came. In the 19th century property requirements for voting were reduced and finally removed. The exclusion of women from the dēmos was increasingly challenged. Beginning with New Zealand in 1893, Switzerland, a pioneer in establishing universal male suffrage in 1848, did not grant women the right to vote in national elections until 1971.The United States granted women the right to vote in 1920, African Americans were prevented from voting and only after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its vigorous enforcement, they were American dēmos.

 

Why Democracy a preferred system?

 

The value of democracy is that it helps to prevent rule by cruel and vicious autocrats, do not fight wars with one another countries with democratic governments, tend to be more prosperous than countries with nondemocratic governments, foster human development - as measured by health, education, personal income,  helps people to protect their fundamental interests, guarantees its citizens fundamental rights that non-democratic systems do not, and cannot, grant, ensures its citizens a broader range of personal freedoms than other forms of government do, provides people with a maximum opportunity to live under laws of their own choosing, provides people with a maximum opportunity to take moral responsibility for their choices and decisions about government policies, and in a democracy only there can be a relatively high level of political equality.

 

Democracy vis-à-vis situation in India

 

The experience of functioning of government in some form or other is very old in India. The Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) was a Bronze Age civilization (3300–1300 BCE, mature period 2600–1900 BCE) that was located in the northwestern region[22] of the Indian subcontinent. [23] Among the settlements were the major urban centres of Harappa, Lothal, Mohenjo-daro (UNESCO World Heritage Site), Dholavira, Kalibanga, and Rakhigarhi. Archaeological records provide no immediate answers for a center of power or for depictions of people in power in Harappan society. But, there are indications of complex decisions being taken and implemented for instance, the extraordinary uniformity of Harappan artifacts as evident in pottery, seals, weights and bricks.  It appears that there was a single state, given the similarity in artifacts, the evidence for planned settlements, the standardised ratio of brick size, and the establishment of settlements near sources of raw material. There was no single ruler but several, Mohenjo-daro had a separate ruler, Harappa another, and so forth. Harappan society had no rulers, and everybody enjoyed equal status.[24]

 

In the 6^th Century B.C., Northern India did not form a single Sovereign State.  The country was divided into many States, some large, some small. Of these, some were monarchical and some non-monarchical. The monarchical States were altogether sixteen in number. They were known by the name[s] of Anga, Magadha, Kasi, Kosala, Vriji, Malla, Chedi, Vatsa, Kuru, Panchala, Matsya, Saursena, Asmaka, Avanti, Gandhara, and Kambhoja.  The non-monarchical States were those of the Sakyas of Kapilvastu, the Mallas of Pava and Kushinara, the Lichhavis of Vaisali, the Videhas of Mithila, the Koliyas of Ramagam, the Bulis of Allakapa, the Kalingas of Resaputta, the Mauriyas of Piwhat happened and the Bhaggas with their capital on Sumsumara Hill.  The monarchical States were known as Janapada, and the non-monarchical as Sangh or Gana. Not much is known about the nature of the polity of the Sakyas of Kapilvatsu, whether it was republican or oligarchic.[25]

 

             This much, however, is definitely known, that there were many ruling families in the Republic of the Sakyas, and that they ruled in turns. The head of the ruling family was known as Raja. At the time of the birth of Siddharth Gautama, it was the turn of Suddhodana to be the Raja. The Sakya State was situated in the northeast corner of India. It was an independent State. But at a later stage the King of Kosala had succeeded in establishing his paramountcy over it. The result of this paramountcy was that the Sakya State could not exercise certain sovereign powers without the sanction of the King of Kosala. Of the kingdoms then in existence, Kosala was a powerful kingdom. So was the kingdom of Magadha. Pasanedi, King of Kosala, and Bimbisara, King of Magadha, were the contemporaries of Siddharth Gautama.

 

Except the Sangh established by the ‘Exalted One’ (Lord Buddha), the traces of some kind of democratic functioning of institution are hardly available in the ancient India. Let’s see how Sangh established by the Exalted One worked in a democratic fashion?  The Sangh was open to all.  There was no bar of caste.  There was no bar of sex. There was no bar of status. Caste had no place in the Sangh. Social status had no place in the Sangh. Inside the Sangh all were equal. Inside the Sangh, rank was regulated by worth and not by birth. As the Blessed Lord said, the Sangh was like the ocean, and the Bhikkhus were like the rivers that fell into the ocean.  The river has its separate name and separate existence. But once the river entered the ocean, it lost its separate name and separate existence. It becomes one with the rest. Same is the case with the Sangh. When a Bhikkhu entered the Sangh, he became one with the rest, like the water of the ocean. He loses his caste. He loses his status, so said the Lord. The only distinction observed inside the Sangh was that of sex. The Bhikkhu Sangh was separate in its organisation from the Bhikkhuni Sangh.[26] 

 

The legal maxim of Audi Altrum Patrun (No one should be condemned unheard) which is a democratic principle was in force in the Sangh from the very inception. It could be understood from the position explained in the chapter ‘The Bhikkhu and the Trial of Offences’ applicable to Bhikkhu in Sangh. The enactment of these acts and omissions was not a mere formality. They were legal in substance, involving a definite charge, trial, and punishment.  No Bhikkhu could be punished without a trial by a regularly constituted Court. The Court was to be constituted by the Bhikkhus resident at the place where an offence had taken place. No trial could take place without a proper number of Bhikkhus required to constitute a Court. No trial would be legal without a definite charge. No trial could be legal if it did not take place in the presence of the accused. No trial could be legal if the accused had not been given the fullest opportunity to defend himself. The following punishments could be awarded against a guilty Bhikkhu: (i) Tarjaniya Karma (warn and discharge); (ii) Niyasha Karma (declaring insane); (iii) Pravrajniya Karma (expulsion from the Sangh); (iv) Utskhepniya Karma (boycott); (v) Parivasa Karma (expulsion from Vihar). Expulsion may be followed by abbana karma. Abbana Karma means annulment of dismemberment [expulsion]. It may be followed after granting of pardon granted by the Sangh, after being satisfied with the proper performance of Parivasa Karma.[27]

 

            Democracy essentially is based on fraternity, dignity and related living. In various civilizations in the world, fraternity building has taken place through various methods and it can be said for various societies and civilisation. Before the Arabs became a political power, they had undergone a thorough religious revolution started by the Prophet Mohammad. The political revolution led by Chandragupta was preceded by the religious and social revolution of Buddha. The political revolution led by Shivaji was preceded by the religious and social reform brought about by the saints of Maharashtra. The political revolution of the Sikhs was preceded by the religious and social revolution led by Guru Nanak. It is unnecessary to add more illustrations. These will suffice to show that the emancipation of the mind and the soul is a necessary preliminary for the political expansion of the people.[28] 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.[29]

 

            A number of revolutions have taken place in the modern world. Much credence is attached to the Communist revolution taken place in Russia and China. The social dichotomy prevailing in India society and unwillingness and non-readiness of proletariat to participate in any such revolution is aptly commented upon by Dr. Ambedkar when he states, “Suppose for the sake of argument that by some freak of fortune a revolution does take place and the Socialists come into power, will they not have to deal with the problems created by the particular social order prevalent in India? I can't see how a Socialist State in India can function for a second without having to grapple with the problems created by the prejudices which make Indian people observe the distinctions of high and low, clean and unclean. If Socialists are not to be content with the mouthing of fine phrases, if the Socialists wish to make Socialism a definite reality, then they must recognize that the problem of social reform is fundamental, and that for them there is no escape from it.”[30] Even today, the socialist movement in India is not vehemently opposing the caste or has any agenda to dismantle or annihilate caste in India social structure. It is further surprising that stockpiles of currency, gold, diamonds and other valuable metals have been found in the temples in Kerala state where communist’s movement has been very old and deep rooted and the said ideology has ruled that province for a considerable period in various spells. This goes to prove that socialist ideology is not even skin deep even in those areas where they have ruled for considerable time period. Due to this silent spectator approach, their relevance in the contemporary times in India socio-political movement is lower ebb.

 

            Talking about democracy Dr. John Dewey states that Democracy is neither a political, nor economic nor social concern taken separately. Nor it is just taken all together. It is a moral ideal, a statement of relation which shall prevail amongst the human beings. It is a hypothesis, if not a firm belief, that if man creates proper institutions and then his better possibilities would actualize themselves. It is a faith in man’s possibilities. Democracy as a methodology is based on the pious principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Democracy thrives in democratic society and democratic distribution and utilization of resources for development of human being who resolves to adopt democracy as way of life. Democratic goals cannot be separated from Democratic methods.  The goal is in the method and end is in the means. This is generally the democratic belief.[31] 

 

            A democratic form of government presupposes a democratic form of society. The formal framework of democracy is of no value and would indeed be a misfit if there is no social democracy. The politicals (politicians) never realise that democracy was never a form of government: it was essentially a form of society. It may be necessary for a democratic society to be marked by unity, by community of purpose, by loyalty of public ends and by mutuality of sympathy. But it does unmistakably involve two things. The first is an attitude of mind, an attitude of respect and equality towards their fellow. The second is a social organization free from social barrier. Democracy is incompatible and inconsistent with isolation and exclusiveness, resulting in the distinction between privileged and unprivileged.[32]

 

Lecky the great historian concludes that “the foundation of a Nation’s strength and prosperity is laid in pure domestic life in commercial integrity, in a high standard of moral worth and of public spirit, in simple habits, in course, uprightness and a certain soundness and moderation of judgment which springs from quite as much from character as intellect.  If you would form a wise judgment of the future of a nation, observe carefully whether these qualities are increasing or decaying.  Observe carefully what qualities count for most in public life.  Is character becoming less or of greater importance?  Are the men who obtain the highest posts in the nation, men of whom, in private life, irrespective of party, judges speak with genuine respect?  Are they of sincere conviction, consistent lives and indisputable integrity?  It is by observing this that you can best cast the horoscope of a nation.”

           

We have to consider as to who has to rule.  This question was pre pounded by President Roosevelt for American Public to consider and will always be there; who shall rule - wealth or man? Which shall lead money or intellect? Who should fill public stations, educated and patriotic free men or the feudal serfs or corporate capital?  This test we have to apply to the democratic functioning in this country.  Why men of culture are refusing to come themselves in this cesspool.

 

Despotism does not cease to be despotism because it is elective.  Nor does despotism becomes agreeable because despots belong to our own kindred.  To make it subject of election is no guarantee against despotism.  The real guarantee against despotism is to confront it with the possibility of its dethronement, of its being laid low, of its being superseded by rival party.  Every government is liable to error of judgment, great much liable to bad administration, not a few to corruption, injustice and acts of oppression and bad faith.  No government is free from criticism.  But who can criticize the government? Left to individual, it can be never done.

 

Sir Toby has left behind advice as to how one should deal with his energy he said “soon, so soon as ever then bust him, draw, and as throw dravest, server horrible.”  But this is not possible for an individual against the government.  As Boyce says ‘fatalism of the multitude, in view of this efforts of individual becomes insignificance.  The sense of helplessness arises from the belief that his efforts are conveyed by larger forum whose movements cannot be turned by individual efforts.  In the second place there is possibilities of the tyranny of the majority which often manifest in suppressing and subjecting to penalties and other social disabilities persons who do not follow the majority.

           

The secret of freedom is courage and courage is born in combination of individual into groups.  In a democracy parties are necessary to make a government.  But, there has to be check on the despotic tendencies of government by another party. Jenning says, “If there is no opposition there is no democracy.  His Majesty’s opposition is no idle phrase. His Majesty needs opposition as well as Government.” There must be definite check and balances to see that a communal majority does not abuse the power under the garb of electoral majority.

 

It was Phule who spoke for Human Rights of humans in his Book ‘Sarvajanak Satya Dharma’ in 1889 and much before since 1848 after reading Thomas Paine’s ‘Rights of Man’ which had intense effect on American Constitution.  As early as 1892 and 1901, the  leader of untouchables like Baba Walangkhar and other in Maharashtra and Bengal demanded for human Rights for untouchable[33]  In South India it was Iyothee Thass and Periyar who argued for these rights in 19^th and 20^th Century.  In north Swami Achutanand and Baba Mangu Ram Magguwalia fought in the United Provision and Punjab. The Prince of Kolhapur Rajarshi Shahu Maharaj was also arguing for these Human Rights in 1917 and had already executed a number of legislations giving effect to the Fundamental Rights of women, workers and untouchables since 1902.[34] Further the evidence of Hon’ble Dr. B.R. Ambedkar before Southbrough Committee of 1919, his views before Simon Commission and in Round table Conferences ( RTCs) from 1928-1933 exemplify a lot on the Fundamental Rights and Human Rights of human being. The Mahad Satyagrah of 1927 initiated by Dr. Ambedkar was the 1^st movement of attainment of Human Rights by depressed classes of India.  All these Movements of Bahujan Samaj from Phooley to Babasaheb are contemporary to the history of Human Rights in 19^th and 20^th century across the world,  like Francis Younghusband’s ‘Fight for Right Movement’ 1955,  President W. Wilson’s ‘14 Points Programme’, establishment of League of Nations and ILO, 1919,  Paris Peace Conference for ‘equality rights’ of 1919 and Slavery Convention of 1926.

 

The Philosophy of Human Rights as propounded by these Great Leaders of Bahujan Samaj was much radical in content than those of Human Rights in the World.  Pertinent to note here that the “dharma” as propounded by Hindu Shastras from Rigveda to Balambhati was an absolute negation of Human Rights to maintain Varna and Caste based indignities and  inequalities.  It was the ‘Dhamma’ of Buddha that for the first time propounded the HRs of all men in the world in 6 BCE. [35]      

 

It can be candidly adduced that the Movement for Human Rights and Fundamental Rights was started not by the so-called nationalist reformers or leaders like Raja Rammohan Roy, Gandhi, Sapru, Annie Beasant, Motilal Nehru, Jayakar etc. but by Phooley, Thass, Shahu Maharaj, Periyar and  Constitutionally guaranteed by Hon’ble Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.  The so-called nationalist movement’s response on these rights since 1924 was on the contrary was a “face saving exercise” to the Human Rights Movement of Bahujan Samaj. It may be further stated that Civil Rights and Fundamental Rights were attained for Indian downtrodden much prior to the Civil Rights Movement in the United States of America under the kind and able leadership of Dr. Ambedkar.   

 

For the first time in the history of civilization in India, Bharat as a country was to frame a constitution in pursuance to Cabinet Mission Plan of 16^th May, 1946.  The election of constituent Assembly (CA) was completed in July-August, 1946. On 29^th August, 1947, Drafting Committee was constituted.  On 30^th August, 1947 Hon’ble Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was elected Chairman of Drafting Committee.  From 9^th December 1946 to 26^th November 1949, the Constituent Assembly with 11 session sat for 166 days and Drafting Committee from 30^th August, 1947 to 26^th November, 1949 met for 141days.  The rest of the period of 166 + 141 = 10 months and 5 days, was consumed for work of various committees.  The Drafting Committee examined 2473 amendments moved in the Constituent Assembly, considered Reports of various Committees, notes, references, letters, opinions, suggestions and framed best constitution consisting 395 Articles and 8 Schedules.[36]

 

Issues of balkanization of India, Federalism, Language, Citizenship, Safeguard for Minorities, Fundamental Rights vis-à-vis Directive Principles of State Policy, Nature of democracy, Power and duties of Centre and Provisions, Legislative, Executive, Judiciary, CAG, franchise and Electoral system, issues concerning linguistic provinces were to be settled through the constitution but India had no history of constitution being framed by people and worked upon. Due to immense Intellect, knowledge, reason, experience and scholarship  of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar reflected during the  Round Table Conferences and framing of Government of India Act, 1935 that  he was elected unopposed, as Chairman of Drafting Committee.  Apart from being the Chairman of Drafting Committee, Hon’ble Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was nominated / appointed member of other 17 Committees.  So in all, he worked in 18 Committees.  In addition to this, he attended the meeting of another 2 Committees of which he was not a member viz. Union Power Committee and Provincial Power Committee. As early as 30^th June, 1947 the President of Constituent Assembly, Dr. Rajendra Prasad in his letter requesting Mr. B.G. Kher, the then Prime Minister of Bombay to elect Dr. B.R. Ambedkar immediately even before his becoming of Chairman of Drafting Committee. This itself acknowledges the work of Dr. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly and various Committees. Dr. Prasad wrote, ”Apart from any other consideration we have found Dr. Ambedkar’s work both in the Constituent Assembly and the various Committees to which he was appointed to be of such an order as to require that we should not be deprived of his services……I am anxious that he should attend the next session of the Constituent Assembly commencing from the 14^th July and it is, therefore, necessary that he should be elected immediately”.

 

Out of 90 odd members, a large number of eminent members paid a glowing applause to the genius and toils of Dr. Ambedkar in framing the Constitution. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s contribution was acknowledged by Columbia University on 6^th of June, 1952 conferring honorary degree of L.L.D. The University hailed Dr. Ambedkar (who was its student) as “as a framer of Constitution, member of the cabinet and of council of states. One of India’s leading citizen, a great social reformer and a valiant upholder of human rights.”  People of perverse mentality miserably fail to appreciate a great and noble cause for which Dr. Ambedkar toiled tirelessly in modern times. The Democratic Constitution of India is exclusively a product of the Human Right movement of Bahujan Samaj from 1848 to 1956. This settles the matter once for all that Dr. Ambedkar is not only the Principal Architect of the Constitution but the Father of Constitution of India. Father of Constitutional India as the present Constitution would not have been possible without him.[37] All the above unquestionably establishes the ‘unparalleled and unmatched’ contribution of Hon’ble Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in framing the Constitution of India without disregard to any other member of the Constituent Assembly. This Great son of India has illuminated and kindled a ray of hope in the lives of millions and millions of poor, deprived, disposed, illiterate and exploited people. Now it is left to you to judge as to who is the Father of Modern Indian Nation.

           

Freedom is a causality in caste ridden, patriarchal and feudal society.  Caste is anti-social, anti-democratic, anti-national and anti-human.  Ideal and democratic society can only be created by complete annihilation of caste.

 

A number of Revolutions have taken place in the Western World.  The first such revolution was French Revolution, it gave modern world three principles - Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.  Within 20 years (1770-1790) of French Revolution, another revolution namely American Revolution took place.  Rights of all American or Rights of All Men were the cherished ideals of this revolution.  In both these revolutions, the concept of liberty was attached paramount importance.  In 1964, second American Revolution took place and under the aegis of this the Civil Right Act, 1964 came with force to put an end to racial discrimination.

 

For almost 200 years, the principle of Liberty only was emphasized and that too for only few by exploiting others. In 1917, revolution happened in Russia, on the utopia of Marx and Engels.  It was expected to establish Liberty, Equality and Fraternity but only to some extent it could bring equality that too economic equality. The revolution failed to address other aspects like religion, social and cultural equality. In the years 1940 to 1960 in China Mao taking    inspiration from Lenin and Marx brought cultural and social Revolution but today’s China is again is moving towards the situation in which Chang-Kai-Shek ruled prior to the period of 1949. As under his rule, 90% wealth of China was concentrated in the hands of selected few individuals and families related to him.[38]

 

Besides these four revolutions, there have been three more scientific revolutions in the world viz.  Protestant movement which demolished the wrongful notion inculcated and practice d by the Church, it gave way to reasoned thinking which challenged the many precepts of Religion and paved way for scientific temper and thinking which lead to Industrial Revolution in the modern world.  Science has brought two further revolution namely Information Technology and Bio-Technology revolution in the world changing the dynamic of every aspect of life.

 

If we summarize, in last 1000 years of civilization, despite so many revolutions, the question remains whether the suffering of men have come to an end or reduced substantially.  Casteism, racialism, ethnicity, gender discrimination, irreligiousness in religion, cultural and religious conflicts, economic exploitation, exploitation of environment, demonic power of Technology further coupled with the strong belief of section of people in perverse thoughts like Genesim and eugenics have perpetuated sorrows and sufferings in the world. None of the Religions or revolution could put estoppels to above chronic ailments suffered by dispossessed humanity.  Every revolution has merits and demerits.  If any revolution is not based on correct principles, ideals and system, it is bound to fail and engineer further conflicts.

 

In Indian context, there are only two greats ‘The Exalted One’ Gautama Buddha and Hon’ble Dr. Ambedkar. Hon’ble Dr. Ambedkar raised questions concerning humanity in 36 years of his struggle and provided solution to such predicaments while framing the Constitution of India that’s why we say that Hon’ble Dr. Ambedkar is not only greatest Indian but greatest Indian in the world. The man who opposed tooth and nail conferment of Rights on the most exploited people in his own country but kept on giving eloquent discourses on humanism elsewhere in the world cannot be given revered sobriquet of Mahatma or Great?  

 

While writing the Constitution Dr. Ambedkar states that he has not taken the principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity from French Revolution but from the precepts propounded by the Gautama Buddha.  The concepts of humanism and individual centricity have been taken from the gospel of Buddha. Therefore, one should be able to differentiate between ideals and respectable.  One should be able to understand the philosophy, ideology, principles and the policies before attaching reverence to individuals. These things are utmost essential for establishing or moving forwards any socio-political movement.

           

            The democratic movements in India are not yielding desired results as they do not differentiate between ideals or principles and respectable.  Unless the ideals, principles, and policies enshrined in the Constitution are not acted upon in most earnest way, the democracy in this country would be in severe peril. We have to ponder upon the question whether the principle of Liberty – Equality – Fraternity would suffice to proclaim democracy.  In view of position of evolution of democratic institutions since French and American Revolutions, it may not suffice to say that three principles cited ibid are sufficient to instill democracy in a society.  Therefore, in modern times, we have to ponder upon new and additional ideas to strengthen the democracy for making it more vibrant and dynamic serving as an effective check on undemocratic tendencies. Besides Liberty - Equality – Fraternity, what are other ideals which need to be integrated with these three ideals? The fourth ideal which Hon’ble Dr. B.R. Ambedkar has integrated with above three ideals is Justice. It would be incorrect to say that the concept of justice has not been discussed in earlier times but in the modern world, it is philosopher John Rawls who has written a book – A Theory of Justice. But much before John Rawls, it is Dr. B.R. Ambedkar who has deliberated upon the concept of justice and human dignity. If these four principles – Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and Justice are acted upon with utmost sincerity, socio, economic, political, religio-cultural reconstruction of modern world is possible. The religio-culture reconstruction would be possible through Dhamma.  The question could be raised as to what kind of Dhamma would be suitable for humanity in the modern world. The answer to this question is that a Dhamma which deals with the problems, principles values and orders and if there is any such Dhamma, then it could only be Dhamma as propounded by The ‘Exalted One’ and narrated by giving a detailed account in “Buddha and His Dhamma”. Dhamma is humanism, not only humanism but universal or all pervasive humanism. Dhamma is morality, individual morality, institutional morality and universal morality. Therefore, it would be apt to say that the Democracy propounded by Hon’be Dr. Ambedkar is Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Justice and Dhamma. These democratic ideals have been engrained deep into one of the best Constitution of the World.  Burke says, “True religion is the foundation of society, the basis on which the true Civil Government rests, and both their sanction.”[39] As observed by Prof. Carver, “Morality and Religion, as the organized expression of moral approval and disapproval, must be regarded as factors in the struggle for existence as truly as are weapons for offence and defence, teeth and claws, horns and hoofs, furs and feathers. The social group, community, tribe or nation, which develops an unworkable scheme of morality or within which those social acts which weaken it and unfit it for survival, habitually create the sentiments of approval, while those which would strengthen and enable it to be expanded habitually create the sentiments of disapproval, will eventually be eliminated. It is its habits of approval or disapproval (these are the results of religion and morality) that handicap it, as really as a possession of two wings on one side with none on the other will handicap the colony of flies. It would be as futile in the one case as in the other to argue, that one system is just as good as another.”[40]   

 

Merely in 36 years he has demolished the 3600 years history of discrimination. This was the first revolution carried out by Bahujans successfully. Taking cues from the best Constitution of the World, countries like South Africa, Uganda, Rwanda and entities like European Union are trying to evolve their constitutional system. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also declared on 5^th January, 2012 that if India stands united today, it is not because of culture or language or religion, it is only because of Indian Constitution.       

 

Most revered Baba Sahib Ambedkar waged a fierce battle whole his life to eliminate social inequalities in this society and sphere headed the movement of introduction of democratic methodology in political, economic and social system as moral ideals in the society and culture of this country.  He succeeded in embedding the founding pillars on which the edifice of social, economic and political, democratic life was to be erected and sustained in times to come. A person who does not have any concern and clarity on the philosophy, ideology, principles and the policies and such things do not hold high place in his mind, is purely an opportunist human being and if such a person heads any such movement and such movement is able to attract the attention of deprived masses, there is no doubt he would sell it for his self-promotion. This has happened repeatedly with the Dalit and Bahujan movement. One must always keep in mind that diagnosis made and treatment prescribed by Hon’ble Dr. B.R. Ambedkar can provide lasting solutions to the problems faced by Dalits and Bahujans in this society.  Always remember that it is ‘Ambedkarite Revolution’ which will not only answer the question of Bahujan Samaj but complete suffering humanity of this land. 

 

            Almost all revolutions in the world have taken place on the precepts of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity but none of them have realised ideals enshrined in those revolutions. The French and American Revolutions put immense emphasis on Liberty. But despotic regimes were set up immediately after the revolution in France. The people of Afro-American origin have to suffer for much longer time to attain even Civil Rights in a system of Liberty-Equality-Fraternity adopted in the United States of America in 1775. In the United Kingdom, The Parliament passed a law abolishing slavery in the second last decade of 19^th Century. Hon’ble Wilberforce, a member of Parliament was the moving force behind such a legislation who struggled whole his life and worked towards putting an end to this inhuman practice.

           

            Democracy requires alert and thinking citizenry well aware of their rights and duties. It generally does not get carried away by the mere slogans, hearsay and untested beliefs. The test required to be carried out before putting belief is well explained in Kalama Sutta by the ‘Exalted One’. The story goes like this that with the retreat season over, the Buddha travelled to many villages in the country side. One day he spoke in the Kesaputta village which belonged to the Kalama clan. Many young people gathered to hear him. They had all heard about Monk Gautama but this was first opportunity they had to meet him in person.

 

            One young man joined his palm and spoke, ”Teacher, for a long time, many brahmana priests have come to Kesaputta in order to teach various doctrines. Each priests claim that his doctrine is superior to other doctrines. This has confused us. We do not know which path to follow. In fact, we have lost faith in all the doctrines. We have heard that you are the enlightened Master. Can you tell us whom we should believe and whom should not? Who speaks the truth and who is merely spreading false doctrines?”

 

            The Buddha answered,” I can understand why you have given rise to doubts. Friends, do not be hasty to believe a thing even if everyone repeats it, or even if it is written in holy scriptures or spoken by a teacher revered by the people. Except only those things which accord with your own reason, things which the wise and virtuous support, things which in practice bring benefit and happiness. Abandon those things which do not accord with your own reason, which are not supported by the wise and virtuous, and which in practice do not bring benefits and happiness.”

 

            The Kalamas asked The Buddha to tell them more. He said, “Friends, suppose there is a person ruled by greed, anger, and ignorance. Will his greed, anger, and ignorance bring him happiness or suffering?”

 

            The people answered, “Master, Greed, anger, and ignorance will cause such a person to commit acts that brings suffering to himself and other.”

 

            “Is living by greed, anger, and ignorance supported by the wise and virtuous?”

 

            “No, Master.”

           

          The Buddha continued, “Take the example of someone who lives according to loving kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity, who makes other happy by relieving their suffering, who rejoices over the good fortunes of others, and who treats other without discrimination. Will such qualities bring that person happiness or suffering?”

 

            “Teacher, such qualities will bring happiness to the person and to all those around him.”

 

            “Are loving kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity supported and encouraged by the wise and the virtuous?”

 

            “Yes, Master.”

 

“My friends, you are already qualified to discern which things to accept and which things to discard. Believe and accept only those things which accord with your own reasons, those things which are supported by the wise and virtuous, and those things which in practice bring benefit and happiness to your selves and others. Discard things which oppose these principles.”[41]

 

All those who participate in a social movement need to keep in mind that above teachings of the “Blessed One’ are valid today and the whole endeavor needs to be on construction of humanist society based on reason and welfare of humanity. The one who acts and conducts his life and mission on these principles deserves any reverence from the Bahujan Samaj.

 

Hon’ble Dr. Ambedkar while delivering his address in the Constituent Assembly caution the nation when he says, “The Second thing we must do is to observe the caution which John Stuart Mill has given to all who are interested in the maintenance of democracy, namely, not ‘to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with powers which enable him to subvert their institutions’. There is nothing wrong in being grateful to great men who have rendered life-long services to the country.  But there are limits to gratefulness. As has been well said by the Irish patriot Daniel O’Connell, no man can be grateful at the cost of his honour, no woman can be grateful at the cost of her chastity and no nation can be grateful at the cost of its liberty.  This caution is far more necessary in the case of India than in the case of any other country.  For in India,  Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world, 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.[42]

 

He further said, ”The third thing we must do is not to be content with mere political democracy.  We must make our political democracy a social democracy as well.  Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy.  What does social democracy mean?  It means a way of life which recognizes liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not to be treated as separate items in a trinity. They form a union or trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy. Liberty cannot be divorced from equality, equality cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity. Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many.  Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative.  Without fraternity, liberty and quality could not become a natural course of things.  It would require a constable to enforce them.  We must begin by acknowledging the fact that there is complete absence of two things in Indian Society.  One of there is equality.  On the social plane, we have in India a society based on the principle of graded inequality which means elevation for some and degradation for others.  On the economic plane, we have a society in which there are some who have immense wealth as against many who live in abject poverty. On the 26^th 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. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man 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.

            ………. we are wanting in is recognition of the principle of fraternity.  What does fraternity mean?  Fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians – If Indians being one people.  It is the principle which gives unity and solidarity to social life.  It is a difficult thing to achieve.  How difficult it is, can be realized from the story related by James Bryce …. About the United States of America.

 

The story is – I propose to recount it in the words of Bryce himself—that:

 

Some years ago the American Protestant Episcopal Church was occupied at its triennial Convention in revising its liturgy.  It was thought desirable to introduce among the short sentence prayers a  prayer for the whole people, and an eminent New England divine proposed the words ‘O Lord, bless our nation’.  Accepted one afternoon, on the spur of the moment, the sentence was brought up next day for reconsideration,  when so many objections were raised by the laity to the word ‘nation’ as importing too definite a recognition of national unity, that it was dropped, and instead there were adopted the words ‘O Lord, bless these United States’.

 

There was so little solidarity in the U.S.A. at the time when this incident occurred that the people of America did not think that they were a nation.  If the people of the United States could not feel that they were a nation, how difficult it is for Indians to think that they are a nation.  I remember the days when politically-minded Indians resented the expression ‘the people of India’. They preferred the expression ‘the Indian nation.’  I am of opinion that in believing that we are a nation, we are cherishing a great delusion.  How can people divided into several thousands of castes be a nation?  The sooner we realize that we are not as yet a nation in the social and psychological sense of the word, the better for us.  For then only we shall realize the necessity of becoming a nation and seriously think of ways and means of realizing the goal.  The realization of this goal is going to be very difficult - far more difficult than it has been in the United States.  The United States has no caste problem.  In India there are castes.  The castes are anti-national, in the first place because they bring about separation in social life.  They are anti-national also because they generate jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste.  But we must overcome all these difficulties if we wish to become a nation in reality.  For fraternity can be a fact only when there is a nation.  Without fraternity, equality and liberty will be no deeper than coats of paint.[43]

 

Summing up

 

            The great leaders of Bahujans have always advised them to have faith in their endeavors to attain a dignified life as human beings in the society. They also advised the Bahujan masses that their cause is just, deserving and in the welfare of humanity, therefore, they would definitely succeed in their efforts. They have to wage relentless struggle against the perverse forces for establishing on order based on Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Justice and humanist Dhamma. One has to have faith in the principles through which one has to wage the struggle. The same advise Buddha gave to his Bhikkhus when ‘The Exalted One’ lay under the Sal trees and his Mahaparinirbana was nearing, Bhikkhus surrounding Him knew that their Master would not be there to guide them, started crying and weeping. Buddha consoled them and addressed them “Bhikkhus!  If you have any doubts or perplexity concerning the teaching, now is the time to ask the Tathagata about it.  Don’t let this opportunity pass by, so that later you will reproach yourselves, saying, “That day I was face to face with the Buddha but I did not ask him.”

 

The Buddha repeated these words three times, but no Bhikkhu spoke.

 

Venerable Ananda exclaimed, “Lord, it is truly wonderful!  I have faith in the community of Bhikkhus.  I have faith in the Sangha.  Everyone has clearly understood your teaching.  No one has any doubts or perplexity about your teaching and the path to realize it.”

 

The Buddha said, “Ananda, you speak from faith, while the Tathagata has direct knowledge.  The Tathagata knows that all the Bhikkhus here possess deep faith in the Three Gems.  Even the lowest attainment among these Bhikkhus is that of Stream-Enterer.”

 

The Buddha looked quietly over the community and then said, “Bhikkhus, listen to what the Tathagata now says.  Dharmas are impermanent.  If there is birth, there is death.  Be diligent in your efforts to attain liberation!”.

 

The Buddha closed his eyes.  He had spoken his last words.  The earth shook. Sal blossoms fell like rain.  Everyone felt their minds and bodies tremble.  They knew the Buddha had passed into nirvana. Venerable Anuruddha spoke up, “Brothers, do not cry so pitifully!  The Lord Buddha taught us that with birth there is death, with arising there is dissolving, with coming together there is separation.  If you understand and follow the Buddha’s teaching, you will cease to make such a disturbance.  Please sit up again and follow your breathing. We will maintain silence.”[44]

 

            Same way all of us who think of Bharat, have to seek directions and motivation from the efforts made by the great liberators of Bahujans for carrying the movement forward for making Bharat a vibrant society and an enlightened nation having democratic ideals running in its veins, we all have to think and take concrete action on the following points;

 

            Firstly, all out efforts with utmost vigor are needed to take democracy and democratic ideals deep down the society to ensure that the humanist ideals of Liberty – Equality – Fraternity-Justice as enshrined in the best Constitution of the world are implemented in real and meaningful manner. All components enunciated in ‘States and Minorities’ written by Hon’ble Dr. B.R. Ambedkar needs to be brought in the Constitution.

 

            Secondly, Caste has to be completely annihilated and reconstruction of democratic life and humane society on the pillars of Liberty – Equality – Fraternity – Justice and Dhamma is essential.  Bahujans have to take first step in this direction and must get rid of ailment of Caste from which they have suffered and are still suffering. There suffering would start disappearing the moment they start building a human, egalitarian and just society and that would only be possible by complete annihilation of caste. The efforts of attaching spiritual or any other credence from time to time with the menial and inhuman works needs to be condemned tooth and nail by all Bahujans as such practices have thrown Dalits in the deep doldrums, sucked there all faculties, pushed them into mental slavery and rendered them brainless carcasses. How correctly, Dr. Ambedkar has stated that in any society, menial, impure and lowly works are enforced upon the slaves and carrying out inhuman work like carrying night soil of humans is a symbol of slavery.[45]  

 

            Thirdly, The Caste economy needs to be demolished and path is to be cleared for economic democracy. There are a number of parallel economies flourishing in the country which are purely managed on the basis of caste such as big land owners, big industries, temples and religious places having lakhs of Crores of rupees. On the one hand, there is steep inflation in the country, while on the other such, segments are becoming richer and richer with each passing day. The question of unequal distribution of wealth, hunger and poverty in this country is required to be addressed. A few business enterprises or houses hold property assets equivalent to 25% of GDP of this country. In the list of 88 countries on the Global Hunger Index, India stands at 67^th position in the year 2010 while it was at 65^th in the year 2009. As per the UNDP Report on Multi-dimensional Poverty Index (MPI), there are 65 Crores people who fall in the category of poor in India. This constitutes 55% of total population of this country and this number is more than the population of 26 most poor countries of Africa. As per UNICEF Report on the number of children of less than five years of age facing malnutrition, the position of India is better only as compared to Ethopia. In Ethopia it was 51%, in India it is 48%, Congo 46%, Tanzania 44%, Bangladesh 43%, Pakistan 42%, Nigeria 41% and Indonesia 37%. The Food Right Movement claims that 2/3^rd of Indian women are anemic. As per Quality of Death Index, which concerns with the facilities to take care of old and feeble, at the index of 10 points India stands there with 1.9 points while United States of America is at 6.2 points. The water bodies are getting contaminated due to toxic flow of chemicals in the underground water and also causing intense pollution in rivers. As per United Nation estimates, at least one lakh people lose their life due to water borne diseases. As per Planning Commission Report, in almost 1/3^rd Districts, water with high floride contamination is available which causes various ailments and take lives of infants. In so far food grain consumption is concerned, in the year 1991 the consumption was 177 Kilogarms per person which has gone down to 155 Kilograms in 1998.[46] In view of above indicators, breaking Caste economy is of further paramount requirement. These problems are perpetuating with unequal distribution of wealth and resources. The resources of nation are required to be distributed or utilized in a manner that brings benefits to most disposed communities and empowers them in due course.    

 

            Fourthly, through the ideals of Democratic reconstruction of society and life, the ruling classes are required to be made human rulers. The forces which do not have any respect and concern for Democratic institutions and Democratic ideals and those who believe in the tradition dictum that ‘justice is interest of the stronger’ needs to be condemned, ignored and checked. If energies are spent upon them in any form in supporting them or giving credence to them, the fall of democratic ideals if a foregone result.

 

            Fifthly, Bharat has to be made ‘Prabuddha Bharat’ or Enlightened Bharat. This would be possible once the harmonious construction and implementation of tenants enshrined in the Constitution of India is done by the ruling classes. The mentality of creating begging classes for ulterior considerations needs to be shunned and most deserving needs to be given preference in disbursement of assistance by the state so that he becomes empowered and enlightened human being in the service of nation. As our forefather envisioned a nation where humanism is the prime ideal, muscle, money and clan power has to be brought under check in making such nation. Hon’ble Dr. B.R. Ambedkar while envisioning the kind of nation Bharat has  quoted Ernest Reenen who said that ‘Success of achieving great feats together and aspirations to accomplish still greater feats (goals) together makes people a nation.’ Bharat would become Prabuddha Bharat only through Democratic reconstruction of life except this. there is no other way. The great man like Hon’ble Dr. B.R. Ambedkar is rarely born. Lucky are those who have seen him or touched him or worked with him but also lucky are those who take a message from his life and mission and conduct their lives on the principles laid down by him. I close my address by saying the following lines;

 

His height was tall;

His thoughts were deep;

His words were measured

His will was resolute;

His deeds were immense;

His life was short.

 

REFERENCES

 

1.             _{Wylen, Stephen M., The Jews in the Time of Jesus: An Introduction, Paulist Press (1995), ISBN 0-8091-3610-4, pp 190-192.; Dunn, James D.G., Jews and             Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing (1999), ISBN 0-8028-4498-7, pp 33-34.; Boatwright, Mary Taliaferro & Gargola,          Daniel J & Talbert, Richard John Alexander, The Romans: From Village to Empire, Oxford University Press (2004), ISBN 0-19-511875-8, p. 426.;}

_{2.                     Bomgardner, D. L. The Story of the Roman Amphitheatre. New York: Routledge, 2000. p. 142.}

_{3.                     Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum ("On the Deaths of the Persecutors") ch. 35–34}

_{4.                     R. Gerberding and J. H. Moran Cruz, Medieval Worlds (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004) p. 55}

5.             Voltaire. “Candide”: First published in 1759. Penguin Popular Classic.pp.36-37. ISBN 0-14-062303-5

6.             R.Alan Dahl, I. Shapiro, J. A. Cheibub, The Democracy Sourcebook, MIT Press 2003, ISBN 0-262-54147-

7.             Jarvie, 2006, pp. 218-9

8.             Democracy". Encyclopedia Britannica.

9.             Kimber, Richard (1989). "On Democracy". Scandinavian Political Studies 12 (3): 201, 199–219.

                 ISSN 0080-6757.

10.          A. Barak, The Judge in a Democracy, Princeton University Press, 2006, p. 27, ISBN 0-691-12017-X

11.          Larry Jay Diamond, Marc F. Plattner (2006). Electoral systems and democracy p.168. Johns Hopkins          University Press, 2006.

12.          John Dunn, Democracy: the unfinished journey 508 BC – 1993 AD, Oxford University Press, 1994,

            ISBN 0-19-827934-5

13.          Dēmokratía( δημοκρατία) in Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, "A Greek-English Lexicon", at Perseus

14.          Aristotle Book 6

15.          Kurt A. Raaflaub, Josiah Ober, Robert W. Wallace, Origin of Democracy in Ancient Greece, University of    California Press, 2007, ISBN 0-520-24562-8,

16.          Leonid E. Grinin, The Early State, Its Alternatives and Analogues 'Uchitel' Publishing House, 2004

17.          Budge, Ian (2001). "Direct Democracy". In Clarke, Paul A.B. & Foweraker, Joe. Encyclopedia of Political    Thought. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-19396-2.

18.          ‘The French Revolution II’. Mars.wnec.edu.

19.          Ray Allen Billington, America's Frontier Heritage (1974) 117–158. ISBN 0-8263-0310-2

20.          Dewey Dr. John. Public and His Problems.

21.          Rawls John. “A Theory of Justice” ISBN :978-81-7534-175-3

22.          http://www.harappa.com

23.          http://www.mohenjodaro.net

24.          http://www.mohenjodaro.net

25.          Ambedkar Dr. B.R, Buddha and His Dhamma, Siddharth Publication, 3^rd Edition 1984. p.1 

26.          Ambedkar Dr. B.R, Buddha and His Dhamma, Siddharth Publication, 3^rd Edition 1984.  pp. 305-306

27.          Ambedkar Dr. B.R, Buddha and His Dhamma,  Siddharth Publication, 3^rd Edition 1984.  Pp.309 

28.          Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches Vol.1, p..44, Education Department, Government of         Maharashtra, 1979.

29.          Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches Vol.1, p. 57, Education Department, Government of         Maharashtra, 1979.

30.          Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches Vol. 1, p. 47, Education Department, Government of        Maharashtra, 1979.

31.          Dewey Dr. John. Reconstruction of the Democratic Life. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York 1951. Chapter                 4 “Democracy as a way of life. pp 82-83 (Also see pp 84 to 102).

32.                          Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches Vol. 1, pp. 222-223. Education Department, Government                of Maharashtra, 1979.

33.                          Mankar Vijay. Poona Pact: Historical Harms by Gandhi, Gandhism and Congress – An Inquiry.    Edition:2010.ISBN 978-81-907085-2-4 

34.          Rajarshi Sahu Chatrapati Papers, Vol.1-IX published by Shivaji University, Kolhapur, Maharashtra;

35.                          Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches Vol. II, Vol. 17, Part 1, Vol. 18, Part 1. Education               Department, Government of Maharashtra, 1979.

36.                          Lok Sabha Secretariat, Constituent Debates, Official Report Vol I-XI, 1999, New Delhi India.

37.                          Bahujan Vision Bulletin, July-September 2012. Published by Usha B. Meshram, Nagpur, India

38.                          Mahapandit Rahul Sanskrityayan, Mao Tse-Tung, Edition: 2004. ISBN 81-225-0048-X

39.                          Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches Vol. I, p76. Education Department, Government of          Maharashtra, 1979.

40.                          Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches Vol. I, p78. Education Department, Government of          Maharashtra, 1979.

41.                          Hanh, Thich Nhat. Old Path White Cloud – Walking in the Footsteps of The Buddha .Pp. 420-422.  11^th       Edition, ISBN 81-216-0675-6.

42.                          Guha Ramachandra..Makers of Modern India. P. 322. ISBN 978-0670-083-855

43.                          Speech in The Constituent Assembly on 25^th November, 1949, as produced in Constituent Assembly            Debates, Volume 11, pp. 972-81.

44.                          Hanh, Thich Nhat. Old Path White Cloud – Walking in the Footsteps of The Buddha .Pp. 560-561.  11^th       Edition, ISBN 81-216-0675-6.

45.          Singh Bhasha. Adrishya Bharat. ISBN 978-0-143-416-432

46.          Pandita Rahul. ‘Salaam Bastar. pp. 166-168. ISBN : 978-93-81626-46-7

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.