Parity In Disparity

For the democratisation of Indian political society, many efforts have been ­initiated by different political parties to protect the interests of weaker sections, mainly Dalits. But none has been more successful than the endeavours of Babasaheb Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar. Whenever the idea of social inequality and injustice comes up, Dr B.R. Ambedkar is the foremost person to strike everyone’s mind. Belonging to a family of the ­oppressed and ‘untouchable’ Mahar caste, he was a jurist, economist, fearless social reformer, anthropologist, author and a great constitutionalist.

An architect of the Indian Constitution, Ambedkar was a prof­ound scholar of his times whose ­involvement in Indian social and political democracy cannot be surpassed. He analysed the inner fragmentation of Dalits and desired the balancing out of India’s iniquitous social system. Clubbing together people of different religions, sects, castes, communities and regions, he gave them a collective identity as ‘Dalits’. His three-word formula—“educate, agitate, organise”—was a powerful tool for the inclusion of Dalits in the mainstream.

When Ambedkar was struggling for the rights of Dalits, the socialist movement, women’s movement and various religious movements were also on their battle path. One such movement was represented by the Indian National Congress, the most outstanding mass organisation before and after independence that also showed its zeal in the upliftment of weaker sections, including Dalits. Starting as a group of intellectuals that reached so wide and deep across the nation that Rajni Kothari called it the “Congress System”, the Congress became the leading political party in the country.

Ambedkar and the Congress had their own lines of thought, and the rift was prolonged over certain issues. One such was the Simon Commission, which was opposed by Congress leaders and supported by Ambedkar. The commission’s report published in two volumes in 1930 ended up as a ‘constitutional deadlock’. This ­necessitated three sessions of the Round Table Conference (1930-32) to deliberate upon constitutional reforms. Ambedkar, who was representing the ‘depressed classes’, made a call for separate electorates for ‘untouchables’—a demand that Mahatma Gandhi didn’t accept. Gandhi, who was ­interested instead in separate electorates for Sikhs and Muslims, ­boycotted the first session of the conference. When British PM Ramsay MacDonald announced the communal award for ‘depressed classes’, ­enabling separate electorates in the central and provincial legislatures, Gandhi went on a death fast. On September 24, 1932, the Poona Pact was signed by Gandhi and Ambedkar, providing reserved seats for ‘depressed classes’ in a joint electorate instead of a separate electorate. Thus Ambedkar succeeded in bringing recognition to the political demands of Dalits, while the Congress demand for a joint electorate was also met.

This did not end the battle, however, and it continued during debates on the Uniform Civil Code and the Hindu Code Bills. Emphasising the need for a Uniform Civil Code in the Constituent Assembly debates on November 23, 1948, Ambedkar said: “We have a uniform and complete criminal code operating throughout the country, which is contained in the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code. We have the law of transfer of property, which deals with property relations and is operative throughout the country. Then there are the Negotiable Instruments Acts and I can cite innumerable ­enactments which would prove that this country has practically a Civil Code, uniform in its content and applicable to the whole of the country. The only province the Civil Law has not been able to invade so far is ­marriage and succession.”

Because of India’s religious and cultural diversity, Congress members discarded the idea of Uniform Civil Code stating that it will ­violate the right to freedom of religion. Nevertheless, Ambedkar’s idea of Uniform Civil Code got relentless support from Jawaharlal Nehru and was ­included in the Constitution of India under Article 44 as a ­directive ­principle of state policy.  

Similarly, the Hindu Code Bills proposed by Ambedkar met with ­vigorous opposition in Parliament. The bills were watered down after they repeatedly failed to pass through Parliament and Nehru postponed the passing of these bills until India’s first general elections in 1951. When the Congress won the elections and formed the government, Nehru ­decided to get these bills passed. By the time the bills were passed, Ambedkar had resigned from the cabinet and wasn’t a part of it anymore.

All the above instances show that every time there had been issue-based confrontations ­between Ambedkar and the Congress, but it always ended in a healthy outcome with the consensus of both. Knowing that Ambedkar wanted to strengthen and empower the depressed classes, the Congress finally agreed to do the same. Despite the differences between them, the party appointed Ambedkar as the first law minister of independent India on August 3, 1947, and made him chairman of the drafting committee of the Constitution on August 28. This was done because the party was aware of Ambedkar’s intellect, wisdom and leadership qualities, and didn’t wish to be deprived of them.

Ambedkar believed that combating for the rights of Dalits was his spiritual power. He wanted his brothers to live in society with due respect and dignity. During the drafting of the Constitution, if the Congress had not accepted Ambedkar’s ideology, then it would not have been possible for him to insert Article 17 (abolition of untouchability). This consensus at the mental level between the Congress and Ambedkar had been brought about by his continuous efforts, which compelled everyone, inc­luding the members of drafting committee as well as Constituent Assembly, to incorporate the provisions for Dalits. Provisions incorporated in the Constitution and amendments made thereafter ­regarding reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (for ­instance, Articles 15(4), 16(4A), 46, 243D, 243T, 275, 330, 332, 334, 335, 338, 339, 341, 342 and a few more) were passed by a majority of the ­members of the Constituent Assembly, where the Congress was in a majority.

In fact, no committee can work in isolation. If I, as a minister in a state, have to pass any bill or resolution, I need the consent of the chief minister and the majority of other cabinet ministers. It was the same with the drafting committee, which got the full and final approval of Constituent Assembly members. Thus, even if the views of Ambedkar and the Congress differed on some ­issues that were quite imperative for social democracy, social equality and social upliftment, it led to the making of one of the best constitutions, which has various provisions for untouchables and Dalits. As far as protection of Dalits or the upliftment of downtrodden ­sections of society were concerned, there was indeed a fine accord between Ambedkar and the Congress.

At last, it must be borne in mind that Ambedkar’s contribution in our ­contemporary era is really vital, both in building strong institutions of parliamentary democracy and in promoting social reforms. After Ambedkar, many prominent leaders like Kanshi Ram worked for fortifying the rights of Dalits, but their efforts could not prove to be as fruitful. Now, the Dalit commu­nity has expectations from Rahul Gandhi and other Congress members, hoping they would bring the thinking and ideology of Ambedkar to the forefront once again.  

(Views expressed are personal.)

Minister of technical education and industrial training in the ­Punjab government