Revisiting Ambedkar: a critical outlook through the lens of social justice

In the construction of Post- Independent modern India Ambedkar (1891- 1956) was a pioneering figure who not only contributed to the Dalit liberation rather he can be considered as the architecture of modern India. Though popularly he is known as a 'Dalit icon' but it is not only his identity, he was a foreign expert, alternative visionary of Modern India and a dedicated Human Rights lawyer. Being the chairman of Drafting Committee, he led the entire Constitution writing program and articulated the ideas of social justice in his policy, program and arguments. For a long period of time his legacy and contribution to the national building process was almost ignored and even his statues were desecrated at many places in India. But nowadays, the discourse of his philosophy, contribution and vision is gaining popularity not only among the Dalit communities but also among the mainstream academics and the general readers. In the present scenario, when the notion of development, growth, equality and justice is challenged by the dominant caste and class structure it is important to revisit the philosophy of Ambedkar and to evaluate his relevance in present context. Several issues like caste conflict, atrocities to Dalit and marginal, gender discrimination and overall violation of human rights are burning issues which threaten the constitutional commitment to social justice.

Constructing a counter-narrative of nation

During the nationalist movement, the Dalits remained aloof from the mainstream movement because they feared that the upper caste leadership of the Indian National Congress would not address their issues. The representation of Gandhi in the Indian National Congress for the cause of untouchables created a suspicion among them. While Gandhi considered the problems of untouchables as a social issue, Ambedkar treated it as a political one. That is why he advocated for separate electorates to the Dalits and signed the Poona Pact (1932) with Gandhi under tremendous pressure from the caste Hindu leaders. He advocated for 'reservation' in government jobs and legislative bodies to empower the Dalit and to bring them into the mainstream. As a realist thinker, he was aware of the dominance of the upper caste in the governance system of the country. In his seminal work 'Annihilation of Caste' (1936), he developed a strong argument against the Hindu social order and its exploitative nature and argued for a new social order based on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

During the framing of the Constitution, he played a crucial role in ensuring that the marginalized sections of society get adequate representation and protection. As the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, he incorporated several provisions to safeguard the interests of the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). He was a strong advocate of the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity, which he believed were essential for the establishment of a just social order. His vision of social justice was not limited to the political rights of the marginalized but extended to their economic and social empowerment as well. He argued that political democracy would be meaningless without social and economic democracy.

Ambedkar's vision of a just society was based on the principles of constitutional morality. He emphasized that the mere existence of a constitution is not enough; it is the moral commitment of the citizens and the state to uphold the constitutional values that ensures justice. He argued that constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment but has to be cultivated through conscious efforts. This idea is particularly relevant in the contemporary context where we witness increasing attacks on constitutional institutions and values.

Ensuring constitutionalism for promoting justice

In order to ensure the rights of the marginalized people Ambedkar advocated for a written integrated constitution. Though, his idea of constitutionalism is different to a great extent from the present form of constitution because he wanted political equality based on social and economic equality. As the chairman of drafting committee Ambedkar augured that unless and until the rights of the downtrodden and women are protected no society can go ahead. That is why he was in favour of constitutional reservation. He justified the cause of reservation as the positive discrimination to uphold the standard of marginalized people of the society. Through various provisions of the Constitution Ambedkar's vision for social justice has been reflected. His vision of social justice is reflected in the following provisions:

(i) Article 14-18 (equality, abolition of untouchability, anti-discrimination) (ii) Article 21 (ensuring the right to life, dignity and personal liberty) (iii) Article 46 (promotion of SC /ST Education and Economic interest).

To foster the goal of social empowerment Ambedkar advocated for the inclusion of several social and economic policies in the Directive Principles (Article- 36- 51); thus his ideas of social justice have been reflected in the directives of state formation. Austin (2024:66) observed that "By establishing these positive obligations of the state, the members of the Constituent Assembly made it the responsibility of future Indian Governments to find a middle way between individual liberty and the public good, between preserving the property and the privilege of the few and bestowing benefits on the many in order to liberate 'the powers of all men equally for contributions to the common good'."

He was aware about the deviation of the norms while promoting special provisions for the downtrodden and weaker sections and that is why he justified it by the notion of 'Protective discrimination'. Today we find the same arrangements in various segments of the society in order to uphold them in the main stream. So the notion of positive discrimination based on 'intelligible differentia' is well accepted in the present time.

No doubt is there, today, tribals and others marginalized sections are deprived and become vulnerable in the socio economic sector. It is not only the question of the empowerment of the marginalized section, rather it is an instrument of all round development of the marginalized and downtrodden people of our society, he argued. Though he advocated for the empowerment of common masses he vehemently opposed the introduction Panchayet system as he believed that through Panchayet the dominance of the upper caste people would be established. He is of the opinion that the village is, "a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow- mindedness and communalism" (CAD, 1948).

He strongly argued to introduce Uniform Civil Code by which the social division, caste discrimination, social hierarchy would be abolished. In 1951 while the initiative to pass the Hindu Code Bill was taken in the Parliament he strongly supported but ultimately, he failed and to protest it he resigned from the then Ministry. He was also against Article 370 for the special provision of Jammu & Kashmir. He is of the opinion that if Kashmir is the integral part of the nation the Government of India should possess the internal security, border and all other things to ensure all round development of the people of the region. Though, against his will Article- 370 was inserted in the Constitution. Today, the essence of his argument is realized and by the Presidential order (2019) the provision of 370 has been made inoperative.

Promoting social democracy and justice

People can enjoy the true spirit of political democracy only when he lives in the environment of social democracy. By social democracy Ambedkar meant to say that a kind of environment where liberty, equality and fraternity will be assembled together. He was in favor of western parliamentary form of democracy where individual well- being and social well- being be ensured. He was suspicious about the majoritarian rule because he believed that in a majoritarian rule, the minority voice and interest can be suppressed and compromised. Ambedkar realized that without the abolition of caste system the complete state formation is not possible and this work is not satisfactorily done during the colonial regime. So after independence through a democratic state system the state formation should be done in such a way that it can be used as a tool to uphold the interest of the marginalized section.

In order to develop the condition of vulnerable section of the society he established the Peoples Education Society on July 8, 1945, in Mumbai. He believed that by empowering the untouchables a community would be developed who could led the untouchables. In a caste ridden society no upper caste people would lead the real progress of the untouchables. That is why he emphasized - a) To organize the untouchables and to make them conscious b) To apply to the British Government for the wellbeing of the vulnerable sections and c) To spread the education among the vulnerable and down trodden peoples of the society.

For promoting social justice for the marginalized section, he proposed various social reformation schemes for the marginalized sections:

(i) ensuring the representation of untouchables in every stage of the society and administration. Later on he demanded for separate electorate for the untouchables and untouchables leaders to represent them.

(ii) to spread the higher education among the Dalit and untouchables.

(iii) promoting for a strong Central government to implement public welfare and duties.

For him social justice implies the right of choice that is their liberty to choose their education and occupation. Ambedkar pointed out some importance rights like right to life, right to move, right to personal property, right to religion for promoting social justice. Apart from these, he proposed few plans to ensure social justice, namely:

(i) To stop the forced and unpaid labour to the upper caste Hindus. (ii) Right to enter into the temples. (iii) To give the permission for using the water from public pond, tank. (iv) Introducing the scholarship to spread the education among the backward classes. (v) To ensure services in military and police. (vi) To engage them in social and cultural activities. (vii) Ensuring the representation in various government committees. (viii) To reserve the seats in central and provincial legislature. (ix) A minimum wages for a healthy livelihood.

Realizing the bitter experience in his personal life and social animosity in caste, class, he wanted to throw out the deep- rooted caste system from the society. In his famous book 'Annihilation of Caste' (1936) he advocated to abolish the sub- caste system from the demographic profile. Besides, to remove the superstition, not- touchism and any other separatist tendencies he emphasized on social cohesion and inter- dining. He also supported the inter caste marriage; as he thought that because of these a blood relation would be established and by marital relationship a social fraternity would be created. Thus, the practice of caste division will be eradicated from the society. By criticizing the caste system Ambedkar actually wanted to protect the upper caste domination mainly the Bramhinical philosophy of Hinduism. It is in this context he viewed a difference from Gandhi. While Gandhi wanted to reform the caste system but Ambedkar wanted to remove it. For him the Bramhinical idea of Hinduism has made the backward class more backward and they have become the subject of exploitation to the upper caste. In 1948, Ambedkar argued in his book 'Mr. Gandhi and the Emancipation of the Untouchables' (1942) that Indian Varna system is against the social justice. The same line of argument is noticed in his next book 'Who were the Shudras' (1946). His idea of social justice is basically against the discrimination based on birth and social division. So the greater nation building process is associated with the removal of social inequality and empowering the marginalized section; his life- long effort can be considered and evident towards this end. He also believed that education is the most powerful instrument of social change and for this purpose he founded People's Education Society (1945). His famous slogan was "Educate, Agitate, Organize". In this regard Zelliot (1992) observed that as the architect of Dalit social revolution Ambedkar promoted a social struggle to spread the self - consciousness, self- respect and dignity among the backward classes. Thus, a resistance of the oppressed will be emerged against the upper caste domination. Concluding the position of Ambedkar, Panikkar (2004) argued that the ideas of democracy and caste are conflicting with each other; while democracy talks about the inclusion of all; on other hand caste creates an environment of exclusion.

Justice through political and economic equality

Ambedkar visualized for a society equipped with equal opportunities in political and economic status ensuring the dignity and liberty of the individual. Upholding the universal adult franchise (Article 326) he intended to ensure 'one person, one vote, one value'. He assumed that because of upper caste domination the people belonging to the lower rang of society may be victimized and underrepresented in the political sector and that is why he advocated for separate constituency for marginalized section. Finally, by incorporating the reservations provisions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Castes the issues were addressed.

The role of Ambedkar and his impact in Indian society and polity have been examined from different outlook by the scholars. His legacy in the electoral polity can be visible through the emergence of Bahujan and Dalit- Centric parties and caste based political mobilization. In order to mobilize the Dalit voters a symbolic presentation of Ambedkar and his vision is a regular phenomenon in Indian polity especially in the backward regions where people are somehow detached from the main stream.

Assessing the reflecting scenario Guru (1991) is of the opinion that, in recent times there is a trend of Hinduisation of Ambedkar where the significance of Ambedkar as a figure of Dalit liberation has been lost significantly.

Constitutional morality and social justice

In the Constitution Assembly speech while introducing the Draft (1948) Ambedkar emphasized on constitutional of morality as a tool for social justice. By bringing the phrase 'Constitutional of Morality' he intended to address the constitutional values which would uphold the security, dignity of the individual particularly the marginalized section of the society.

Enumerating the idea of constitutional morality, he wanted to bridge between political democracy and social democracy. He believed that political democracy cannot last without social and economic democracy. Thus, constitutional morality operates as checks and balances against caste oppression, social exclusion particularly the discrimination against untouchables. Thus, in the present time we see the value of constitutional morality in interpreting the constitution to safeguard the rights of the women and vulnerable.

However, Ambedkar in his lifetime was not satisfied with the implementation and execution of the constitution especially for protecting the rights of the marginals; it became a rhetorical lexicon confined in the provisions and articles. While Ambedkar realized that this Constitution has failed to ensure the progress of the society and to make the society free from casticism he became so frustrated that he remarked, "I have made the constitution but I am quite prepared to say that I shall be the first person to burn it out. I do not want it. It does not suit anybody" (K. Dhananjoy, 1990).

In spite of being a modern man Ambedkar at his last phases of life attracted towards Buddhism and ultimately converted to Buddhist religion. It is not because of the great passion for Buddhist religion he chased for this religion; rather he was so frustrated about the so- called religion and that is why he was searching for an alternative. After a careful study of Islam, Sikhs, and Christian religion he concluded that none of these can be a real alternative of Hinduism. Though Islam is different from that of the Hinduism, but it is not completely free from Varna/ caste division. The social division between Altab and Asraf still is evident in Islam. In his book the 'The Buddha and his Dhamma' (1957) he argued that the qualities of Buddhist religion are rational and modern. It is completely made for this world, not for any supernatural salvation for which this earthly happiness is sacrificed. It does not believe in the existence of God and even Buddha himself is not considered as spiritual God. He is just a path finder to get read of the criticality of this world.

But question may arise why being a rational and modern man Ambedkar opted for a religion. To understand the perplexity of his position, if we go through the famous book of Max Weber 'Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism' (2001) we can understand the tragedy of modern man. How a modern man because of his rationality and reason has been alienated from his own- self and has been detached from the mystery of this world. Without the mystery of this world how it is difficult to live, the modern man has realized. Perhaps because of this, keeping aside the uniqueness of reason and rationality and the call for modernity Dr. Ambedkar searched and opted for a religion which is based on reason and rationality but as a religion it presents a world of mystery.