Ambedkar’s Inclusive India

In recent years, in the context of social dimensions, three words have been featured with prior significance — Diversity. Equity. Inclusiveness. Today, the realisation of these parameters might appear a near-past development, but a synoptical study of Indian history would glaringly highlight how these elements have always captivated the imagination of those who wanted to figure out a ‘better India’ where the macroscopic majority lives a standard of ‘better living’. When Churchill opposed the Indian Independence Bill tabled in the British Parliament, he argued that the transfer of power was happening to a group of rogues and rascals and men of straw. He also argued that the country would crumble and would not be able to withstand the principles of freedom and rights. However, he failed to understand that there were personalities in colonial India whose ideology got ingrained into the thought process of the nation in such a way that free India would try to ride on such notions that help to maintain its ‘unity in diversity’. Dr BR Ambedkar was certainly one of such individuals. The irony is that whenever we think about Dr Ambedkar, we consider him as the ‘Father of the Indian Constitution’, but not many understand his vision of inclusive socio-economic living and fail to assimilate his ideas of pluralism, where monolithic social practices and beliefs are discouraged.

BR Ambedkar lived in difficult times. Not only was India subject to colonial rule, but it was also devastatingly tormented by issues of casteism, separatism and disparity. The British were planning to play the caste card in the form of schemes like the ‘Communal Award’. Ambedkar was not in agreement with Gandhi that the upper castes within the Hindu community would go for self-redemption and pave the path for the improvement of the downtrodden. Gandhi strongly advocated for the conscience of the upper castes of the Hindu community as the change-maker of society. Ambedkar, with his economic vision, abnegated the idea with the statement that a society can only be inclusive when every community enjoys the fruits of development. After independence, when Pandit Nehru was eager to form the Planning Commission to roll out plans for national development, he envisioned the concept of ‘distributive justice’. Modern economics that takes note of social issues dwells on welfare economics. No state of welfare economics can be achieved without economic parity. ‘Distributive justice’, considered a major component of inclusiveness, was, in one way, coined by Ambedkar, though he did not use the same nomenclature.

Ambedkar was well aware that as a nation, India exists with multi-dimensional differences — economic, cultural, religious, and linguistic. He wanted to see India in a pluralist way, representing a living political experiment that every democrat and political thinker should refer to. No wonder, Pandit Nehru relied considerably on Ambedkar’s social and political acumen when he was made the first law minister of the country. Being the chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Indian Constitution, Ambedkar embedded the ideas of pluralism and democracy; the fundamental rights are a glorious testament to these ideals. Unfortunately, nowadays, we are trying to distort these principles for ulterior political motives, perhaps only to prove Churchill correct.

‘Annihilation of Caste’ is a testimonial that points out the hypocrisy we tend to practise in the name of pluralism. Even Gandhi, though not accepting Ambedkaar’s views totally, wrote in the ‘Harijan’ that ‘no reformer can ignore the address (of Ambedkar). It has to be read because it is open to objection’. Ambedkar pronounced against untouchability, which also found Gandhi’s approval. However, dwelling on ‘Chaturvarna’, Ambedkar challenged it, while Gandhi defended it. Ambedkar evinced that caste has killed the public spirit by destroying the sense of charity. This calls for some serious consideration in modern times. Present-day India, which boasts of a cosmopolitan environment driven by digital power, is yet to come out of caste-based stigma. Social media, which readily penetrates all layers of existence, portrays how we are still ruled by separatist thoughts based on casteism and communalism. Our politics plays the caste card in the name of equality. Ambedkar oversaw it long back and warned that nothing can be built on the foundation of caste. Anything built on the foundation of caste will crack and never be whole. How relevant the words are!

Our elections are based on divisive politics, so the wholeness or oneness of the community is not welcome to many politicians. We need to understand the warnings of Ambedkar that neither morality nor ethics can in achieved in a fractured social order. Today, despite our other advancements, we are regressing in ethics. Surely it is having an impact on our lives. Pluralism can only create a sense of fellow feeling meant for co-existence and mutual care. Ambedkar never believed in making the backward castes a soft point of emotional exploitation for political purposes. He knew that without restoring dignity for all, one cannot create opportunities for all. This should be the guideline for today’s generation — combining the resources by rejecting any parochial outlook based on the communal divide.

BR Ambedkar popularised social justice, equality and the empowerment of marginalised communities. Things are happening to execute Ambedkar’s social vision. Many social empowerment schemes in the education sector are meant to support backward communities. Ambedkar knew that the deprivation of centuries had left the depressed communities in the abyss of darkness. Without the provision of special status and prospects, the deprived communities cannot be equated with the general community. Ambedkar knew that, along with social rights, economic rights are equally important. Currently, any economic survey focuses on the widening gap in possession of wealth between the rich and the ordinary. Economic democracy is a must for pluralistic inclusiveness. Though we are boasting to be among the top economies of the world, in terms Human Development Index, we are not even among the list of the hundred countries. This has to change, or else we can never accomplish pluralism.

A critical analysis of our country over the years shows that, though not in leaps and bounds, we are marching towards the quest for pluralism, diversity and inclusiveness. Equity is the key to this achievement. People of all communities are placed in all affairs of governance, both in the private and public sectors. Education has expanded, and employment has spread to all castes — this is what Ambedkar wanted; this is what is required. He emphasised human identity and their treatment. He has vouched for the developing groups whose attempts are thwarted by the developed ones. Ambedkar spoke against placing economic or social matters in religious lines. This is very pertinent now, as it was during Ambedkar’s time. Ambedkar knew that religion, when used as a political tool, can be a malignant force. Our present society should follow the same ethos for the sustainable development of the greater community.

Views expressed are personal