Dalit idea of the Nation

The promise of the Constitution

The Indian Constitution reflects the aspirations and collective will that the emerging nation state, breaking free from colonial clutches, formulated for its people. In 1950, the people of India, through their representatives in the Constituent Assembly, developed a progressive idea of a nation that could deter internal antagonisms and cultivate unity. This idea of India is what the Constitution embodies and guards.

The Preamble to the Constitution defines the nation and its goals as a 'Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic'. It is a 'Republic' and 'Sovereign' in the sense that the people of the nation are supreme; the ultimate power—the power to rule through their elected representatives—rests with them. It is 'Socialist' in the sense that it is based on the belief that everyone has an equal right to the country's wealth, which is to be shared equitably; and in the sense that the government should own and control the main economic and social sectors. It is 'Secular' in the sense that it accords freedom to all to follow their religious beliefs and teachings, within the framework of the Constitution, but at the same time the state's governance is not to be determined and/or influenced by one particular religious ideology. It is 'Democratic' in the sense that the nation's governance is slated to be controlled by representatives who, in turn, are elected by the people of the country.

The Preamble also lays down certain goals and promises to secure certain rights to all citizens, including Justice—social, economic and political; Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and of opportunity to all, irrespective of religion, caste, race, colour, ethnicity, gender and region; and finally, Fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual, and the unity and integrity of the nation.

This idea of India had been the guiding force behind successive governments over the first six decades of the nation, despite many errors and mishaps in the governing process. The goals of social justice, social, economic and political liberty or freedom, equality and fraternity, along with national unity, were pursued ardently. While the state managed to attain some success in this process, it was clear there still was a long way to go. The constitutional dream that Ambedkar saw required much more concentrated effort on our part.

Erosion of constitutional values

In that historical phase, despite economic and social blunders on the part of various governments, there was hardly any indication of the state trying to undermine the very foundational constitutional idea of the nation. While there were failures to properly implement the plans and dreams of post-coloniality, the goals of a new India were still the beacon of inspiration and motivation for the governments. However, during the last few years, both the state and civil society have tried to indirectly, or even directly, undermine the founding principles of India.

What we see today is our nation at the cusp of becoming a Hindu Rashtra, which excludes Muslims from its understanding of itself and violently appropriates Dalit and other backward castes in its fold. This state of the country has rendered minorities and erstwhile oppressed groups both helpless and hopeless. It has resulted in the erosion of both our accepted idea of the nation as well as the goals which the Constitution pledges to achieve and which it mandates the state to promote.

Firstly, sovereignty is no more regulated by the rule of law, as a humanist political philosophy demands. Such a picture of sovereignty untamed by law is authoritarian in both spirit and practice. We see the centralizing power of the state that has managed to undermine democratic practices, if not the laws. Secondly, the minimal welfare schemes that were the last socialist hope for the poor of this country are being replaced by the strengthening of big corporations by the present government, which has allowed neoliberalism to thrust its claws deeper into our society, giving rise to rapid inequality, dispossession and economic precarity. What we see today is that the role of the government and public sector is being reduced, and that of the private sector is being promoted, without any alternatives for the deprived groups and the poor. Privatization means de-reservation. The state does not recognize the impact of its silence about the alternatives for the marginalized, such as affirmative action in the private sector for the Dalits, Adivasis and other backward castes.

Thirdly, promoting a secular state entails that the teaching of any particular religion will not form the basis of governance by the state. In contrast to this principle, we see a growing Hinduization of the state, with attempts being made to apply Hindu religious values and practices in selected public spheres of governance. From time to time, statements are made by some in favour of making the Vedic religion as the basis of state governance.

Fourthly, democratic institutions and various arms of the state are being gradually and systematically taken over by followers of the Hindutva ideology. Some forces repeatedly go to the extent of advocating the Manusmriti as a basis for governance. The fundamental principle of a democracy is that the political party winning a majority in elections forms the government and works to fulfil the promises it had made to the people during its election campaign and in its electoral manifesto. However, in the last few elections, we have observed a decline of the political majority and a rising trend towards the imposition of a communal majority whose interests are to be served by the government more than that of other groups.

Finally, the harmony between the state and the people has been on the decline. The autonomy of civil society is being dismantled, while civil-society organizations affiliated to the party in power are encouraged and supported.

Further, violence is increasingly being resorted to for resolving issues. There's selective recourse to law enforcement on the part of majoritarian groups, with lynch mobs taking centre stage. This has made a mockery of justice, and a communal mob rule persists on the streets. Even more disturbing is the trend to impose restraints on the fundamental rights of people by curbing their freedom of speech, expression and beliefs, including the freedom of the news media, both print and television. Efforts are also being made to regulate individual freedoms in terms of the choice of food, clothes and interpersonal relationships. Such compromise of liberty is a quintessential feature of illiberal governance.

The ideology that governs the nation currently prioritizes some groups over everyone else. It challenges the nation's unity and integrity, resulting in the victimization of religious minorities. At last, the idea of fraternity as a moral guideline no longer obtains, which is reflected in the rising conflicts among various castes as also in the majoritarian attacks on minorities, disrupting social harmony across the country.

Ambedkar as an inspiration

The Constitution has been a horizon of hope for the Dalits in India since Independence. Ambedkar ensured that the ills taking place against them before Independence did not recur in post-colonial India. The erosion of constitutional values, therefore, affects the Dalit community substantially and adversely. Today, Dalit politics is concerned with saving the Constitution.

The actualization of the constitutional idea of the nation, therefore, remains the political horizon that Ambedkarites and other humanists fight towards. Immense faith is reposed by the Dalits and other principled humanists in Ambedkar, and their vision of the nation is shaped by Ambedkar's ideas. In this respect, we should make a distinction here between two categories for analytic purposes: the constitutional idea of the nation and the Ambedkarite idea of the nation.

The constitutional idea of the nation is the conception of nation/ nationalism stemming from the Constitution and its Preamble, as elaborated above. This idea of the nation is being undermined today. The Ambedkarite idea of the nation is the conception of nation/nationalism emerging not only from the present structure of the Constitution but also from Ambedkar's idea that we ought to take substantive measures to make such a nation, to make it into a reality. In the following sections of this essay, we discuss the Ambedkarite idea of the nation. It provides a viable political goal for future Ambedkarite politics. Simultaneously, given the fact that this idea of the nation already includes the principles that the constitutional idea of the nation defines, a struggle towards achieving it must necessarily ensure the recognition and application of those principles.

The distinguishing feature of Ambedkar's position is that like others in the Constituent Assembly, he also supported the parliamentary form of democracy, and some sort of socialist economy and secularism, as the basis of our sovereign republic. However, Ambedkar's stance went beyond the consensus of the early parliamentarians, as he attempted to understand the very conditions for a viable political democracy. Ambedkar is unique in this respect. Therefore, we discuss three main aspects of nationhood that his thought delineates. These include: 1) the idea of the nation and the necessary conditions for its realization; 2) the necessary conditions for political democracy; and 3) methods for the effective representation of religious and social minorities.

Realizing Ambedkar's idea of the Nation

Ambedkar dealt with the concept of nation and nationalism for the first time in his book Thoughts on Pakistan, which was reprinted as Pakistan or the Partition of India. According to one prevalent view, which is represented by Savarkar and his followers, the nation is primarily a matter of geography, culture and language. The commonality of language, race, territory and culture, or religion, makes the nation. Ambedkar's views differed from this notion. He argued, 'A nation is not a country in the physical sense, whatever degree of geographical unity it may possess. A nation is not a people synthesized by a common culture derived from a common language, common religion or common race . . . Nationality is a subjective psychological feeling. It is a feeling of corporate sentiment of oneness which makes those who are charged with it feel that they are kith and kin . . . It is a feeling of "consciousness of kind" which binds together those who are within the limits of kindred. It is longing (a strong feeling of wanting together) to belong to one's own group . . . This is the essence of what is called a nationality and national feeling.' Ambedkar's notion of the nation was much more ethically oriented than the religiously and metaphysically oriented ones of his contemporaries.

He further observed that there was a difference between nation (or nationality) and nationalism. They are two different states of the human mind. Nationality means 'consciousness of kind' and 'awareness of the existence of ties of kinship'. (Kinship here means the fact of 'being related to family, a feeling of being close to a member of the family, because you have similar origins or attitude.') Ambedkar writes, 'Nationality is a social feeling of a corporate sentiment of oneness.

(Published with permission from The Dalit Truth, edited by K Raju; published by Penguin)