AMBEDKAR FOR THE MOVEMENT OF DALITS

P A Pawar. Associate Professor, Department of Chemical Technology, Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, Amravati. E Mail: papawar40@rediffmail.com Introduction Ambedkar for the dalit movement, first of all, should be shorn of the entire sectarian outlook that unfortunately came to be associated with him. He was an iconoclast and therefore should inspire us to break such icons that are imbued with this outlook. Dalits have to demolish all the handiwork of the reactionaries and vested interests. The project of redefinition of Ambedkar should liberate him from the dens of the ruling class and bring him back to the huts in slums and villages where he rightly belongs. The greatest thing about Ambedkar is his consistent anti-dogmatic stance. He never accepted anything in name of authority. He always approached problems with a students sincerity and researchers intellectual honesty. He gave a vision that even the ideologies are bound by the tenet of impermanence and nobody should claim them validity beyond their times. His followers therefore can assume absolute liberty to think through things as per their own experience in changing times. Here, we can discuss certain issues. Ambedkar against Exploitation The underscoring vision in Ambedkars thought and action is to be found in his yearning for the end of all kinds of exploitation. Whenever and wherever he smelt exploitation, he raised his voice against it. The caste system that subjugated more than one fifth of the population to levels worse than animals for more than two millennia and which represented institutionalization of the most heinous inequality by the Hindu religion as ordained by its gods, became the prime target of his life. He attacked it from the standpoint of its victims - the untouchables. He waged many battles; initially targeting the citadels of Brahminism - the custodian of the Hindu

religious code, and later politicized the battle, realizing the ineffectiveness of the former. He did not let this objective out of sight even for a moment and worked incessantly for its achievement. This Herculean task almost completely overshadows the fact that his struggles extend well beyond the caste struggles and rather encompass all other forms of exploitation. Oppression of Women Besides these mainstream forms of exploitation even the subaltern forms like womens exploitation, could not escape his agenda. He viewed them as the most oppressed of all. His approach to the problems was typically that of a liberal democrat constitutionalist. This certainly constrained his articulation of this problem as in many others. This issue will have to be seriously rethought by dalits under the redefinition project. But suffice here to say that at any opportunity, he raised his voice against womens discriminatory situation in the society. His basic law of social engineering was that the social revolutions must always begin from the standpoint of the most oppressed or the ones on the lowest rung of the society. Right from the days of Mook Nayak and Bahiskrit Bharat, he appears to take cudgels for women. He always involved women in his struggles and tended to give them vanguard positions. For example, about 500 women had marched at the head of the historical procession at Mahad to assert the untouchables right to drink water from the public tank. He was immensely pained to see the permanent denial of education and religious rights to women ordained in the Shastras of the Hinduism (e.g. Manusmriti). Capitalism During the colonial British regime, capitalism started taking root in India with the collaboration of Indian mercantile capital and British capital. Unlike Europe, it did not have to battle against feudalism; rather it was implanted on the trunk of the latter in India. As a result, even in the capitalist institutions in the cities, caste discrimination simultaneously existed. Ambedkar was quite aware of the exploitative potential of capital and hence he had declared capitalism and Brahminism as the twin enemy of his movement. Capitalism was in an infantile stage then but Brahminism encompassed the phases of slavery, feudalism and extended its tentacles as we see to the phase of imperialism. Moreover, he noted the reactionary compradore character of rising capitalism in the contemporary sectors of the economy and the inhuman exploitation of workers that it unleashed. His,

Indian Labour Party (ILP) was an attempt to take up the question of capitalist exploitation, as well as to combine the struggle on both caste and class basis. Various workers problems were taken up by the ILP, the leadership of combined strike of the mill workers, parliamentary fight for the workers interest in relation to the Industrial Disputes Act, and various legal reforms that were brought about while he was in the Executive Council of the Viceroy, can be the examples of his concern for workers exploitation. Imperialism Ambedkars attitude towards imperialism has been projected in a distorted manner right from the beginning, mainly because he refused to take part in the freedom struggle or opposed Gandhi who for certain category of ignoramuses was the anti-imperialism personified. He strategically sought to maintain neutrality vis--vis the colonial State. As per him, it would not be possible for the resource less dalits to fight its mighty foes all together. He did not want to dissipate and squander his extremely limited resources on several fronts. He however knew the basic exploitative character of the colonial regime. At several occasions, he burst out saying that British imperialism and Indian feudalism were the two leaches that clung to Indian people. However, there was a fundamental difference between his and others viewpoint. For instance, he did not approve equating opposition to imperialism with opposing the British. He noted that the opposition to imperialism couldnt be effective until its supporters within the country are left untouched. Constitution: An Exercise in Liberal Democracy Although, Ambedkar was conscious of the limitations of liberal democracy in the emancipatory project he had undertaken and at times had even declared that he was not a liberal democrat, for many reasons he could not escape its clutches completely. He could not be unaware that liberal democracy basically was born as the ruling class ideology in 19th century Europe. It takes individuals and their groups as basically selfish units as its premise. It holds that individuals and social groups progress only through competition. It had however to take cognizance of weaker sections in the society, paradoxically in a large number, who cannot enter this competition openly and hence could be potentially be spoilers of the game. The French Revolution had demonstrated this potential in ample measure. As the Whigs in the English Liberal party had thought "the best way to ward off

revolution was to adopt a liberal generous attitude toward the lower classes. The upper classes should make concessions gracefully and in good time, and not wait until the lower classes are roused to exact them. If a revolution happens, it doesnt show that the people are bad and should have been repressed more thoroughly... repression is self-defeating. Ambedkar as the Radical Thinker Dalits are never tired of projecting Ambedkar as the greatest of all the leaders. That unfortunately smacks of sectarian attitude and of their blind devotion to him. They need to understand that the measure of greatness of any person could only be her / his contribution to better the human situation, in terms of correct understanding of its ailment and contribution to cure it. What Ambedkar did could be seen in relation to the broad five currents in Indian politics of his times:

The Reformists current that wanted to bring about development on the western pattern, possibly with the support of British imperialism, Congress, that represented Indian capital and which demanded selfrule under the domination of British imperialism, The Terrorist Nationalists who had taken up arms in their fight for freedom against British imperialism, The Communists who were trying to implant Bolshevik revolution in India, and The Muslim League which opened up a separatist front of Muslims.

Conception of an Ideal Babasaheb Ambedkar envisioned his ideal in the famous three principles: liberty, equality and fraternity. They were the basis for the ideal society of his conception. He denied that he had adopted them from the French Revolution. He said he had derived them from the teachings of Buddha. These principles were the clarion call of the French Revolution but later became the ideological props of the liberal bourgeoisie in Europe. Since Marx had ridiculed these principles as the fantasy of the bourgeois society, many people tended to stereotype Ambedkar as the petty-bourgeois liberal democrat.

State

Ambedkars conception of State reflects some amount of autonomy from the hegemony of the ruling classes. It is why he expected it to act as per the constitutional structure and endeavored to incorporate the pro-dalit bias into the Constitution. He must have realised the true nature of it, the boundaries of the autonomy and basic class bias of the State, when he actually reached not only the Constituent Assembly but also became the chairman of its Drafting Committee. Socialism Despite his ambivalence and reservations about the emphasis on the economic dimension in socialism, Ambedkar broadly remained a socialist. Some scholars do find little scope for suspecting his socialist credentials because of his disapproval of Russells criticism of property, his nonacceptance of Marxian formulations and his placement of social issues higher than the economic and political issues. Democracy Ambedkar had unshakeable faith in democracy. In his conception of exploitation-less society, democracy has an extra-ordinary role. Democracy means one person, one vote; and one vote, one value. Democracy means empowerment of any person for participating in the process of decisionmaking relating to her/him, democracy means liberty, equality and fraternity - Ambedkars definition of democracy had such a tone. Because he presided over making of the Constitution and is being projected as its chief architect, there is a misunderstanding that parliamentary democracy is what he wanted. But nothing could be farther from the truth than this. He himself spoke against parliamentary democracy. For instance, he defined parliamentary democracy as "voting by the people in favour of their owners and handing over the rights of ruling over themselves. Buddhism Religion was the institution envisaged to control the organisation at the level of an individual and society to curb their latent exploitative instincts. It was a philosophical device that would regulate their lives, including the interface between them at the most primary level. Ambedkar viewed it as a code of behavior, a way of life that is upheld by the multitude. He insisted that this code should be based on and be compatible with the precepts of modern science. The religion as normally defined or that became a pill of opium for

Marx, was not the religion of his concept either. When ultimately he embraced Buddhism he claimed to have used the criteria of modern science. Buddhism, as it was propounded by Gautama the Buddha hardly qualified to be called religion in so far as it did not have even a single of the three necessary features of religion - viz.: belief in God, permanent entity and a set of rituals. But it is a matter of opinion whether its institutionalised form that we are familiar with still retains its uniqueness. Shunning the futile debate, it could be definitely said and has been acknowledged that the Buddhism that he embraced was far more radical than its familiar version. His Buddha and His Dhamma is replete with instances where he reconstructs and redefines Buddhism with a near-scientific approach. On Marx and Communism Babasaheb Ambedkar thought that the communists while attempting to bring about revolution do not bother about justice or injustice, truth or untruth; atrocities and taboos and if times demand, are prepared for bloodshed to establish the State with soviet methods. It was shocking to his moral philosophy and therefore he always expressed his reservation and even disapproval for these methods. He says "The object of communism is as economic and social as it is political. About social, the revolution in public opinion has not taken place. Moreover, majority of people does not have ability to understand the economic and political aims of communism " Elsewhere, he cites the historical examples in the context of historical materialism of Marx and says that the political revolution has always taken place on the background of social revolutions. Aspects of the Strategy and Tactics In the context of strategy, some of Ambedkars contributions are really noteworthy. He brought the struggle against Brahminism into the political battlefield. He inferred that without political power the social and religious structures will collapse and motivated his followers to capture political power. The prevailing politics being the game of possibilities, he was soon sucked into its vortex. Politics came to dominate the other aspects of his personality. Slowly, the impact of politics started becoming visible everywhere. This phase significantly contributed to multiplication of his inconsistencies out of tactical imperatives. Dalits have taken this legacy of parliamentary politics very seriously, almost as they be all and end all of

their political being. It may be, interesting to probe how much damage this kind of political orientation inflicted on the dalit movement. REFERENCES BAWS: Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Ed. Vasant Moon, Education Department, Govt. Of Maharashtra, Bombay Kumar, Ashok, Ambedkar aur Marx in Rajkishor (Ed.), Harijan se Dalit, Vani Prakashan, New Delhi, p.133. Rao, Raghvendra, " Dr. Ambedkars Political Ideas: The Limits of Liberalism- a Brief Comment", in K.K.Kawalekar and A.S. Chousalkar (Ed.), Political Ideas and Leadership of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar, Vishwanil, Pune, 1979, p.147.