Ambedkar's India

By B.R. Ambedkar

AMBEDKAR’S INDIA is a collection of three of B.R. Ambedkar’s
most prominent speeches on caste and the Indian Constitution.
“In the fight for Swaraj, you fight with the whole nation on
your side.
In fighting caste system, you stand against the whole nation –
and that too, your own.”
“Annihilation of Caste” is one of Ambedkar’s best works in
putting together how caste as a system has been eating up
the roots of a rich cultural melting pot like India.
“Bhakti in religion could lead to salvation. But in politics,
Bhakti is a sure road to eventual dictatorship.”
“The Grammar of Anarchy” reflects Ambedkar’s ideas on how
we need to pave the way for Independent India. It reflects his deep love and aspirations
for India and its people.
“…the sub-divisions [of caste] have lost the open-door character of the class system,
and have become self-enclosed units called castes.”
“Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development” is an in-depth study of how
classes went on to become castes and sub-castes to dot the Indian social system. This
powerful narrative is a radical eye-opener.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Srishti Publishers
• Release date: Jun 28, 2020
• ISBN: 9789387022898

Book preview

3184.jpg

B.R. Ambedkar

SristhiLogo.tif

Srishti Publishers & Distributors

A unit of AJR Publishing LLP

212A, Peacock Lane

Shahpur Jat, New Delhi – 110 049

[e-mail]

First published by

Srishti Publishers & Distributors in 2020

Selection and Edition Copyright © Srishti Publishers & Distributors in 2020

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the Publishers.

Contents

Introduction

1. The Grammar of Anarchy

2. Annihilation of Caste

3. Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development

Introduction

5239.jpg

Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar was born on 14 April 1891 in Mhow cantonment near Indore, Madhya Pradesh. Born to Subedar Ramji Maloji Sakpal and Bhimabai Sakpal, Ambedkar was an outstanding student who went on to earn doctorates in economics from both, Columbia University and London School of Economics. His research in law, political science and economic theories and practices from all over the world empowered him to bring about crucial social changes on the home ground. His first-hand experience of treatment meted out to the so-called lower castes in his country, led him to start nothing short of a revolution for the upliftment of his people.

While he is most popular as a leader crusading against social discrimination, he has played essential roles for the Indian Independence struggle too. Serving as a professor, lawyer and economist in the early parts of his life, he was quick to contribute to political activities when time so demanded. He wrote numerous articles and journals which explained to people their rights, in their language. He was deeply involved in the campaigning and negotiations for Independence, and played a major role in the establishment of India as we know it today. He propagated the idea of social development along with political growth for an overall advancement of the country.

Post-Independence, Ambedkar served as the Law Minister under the new Congress-led government. In August 1947, he was also appointed as the chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, given the role of writing India’s new Constitution. He gave India its Constitution on 25 November 1949, which was then officially implemented from 26 January 1950. We celebrate the Republic Day to mark the same.

One of the speeches included in this collection was made in 1949 at the adoption ceremony of the Constitution. Ambedkar was a powerful preacher of the idea of all people for their nation and emphasized on how we all should contribute for national growth, setting aside our personal interests. Having worked at drafting the Constitution, he gave some tremendous inputs in this speech.

Since he also fought for equality among masses, his thoughts on caste and its harmful effects on the nation’s growth can be read in the other two speeches included in this book: Annihilation of Caste and Castes in India: Their mechanism, genesis and development. While the former shows his resolve at doing away with caste as a system, the latter explains how caste has slowly come to eat away at the social order in the country.

With these three gems of his writings, this book is an essential read if you wish to know Ambedkar’s ideas on the castes and the Constitution. This book also gives an insightful take of this renowned leader on issues like bhakti in politics, corruption and simultaneous growth of the social and political systems.

1

The Grammar of Anarchy

5251.jpg

This was B.R Ambedkar’s last speech in the Constituent Assembly of India in Delhi, on the day of the adoption of the Constitution – 25 November 1949. This Assembly was formed to draft the Constitution for a free India (including the now separated Pakistan and Bangladesh) and was in existence for three years.

In this address, Ambedkar justifies the Constitution, the basic understanding of India and its people kept in mind to draft the same, the process of its formulation to the fi nal draft, and the way forward to its execution.

5271.jpg

As much defence as could be offered to the Constitution has been offered by my friends Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar and Mr T.T. Krishnamachari. I shall not therefore enter into the merits of the Constitution. Because I feel, however good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution can provide only the organs of State such as the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The factors on which the working of those organs of the State depend are the people and the political parties they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes and their politics. Who can say how the people of India and their parties will behave? Will they uphold constitutional methods of achieving their purposes or will they prefer revolutionary methods of achieving them? If they adopt the revolutionary methods, however good the Constitution may be, it requires no prophet to say that it will fail. It is, therefore, futile to pass any judgement upon the Constitution without reference to the part which the people and their parties are likely to play.

The condemnation of the Constitution largely comes from two quarters, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party. Why do they condemn the Constitution? Is it because it is really a bad Constitution? I venture to say ‘no’. The Communist Party wants a Constitution based upon the principle of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They condemn the Constitution because it is based upon parliamentary democracy. The Socialists want two things. The first thing they want is that if they come in power, the Constitution must give them the freedom to nationalise or socialise all private property without payment of compensation. The second thing that the Socialists want is that the Fundamental Rights mentioned in the Constitution must be absolute and without any limitations so that if their Party fails to come into power, they would have the unfettered freedom not merely to criticise, but also to overthrow the State.

No right to bind succeeding generations

These are the main grounds on which the Constitution is being condemned. I do not say that the principle of parliamentary democracy is the only ideal form of political democracy. I do not say that the principle of no acquisition of private property without compensation is so sacrosanct that there can be no departure from it. I do not say that Fundamental Rights can never be absolute and the limitations set upon them can never be lifted. What I do say is that the principles embodied in the Constitution are the views of the present generation. Or if you think this to be an over-statement, I say they are the views of the members of the Constituent Assembly. Why blame the Drafting Committee for embodying them in the Constitution? I say why blame even the Members of the Constituent Assembly? Jefferson, the great American statesman who played so great a part in the making of the American constitution, has expressed some very weighty views which makers of Constitution can never afford to ignore. In one place he has said:

"We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of the majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country."

In another place, he has said:

"The idea that institutions established for the use of the nation cannot be touched or modified, even to make them answer their end, because of rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in the trust for the public, may perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch, but is most absurd against the nation itself. Yet our lawyers and priests generally inculcate this doctrine, and suppose that preceding generations held the earth more freely than we do; had a right to impose laws on us, unalterable by ourselves, and that we, in the like manner, can make laws and impose burdens on future generations, which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that the earth belongs to the dead and not the living;"

I admit that what Jefferson has said is not merely true, but absolutely true. There can be no question about it. Had the Constituent Assembly departed from this principle laid down by Jefferson, it would certainly be liable to blame, even to condemnation. But I ask, has it? Quite the contrary. One has only to examine the provision relating to the amendment of the Constitution. I challenge any of the critics of the Constitution to prove that any Constituent Assembly anywhere in the world has, in the circumstances in which this country finds itself, provided such a facile procedure for the amendment of the Constitution. If those who are dissatisfied with the Constitution have only to obtain a 2/3 majority and if they cannot obtain even a two-thirds majority in the parliament elected on adult franchise in their favour, their dissatisfaction with the Constitution cannot be deemed to be shared by the general public.

The danger of divisive politics

[But] my mind is so full of the future of our country that I feel I ought to take this occasion to give expression to some of my reflections thereon. On 26th January 1950, India will be an independent country. What would happen to her independence? Will she maintain her independence or will she lose it again? This is the first thought that comes to my mind. It is not that India was never an independent country. The point is that she once lost the independence she had. Will she lose it a second time? It is this thought which makes me most anxious for the future. What perturbs me greatly is the fact that not only India has once before lost her independence, but she lost it by the infidelity and treachery of some of her own people. In the invasion of Sind by Mahommed-Bin-Kasim, the military commanders of King Dahar accepted bribes from the agents of Mahommed-Bin-Kasim and refused to fight on the side of their king. It was Jaichand who invited Mahommed Ghori to invade India and fight against Prithvi Raj and promised him the help of himself and the Solanki kings. When Shivaji was fighting for the liberation of Hindus, the other Maratha noblemen and the Rajput kings were fighting the battle on the side of Mughal Emperors. When the British were trying to destroy the Sikh rulers, Gulab Singh, their principal commander sat silent and did not help to save

Reviews for Ambedkar's India

[anil dahar · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Folklore has it that King Dahar capitulated to Mohammed bin Qasim and was converted to islam. This is wrong, as King Dahar died on the battlefield fighting the invader. He was born a hindu brahmin of the pushkarnas and died a hindu brahmin – Anil Dahar