A pragmatic pluralist

In 2003, the departing US Ambassador to India, Robert Blackwill, made an observation: "India is a pluralist society that creates magic with democracy, rule of law and individual freedom, community relations and (cultural) diversity. What a place to be an intellectual .... I wouldn't mind being born ten times to rediscover India."

This impression bears testimony to our country's philosophical ethos that also finds adequate expression in our Constitution. The democratic spirit envisaged by the framers of our Constitution is a charter to an all-inclusive spirit of progress and development of the people, fettered long in the bondage of colonial oppression. BR Ambedkar, one of the prime architects of the Indian Constitution, had a profound realisation about the necessity of pluralistic development for the community at large. Hence, as the Chairman of perhaps the most vital committee — the Drafting Committee of the Indian Constitution — he had advocated the principle of equal rights and opportunities for all. Ambedkar was a tireless crusader for the political and social empowerment of those groups that have long remained excluded from enjoying the benefits of socio-economic prosperity. The Constitution of India by and large reflects the essence of distributive justice and social rights, as portrayed in the sections of 'Directive Principles of State Policy' and 'Fundamental Rights' respectively. These provisions enable every citizen to witness a holistic development. Today, we are familiar with the popular connotation 'Sabka sath, sabka vikas', which again is a reciprocation to what Ambedkar had long back aspired for. He always yearned for a social condition based on pluralism without discrimination on grounds of caste, creed, religion or gender. Ambedkar fought against all forms of prejudicial treatment of people based on their identity, and thereby craved for strengthening Constitutional provisions against long-standing social injustices of the past, to reaffirm the position of the challenged sections of the Indian society. This has been the foundation stone on which modern India thrives with its diversities.

Ambedkar's personal experiences as a member of the depressed class formed the bedrock of his philosophical propensity towards the psycho-social problems of life. As a boy, he was barred from entering the classroom; he was not allowed to play cricket. These incidents shaped the great visionary who one day drafted the very code of laws set to be followed for the governance of this country. One notable aspect of Ambedkar's outlook was that he always concentrated on attainable, practical goals and never dwelt too much on the intellectual intricacies or sceptical impressions. He had a transparently clear understanding of the ailing factors of Indian social life, particularly of the backward communities, demarcated on casteist parameters.

Ambedkar expressed his opinion in favour of development cutting across the variegated demographic structure of our society. He did not believe in class analysis but certainly had the intuition and intellect to understand the link between class and caste in India. Ambedkar was a pragmatist who combined morality with economics; legality with social commitment. The depth of his social insight put him ahead of many of his contemporaries in his attempt to get a social, political and intellectual measure of religion, morality and justice. Perhaps, it was this realisation that he tried to materialise through his involvement in figuring out our Constitution. He represented the aspect of socio-political struggle which formed an irrepressible part of the nationalist movement. It is this legacy that he bore in his idealism. To quote Ambedkar himself, "Indians today are governed by two different ideologies. Their political ideal set in the preamble of the Constitution affirms a life of liberty, equality and fraternity. Their social ideal embodied in their religion denies them". Governed by this fundamental area of concern, Ambedkar persevered to champion the cause of pluralism and parity, in every possible way.

Taking note of the present scenario of happenings around us, we may say that Ambedkar has been prophetically correct to opine that democracy in India was more like top-dressing on an essentially undemocratic soil. He articulated certain anxieties which are prominent today. To him, the cure to such anomalies lies in a more comprehensive approach where no voice of any minority in any form is ignored. Ambedkar often wondered how people, divided into several thousand castes, could be a nation. He also believed that at the time of Independence India was not a nation in the psychological sense. Well, these apprehensions resound the note of contemporary significance even after 75 years of our Independence. To combat these problems, society needs to learn the language of fraternity. Being unable to pass the Hindu Code Bill as the first Law Minister in Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru's cabinet, he eloquently protested with his resignation, clearly pointing out that no progress or development of a nation is possible without eliminating the danger of inequality. He also stated that mere economics wouldn't do; it is the human factor that needs utmost upliftment. These arguments ring with significance even today and will perhaps go on doing so, particularly as long as our society would remain tormented with ills of disparity and division.

As a thinker, Ambedkar, on many issues, was different from his contemporaries. He did not altogether agree with Gandhiji's concept of a village-based economic model; rather he wanted urbanisation and industrialisation. Related to the issue of improvement of the status of the backward communities, he opposed the Gandhian concept of self-redemption of the upper class and sought a separate electorate along with some economic privilege for those who were exploited under the wheels of casteism. Modern approaches to socio-economic problems seek remedy in the combination of Gandhian and Ambedkar models.

In the wake of present social maladies that have perpetrated into human existence worldwide, the doctrines of pluralism, democracy and inclusive growth, with proper distribution of resources, need to be encouraged. Ambedkar was pertinently correct when he emphasised more on 'how are we treated' than 'who are we'. Religion did not matter much to him in the context of the social elevation of the neglected class of people. He did not have any objection to the portrayal of mythological figures, painted by Nandalal Bose on the pages of the original text of the Indian Constitution. He wanted the people to save their freedom in the actual sense of the term. Today, we are again put to stir with certain developments that endorse the fear of Ambedkar about people destroying their state of freedom. His vision of 'development for all' makes him ageless as he is growing in relevance. His modernity and vindication of his social philosophy may admiringly be described in the words of UN Development and Programme Administrator, Achim Steiner, "Ambedkar understood that rising and persistent inequalities pose fundamental challenges to the economic and social well-being of nations and people.''

The writer is an educator from Kolkata. Views expressed are personal