17

Ambedkar: Democracy and Economic Theory

N. Sukumar

The Context

The epistemology of the caste system poses multiple challenges to the universal notions of liberty, equality, fraternity and justice. The discourse of power permeates the entire caste hierarchy so much so that those at the bottom of the hierarchy are almost immobilised. The sociocultural, economic and political landscape of peoples’ lives is enveloped by the caste structure.

For centuries, many protest movements and social reformers have striven to undermine the caste hegemony but it was only in the twentieth century that a vigorous attack was mounted on this behemoth, both ideologically and politically. This exercise was expedited by B. R. Ambedkar, who was influenced by the ideals of the French Revolution and other western ideologues. Simultaneously, he drew upon Buddhist precepts and the works of Jotiba Phule, Narayana Guru and Periyar Ramaswamy Naickar. Coupled with this, Ambedkar’s legal acumen enabled him to synthesise his knowledge in the Indian context. During the anti-colonial struggle, Indian society was in transition and Ambedkar received a fertile platform to germinate his ideas.

Understanding Ambedkar

For Ambedkar, social justice meant giving equal opportunity to each and every person in every sphere of life to develop one’s total personality. A free social order consisted of the recognition that the individual was an end in himself/herself and that the terms of association between individuals in a society must be founded on liberty, equality and fraternity. He derived the significance of the value of equality based on the notion that the individual was inviolable. The concept of justice emphasised the right of the individual to be treated as an equal and to be respected as a member of society; irrespective of his/her caste, class, gender and other discriminations.

The attempt herein is to discuss Ambedkar’s philosophy of liberalism within the broader paradigm of liberty, equality and justice. He emphasised political rights which would lead to economic and social rights. For him, rights were not merely standards but were ends as well as means, in that they provided the theoretical perspective and the necessary empowerment that was required for achieving social justice. By struggling against the state, Ambedkar used one set of rights to realise the other rights. For Western societies, state interference in realising rights is minimal. However, as the Indian society is in egalitarian, the state plays a vital role in ensuring rights. This transformative perspective is considered to be a major contribution of Ambedkar to the discourse on Indian liberalism.

Ambedkar’s Notion of Socio-Cultural Rights

The role played by Ambedkar has left its imprint on the social tapestry of the country after independence, and shaped the political and civic contours of India today. It would have been a different India without him and in all probability, a much more inequitable and unjust one. He attempted to forge India’s moral and social foundations anew and strove for a political order of constitutional democracy that is sensitive to the disadvantaged, inherited from the past or engendered by prevailing social relations.¹

There exists scriptural sanction for the caste system among the Hindus. Ambedkar dubbed Manu, the ancient Hindu law-giver, as the founder of slavery. This system characterised a vast majority of the people as untouchables, whose shadow was sufficient to pollute the touchables. Manu listed exhaustive rules which prohibited any kind of transgression at the risk of severe punishment. Needless to say, people at the bottom were treated as virtual slaves. This edifice was sanctified by religion.² It was Ambedkar who persevered with the issue of caste.³ The law of Chaturvarna prohibited the shudras from pursuing knowledge, engaging in economic enterprises, and bearing arms. This virtually prevented any revolt against the strictures of caste. They became reconciled to eternal servitude as an inescapable fate. In other words, the caste system deadened, paralysed and crippled the people from helpful activity.

As an untouchable, Ambedkar encountered social exclusion and segregation. Early in his life, he realised that a large section of his countrymen were denied their legitimate rights by the oppressive and dominant social customs and traditions. He believed that the establishment of a democratic society in India would be possible only when the untouchables and other weaker sections of society would be given an opportunity to enjoy basic human rights.⁴ The untouchables were segregated from mainstream Hindu society. The Hindu would not live in the untouchable quarter and would not allow the untouchables to live inside the Hindu quarter. This was a fundamental feature of untouchability as practiced by the Hindus. It was not a case of social separation, a mere stoppage of inter-course for a temporary period. It was a case of territorial segregation, of cordon sanitaria, putting the impure inside a barbed wire, into a sort of a cage. Every Hindu village had a ghetto. The Hindus lived in the villages and untouchables in the ghetto.⁵ Therefore, Ambedkar came to the conclusion that nowhere except in India, there existed lasting separate camps and there had never been a case of a people, treating a section of their own people as permanent and hereditary slaves. Untouchability was a unique phenomenon unknown to humanity except among the Hindus. Ambedkar proved this by citing the example of the condition of the untouchables during the Peshwa rule.⁶

Plato defined the slave as one who accepts from another the purposes which control his conduct. This could also be applicable to untouchability in India, therefore Ambedkar pointed out that the untouchables were treated as slaves because, they were so socialised as never to complain of their low state; they never dreamt of improving their lot by forcing the other classes to treat them with common respect. The idea that they had been born to their lot was so ingrained in their minds that it never occurred to them to think that their fate was anything so irrevocable and nothing would ever persuade them that men are all made of the same clay, or that they have the right to insist on for better treatment than that it was meted out to them.⁷

Ambedkar described the state of slavery of the untouchables and the denial of human rights before the Reforms Committee (Franchise), and Southborough Committee, on 27 January 1919. For Ambedkar, the exact description of the treatment was not possible. The word ‘untouchable’ epitomised their ills and sufferings. Not only had untouchability arrested the growth of their personality but it came in the way of their material well being. It had also deprived them of certain civil rights. For instance, in the Konkan, the untouchables were prohibited from using the public road. If some high caste man happened to cross, he had to be out of the way and stand at such a distance that his caste shadow would not fall on the former.⁸

‘Tell the slave that he is a slave and he will revolt against his slavery’; this slogan of Ambedkar generated a consciousness in the untouchables and the downtrodden about their plight and the need to secure their human rights. For the steady and systematic upliftment of the downtrodden he started educational and social institutions and journals and also launched a Satyagraha on March 9, 1924 at Damodhar Hall, Bombay. He called a meeting of the social workers both from the untouchables and of other communities which resulted in establishing the Bahiskrit Hitkarini Sabha. He said, ‘My heart breaks to see the pitiable sight of your faces and to hear your sad voices. You have been groaning from time immemorial and yet you are not ashamed to hug your helplessness as inevitability. Why did you not perish in the prenatal stage instead? Why do you worsen and sadden the picture of the sorrows, poverty, slavery and burdens of the world with your deplorable, despicable detestable and miserable life? You had better died and relieved this world if you could not rise to a new life and if you could not rejuvenate yourself. As a matter of fact, it is your birthright to get food, shelter and clothing to equal proportion with every individual, high or low. If you believe in living a respectable life you should believe in self-help which is the best help’.⁹

In order to instil a sense of self-respect and dignity among the oppressed classes Ambedkar stressed on education. This in turn would provide the necessary cultural basis for their gradual absorption into the mainstream of a progressive national life. He was acrimoniously opposed to all kinds of oppression and inequality but, at the same time, it was his heartfelt desire to bring about change through peaceful and constitutional means. Ambedkar was a great educationist also. He believed that no democratic process could be complete unless the masses were educated. He considered education as the solution for many problems. He believed that even the experiment of parliamentary democracy would flounder on the rock of ignorance and glaring social inequalities. He had sounded this warning in his last speech in the Constituent Assembly during the debate on the draft Constitution of India. It was because of this perspective that Ambedkar took active part in founding a number of educational institutions in Bombay and, in the backward region of Marathwada.

The Satyagraha launched by Ambedkar was aimed at awakening the self-respect of the untouchables. The Satyagraha at Mahad was a historical event in as much as it was conducted for the purpose of securing for the downtrodden the right to drink water from the public tanks. The Satyagraha received whole-hearted support from Nanasaheb Tipnis, the President of the Mahad Municipality, Kolaba District. According to Sri Tipnis, several caste Hindus like D. V Pradhan, Anantrao Chitre, Joshi and Sabnis and many members of the Samaj Samata Mandal joined this Satyagraha of the untouchables. In spite of virulent opposition from the orthodox section of the Hindus, the Satyagraha succeeded in attaining its objective.¹⁰

The rights movement initiated by Ambedkar to inspire the depressed classes to fight for their rights gradually gained momentum and successfully brought about improvements in their economic and social conditions, political representation, educational and cultural achievements. The Mahad Satyagraha for the right of drinking water and the Nasik Satyagraha for right to temple entry were outstanding struggles of the untouchables to win equal social rights. Striving endlessly and sacrificing the pleasures of the present for a glorious future was a magnificent ideal for Ambedkar. That’s why Ambedkar disliked that his hungry men should envelop themselves in the culture of Bhakti, the cult of devotion, the opium of helplessness. He asked the common man not to resign himself to his fate and accept his position as a divine dispensation. The ignorant people believed that their fate was pre-ordained and irretrievable. Ambedkar wanted to root out this disease from their minds.

Ambedkar called for the unity of the scheduled castes and other backward communities under one platform to project their united strength and to hold the balance of power in the new democratic set up. He declared, ‘Political power is the key to all social progress and the Scheduled Castes can achieve their salvation if they captured this power by organising themselves into a third party and holding the balance of power between the rival political parties’.¹¹

Ambedkar initiated the onerous task of awakening the conscience of the downtrodden sections like the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. He told them to forget all about the so-called sins of their ancestors and strongly pleaded with them not to wait for their fictitious rebirth or the amelioration of their sufferings. He urged them that their social liberation must be ensured in this very life and that too as their legitimate right as free citizens. Hindus were disturbed by the decision of Ambedkar to advise his followers to undergo mass conversion to Buddhism. His decision to leave the fold of Hindu religion along with his followers in essence showed that the Scheduled Castes wanted to vote against the tradition bound Hindu religion which oppressed them. One must view their act of conversion as an expression of dissent and revolt against the social injustice suffered by them.

Ambedkar’s Notion of Political Rights

As the motivator for emancipation of untouchables, Ambedkar launched a series of constructive and ameliorative programmes and demonstrations to redeem them from the grip of slavery and social and economic disabilities. His genuine interest in finding solutions to the vexed social problems is the real basis to evaluate his political ideology.

The basis of political mobilization is political ideology, which legitimises struggle and provides it with a moral foundation. This is also required to engage and retain the people in any meaningful political activity. Ambedkar developed his own political strategy in order to secure political rights for the depressed classes and to ensure proper distribution of political power among the different strata of Indian society. The colonial government deliberately initiated political change in India to better control it. This resulted in change in the political process based on three important principles. The first was the gradual and cautious devolution of power in the hands of Indians who would be loyal to the system, second was a limited franchise and deliberate encouragement to separate caste and religious identities to weaken the majority and finally through social policy, keeping enough space for competition and collaboration with different sections of Indian society so that dissidence could be properly controlled. This model of political development successfully engaged all major Indian classes in competition and collaboration and those who fought against it were punished.

These political developments always encouraged the development of separate caste identities. Caste became a rallying point for political mobilization of the people though the aim of the mobilization was not always narrow. The caste and class factors were often utilised to attain national unity, but despite the growing pressure of the national movement, the political system which the British foisted upon Indians through dubious constitutional devices and by exploiting sectarian cleavages held good.¹² Ambedkar planned to develop his political strategy according to the political developments that existed at the time. This resulted in Ambedkar’s entry into mainstream political life in order to improve the conditions of the depressed classes in India. As nationalist leaders did not care for the depressed classes and their problems, this propelled him to start an independent depressed class movement to secure their political rights.

To understand Ambedkar’s political strategy, we have to examine his ideology. Phule was his ideal personality. To him the Congress movement for independence was essentially a brahminical conspiracy to capture political power and to perpetuate their caste dominance. Hence, he asked the shudras and atishudras to be wary of the Congress mechanism. He pointed out that without struggle, Brahmins would not renounce their privileged position; hence, non-Brahmins should fight against caste dominance to establish a casteless society. In this endeavour, at times, they would have to seek the help of British rulers but there was nothing wrong in it.¹³

Ambedkar was very particular about safeguarding the interests of the depressed classes, while cooperating with the nationalist movement and its leaders; he thought they would compromise the interests of the depressed classes at the cost of national independence. His interests were abolition of untouchability and winning political rights for the depressed classes. In view of the non-cooperative attitude of the leaders of both the national and the non-Brahmin movement, he decided to keep his movement independent of them both in letter and spirit.

The Nehru Committee in its report neglected the untouchables and went out of its way to appease Muslim minorities. This left Ambedkar very disturbed. He realised that the caste Hindu nationalist leaders would never provide justice to the untouchables as they wanted to perpetuate their dominance against the latter. Hence, he considered the report of the Committee as a low Brahminical trick and exhorted his followers to launch a struggle against this injustice.¹⁴ He held that progress and awakening were rooted in struggle and the untouchables should launch a struggle to win the social, political and economic rights that were denied to them. It became increasingly clear to Ambedkar that this social resistance would get converted into a political resistance and he would have to define his strategy in political terms. He made it clear that the major political problems in India were equitable and just distribution of political power among different sections of Indian society because acquisition of some political power was a means to social development.¹⁵ He wanted such safeguards for the untouchables. Hence, he demanded reservation of seats for the depressed classes in government services and in legislative assemblies. He was of the opinion that ultimately the government was based on faith and it was statesmanship to create faith if it could be done through concessions and guarantees.¹⁶

Believing in the ideology of parliamentary democracy, Ambedkar held that the true spirit of democracy consisted of true equality. He said, ‘Our aim is to realize in practice our ideal of one man one value in all walks of life. It is because the representative government is the means for the depressed classes it is to give to it great value’.¹⁷ Realization of social, economic and political freedom in the parliamentary form of democratic government was Ambedkar’s goal and he was quite confident that the depressed classes could bring about the democratic revolution in India that ensured self-government as well as good government, right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, removal of social, economic and political inequality and making it possible for every subject to enjoy freedom from want and fear.¹⁸ Hence, Ambedkar sought to mobilise the depressed castes in order to establish parliamentary democracy in India.

There were three important components to Ambedkar’s political strategy which were as follows:

1. By continuous political agitation and bargaining, the Scheduled Castes should try to extract safeguards and guarantees from the British Government.
2. Caste Hindus, Muslims and depressed castes were three separate and independent elements of the Indian society and while conceding some reforms for the Indians, all these elements should be satisfactorily consulted.
3. The depressed classes should capture political power as it was the only means available to them for self-development and protection of their rights.

The depressed classes would not be in a position to share political power, if India did not become independent. Ambedkar did not have any liking for the British and on more than one occasion he said that he could not start a struggle on two fronts because he did not have sufficient power to fight imperialism and feudalism at the same time.¹⁹ But the continuation of the British government would not help the untouchables to secure political power because they were not expected to protect the interests of the untouchables in difficult situations. He said, ‘We must have a government in which the men in power will have their undivided allegiance to the best interests of the country. We must have a government in which men in power, knowing where obedience will end and resistance will begin, will not be afraid to amend the social and economic code of life which the dictates of justice and expediency so urgently called for. This role the British Government will never be able to play. It is only a government which is of the people, for the people and by the people that will make this possible’.²⁰

Political power played a very important role in Ambedkar’s political strategy because he knew that the depressed classes did not posses economic power in both the industrial and agriculture sectors. He thought that in the evolving capitalist structure, they would not be in a position to acquire that power in future also. Further he said that the only alternative left for the depressed classes was to secure jobs in the government services through job reservations and acquire share in political power through reservations of seats in the elected bodies. Thus, through political power alone could the scheduled castes bring about a change in their social, economic and political life. As part of that process he constantly encouraged his followers to acquire political power to engage in key positions in the government so that they could achieve self-development in this way.

His confrontationist attitude prepared the depressed classes to be ready for political struggle to safeguard their rights. In a gesture reflecting the politics of accommodation, the Congress leadership appointed Ambedkar in the Cabinet and subsequently, he became the chairman of the rafting committee in the Constituent Assembly. The Constitution of India substantially represents the political philosophy of Ambedkar.

In an endeavour to protect the basic interests of the depressed castes, Ambedkar kept the depressed caste movement independent from the national movement. Secondly, due to historical reasons the depressed classes lost their self-respect, self-identity and autonomy. In order to regain them, Ambedkar wanted his followers to recognise the fact that the rights they had secured were their birthright and they had secured them through struggle. He embraced Buddhism to enable scheduled castes to develop their social and cultural identity in a manner they wanted. The logical culmination of Ambedkar’s political strategy was his acceptance of Buddhism as a means to self-development and self-realization.

Pressure groups are an essential part of parliamentary democracy. Hence, Ambedkar thought that if the scheduled castes successfully formed their groups in the assemblies, they could bargain their demands with other groups, enter into different alliances and share political power. It was because of these, that reservations opened avenues for political power for the Scheduled Castes in the post-independence period. The broad aim of Ambedkar’s political strategy was to devise a scheme that would allow just and fair distribution of political power among the different segments of Indian society and to some extent, he was successful in doing so. He also developed an independent movement of the backward classes that helped them acquire self-identity and self-realization. The dialectical outcome of Ambedkar’s political strategy was the united and concerted effort by all the oppressed classes of the society to capture political power, and his experiment of the labour party and conversion to Buddhism are two contributing factors which would enable them to fulfil his prophesy that only the oppressed classes would move the wheel of democratic revolution fully as it was only moved half way.²¹

For Ambedkar, politics was only a means to achieve a just position for man in society. His mission was man-making and nation-building. His aim in the social and political ideals was to construct a new society and a nation with fully liberated individuals. His philosophy was not Utopian; it was not only to simply quantify disabilities and injustices inflicted upon the downtrodden masses but to act as a guiding star and be a shining beacon to use the right means to end all the social evils and ills which tormented humanity in India.²²

He was optimistic in his conception that human interest could be achieved by human struggles alone. He established the fact that man was the architect of his own fate, good or bad, which was not built by any external element.²³

A believer in the Utilitarian philosophy, Ambedkar evolved the theory that the welfare-state alone could give full guarantee to the harmonious development of the individual. In this regard, he was in full agreement with the views of Alexander Pope, who said, ‘that government is the best government that governs the least’. He came forward with a necessary programme of preferential treatment and reservations for complete rejuvenation of the Scheduled Castes. Explaining his foremost aim in public life, he remarked ‘Attempt to uplift my community rather than winning the Swaraj for the nation is my goal’.

The individual occupied the basic unit of governance which was reflected in the constitutional provisions. To him, there was no limit to the growth of individuality. His unique protests to secure the rights of the untouchables, the legitimacy he claimed on their behalf, and the constitutional means he adopted to claim their rights, themselves constitute a new theory of emancipation, the signifiers of which include getting minority status, separate electorates and constitutional safeguards. Thus, his political ideology conveyed a deep faith in fundamental rights, in the equal rights of men and women, in the dignity of the individual, in social and economic justice, in the promotion of social progress for a better standard of life with peace and security in all spheres of human life. His political theory had been empirically founded and experimentally applied.²⁴ While demanding separate electorates and reservation for untouchables, he argued that the socially segregated should also further be politically segregated for getting special preferences.

According to Ambedkar, the political majority in India would always be a communal majority, which would be permanent and fixed in their attitude. This would be detrimental to the democratic ideals. As the communal majority was always hostile to the untouchables he insisted on a policy of safeguards for them. He expounded the truth that only in self-government the untouchables would get full liberation. While asserting the same view in the Round Table Conference in London in 1930, he remarked ‘We feel that nobody can remove our grievances as well as we can and we cannot remove them unless we get political power in our own hands.²⁵

He always glorified the nation through his political views. He also asserted that the country should be greater than the heroes. He was against the practice of hero-worship or personality cult. He cautioned the people against hero-worship. He said ‘In politics Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and eventual dictatorship—I hope that my countrymen will someday learn that the country is greater than the men’.²⁶ He was the first Indian political thinker who realised the inapplicability of Western democracy to India. By democracy, Ambedkar meant the fundamental changes in the social and economic life of the people and the acceptance of those changes by the people without resorting to violence, dispute and bloodshed.²⁷ For him, a democratic society was a society without oppressors and oppressed-classes and with a guarantee to equality of opportunity and rule of law. His criticism of Western writers was that they failed to recognise the social and economic contradictions in the life of Indians such as the position of the governing classes of India and its intention towards the service-classes and servile classes.

Along with economic exploitation, social factors also lead to the sufferings of the downtrodden. Here, Ambedkar differed from Karl Marx. He pointed out that the untouchables in India were suppressed by the rich as well as by the poor caste Hindus.²⁸ He argued as to how caste consciousness in India had ruined the social consciousness and demolished the national spirit. He also advocated that caste was inconsistent with democracy, for an ideal society was based on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity which could be a fitting alternative to caste society.²⁹ Among the three ideals of democracy he gave inordinate weight and importance to equality. To him equality was another name for democracy, because he thought that ‘democracy is not only a form of government but it is a mode of associate living … it is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence to fellowmen’.³⁰

Ambedkar’s Notion of Economic Rights

… I should have expected some provision whereby it would have been possible for the state to make economic, social and political justice a reality and I should have from that point of view expected the resolution to state in most explicit terms that in order that there may be social and economic justice in the country, that there would be nationalisation of industry and land, I do not understand how it could be possible for any future government which believes in doing justice socially, economically and politically unless its economy is a socialist economy

B. R. Ambedkar

The above statement reflects Ambedkar’s views on the imperative of socialist economy for ensuring social, economic and political justice. His understanding that social, economic and political rights were intertwined and had organic linkages was the reason for incorporating part four of the constitution which, to a great extent, dealt with the economic and financial provisions which was not common to many other constitutions in the world. Ambedkar had described the economic position of untouchables as the most pitiable. The untouchables in Hindu society were entirely dependent on such employment as the Hindus chose to give them and wages they found profitable. They neither had the freedom to choose their occupation nor ask for the appropriate compensation for the labour they rendered. They were completely dependent on the Hindu village for their earning and living. This economic dependence was the root cause for the poverty and degradation of the untouchables.

Ambedkar had traced the origin of the economic disabilities of the untouchables to the laws of Manusmriti according to which the former inherited their occupations. The Manusmriti made it a crime for the shudras to acquire learning. The Brahmins were not only responsible for the downtrodden status, economic misery and backwardness of the untouchables but they were also instrumental in preventing the non-Hindus from economic competition. If any member of the suppressed community dared change his occupation and enter any other trade, he was socially boycotted. Nobody would purchase anything from him. Therefore, the untouchables had to stick to their low, dirty and menial occupations with no hope or promise for a better future. The economic dependence of the untouchables, Ambedkar argued barred their progress.

This line of thinking of Ambedkar can be traced to his career. The first phase of his economic career until 1921 included several academic contributions in the form of dissertations for different degrees. The second phase started when he returned to India and lasted until his demise in 1956. In this phase he proved himself as a professional economist. His works ‘Administration and Finance of the East India Company’, ‘The Evolution of Provincial Finance in British India’, ‘The Problem of The Rupee: Its Origin and its Solution’, reflect his massive input in economics. His contributions testify to a wide range of academic interests: agricultural issues, industrial labour, views on Marxism, State Socialism and his strategies for India’s economic development. Ambedkar struggled against the ‘Khoti’ system and Mahar Vatan’ and was also involved in encouraging the labour movement, for which he founded the Independent Labour Party in 1936.

In his paper ‘Small Holdings in India and their Remedies’ Ambedkar chose a problem that continues to plague the Indian agrarian system. At that time, British administrators and academics in India who were used to their own country where large agricultural land holdings was the norm, were appalled at the low productivity of Indian land. They ascribed this to the minuscule size of the farm land cultivated by Indian peasantry. He advocated top priority to agriculture as an industry which is the most important one as it feeds the population of a nation. Agricultural development holds the key to the overall socio-economic development of the country in general and that of the rural population in particular. He believed that the principle of equality could be achieved if the problems of the agricultural sector were taken care of very seriously and sincerely.

Ambedkar maintained that the problems of agricultural economy involved dealing directly with agricultural production such as; what to produce, what could be the proper proportion of the factors of production, the size of the holdings, the tenure of the land etc. The small size of land holdings in India was greatly harmful to Indian agriculture. Ambedkar emphasized the two fundamental problems in Indian agriculture: 1) Consolidation of land holdings and 2) Enlargement of land holdings. To him consolidation of land holdings was a practical problem whereas their enlargement was a theoretical problem. He did not subscribe to the argument that industrialization would foster the enlargement of holdings and that it would be the most effective barrier against sub-division and fragmentation.

Industrialisation may not be a sufficient remedy for consolidation but will facilitate it. It is an incontrovertible truth that so long as there is the premium on land, consolidation will not be easy, no matter how equitable principles are proposed to be carried out. Is it a small service if industrialisation lessens the premium, as it is inevitably must? Certainly not, consideration of another aspect of consolidation as well points to the same conclusion, that industrialisation must precede consolidation. It should never be forgotten that unless we have constructed an effective barrier against the future sub-division and fragmentation of a consolidated holding it is idle to lay out plans for consolidation. Such a barrier can only be found in industrialisation; for it alone can reduce the extreme pressure which, as we have shown, causes sub-division of land. Thus, if small and scattered, holdings are the ills from which our agriculture is suffering to cure it of them is undeniably to industrialise.³¹

According to Ambedkar, small holdings had to be examined in the following context:

1. Why did the agricultural holdings get fragmented despite the fact that fragmentation resulted in inefficient use of resources?
2. Were large holdings necessarily efficient and small ones inefficient? In other words, what was an ‘economic holding?’
3. What was the ultimate remedy for solving India’s problem of small and scattered holdings?

Ambedkar did not agree with the view that the law of inheritance was the chief cause of sub-division of land. He attributed it mainly to the enormous pressure of population on land. He argued, ‘when farming was the only occupation, to get a small piece of land was better than to have none. The grievance of small holdings lies in the circumstances which put a premium on these small pieces of land. The premium is no doubt, due to the large population depending solely on agriculture to eke out its living. It is not, therefore, the law of inheritance that is the evil, but it is the high pressure on land which brings it into operation. People cultivate the small piece not because their standard of living is low … but because it is the only profitable thing for them to do at present. If they had something more profitable to do they would never prefer the small piece’.³²

The basic problem of Indian agriculture, for Ambedkar was that it was not capable of generating a surplus which ultimately was the reason for scarcity of capital. This made excessive use of labour in cultivation inevitable. Secondly, despite the vastness of land under tillage, the land under cultivation was small in proportion to the population of the country. Going a step further, he drew a fine distinction between ‘idle labour’ and ‘idle capital’. He argued that ‘capital exists but labour lives’. He elaborated that though idle capital does not earn, ‘it does not also consume much to keep itself. But labour, earning or not, consumes in order to live’.³³ He therefore, concluded that idle labour was a calamity: For, instead of contributing to the national income it dragged on reducing the already meagre surplus, which in turn depressed the process of capital formation. But even if we had proceeded for intensive cultivation by using more capital and all other equipment with a given plot of land so as to increase production, had it not happened that agriculture would have required even less labour than before? Ambedkar was aware of this problem. He argued that, ‘Even if we enlarged the existing holdings and procured capital and capital goods to make them economic, we will not only be not advocating the proper remedy but will end in aggravating the evils by adding to our stock of idle labour; for, capitalistic agriculture will not need as many hands as are now required by our present day methods of cultivation’.³⁴

To overcome this predicament, Ambedkar suggested industrialization as a remedy. He argued that industrialization would have cumulative effects. Firstly, it would help to sponge-off idle labour in non-agricultural channels of production. When productively employed, idle labour would not only cease to live by predation but earn its own maintenance and also give us surplus. Secondly, it would destroy the premium on land and reduce the pressure on it. Constituently, the necessity of sub-division and fragmentation would be checked. Lastly, a declining pressure of population on land and increasing use of capital and capital goods would forcibly create an economic necessity for enlarging the holding.³⁵

In 1918, a new chapter began in economic debates, when Ambedkar submitted a paper on the ‘The Problem of Small Holdings and its Remedy’ and tried to find out the problems of the overall economic development. He analysed how agricultural backwardness was responsible for it and concluded that industrial development was its solution. The problem was that people’s landholdings were small and scattered. One remedy was to consolidate the small holdings. However, the size of the landholdings was debatable. Some suggested voluntary exchange of land to increase the size, others argued for the compulsory consolidation of farms in the villages by the state and restriction of sale of occupancy rights. The compulsory or voluntary restriction was to be decided on the principle of economic holding, which was to be fixed on the basis of acreage of land owned. The lower land ceiling was to be fixed in such a way that it would be ‘a parcel of land necessary to keep fully engaged and support one family’ or a ‘holding which allow a man the necessary chance of producing sufficient support himself and his family in reasonable comfort, after paying his necessary expenses’. The solution offered was more by way of administrative and legal measures and treated the consolidation of holdings as a practical problem.³⁶

Extending his debate on Ambedkar’s approach towards the problem differently, Thorat notes that Ambedkar focussed on it more as an economic issue rather than as administrative measure. He took into account the underlying farm size and not related to legal or administrative measures. He differed from other academics on two different grounds which were, firstly the definition of economic holding and, secondly the economic principles governing the size of holdings. Hence, he sought solutions for their enlargement. The other economists viewed an economic holding from the stand point of consumption rather than of production. Ambedkar maintained that consumption was not a correct standard. True economic relation could subsist only between total output and investment. If one paid for all the investment, no producer would think of closing his farm. One could thus speak of the farm as a paying economic unit in terms of production and not consumption. Production in turn was not governed by land as a factor alone but was the result of the use of combination of land, capital and labour. The combination was of utmost importance. There was an optimum combination of factors. It was the right or wrong proportion of other factors of production to a unit of land (and not the size of land alone) that rendered a piece of land economic or uneconomic. A small farm might be economic like a large farm. Further, he stated that the problem of small holdings was not fundamental but derived from the prevention of maladjustment in the social economy. The household with a small holding was unable to acquire and use some factors of production in the right combination. While there was too little capital (in the form of capital goods and implements) and land, the supply of labour was in excess. Land capital being in short supply, they were relatively expensive compared to labour and hence become the major constraints. The solution therefore was to increase capital in the form of capital goods and implements and reduce the use of labour. The remedy was to siphon off the surplus labour to non-agricultural production. This would at one stroke lessen the pressure and eliminate the premium that weighed heavily on the land in India. Besides, the labour would be productively employed and generate surplus, and since more surplus led to more capital, that could be invested in agriculture.

Ambedkar made a critical examination about the land holding conditions and its enlargement and made very significant conclusions. He struck at the very root of the proposal by arguing that there could be no such thing as a correct size of agricultural holding. As he argued, land was only one of many factors of production and the productivity of one factor of production was dependent upon the proportion in which the other factors of production were combined. In his words, ‘the chief object of an efficient production consists in making every factor in the concern contribute its highest; and it can do that only when it can cooperate with its fellow of the required capacity. Thus, there is an ideal of proportions that ought to subsist among the various factors combined, though the ideal will vary with the changes in proportions’.³⁷

If agriculture was to be treated as an economic enterprise, then, by itself, there could be no such thing as a large or small holding. Ambedkar’s answer rested on the inadequacy of other factors of production. The insufficiency of capital which was needed for acquiring agricultural stock and implements could be tapped from savings. But as Ambedkar remarked that saving was possible where there was surplus. Even this was only a facade, the ultimate cause being the chief evil of maladjustment in the local economy. This was partly defined as the non-availability of sufficient land in India to achieve prosperity through the means of agriculture alone.³⁸

Industrialization as an Alternative for Indian Economy

Ambedkar viewed industrialization as the only remedy for India’s agricultural problems; it would reduce the surplus labour in agriculture. The cumulative effects of industrialization would lead not only to an increase in labour productivity and capital investment in agriculture but would also create the economic necessity of enlarging land holdings. Industrialization, by doing away with the premium on land, would avert subdivision and fragmentation. Thus, the problem of agriculture would be curbed by the indirect but positive impact of industrialization. Poverty in India, according to him, was due entirely to the economy being made dependent upon agriculture alone. Agriculture failed to produce sufficient food to feed its people. The roots were to be found, as observed earlier, in the maladjustment of its social harmony. Ambedkar argued that India was caught between two sides of a pincer, one side was the progressive pressure of the population and the other was the limited availability of land in relation to its needs. The result was that at the end of each decade we were left with a negative balance of population and production and a constant squeezing of standard of living and poverty. The population pressure was giving rise to an army of landless and dispersed families. It could be stopped when agriculture was made profitable. Nothing could open possibilities for making agriculture profitable except a serious drive in favour of industrialization. For, it was industrialization alone which could gainfully employ the surplus labour from agriculture.

As a policy measure, Ambedkar therefore emphasised the need for industrial development in order to gain increased agricultural productivity and income through the reflex action of the former on the latter. The policy prescriptions, suggested on the basis of theoretical formulation conceived in 1918, were restarted in 1943 and eventually incorporated in the objectives of the post-war reconstruction plan. The section on general objectives mentioned, ‘Agriculture is and will remain India’s primary industry but the present imbalanced economy has to be rectified by intensive development of the country’s industries so that both agriculture and industry may develop side by side. This will enable the pressure of population on the land to be relived and will also provide the means required for the provision of better amenities’.³⁹

Industrialization was to generate adequate surplus that was to eventually benefit the agricultural sector. Certainly a shift from primary industry to secondary industry was vital and it was to be attempted seriously to prevent the enlargement of the rural population that was being witnessed. Remedies based on what Ambedkar called ‘faulty political economy’ were being advocated. For him, industrial development was not the only goal for economic development, what was important was that development had to be maintained at a socially desirable level. It was not enough to bend our energies for the production of more wealth in India. The basic right of all Indians was to share the nation’s wealth not only as a means for a decent and dignified existence but also as an insurance against insecurity needs.

Ambedkar desired industrialization in India as the surest means to rescue people from the eternal cycle of poverty in which they were caught. For ages, Indian agriculture had been engaged in only food production which was insufficient for feeding its people. The poverty in India, for him was nothing but dependence on only agriculture. Significantly he believed in material progress. A socialist economy was to consist of state ownership of agriculture with a collectivised method of cultivation. Similarly, the state was to be in charge of industry and insurance. The state was obliged to plan the economic life of the people so as to gain high productivity with equitable distribution of wealth.

The Khoti System

‘Khoti’ was a peculiar system of land tenure that prevailed in pockets of the Konkan region of Maharashtra. Khots had rights to land which was cultivated by farmers and in return, the Khots collected land revenue from them and passed on a part thereof to the government. It was an oppressive system that had subjected a vast majority of the rural poor in the region to practical serfdom. All farmers and their families involved compulsorily in the system were treated by the Khots as bonded labour, generations after generations and this had continued in the region for several decades.

An agricultural conference was organised in Chiplun on 14 April 1929. In his presidential address, Ambedkar forcefully critiqued the Khoti system. He said to the farmers, ‘I know your grievances; the Khoti system is sucking your blood. This system of land tenure must be abolished. Its abolition will bring you peace and progress. In order to achieve your goal you must keep the agitation going on … you must take particular care to send to the legislatures the right type of men as your representatives who would devoutly struggle for the abolition of this Khoti system’.⁴⁰ This initiated the beginning of a long-drawn struggle for the rights of the farmers who were exploited by the Khoti system. On 17 September 1937, he introduced a historic bill in the Bombay Legislature Council for this purpose.

It is noteworthy that Ambedkar was one of the first legislators in India to introduce a bill for the abolition of the slavery of agricultural tenants. The basic aim of the bill was to secure occupancy rights to the tenants with a provision for payment of reasonable compensation to the Khots for the loss of their rights. The bill projected abolition of the Khoti System and its replacement by the Ryotwari System with a view to giving the poor farmers who were in actual possession of land, the status of occupants under the Land Revenue Code 1879.

Mahar Vatan

Mahar Vatan was a form of uncontrolled exploitation of the rural poor. A section of the rural poor belonging to the Mahar caste were subjected to this mode of oppression. According to the Bombay Hereditary Officers Act 1874, the Mahars holding low level government jobs were treated as servants for work in all government departments at any hour of the day and night for a pittance. In the absence of a Mahar servant, any member of his family was forced into government service. The duties of these government servants were never clearly defined so that all sort of odd jobs were assigned to them. For this laborious and continuous work, the Mahars were compensated with a piece of land called Vatan referred to as Baluta, i.e., the collection of grain made by Vatan holding Mahars from their villages.⁴¹ At times they did receive monetary compensation but it was very low and not sufficient to make ends meet. In the drought season, the government readily exempted farmers, in part, from giving the Baluta to Mahars while in the normal season, the government often confiscated parts of these lands under the pretext that they were more productive. Hence, basic rights like the option taking work of their choice, or the earnings from that work, were systematically denied. Mahar Vatan was a form of absolute and inhuman exploitation of Mahars. Psychologically, they were made to believe that they were Vatandars, and it was their right to perform the assigned duties irrespective of their nature. This psychological belief, widespread as it was, had the unfortunate effect of Mahars being not conscious of the coercive relations. Not only did they lose their self-respect but their aspirations were restricted to the insignificant menial jobs, while ignoring their inborn original potential.

Ambedkar took upon the task of breaking these shackles of servitude. Between 1927 and 1928, he published a series of articles on the Mahar Vatan system in Bahishkrit Bharit. He organised several meetings and conferences to educate people about the conspiracy of Mahar Vatan. Meetings were held at Kamatipura, Bombay, Nasik and Jalgaon, where thousands of Mahar Vatandars gathered. On March 19, 1928 he introduced a bill in the Bombay Legislative Assembly to amend the Bombay Hereditary Officers Act 1874. Following were the tenets of the bill:

1. A better arrangement for the hard work of the Vatandars
2. To get permission for the inferior village servants to get their Vatans exchanged
3. To exchange the money obtained by Baluta and obtain permission for the same
4. That the lower-class Vatandars may be freed from the service of the tenant
5. The agent Vatandar’s duties were fixed.⁴²

Introducing the bill Ambedkar brought to the notice of the house that Vatan lands were given to the Mahars by the ancient rulers of India. But the government had neither increased the land assigned nor the remuneration of these people, whereas the other government servants enjoyed additional income and benefits. He advocated that with the increase in population, the land assigned was divided and sub-divided thereby reducing the flow of income from the Vatan lands to almost nothing. Hence, he proposed that the Vatan lands should be given to the holders at the full rate of assessment and most of them should be relieved from the obligation to serve. Those who were to be retained in government service should be paid from the revenue derived from the assessment levied on the Mahar Vatans and from the Baluta, so that there would be no additional burden on the government treasury.⁴³

Ambedkar observed that the Mahar Vatan was an atrocious system, without any justice. If the government desired these people to work for it, it was absolutely necessary that they took up the responsibility of paying them. It was not right to place this burden in such a careless fashion on a third party, the ryot:, but that was exactly what was happening under the system. Further he argued that ‘if the government has got the nerve, the courage and the sympathy for others to bring forward financial measures to remunerate their services why should not government have the same nerve, the same courage and the same sympathy in the case of these Mahars?’.⁴⁴ Ambedkar was very specific about the state’s involvement in promoting the economic interests of the Scheduled Castes.

In the prolonged debates with the government, Ambedkar and the Independent Labour Party clearly defined the duties of the Vatan holders. Ambedkar penned five articles on the Mahar Vatan in a book entitled, ‘Mahars and their Vatan or Slavery in the Twentieth Century’ and also mobilised mass support for the bill by organising a number of meetings and conferences. The bill did not pass even the second time around because of the utter negligence of assembly members belonging to the dominant castes. The government was also disinterested. The persistent efforts of Ambedkar however paid off and after his death the Mahar Vatans were finally abolished under the Bombay Inferior Village Vatans Abolition Act 1 of 1959.

The Bombay Moneylenders Bill

Ambedkar was deeply aware about the needs and sufferings of the rural poor as well as the industrial workers. The exploitation of the poor at the hands of moneylenders compelled him to prepare a bill countering the malpractices of moneylenders. The bill was the first and foremost in India which clearly and specifically recommended corrective and innovative measures. The relevance of the Bombay Moneylenders Bill prepared by Ambedkar in 1938 contained innovative provisions, even by the prudential standards advocated today. These included; moneylenders being subjected to licenses from the government which were renewable every year, compulsory written records of all lending operations and the mandatory issue of pass-books detailing all transactions between borrowers and lenders.

Labour Movement

The caste system was not merely a division of labour but also a division of labourers. It dissociated work from interest, it disconnected intelligence from manual labour, it devitalised by denying a human being the right to collective vital interest and it prevented mobilization. In addition, it was a hierarchy in which the division of labourers were graded on extra-economic basis. Ambedkar further stated that a civilised society undoubtedly needed division of labour but in no civilized society was division of labour accompanied by this unnatural division of caste. In 1934, Ambedkar became the president of the Bombay Municipal Karmkari Sangh. This made him actively involve himself in the labour movement and in 1938 the first successful strike was led against the dominant classes.

In 1942, Ambedkar was appointed to the Viceroy’s Executive Council as the Labour member till the Council was dissolved in 1946. Ambedkar believed in the rights of the workers, but he was very clear that all actions should always be in the interest of workers, and not for political gains. Ambedkar was not in agreement with the Industrial Disputes Bill of 1938. The bill aimed at restricting the right of the labourers to strike and made strikes illegal. Ambedkar reasoned that a strike was a civil right but not a crime. Making a man serve against his will was nothing less than making him a slave. According to him, a strike was the right to freedom of one’s service on any terms that one wanted to obtain. If the popular government accepted that the right to freedom was a divine right, then, he argued the right to strike was also a divine one.⁴⁵ For Ambedkar workers faced two enemies, Brahminism and capitalism. He said, ‘I do not want to be misunderstood when I say that Brahminism is an enemy, which must be dealt with. By Brahminism, I do not mean the power, privileges and interests of the Brahmins as a community. That is not the sense in which I am using the word. By Brahminism, I mean the negation of the spirit of liberty, equality and fraternity. In that sense it is rampant in all classes and is not confined to the Brahmins alone though they have been the originators of it’.⁴⁶

By establishing the Independent Labour Party, Ambedkar launched labour movements and emerged as a labour leader. The party manifesto stated that in the rural sector, the population pressure and fragmentation of land holdings were the causes of poverty. It advocated an extensive programme of technical education for improving efficiency and productivity and favoured the principle of state-management and state-ownership wherever necessary. For industrial workers and their rights, the party manifesto favoured legislations to control the employment, dismissal and promotion of employees, to fix maximum hours of work, to provide for remunerative wages, leave with pay and provide inexpensive and sanitary dwellings etc. The manifesto also proposed, village level planning for housing and sanitation and for modernising the outlook of the villages. The Independent Labour Party was not supported and welcomed by Communists because they thought the struggle led by the party and Ambedkar would result in fragmenting the labour vote. Ambedkar argued that the Communist leaders were fighting for the rights of the workers but never for the human rights of Scheduled Caste workers. He cited an example that the textile mill unions had never raised their voices against the prohibitive barriers that kept Scheduled Caste workers away from the lucrative departments in the mills on account of untouchability.⁴⁷

Ambedkar fought for the rights of workers and peasants. In the late 1920s and especially in the 1930s when he had formed his Independent Labour Party, he took up the cause of tenants (from both the Scheduled Caste Mahars and the caste Hindu Kunbis) in the Konkan region of Maharashtra. With the support of the Congress Socialist Party, the ILP organized a huge march of 20,000 peasants to Mumbai in 1938, the largest pre-independence peasant mobilization in the region. In the same year, Ambedkar joined the Communists in organising a strike of Mumbai textile workers in protest against the ‘Black Bill’ which the British government was bringing in the Assembly to control workers’ strikes. Ambedkar took the lead in condemning the bill in the Assembly and argued that the right to strike was ‘simply another name for the right to freedom’. In the public rally attended by over a 100,000 people Ambedkar emphasised, ‘I have definitely read studiously more books on the Communist philosophy than all the Communist leaders here. However beautiful the Communist philosophy is in those books, still it has to be seen how useful it can be made in practice … if work is done from that perspective, I feel that the labour and length of time needed to win success in Russia will not be so much in India. And so, in regard to the toilers’ class struggle, I feel the Communist philosophy to be closer to us’.⁴⁸ Critiquing Communism, he stated that Communism and the labour movement was not one and the same thing. He observed that ‘trade unionism in India was in a sorry state. It was a stagnant and stinking pool, because its leadership was timid, selfish or misguided’. The Communists, according to him, had misused the power which they had once secured.⁴⁹

Apart from major struggles for workers’ rights Ambedkar initiated steps to solve the problems of the workers of the Bombay Municipal Corporation and the rights of the bidi industry of the Central Province and Berar. Ambedkar, as a member of Viceroy’s Executive Council focused on several issues relating to the labour movement. In several meetings he observed that the Indian labour movement was in a sad state as there were splits in its ranks and it was diffused. He also questioned the expenses on war instead of spending on health and education or in eradicating poverty. He advocated industrial peace based on social justice. Such an approach, which he argued was triangular in nature, had to start with the workers who had to recognise their duty to work. He focused on the issue of establishment of an emolument exchange for streamlining avenues for employment while recognising the demands of the labour for food, clothing, shelter, education, cultural amenities and health resources.

He tried to formulate the following policies to address these issues:

1. A full employment policy for labour
2. A state-supported patronised labour welfare system
3. A tripartite labour tribunal system to solve industrial disputes
4. To develop an ideal labour participatory mechanism in nation-building by asking the unionised labour not to be totalitarian in nature because of their collective bargaining power.⁵⁰ This shows his ideas of a proactive state.

Economics of the Caste System

Ambedkar was one of the first in Indian history to analyse the economic dimensions of social maladies such as caste and untouchability, through his works like ‘Annihilation of Caste’ and ‘What Congress and Gandhi have done to Untouchables?’ The traditional division of the society on the basis of Varna system, according to Ambedkar was most vicarious when viewed on the grounds of division of labour. The caste-based division of labour was not based on choice. Individual performance and preferences were not considered in this system. Ambedkar argued that caste was the outcome of certain religious beliefs which were sanctioned by the Shastras. As such, it was not the occupation which was responsible for caste but it was the caste system which was the basis of assigning occupations.⁵¹ This was what made the question of rights integral and inseparable while dealing with the caste system.

The scheme of distribution of economic rights in the Hindu social order, according to Thorat, was as follows:

1. It fixed the occupations for each caste by birth and its hereditary continuation
2. Unequal distribution of economic rights related to ownership of property, trade, employment, wages, education etc., among the caste groups
3. A hierarchy of occupational order based on social stigma of high and low
4. Recognition of the degraded concept of slavery
5. A harsh system of social, religious and economic penalties to enforce the caste based economic order.⁵²

Ambedkar further observed that the Hindu social system left no scope for individual choice and inclination in occupational matters. The Hindu social order did not recognise equal need, equal work or equal ability as a basis of reward for labour. Thus in the distribution of good things in life, those who were reckoned as the highest had to get the most and the best. Those who were the lowest had to accept the least and the worst. The Hindu social order was based on three interrelated elements, namely predetermination of social, religious and economic rights of each caste based on an ascribed status at birth, the unequal and hierarchical division of these rights among the castes, and provisions of strong social, religious and economic ostracism supported by social and religious ideology to maintain itself. Ambedkar observed that liberty, to be real, had to be accompanied by certain social conditions. To begin with, there had to be social equality and economic security. Generally, privilege tilts the balance of social action in favour of its possessors. The more equal the social and economic rights of the people, the more able they are to utilise their freedom. If liberty is to move to its appointed place, there should be social equality. Similarly there must be economic security. If people are deprived of security and employment they become a prey to mental and physical servitude incompatible with the essence of liberty. Without economic security, liberty is not worth having.⁵³

The caste system in India has been a major obstacle to its economic growth and development. Ambedkar opined that caste would never allow the individual to go for his/her own choice of occupation, but it forced the traditional occupation on individuals, which reduced labour mobility. It also restricted mobility of capital because occupations were inherited from castes. Further he said that social and individual efficiency required us to develop the capacity of an individual to the point of competency to select and make his own career. This principle was violated by the caste system insofar as it involved to appoint its tasks to individuals in advance, selected not on the basis of trained original capacities but on that of the social status of the parents. As an economic organization, caste was therefore a harmful institution, in as much as it involved the subordination of social rules. Hence he advocated annihilation of caste as the only solution for rapid economic growth and development in the country.

True, untouchability is religiously ordained but it is also the worst form of slavery. In slavery, the master at any rate has the responsibility to provide food, clothes and house and keep the slave in good condition, lest the market value of the slave decreased. But in the system of untouchability, the caste Hindu took no responsibility for the welfare of the untouchable. It was a system of absolute and uncontrolled economic exploitation. He said that the Hindu social system helped Hindus to control everything viz…land, trade, revenue and state. The Hindu social order which maintained untouchability with its socio-economic evils ‘is a conspiracy set up to suppress and enslave human rights’. He opined that Swaraj would make Hindus more powerful and untouchables more helpless because it ensured economic advantages to Hindus.

In India, where the major source of living depended on agriculture, the untouchables were more suppressed. They could not buy land because of the strict caste restrictions and were deprived of their source of income and livelihood. Even if they wanted to, they had to compete with the dominant castes. They had to work for caste Hindu farmers for small wages and were subjected to seasonal unemployment. The untouchables were kept away from all avenues of high income and high status jobs. While interpreting the economics of the caste system, he observed that if liberty had to be real it had to be accompanied by certain conditions like social equality and economic security. On the contrary, the caste system imposed restrictions on the mobility and freedom to choose one’s occupation.

Ambedkar’s Critique of Marxism

Ambedkar regarded Karl Marx as the father of modern Socialism or Communism. There are certain pre-requisites for Marxism to succeed. The society should be a free society’; it should give importance to an individual over society and it should be based on equality, fraternity and liberty.⁵⁴

Ambedkar summarised the Marxist doctrine in terms of the following set of propositions:

1. The purpose of philosophy is to reconstruct the world and not to explain the origin of the universe.
2. The forces which shape the course of history are primarily economic.
3. Society is divided into two classes, owners and workers.
4. There is always a class conflict going on between the two classes.
5. The workers are exploited by the owners who misappropriate the surplus value which is the result of the workers’ labour.
6. This exploitation can be put to an end by nationalization of the instruments of production, viz… abolition of private property.
7. This exploitation is leading to greater and greater impoverishment of the workers.
8. This growing impoverishment of the workers is resulting in a revolutionary spirit among workers and the conversion of the class conflict into a class struggle.
9. As the workers outnumber the owners, the workers are bound to capture the state and establish their rule i.e., dictatorship of the proletariat.
10. These factors are irresistible and therefore, socialism is inevitable.⁵⁵

According to Gail Omvedt, Ambedkar ended up disagreeing with Communists regarding ‘class’. He was also disillusioned with the Marxian economic solutions. While he continued to see class struggle and class oppression as important, he began to look for answers elsewhere. The values he asserted throughout his life were the classic social liberal values of the French Revolution. His study of Buddhism strengthened his feelings that it was Buddhism which had pioneered these values in Asia. In the conclusion to his essay on ‘Buddha or Karl Marx’ he states, ‘Society has been aiming to lay a new foundation as was summarised by the French Revolution in three words, fraternity, liberty and equality. The French Revolution was hailed because of this slogan. It failed to produce equality. We welcome the Russian Revolution because it aimed at equality. But it cannot be over emphasised that in producing equality, society cannot afford to sacrifice fraternity or liberty. Equality will be of no value without fraternity or liberty. The absence of these factors in the caste-ridden Indian society could not foster the growth of Marxism in India, and that is why Marx failed in Hindu India. Marx could not properly evaluate the importance of caste or its influence on Indian masses. Because Marx failed here, his followers in India talk of ‘Class’ and not of ‘Caste’. It seems that the liberty, equality and fraternity can coexist only if one follows the way of the Buddha. Communism can give one but not all’.⁵⁶

Rejecting the Marxian premise that economic relationships and economic philosophy are the two driving principles that operate in all human activity, Ambedkar pointed out that exploitation had many dimensions, economic, social, religious and political. In the Indian context, social or religious exploitation was no less oppressive than economic exploitation. According to Ambedkar, the two means of establishing Communism were through violence and the dictatorship of the proletariat. He felt that in such a scenario human rights would suffer. He noted that Communism advocated revolutionary methods of overcoming the opposition of the capitalists for establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. As a relentless champion of democracy and human rights, Ambedkar was against dictatorship of any kind. He said that society should aim at laying a new foundation on the basis of ‘Equality, Liberty and Fraternity’. Ambedkar believed in democratic and constitutional provisions for social transformation. For Marxists, state is a temporary institution which will disappear in due course. Ambedkar, on the contrary assigned an active role to the state in the social, political and economic affairs of the society.

However, Ambedkar agreed with Marx on the following ideas:

1. The function of philosophy is to reconstruct the world and not to waste its time in explaining the origin of the world.
2. That there is a conflict of interest between class and class.
3. That private ownership of property brings power to one class and sorrow to another through exploitation.
4. That it is necessary for the good of society that the sorrow be removed by the abolition of private property.

On the question of private property, Ambedkar quoted an illuminating extract from a dialogue between Buddha and Ananda. The Buddha stated that avarice was because of possession, which in turn was because of tenacity. Not only did Buddha prohibit private property in the Sangha, but he put more restrictions which were far more rigorous than (were) to be found in Communism in Russia.⁵⁷ Ambedkar then examined the means to achieve these goals. Having summarised Buddha’s tenets, he felt that, it was clear that the means adopted by Buddha were to convert a man by changing his moral disposition to follow the path voluntarily. The means adopted by the communists were equally clear, short and swift. They were (1) violence and (2) dictatorship of the proletariat. The communists argued that there were only two means of establishing Communism. The first was violence. Nothing short of it would suffice to break up the existing system. The other was dictatorship of the proletariat to continue the new system. It was now clear what were the similarities and differences between Buddha and Karl Marx. The differences were about the means. The end was common to both.⁵⁸

State Socialism

In a democracy, every citizen has a right and a duty, the right to criticise it and the duty to obey the law. In a dictatorship you have only the duty to obey but no right to criticise it.⁵⁹ Ambedkar believed in placing the state in prior position to prepare plans for the economic life of the people along the lines which would lead to maximum productivity without closing every avenue to private enterprise, and also to provide for the equitable distribution of wealth. He suggested an economic policy framework aimed at providing protection to the vulnerable and deprived sections of the society against economic exploitation. He said that agriculture had to be under the state and the state had to take care of it. He put forth a detailed economic plan for the development for Scheduled Castes so as to ensure their economic rights:

Clause IV of his document ‘States and Minorities’ emphasises Protection against Economic Exploitation of the Scheduled Caste:

The United States of India shall declare as a part of the law of its constitution the following agenda:

1. That industries which are key industries or which may be declared to be key industries shall be owned and run by the State.
2. That industries which are not key but are basic industries shall be owned by the State and shall be run by the State or by Corporations established by the State.
3. That Insurance shall be a monopoly of the State and that the State shall compel every adult citizen to take out a life insurance policy commensurate with his wages as may be prescribed by the Legislature.
4. That agriculture shall be State Industry.
5. That State shall acquire the subsisting rights in such industries, insurance and agricultural land held by private individuals, whether as owners, tenants or mortgagees and pay them compensation in the form of debenture equal to the value of his or her right in the land. Provided that in reckoning the value of land, plant or security no account shall be taken of any rise therein due to emergency, of any potential or unearned value or any value for compulsory acquisition.
6. The State shall determine how and when the debenture holder shall be entitled to claim cash payment.
7. The debenture shall be transferable and inheritable property but neither the debenture holder nor the transferee from the original holder nor his heir shall be entitled to claim the return of the land or interest in any industrial concern acquired by the State or is entitled to deal with it in any way.
8. The debenture-holder shall be entitled to interest on his debenture at such rate as may be defined by law, to be paid by the State in cash or in kind as the State may deem fit.
9. Agricultural industry shall be organized on the following basis:
   1. The State shall divide the land acquired into farms of standard size and let out the farms for cultivation to residents of the village as tenants (made up of group of families) to cultivate on the following conditions:
      1. The farm shall be cultivated as a collective farm.
      2. The farm shall be cultivated in accordance with rules and directions issued by Government.
      3. The tenants shall share among themselves in the manner prescribed the produce of the farm left after the payment of charges properly liveable on the farm.
   2. The land shall be let out to villagers without distinction of caste or creed and in such manner that there will be no landlord, no tenant and no landless labourer
   3. It shall be the obligation of the State to finance the cultivation of the collective farms by the supply of water, draft animals, implements, manure, seeds, etc.
   4. The State shall be entitled to:
      1. To levy the following charges on the produce of the farm: (i) a portion for land revenue; (ii) a portion to pay the debenture-holders; and (iii) a portion to pay for the use of capital goods supplied
      2. to prescribe penalties against tenants who break the conditions of tenancy or wilfully neglect to make the best use of the means of cultivation offered by the State or otherwise act prejudicially to the scheme of collective farming
10. The scheme shall be brought into operation as early as possible but in no case shall the period extend beyond the tenth year from the date of the Constitution coming into operation.⁶⁰

Nationalization of Agricultural Land

Ambedkar studied economic activities in relation to their influence on human welfare. Like the revolutionary British bourgeoisie, he advocated nationalization of land and argued that industrialization was the main panacea against poverty. He suggested state socialism with parliamentary democracy. His concern was how to establish equality between people in an exploitative society like India. Keeping development as a major concern Ambedkar tried to analyse Indian society. He held that Indian agricultural development was weakened by chronic problems such as fragmentation and small holdings of land. These problems were due to the law of inheritance and social economy. The law of inheritance reduced not only the size of the holdings but also agricultural productivity and increased the dependency of a large number of family members on a small piece of land for their survival. He opined that consolidation of land holdings may not be possible unless the idle capacity of labourers was engaged in industrial activities. At one particular point he stressed that industrialization must precede consolidation, but he later changed his stand and opined that neither consolidation of holdings nor tenancy legislation would help in increasing agricultural productivity. It would also not help in solving the chronic problems of landless labourers and small farmers. He suggested nationalization of whole agricultural land with collective farming as a panacea for the ills of economic development of these people.

Protection against economic exploitation and ensuring economic justice through proper distribution of resources play a significant role in the protection of human rights. The state’s obligation was to supply the necessary capital for agriculture as well as for industry for better results. Nationalised insurance gave the individual greater security than private insurance and it also gave the state the resources necessary for financing its economic planning in the absence of which it would have to resort to borrowing from the money market at a high rate of interest.⁶¹

Ambedkar emphasised that the plan had two special features. One, it proposed state socialism in important fields of economic life, two, it did not leave the establishment of state socialism to the will of the legislature. It established state socialism by the law of the constitution and thus made it unalterable by any act of the legislature and the executive. Further he stated that the purpose of prescription by law to shape and form the economic structure of society was to protect the liberty of the individual from invasion by other individuals. This was also the sole aim and objective in enacting the fundamental rights. The connection between individual liberty and economic structure of society may not be apparent to everyone. None the less the connection between the two was real. It would be apparent if the following considerations were kept in mind.

Political democracy rests on four premises which may be set out in the following terms:

1. The individual is an end in himself.
2. That the individual has certain inalienable rights which must be guaranteed to him by the constitution.
3. That the individual shall not be required to relinquish any of his constitutional rights as a condition precedent to the receipt of a privilege.
4. That the State shall not delegate powers to private persons to govern others.

In order to protect both the unemployed and employed from getting cheated of their fundamental rights to liberty, life, and pursuit of happiness, the possible remedy, he suggested, was that democratic countries were to limit the power of government to impose arbitrary restraints in political domains and invoke the ordinary powers of the legislature to restrain the more powerful individual from imposing arbitrary restraints on the less powerful in the economic field. An appeal to the legislature to intervene was a very precarious safeguard against the invasion of the liberty of the less powerful. The plan was considered purely as a means of safeguarding individual liberty but there was also another aspect of the plan which was worthy of mention. It was an attempt to establish state socialism without abrogating democracy. He feared that under democracy a majority of legislators at a particular time could be in favour of state socialism in industry and in agriculture but after the next election the majority could be against it. The anti-state socialism majority would use its law-making power to undo the work of those who were pro-state socialism. A majority for pro-state socialism would use its law-making power to again pass such laws. To check such a possibility, he argued for incorporation of socialistic measures in the constitution.

The soul of democracy is the doctrine of one man, one value. Unfortunately, democracy has attempted to give effect to this doctrine only so far as the political structure is concerned by adopting the rule of one man, one vote. It has left the economic structure to take the shape given to it by those who are in the position to mould it. This has happened because constitutional lawyers had the antiquated conception that it was necessary for a perfect constitution in democracy to function. Its aim was to frame a constitutional law which would make government responsible to the people and prevent tyranny of the people. Consequently, almost all laws of constitution which relate to countries which are called democratic, stops with adult suffrage and fundamental rights. They have never advanced the concept that the constitutional law of democracy must go beyond adult suffrage and fundamental rights. People who framed laws believed that the scope and function of constitutional law was to prescribe the shape and form of the political structure of society. They never realised that it was equally essential to prescribe the shape and form of the economic structure of society, if democracy was to live up to its principle of one man, one value. One needed to define both the economic structure as well as the political structure of society by the law of the constitution.⁶²

Ambedkar desired that labour should also enjoy liberty, equality and fraternity. Secondly, liberty as conceived by labour included the right to equal opportunity and the duty of the state was to provide the fullest facilities for growth to every individual according to his needs. Further, he pointed out that labour needed equality in terms of abolition of privileges of every kind in law, the civil services, the army, taxation, and trade and industry, in fact, in the abolition of all processes which led to inequality. And finally, labour needed fraternity in terms of all pervading sense of human brotherhood, unifying all classes and all nations, with peace on earth and goodwill towards man as its motto.

Conclusion

Ambedkar’s greatest contribution to our social and political life has been that he made the socially oppressed sections like the Scheduled Castes to challenge social orthodoxy, with the penetrating question which Abraham Lincoln had raised— ‘It might be in your interest to be our masters, but how is it in our interest to be your slaves?’⁶³ To the extent this question finds its echoes in the remotest corners of India with the requisite follow-up action, Ambedkar’s lifelong dream of ensuring social liberation of the oppressed and the downtrodden will be translated into reality.

Ambedkar considered that unless the socially suppressed section of the Indian people secured political power concentrated in the hands of the upper castes, it was not possible to completely wipe out all social, legal and cultural disabilities, from which this section suffered.⁶⁴ He further said, ‘Nobody can remove these unless you get political power into your hands. … We must have a government in which men in power will not be afraid to amend the social and economic code of life which the dictates of justice and expediency so urgently call for. This role the British Government will never be able to play. It is only a government which is of the people, for the people and by the people; in other words, it is only the Swaraj Government that will make it possible’.⁶⁵

The task of Ambedkar’s life was to establish human dignity, development of self-respect among the depressed classes. In other words, Ambedkar taught the common man to have belief in his/her potential power, to rouse it, develop it and stand on their own feet. His advice to the downtrodden classes was commendable. He asked them to rely on their self, on their own efforts, to trust and exercise their own intelligence and to seek refuge in reason. To him nothing was more sacred than learning. Nature made none a slave and no man was born a dullard.

His electoral failures did not influence his political strategy. He resigned from the Union Cabinet in 1951. In the first parliamentary election and in the subsequent by-election held in Bandra, he failed to win. This bitter experience led him to start a secular political party, the Republican Party of India that would organise the people on class lines. He pointed out that different groups should come together to forge alliance with like-minded parties like the Socialist Party which was articulating the interests of the backward castes.

Ambedkar emphasised that political rights would lead to economic and social rights, where human aspirations and dignity are protected by the constitution guaranteeing the rights of human beings. For him, rights were not merely standards. They were the ends as well as means in that they provided the theoretical perspective and the necessary empowerment that was required for achieving social justice. So he used the concept of right to realise the other rights through his struggle against the society and the state. This transformative perspective added a new dimension to the rights discourse and is considered to be a major contribution of Ambedkar.