Prashant Kumbhar
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar placed significant emphasis on ‘social democracy’ within his philosophical framework. Throughout the freedom struggle, the social movement unfolded alongside the national movement. The marginalized and oppressed classes actively engaged in the social movement, aspiring to establish an ideal social order distinct from the elite-dominated national movement. This social movement ultimately laid the foundation for the fundamental principles of social democracy.
On November 26, 1949, B. R. Ambedkar addressed the Constituent Assembly, expressing that as of January 26, 1950, India would embark on a journey marked by contradictions, where political life would embrace equality but social and economic spheres would grapple with inequality. Ambedkar foresaw that political democracy could serve as a means to attain the objectives of social and economic democracy without resorting to violence (Teltumbde, 2021). Despite being critical of parliamentary democracy, Ambedkar cautioned against its allure, stating it might not be the optimal solution despite its appearance as a popular government (Rodrigues, 2002, Page 61). The discontent towards parliamentary democracy stems from its failure to realize envisaged social and economic objectives (Rodrigues, 2002, Page 62).
Ambedkar contended that addressing untouchability requires effective political intervention rather than relying solely on social reforms (Gundimeda, 2016, Page 23). In the absence of political equality, the minority upper classes would rule over the majority with disguised forms of liberty and fraternity. In this direction, though India has made strides in political democracy, granting fair political representation and implementing the ‘one man, one vote’ principle, concerns arise regarding de facto representation. The real representation of marginalized classes is often overshadowed by tokenism. Women’s representation in India has consistently lagged behind the global average. Ambedkar highlighted how the servile class, influenced by an inferiority complex, elects leaders from the long-existing governing class as their natural leaders, perpetuating an unequal social system (Rodrigues, 2002, Page 63). Untouchability prevails extensively in various forms and regions across India. Presently, certain affluent castes, both economically and politically, take pride in their caste identity and heritage. However, this assertion doesn’t apply to the lower castes. The belief that political equality alone can eradicate this issue is debunked (Gundimeda, 2016, Page 16). Despite making strides in political democracy, it has not proven effective in realizing the objectives of social democracy. It is crucial to acknowledge that contemporary democracy holds greater legitimacy than before, with the underprivileged and marginalized staunchly defending it more than the elite (Gundimeda, 2016, Pages 14, 15). The defence of the constitution is intensified with the surge of hero-worship or Bhakti in political democracy.
Currently, the ruling class proudly presents Indian democracy as the largest democracy globally, yet it does not qualify as a ‘democracy’ as defined by B. R. Ambedkar (Teltumbde, 2021). Then it becomes imperative to retrospect and analyze. According to Ambedkar, social democracy encompasses more than just a democratic government (Teltumbde, 2021). Despite 75 years of independence, it’s a commonly accepted fact that social and economic inequality persists in India. Ambedkar envisioned social democracy as a foundation for an egalitarian social order. While political democracy is not inherently flawed, the way it is organized and functioning is crucial (Rodrigues, 2002, Page 62). The success of political democracy is contingent on the existence of social and economic democracy; otherwise, parliamentary democracy risks collapse (Rodrigues, 2002, Page 62). This is evident in Western countries, where the longevity of democracy varies—lasting in the USA and UK but not in France, Italy, or the USSR. The key distinction lies in the former’s greater degrees of social and economic equality than those of the latter (Rodrigues, 2002, Page 62). Ambedkar viewed rights and directive principles not just as constitutional ideals but as everyday realities. He firmly believed that social hierarchy and divisions impeded the path to social democracy. The operation of political democracy has, unfortunately, marginalized the concept of social democracy, partly due to the ineffective moral obligations placed on the government by the provisions in the DPSP.
In the context of Indian society, the intertwining of social status and economic capital is evident, necessitating a thorough understanding of the extent of economic inequality in the country to evaluate its social democracy. The mere embodiment of principles and ideals in the constitution is insufficient for the success of democracy; effective governance is crucial. For instance, legislative measures such as articles 31A and 31C were embodied to facilitate land reforms by abolishing zamindari, yet due to ineffective implementation and loopholes, they have not resulted in an equitable distribution of land assets. The escalating economic inequality poses a significant concern, as the formal introduction of the principle of political equality has failed to address the inherent structural economic disparities in Indian society, perpetuated by the uneven distribution of gains within the capitalist system (Gundimeda, 2016, Page 15). According to the Gini Coefficient Index, economic inequality in India has surged at an unprecedented rate, rising from 34.4 in 2014 to 47.9 in 2018 (Chaudhari, Ghosh, 2021). An examination of this report leads to the conclusion that the way political democracy is functioning in India is, in reality, perpetuating social and economic inequality over time (Chauhan, 2022). Notably, there has been a surge in economic inequality in the post-COVID era, a departure from B. R. Ambedkar’s vision of a society where privileges and hardships are evenly distributed among all members.
Ambedkar acknowledged the significance of the state in fostering human development (Srivastav, 2016). Within the framework of social democracy, ensuring human development for all remains a pivotal aspect. However, there is a discernible trend wherein the government increasingly favours neoliberal capitalist policies for revenue generation, employing regressive taxation. In contrast, Ambedkar ardently advocated for progressive taxation (Srivastav, 2016). Furthermore, the diminishing public expenditure on social initiatives signifies a departure from the principles of the welfare state. Despite the economic progress of the nation, the upliftment of Dalits from caste-based discrimination and cultural segregation has not materialized (Gundimeda, 2016, Page 17). Ambedkar posited parliamentary democracy as a better means that would foster a commitment to ‘liberty,’ allowing the expression of thoughts and the pursuit of a dignified life with well-being for everyone. However, current reports reveal a consistent decline in the Human Development Index (HDI) alongside a continuous increase in GDP (Chauhan, 2022). Unfortunately, this economic growth is not translating into benefits for the impoverished. The prevalent neoliberal economic orientation has transformed the welfare state into a corporate entity, serving as a facilitator for capitalist investors (McMichael, Philip, and Heloise Weber, 2021). The state is progressively retracting from its social and economic responsibilities, rendering the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) provisions in the hands of the private sector. Conversely, Amartya Sen’s emphasis on social justice and freedom encompasses the essence of social democracy. He argues that the state plays a pivotal role in creating an environment conducive to the well-being and development of its citizens. This alternative stance, diverging from neoliberal ideology, can guide us towards social democracy. To achieve this goal, comprehensive welfare measures are imperative, aligning with Ambedkar’s vision.
Ambedkar stressed the significance of a moral framework in society for the proper functioning of democracy. During a speech in Pune, he highlighted that to ensure the success of democracy, all forms of distinctions or hierarchies should be eliminated. This reflects Ambedkar’s vision for a casteless society in India, prioritizing fraternity over liberty and equality (Teltumbde, 2021). He rejected the idea of the majority imposing its will on the minority, asserting that democracy’s foundation lies not only in political institutions but also in social relations grounded in equality (Kumar, 2022). It appears that Ambedkar’s vision is neglected (Chauhan, 2022) with the growing concern of contemporary challenges such as fundamentalism and intolerance towards minority and oppressed groups. The electoral politicization of social issues has betrayed the essence of social democracy, as the casteist sections are sidelining Ambedkar’s ideas. To combat religious and social hegemony, as well as various inequalities, the Ambedkarite ideology serves as a major tool for achieving social democracy. In the current era, the significance of Ambedkar’s ideological legacy is growing, but his envisioned grounded social democracy remains elusive. Achieving comprehensive equality may take time, as the socialist revolution required for this transformation is not imminent due to the lack of readiness among the people (Teltumbde, 2021). Ambedkar advocated for a distinctive form of revolutionary socialism, focusing on analyzing economic inequality and exploitation (Srivastav, 2016). In the final constituent assembly meeting, Ambedkar stressed the urgency of solving multi-faceted contradictions at the earliest moments, or else those who suffer will blow up political democracy (Emmanuel, 2018).
~
References
Ambedkar, B. R. (2002). The Essential Writings of B.R. Ambedkar (V. Rodrigues, Compiler). Oxford University Press.
Gundimeda, S. (2017). Dalit Politics in Contemporary India. Routledge India.
Kumar, B. (2022, April 14). Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s Idea Of Social Democracy. Countercurrents. Retrieved December 1, 2023, from https://countercurrents.org/2022/04/dr-b-r-ambedkars-idea-of-social-democracy/
Srivastava, V. K. (2016, April 30). Ambedkar and his Vision of Socialism. Mainstream Weekly. Retrieved December 1, 2023, from https://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article6374.html
Teltumbde. (2021, April 14). Ambedkar and Democracy – Indian Cultural Forum. Indian Cultural Forum. Retrieved December 1, 2023, from https://indianculturalforum.in/2021/04/14/ambedkar-and-democracy-by-anand-teltumbde/
Chaudhuri, Ghosh. (2021, March 5). Why inequality is India’s worst enemy. Down To Earth. Retrieved December 1, 2023, from https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/economy/why-inequality-is-india-s-worst-enemy-75778
McMichael, Philip and Heloise Weber (2021). Instituting the Globalization Project; Development and Social Change: A Global Perspective (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Pine Forge Press, pp. 112-147.
Emmanuel, M. (2018, April 14). Dr. Ambedkar’s final speech in Constituent Assembly – Bar & Bench. Bar and Bench. Retrieved December 1, 2023, from https://www.barandbench.com/columns/dr-ambedkar-1949-constituent-assembly-speech
Chauhan. (2022, April 15). Ambedkar’s Vision Of Democracy: Why Its Revival Is Important For India. Outlook India. Retrieved December 1, 2023, from https://www.outlookindia.com/national/ambedkar-s-vision-of-democracy-why-it-s-revival-is-important-for-india-news-191642
~~~
Prashant Kumbhar is pursuing a Master’s in development at Azim Premji University.
