Need to embrace Dr. Ambedkar’s thoughts as we chase our goal of inclusive Viksit Bharat

His apprehensions about income and wealth inequalities have proved so realistic. Even after so many decades of Independence, we have not been able to address colossal socio-economic and educational disparities among our people

As we are gearing up to accelerate the pace of common efforts to realize the collective goal of inclusive Viksit Bharat by 2047, I am tempted to revisit some timeless thoughts of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. His words on India’s socio-economic and political dynamics will always guide us in our pursuits to ensure that no one is left behind in terms of his holistic empowerment when our great nation celebrates its centenary of Independence on August 15, 2047.

The ideas and ideals of Dr. Ambedkar also assume significance as there seems to be a continued tacit attack on our affirmative ecosystem from all quarters. Most of the affluent and powerful people among us appear to be dead against equitable distribution of national resources, opportunities, facilities and resources among all in proportion to their population. They want to maintain their hegemony for which they have been able to create a different set of facilities for themselves and their own children, and for the have-nots, who account for nearly 85 per cent of the country’s population.

In his last speech to the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949, Dr. Ambedkar said: “On the 26th January 1950, India would be a democratic country in the sense that India from that day would have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The same thought comes to my mind. What would happen to her democratic Constitution? Will she be able to maintain it or will she lose it again? This is the second thought that comes to my mind and makes me as anxious as the first.”

In the same speech, Dr. Ambedkar warned us of three things. “If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form but also in fact, what must we do?”

He suggested three things to be done. He said: “The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution.” He spoke of rejecting “the grammar of anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.” The second thing, Dr. Ambedkar said, “we must do is to observe the caution which John Stuart Mill has given to all who are interested in the maintenance of democracy, namely, not “to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with power which enable him to subvert their institutions.

“The third thing we must do is not to be content with mere political democracy. We must make our political democracy a social democracy as well. Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of its social democracy.”

One of the most important takeaways from Dr. Ambedkar’s landmark speech is his emphasis on achieving the goal of social democracy. What does social democracy mean?

He answered: “It means a way of life which recognises liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not to be treated as separate items in a trinity. They form a union of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy.”

He further said: “On the social plane, we have in India a society based on the principle of graded inequality in which we have a society in which there are some who have immense wealth as against many who live in abject poverty.”

In conclusion, Dr. Ambedkar said: “Times are fast changing. People including our own are being moved by new ideologies. They are getting tired of the government by the people. They are prepared to have Governments for the people and are indifferent whether it is a government of the people and by the people. If we wish to preserve the Constitution in which we have sought to enshrine the principle of ‘government of the people, for the people and by the people’, let us resolve not to be tardy in the recognition of the evils that lie across our path and which induce people to prefer a government for the people to a government by the people, not to be weak in our initiative to remove them. That is the only way to serve the country. I know of no better.”

None of us will disagree with the fact that Dr. Ambedkar was so prophetic. His apprehensions about income and wealth inequalities have proved so realistic. Even after so many decades of Independence, we have not been able to address colossal socio-economic and educational disparities among our people.

Nobody is keen to talk about sharing national resources, opportunities, facilities and privileges among all in sync with their numbers. A miniscule percentage of haves among us continue to lord over national resources, opportunities and facilities, while the have-nots are deprived of quality and affordable healthcare and education and the opportunity to lead their lives with ease and dignity. In the name of justice, they are subjected to a long ordeal of moving from one pillar of the judiciary to another, and in the process losing hope for justice.

In my opinion, the persistent inequalities stem from a complex interplay of historical, social, and political factors. As a nation, we embraced a democratic system with diverse political ideologies and regional complexities but did never exhibit collective will power and commitment towards the goal of inclusive development.

Even today we are not serious in our endeavours to address deep-seated disparities in land distribution, education, and access to resources, which have been further exacerbated by caste, religion, and regional divides.

Corruption and bureaucratic inefficiencies have also cost us dearly. We have been more concerned about balancing democratic values and caste-based disorder than accelerating the pace and expanding the ambit of inclusive economic progress.

The end results are in the public domain but no one bothers to take note of them and end the policy of divide, deprive and rule.

(The writer is a senior journalist, author and columnist. The views expressed are strictly his personal)