Dr.

Babasaheb Ambedkars
Ideology of Democracy
Dr.Sandesh Wagh ,
Associate Professor,
Department of History,
University of Mumbai,
Mumbai ,
Contact no: 970 275 6655
Email : [email protected]
The Concept of Democracy
The term ‘Democracy’ is very popular one. The concept of
Democracy is, however, very complex one. It has no universal
definition as such. Its meaning has been undergoing constant
change ever since the ancient Greek city-states in the fifth
century BCE, where the origin of the concept and practice of
‘Democracy’ can be traced. The term ‘Democracy’ itself is
derived from the Greek word ‘demos’ and ‘kratos’ meaning
‘the people’ and ‘power or rule’ respectively.19 Thus the
original meaning of the term ‘Democracy’ is ‘the power or rule
of the people’.20 It is a form of a Government in which the
people rule themselves either directly or indirectly or through
their elected representatives. In Democracy sovereignty vests
with the people in general.
According to, Lord Bryce, Democracy is, “A Government in
which the will of the majority of qualified citizens rules”.21 This
definition clearly points out that Democracy is a rule of
common man.
According to J.R. Lewis, “Democracy is basically as a form of
Government, but a form which exists to supply and maintain a
better society, and to provide the maximum amount of liberty
for the individual consistent with the attainment of order and
security within the State.”22 Definition of Democracy put forth
by J.R. Lewis is nearer to the concept of State Socialism, where
for the betterment of State maximum amount of liberty is
prescribed for individual.
According to Dewey, “The foundations of Democracy is
faith in the capacities of human nature; faith in human
intelligence and in the power of pooled and co-operative
experience.”23 Dewey rightly points outs the human nature
of Democracy.
“Democracy” according to J.A. Schumpeter “Democracy
means only that the people have the opportunity of
accepting or refusing the men who are to rule them…by
free competition among would-be leaders for the vote of
the electorate.”24 According to this definition it is pointed
out that in a Democracy the real power of State is in the
hands of common man who holds the right to choose his
representative by the power of vote.
According to Walter Bagehot, Democracy is a
“Government by discussion”.25 According to Prof. Seeley
Democracy is a form of “Government in which everyone
has a share”.26 After analyzing this two definitions on
understands that in a democratic form of a Government
every one has a share to put forth their demands.
The definition of ‘Democracy’ by Abraham Lincoln is a
popular one. He defines ‘Democracy’ as government—of
the people, by the people and for the people.27 Thus,
according to him ‘Democracy’ is a form of government. In
this form the ultimate power rests with the people that
means government of the people, that government is run
by the people through representatives, hence it is the
government by the people and lastly it is run for
promoting the welfare of the people, hence it is a
government for the people.
However, the term ‘Democracy’ has stood for many ideas
and principles, and has many facets since its origin. Thus,
the term ‘Democracy’ means different things to different
people. It has so many different connotations.
In such situation, what should be understood by the word
‘Democracy’ is a very pertinent question. However,
fortunately, there are some standard definitions which are
widely accepted. And, there is no disagreement as to the
basic meaning ‘Democracy’.
However, there are some thinkers and philosophers who
go beyond this merely mechanical concept of a form of a
Government and who seek to extend its scope to social
and economic spheres of human life. They define
Democracy in terms of a way of life emphasizing the
dignity of man.
 Democracy in fact, is not merely a form of Government it is a
complex of social, economic and political factors, affecting the
relationship of the State to the individual, guaranteeing
essential freedoms, personal liberty, freedom of expression, or
organization and of governing activities.
From above definitions it is evident that broadly speaking there
are two broad perspectives on ‘Democracy’. The one is purely
political which defines ‘Democracy’ in terms of a form of
government and the other is socio-economic which extends the
scope of ‘Democracy’ to social, economic and even a
philosophical aspects of human life.
Though there is multiplicity of definitions, it is noticed that the
foundation and centre of concern is the people only. And for
the people to use power wisely for their own welfare. There
must have real access to the power. As it is unconceivable that
without a social and economic order which is conducive to this
object the very Democracy is sure to fail.
Essential conditions for the success of Democracy

Dr. Ambedkar has clearly stated the conditions which are

necessary for the successful working of Democracy. They can be
illustrated in brief as under.
1. Equality:
For the success of Democracy the first and foremost essential
element is equality Dr. Ambedkar states that there must be know
glaring inequalities in the society. There should not be an
“oppressed class” and there should not be a “Suppressed Class”.
He refers to Abraham Lincoln, who once said that “a house divided
against itself cannot stand”, and endorses the latter’s statement.
The divided society has within itself the “germs” of a bloody
revolution.53
His ideal society is, based on liberty, equality and fraternity, which
he derived from his preceptor the Buddha. However, he gives
primary importance to equality in that trinity.
He said in unequivocal terms that, “Fraternity and liberty are really
derivative notions. The basic and fundamental conceptions are
equality and respect for human personality. Fraternity and liberty
take their roots in these two fundamental conceptions. Digging
further down it may be said that equality is the original notion and
respect for human personality is a reflexion of it. So that where
equality is denied, every thing else may be taken to be denied”.54
Dr. Ambedkar was of the opinion that equality should prevail in
human society, there should not be any discrimination under the
pretext of religion, culture, norms in the society. In India his
concept of equality refered to social equality in the society. Due to
Chaturvarnya system in India, the Indian society was divided into
many fractions of castes. The social norms and the legal norms of
the Indian society were based on inequality. Dr. Ambedkar
opposed this inequality in order to establish Democracy in India.
Therefore he gave equality as the one of the necessary condition
for the success of Democracy in India.
2. Two party system:
The second important condition for the successful working of
Democracy is the existence of strong opposition to the ruling
majority. He thinks that there must be an effective veto power
against the authority of those who are ruling the country. There
can not be veto against the king, but in Democracy it must be
exercised against the party in power. Unless there are two parties,
one is to rule and other is to oppose, there can not be Democracy.
At every five years those who are in power must to the people and
seek a fresh mandate from the people. If the people do not trust
them, they should make a room for others. In Democracy nobody
has any perpetual authority to rule and perpetual subjection to
other. He said categorically that, “as a king has no Divine Right to
rule, so also a majority has no Divine Right to rule. Majority rule is
tolerated only because it is for a limited period and subject to the
right to have it changed, and secondly because it is a rule of a
political majority, i.e. majority which has submitted itself to the
suffrage of a minority and not a communal majority.”55
He thinks that there should be a political majority and a political
minority rather than a communal majority and a communal
minority. He had rightly observed that in India, “the majority is not
a political majority. In India the majority is born. It is not made.
That is the difference between a communal majority and a political
majority. A political majority is not a fixed or a permanent
majority. It is a majority which is always made, unmade and
remade. A communal majority is a permanent majority fixed in its
attitude. One can destroy it, but one cannot transform it”.56 In his
words, “two parties are necessary to keep Government from being
a despotism”.57
3. Equality in law and administration:
There was no equality in law and administration in India due to the
Vedic culture in India. In Hindu system law and administration
treated the person according to their castes. There was no uniform
civil code in law in Vedic culture. The Hindu judicial system was
based on injustice. There must be not only equality before law, but
there must be equality of treatment in administration.
The personnel in administration need to be most sincere and
efficient. There should not be discrimination in administration.
Whenever necessary action is taken by the administration against
any culprit the higher officer should not interfere in the matter of
justice. The members of the ruling party should not interfere if any
action is taken against any offender. In other words, the personnel
in administration should be permanent, uncorrupt and efficient so
that everybody would be able to get justice. There ought to be
distinction between what is called ‘Political offices’ and ‘Civil
offices’. The British government maintained distinction between
the political offices and civil offices. In U.S.A. the ‘spoils system’ is
no more in existence. He thinks that in India also the
administration should be above politics and should not allow at
any rate any interference in the administration.58
The administration must be well responsive, responsible and
impartial; and it must be well determined. It should command
obedience to authority.
“We must have a Government”, he said, “in which the men in
power will give their undivided allegiance to the best interest 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 call for”.59
Dr. Ambedkar however observed that “the administration in India
is completely in the hands of the Hindus. It is their monopoly. From
top to bottom it is controlled by them …. Their one aim is to
discriminate against the Untouchables and to deny and deprive
them not only of the benefits of law, but also of the protection of
the law against tyranny and oppression. The result is that the
Untouchables are placed between the Hindu population and Hindu
ridden administration, the one committing wrongs against them
and the other protecting the wrong-doer, instead of helping the
victims”.60
It is because of this reason that he demanded reservation for the
Depressed Classes in the services in order to change the
composition of the administration and to fill in with their own
brethren to held them and to boost up their morale.
Constitutional Morality:
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar had rightly observed that, “a
Constitution which contains legal provisions, is only a skeleton. The
flesh of the skeleton is to be found in what we call Constitutional
morality”.61 However, in England it is called the usages and
conventions of the Constitution. Political actors in England are
invariably bound to those conventions.
Constitution needs to be observed in its letter and spirit. Each and
every rule of public life can not be provided in the Constitution.
The Constitution, however provide a mere skeleton or some basic
principles and not every details. The details in the legal skeleton
could be filled in by healthy principles or conventions which are
always based on justice and which evolve in the course of history.
Though one can not challenge in the court of law against those
who are in breach of them but one can do so in the court of public
conscience.
He refers to with admiration the conservation laid down by
President Washington who of his own declined to contest for
Presidentship of U.S.A. for the third consecutive tenure on the
ground of Constitutional morality. He refers to the convention laid
down by King Windsor Edward III who had to abnegate the throne
as he married an ordinary woman against the wishes of the
Parliament. Thus the Parliament claimed and successfully secured
the right to restrain even the personal life of the King.62
No Tyranny of Majority:
In Democracy there are always two rival parties striving to
complete against each other for getting political power. The party
proving its majority forms the government and the party in
minority forms the opposition. However, it is not expected from in
majority to impose its tyranny over the minority.
“The minority”, he states, “must always feel safe that although the
majority is carrying on the government, the minority is not being
hurt”.63 He thinks that there should be free and fair discussion in
the parliament on any problem. Every member of a minority party
should be treated with due respect and dignity and he should be
heard; irrespective of his view. Every motion of adjournment
should be allowed and discussed. The opposition party is also
expected to co-operate with the ruling party by constructive
criticism and fruitful suggestions in the matter of governance of
the state. They should be so wise and liberal to agree or at least
agree to disagree with each other. It however necessary to have
political majority or minority and not communal majority or
minority. The majority party should try to see such an atmosphere
on the floor of parliament and even outside of parliament, in
which a revolutionary spirit or an unConstitutional spirit would not
develop.
4. Moral order:
According to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Democracy requires the
existence of a moral order in the society. He contemplates that
politics can not be devoid of ethics. The Government may pass the
laws and implement them but unless there is morality in the
society law can not achieve any success. “A politician”, he said,
“does not merely trade in politics, but he also represents a
particular faith covering both the method as well as the
metaphysics of politics”64 He further said that, “Politics has
become a kind of sewage system intolerably unsavory and in
sanitary. To become a politician is like going to work in the drain”.65
Therefore he has no faith in value-free politics. Once he reportedly
said that, “politics has become a game of scoundrel but for me it is
a mission”.66 He however puts before the people an ideal as to
how politics could be mission.
5. Public conscience:
The last but not the least is the condition of public conscience
which is essential for the successful working of the democratic
Constitution. According to him public conscience means
“conscience which becomes agitated at every wrong, no matter
who is the sufferer, and it means that everybody whether he
suffers that particular wrong or not, is prepared to join him in
order to get him relieved.”67 He cites an important example of
Reverend Scott a white man, who tried his best to liberate the
Blacks from White racial supremacy and racial discrimination in
South Africa. Though he was a white man, he served the cause of
the blacks, irrespective of the feelings of his white community
people. He thinks that it is an example to be emulated by others
especially the Indian high castes. He states very categorically that
is South Africa every where in India. However, he feels strange as
to why there could not be any non-scheduled caste who could take
up the cause of the oppressed people in India. He rightly observes
that it was because of lack of “public conscience”.
He thinks that the non-Dalits should come forward to liberate the
Dalits. If they failed to do so, the oppressed people would develop
revolutionary mentality which could prove to be grievously
dangerous to Democracy.68
His thoughts on the conditions precedent for the successful
working of Democracy in India are really worth. India has adopted
a new Constitution in 1950 through which we have pledged to
constitute India into a sovereign socialistic secular democratic
republic and to secure to all its citizens’ justice, liberty, equality
and fraternity. Whether it would be possible to bring into reality
the high ideals provided in the Constitution is a question which
could be sincerely answered by every Indian.
However, it is difficult to say that the Indian society is able bring
into reality those high ideals unless, it is prepared to remove all
the inherent evils in the body politic. Therefore it could be safely
concluded that the thoughts of Babasaheb Ambedkar for the
success of Democracy are most significant and relevant to the
Indian society in the present scenario.
Future of Parliamentary Democracy
Dr. Ambedkar delivered a lecture at D.A.V. College,
Jullundur City (Punjab) on 28th October 1951. In his speech he
submitted his observations on future of parliamentary Democracy.
Dr. Ambedkar stated that there was variety of opinion about to
which systems of Democracy to be applied in India. After long
discussion parliamentary form of Democracy was accepted in India
to which he was greatly attached.69
Dr. Ambedkar explained, parliamentary Democracy is not
unknown to India. He refers to the parliamentary system of
Government prevailing from Buddha’s time as follows:
Parliamentary Democracy is unknown to us at present. But India,
at one time, had parliamentary institutions. India was far more
advanced in ancient times. . If you go through the ‘Suktas’ of
Mahaparinibbana, you will find ample evidence in support of my
point. In these ‘Suktas’ it is stated that while Bhagwan Buddha was
dying at Kusinara (Kushinagar) a message to that effect was sent
to the Mallas who were sitting in session at that time.
They were devoted to Parliamentary institutions. When they
received the message about Buddha, they decided that they shall
not close the session but would carry on with their work and will
go to Kusinara after finishing of the business of the Parliament.
There are innumerable references in our literature to prove that
Parliamentary system of Government was not unknown to us.70
Regarding the rules of Parliamentary procedure Dr.
Ambedkar refers to Buddhist Sanghas where secret ballot system
was also prevailing. Along with intellectual freedom to all as
follows:
There are many rules about Parliamentary procedure. May’s
Parliamentary practice is generally followed. One rule that is
invariably followed everywhere is that there can be no discussion
without a motion. That is why there is no discussion on a question.
This rule was also practiced in our land in ancient times. The
system of secret ballot now in vogue is also not new to us. It was
followed in Buddhist Sanghas. They had the ballot papers which
they called ‘Salapatraka Grahakas’.
. Unfortunately, we have lost this entire past heritage that was
good. Historians of India must tackle this question as to why these
Parliamentary institutions disappeared from our land. But I find
that they cannot or do not want to find out the reasons for it.
Ancient India was the master of the world. There was such
intellectual freedom in ancient India as was nowhere else to be
found.71
Dr. Ambedkar further said that due to the decline of Buddhism in
India, the Parliamentary system of Government was not observed.
And in the modern times Indian people might fell that this system
of Parliamentary Democracy is knew to them. For the success of
Parliamentary Democracy and Parliamentary system of
Government Dr. Ambedkar advised to educate the Indian masses
about the meaning, benefits and purpose of Parliamentary
Democracy as follows:
Then why this ancient civilization went to dogs? Why was India
subjected to autocratic monarchies? We were familiar with
parliamentary institutions.
. We know about votes, voting, committees and other things
related to parliamentary institutions. Today parliamentary system
of government is alien to us. If we go to a village, we will find that
the villagers do not understand what is vote, what is party? They
find it something strange, something alien. It is, therefore, a great
problem as to how to preserve this institution. We will have to
educate the public; we will have to tell them the benefits of
Parliamentary Democracy and of Parliamentary System of
Government.72
Dr. Ambedkar further elaborated the three main things inherent in
the Parliamentary system of Government as follows:
Firstly, Parliamentary Government means negation of hereditary
rule. No person can claim to be a hereditary ruler. Whoever wants
to rule must be elected by the people from time to time. He must
obtain the approval of the people. Hereditary rule has no sanction
in the Parliamentary System of Government.
Secondly, any law, any measure applicable to the public life of the
people must be based on the advice of the people chosen by the
people. No single individual can presume the authority that he
knows everything, that he can make the laws and carry the
government. The laws are to be made by the representatives of the
people in the Parliament. They are the people who can advise the
men in whose name the law is proclaimed. That is the differences
between the monarchical system of Government and the
democratic system of Government. In monarchy, the affairs of the
people are carried on in the name of a monarch and under the
authority of a monarch. In Democracy the affairs of the public are
carried on in the name of the head of the state; but the laws and
the executive measures are the authority on which the
Government is carried on. The head of the state is the titular Head;
he is merely a symbol. He is a concentrated ‘Murti’. He can be
worshipped but he is not allowed to carry out the Government of
the country. The Government of the country is carried out, though
in his name, by the elected representatives of the people.
Thirdly and lastly, Parliamentary system of the Government means
that at a stated period those who want to advise the head of the
state must have the confidence of the people in themselves
renewed. In Britain, formerly, the elections to the Parliament were
held every seven years. The Chartists agitated against this. They
wanted annual elections. The motive behind this agitation was
very praiseworthy, indeed. It would have been best in the interests
of the people if annual elections were held, had it been possible, of
course. But Parliamentary elections are very costly affairs. So some
sort of compromise was arrived at and five years period was
supposed to be a responsible period at which the Legislators and
the Ministers were to go back to the people and obtain the fresh
renewal of their confidence.73
After analyzing the three main things inherent in the
Parliamentary system of Government given by Dr. Ambedkar one
understands the important role of the people in the Parliamentary
system of Democratic Government.
Dr. Ambedkar clearly points outs that in the Parliamentary
Government people have the right to elect their representatives.
There is no place for hereditary rule in the Parliamentary system of
Government. He further clarified the difference between the
monarchical system of Government and the Democratic system of
Government. He makes it very clear that in Democratic system of
Government the head of the Government is elected by the
representatives of the people, and cannot act as dictator. Lastly Dr.
Ambedkar points out that in the Parliamentary system of
Government the Government is elected by the people for a time
period. And the people have the power to change the
Government.
Dr. Ambedkar further explained important features of
Parliamentary system of Government as follows:
This is also not enough. Parliamentary system of Government is
much more than Government by discussion. There are two pillars
on which the Parliamentary system of Government rests. These are
the fulcrums on which the mechanism works.
. These two pillars are (1) an opposition and (2) free and fair
elections.74
Regarding the importance of opposition in the Parliamentary
system of Democratic Government, Dr. Ambedkar said that
opposition is important for the fair working of Parliamentary
Democracy. He explained it as follows:
One important thing in the Parliamentary Democracy is that
people should know the other side, if there are two sides to a
question. Hence a functional opposition is required. Opposition is
the key to a free political life. No Democracy can do without it.75
Dr. Ambedkar said that the free and fair elections are one of the
pillars of Parliamentary Democracy. He explained it as follows:
Free and fair elections are the other pillar on which Parliamentary
Democracy rests. Free and fair elections are necessary for the
transfer of power from one section of the community to the other
in peaceful manner and without any bloodshed. In olden times, if a
king died, there was at least one murder in the palace.
. Revolution used to take place in palace resulting in murders
before the new king used to take the reigns of his country into his
authority. This has been the history of India. Election must be
completely free and fair. People must be left to themselves to
choose those whom they want to send to the Legislature.75
Dr. Ambedkar was not in favour of single party system
according to him in Democracy the opposition plays the very
important role. He criticized Congress Party in this concern, as
follows:
Now the question arises as to whether there is any desire on the
part of the party in power to permit any opposition to be created.
Congress does not want any ‘opposition’. Congress is attempting to
gather people of sundry views under one canopy. I ask you
whether this is a desirable trend in the political life of this
country.76
Dr. Ambedkar advised the people to preserve
Parliamentary Democracy in India, because its failure may result to
anarchy in India.
He further advised the people to preserve independence of individual
for realisation of Parliamentary system of Government in India as
follows:
If Parliamentary Democracy fails in this country and it is bound to fail
for the reasons mentioned by me the only result will be rebellion,
anarchy and communism. If the people in power do not realize that
people will not tolerate hereditary authority, then this country is
doomed. Either communism will come, Russia having the sovereignty
over our country, destroying individual liberty and our independence or
the section of the people who are disgruntled for the failure of the
party in power will start rebellion and anarchy will prevail. Gentlemen, I
want you to take note of these eventual certainties and if you wish that
Parliamentary system of Government and Parliamentary Democracy
prevail in this country, if you are satisfied that we will be assured of our
liberty of thought, speech and action, if we should preserve our
independence, if we cherish the inherent right of individual liberty, then
it is your duty as students, as intelligent community of our country, to
strive your utmost to cherish this Parliamentary system of Government
in its true spirit and work for it.77
Dr. Ambedkar’s views for building Democratic India
Dr. Ambedkar propagated the Social Democracy in India to remove
the disabilities of Depressed and Suppressed Classes of India, in
order to create a new social order based on humanity. Dr.
Ambedkar’s concept of Social Democracy is based on the principle
of humanism. The Hindu Chaturvarnya system is based on
inhuman principles. Dr. Ambedkar strongly opposed Chaturvarnya
system in order to establish society based on humanism. For him
Democracy is a way to establish human conditions for Depressed
and Suppressed Classes. He was against hero-worship and
dictatorship, he explained it as follows:
“No country can remain democratic and no people can preserve a
Constitutional government, if the generality of the people are
imbued with an immoderate of hero-worship… For, in India, Bhakti
or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays
a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in
the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion
may be a road to the salvation of the soul.
. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to
degradation and eventual dictatorship.”78
Dr. Ambedkar in Constituent Assembly, about Social Democracy
said as follows:
“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 it Social Democracy. What does Social
Democracy mean? It means a way of life which recognizes 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. Liberty cannot be divorced from equality, equality
cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be
divorced from fraternity. Without equality, liberty would produce
the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty
would kill individual initiative.
. Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a
natural course of things. It would require a constable to enforce
them. We must begin by acknowledging the fact that there is
complete absence of two things of Indian Society. One of these is
equality. On the social plane, we have in India a society based on
the principle of graded inequality which means elevation for some
and degradation for others. On the economic plane, we have a
society in which there are some who have immense wealth as
against many who live in abject poverty.”79
After analyzing Dr. Ambedkar’s above statement on Democracy it
can be safely concluded that Dr. Ambedkar propagated Social
Democracy along with Economic Democracy for the true
realization of Political Democracy. Traditional Hindu society was
based on political, economical and social inequality. Dr. Ambedkar
vehemently opposed political, economical and social inequality in
India, in the interest of realisation of Political Democracy. Dr.
Ambedkar’s contribution to the Democracy in India is of immense
importance.
Since it gave a new dimension of Social and Economic Democracy
to the Political Democracy.
Dr. Ambedkar propagated Constitutional methods for the
realisation of social and economic objectives of the Democracy as
follows:
If we wish to maintain Democracy not merely in the form, but also
in fact, what must do? The first thing in my judgment we must do
is to hold fast to Constitutional methods of achieving our socials
and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody
methods of revolution. When there was no way left for
Constitutional methods for achieving economic and social
objectives, there was a great deal of justification for
unConstitutional methods. But where Constitutional methods are
open, there can be no justification for these unConstitutional
methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy
and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.
“A democratic system can endure only when citizens as a whole
hold fast to Constitutional methods for achieving their social and
economic objectives. Now that Constitutional methods are open
and available, they must abandon the bloody or coercive methods
of revolution, of civil disobedience, of non-cooperation. For
achieving social and economic objectives, these methods have no
place in the country. Democracy cannot long survive among any
people with whom the loudest voice counts as the voice of wisdom,
or when coercive pressures take the place of reason and
persuasion.80
Dr. Ambedkar’s economic dimensions to Democracy.
Dr. Ambedkar gave economic dimensions to the Parliamentary
Democracy he delivered a speech at the concluding session of the
all India Trade Union Workers Study Camp held in Delhi from 8th to
17th September, 1943, under the auspices of the Indian Federation
of Labour. After analyzing hi speech his economic dimensions to
Democracy becomes very clear.
Some of the important paragraph of his speech related to Labour
and Parliamentary Democracy is as follows:
“The Government of human society has undergone some very
significant changes. There was a time when the government of
human society had taken the form of autocracy by Despotic
Sovereigns. This was replaced after a long and bloody struggle by a
system of government known as Parliamentary Democracy. It was
felt that this was the last word in the frame work of government. It
was believed to bring about the millennium in which every human
being will have the right to liberty, property and pursuit of
happiness. And there were good grounds for such high hopes. In
Parliamentary Democracy there is the Legislature to express the
voice of the people; there is the Executive which is subordinate to
the Legislature and bound to obey the Legislature. Over and above
the Legislature and the Executive there is the Judiciary to control
both and keep them both within prescribed bounds. Parliamentary
Democracy has all the marks of a popular Government, a
government of the people, by the people and for the people.81
From the above paragraph Dr. Ambedkar has put forth that
Parliamentary Democracy has all the marks of popular
Government and it is Government of the people, by the people
and for the people. It can be safely concluded that this form of
Government has human principles.
Dr. Ambedkar further said about the failure of Parliamentary
Democracy as follows:
Why has Parliamentary Democracy failed? In the country of the
dictators it has failed because it is a machine whose movements
are very slow. It delays swift action. In a Parliamentary Democracy
the Executive may be held up by the Legislature which may refuse
to pass the laws which the Executive wants, and if it is not held up
by the Legislature it may be held up by the Judiciary which may
declare the laws as illegal. Parliamentary Democracy gives no free
hand to Dictatorship, and that is why it is a discredited institution
in countries like Italy, Spain and Germany, which are ruled by
Dictators. If Dictators alone were against Parliamentary
Democracy it would not have mattered at all.
. Their testimony against Parliamentary Democracy would be no
testimony at all. Indeed Parliamentary Democracy would be
welcomed for the reason that it can be an effective check upon
Dictatorship. But unfortunately there is a great deal of discontent
against Parliamentary Democracy even in countries where people
are opposed to Dictatorship. That is the most regrettable fact
about Parliamentary Democracy. This is all the more regrettable
because Parliamentary Democracy has not been at a standstill. It
has progressed in three directions. It has progressed by expanding
the notion of Equality of Political rights. There are very few
countries having Parliamentary Democracy, which have not adult
suffrage. It has recognized the principle of Equality of Social and
Economic opportunity. And thirdly it has recognized that the state
cannot be held at bay by corporations, which are anti-social in
their purpose. With all this, there is immense discontent against
Parliamentary Democracy even in countries pledged to Democracy.
The reasons for discontent in such countries must obviously be
different from those assigned by the dictator countries.
. There is no time to go into details. But it can be said in general
terms that the discontent against Parliamentary Democracy is due
to the realization that it has failed to assure to the masses the
right to liberty, property or the pursuit of happiness. If this is true,
it is important to know the causes, which have brought about this
failure. The causes for this failure may be found either in wrong
ideology or wrong organization, or in both. I think the causes are
to be found in both. As an illustration of wrong ideology which has
vitiated Parliamentary Democracy I can only deal with two. I have
no doubt that what has ruined Parliamentary Democracy is the
idea of freedom of contract. The idea become sanctified and was
upheld in the name of liberty. Parliamentary Democracy took no
notice of economic inequalities and did not care to examine the
result of freedom of contract on the parties to the contract, should
they happen to be unequal. It did no mind if the freedom of
contract gave the strong the opportunity to defraud the weak.
. The result is that Parliamentary Democracy in standing out as
protagonist of liberty as continuously added to the economic
wrongs of the poor, the downtrodden and the disinherited class.
The second wrong ideology which has vitiated Parliamentary
Democracy is the failure to realize that political democracy cannot
succeed where there is no social and economic democracy. Some
may question this proposition. To those who are dispose to
question it, I will ask a counter question. Why Parliamentary
Democracy collapsed so easily in Italy, Germany and Russia? Why
did it not collapse so easily in England and the U.S.A.? To my mind
there is only one answer-namely, there was a greater degree of
economic and social democracy in the letter countries than it
exited in the former. Social and economic democracies are the
tissues and the fibre of a political Democracy. The tougher the
tissue and the fibre, the greater the strength of the body.
Democracy is another name for equality. Parliamentary Democracy
developed a passion for liberty. It never made even a nodding
acquaintance with equality.
. The result is that Parliamentary Democracy in standing out as
protagonist of liberty as continuously added to the economic
wrongs of the poor, the downtrodden and the disinherited class.
The second wrong ideology which has vitiated Parliamentary
Democracy is the failure to realize that political democracy cannot
succeed where there is no social and economic democracy. Some
may question this proposition. To those who are dispose to
question it, I will ask a counter question. Why Parliamentary
Democracy collapsed so easily in Italy, Germany and Russia? Why
did it not collapse so easily in England and the U.S.A.? To my mind
there is only one answer-namely, there was a greater degree of
economic and social democracy in the letter countries than it
exited in the former. Social and economic democracies are the
tissues and the fibre of a political Democracy. The tougher the
tissue and the fibre, the greater the strength of the body.
Democracy is another name for equality. Parliamentary Democracy
developed a passion for liberty. It never made even a nodding
acquaintance with equality.
. It failed to realize the significance of equality, and did not even
endeavor to strike a balance between liberty and equality, with the
result that swallowed equality and has left a progeny of inequities.
I have referred to the wrong ideologies, which in my judgment
have been responsible for the failure of Parliamentary Democracy.
But I am equally certain that more than bad ideology it has bad
organization, which has been responsible for the failure of
Democracy. All political societies get divided into to classes-the
Rules and the Ruled. This is an evil. If the evil stopped here it would
not matter much. But the unfortunate part of it is that the division
becomes stereotyped and stratified so much so that the Rulers are
always drown from the Ruling Class and the class of the Ruled
never becomes the Ruling class. People do not govern themselves;
they established a government and leave it to govern them,
forgetting that is not their government. That being the situation,
Parliamentary Democracy has never been a government of the
people or by the people, and that is why it has never been a
government for the people.
. Parliamentary Democracy, notwithstanding the paraphernalia of
a popular government, is in reality a government of a hereditary
subject class by a hereditary ruling class. It is this vicious
organization of political life which has made Parliamentary
Democracy such a dismal failure. It is because of this that
Parliamentary Democracy has not fulfilled the hope it held out for
the common man of ensuring to him liberty, property and pursuit
of happiness.
The question is who is responsible for this? There is no doubt that
that if Parliamentary Democracy has failed to benefit the poor, the
laboring and the downtrodden classes, it is these classes who are
primarily responsible for it. In the first place, they have shown a
most appalling indifference to the effect of the economic factor in
the making of men’s life. Someone very recently wrote a book
called the ‘End of the Economic Man’. We cannot really talk of the
End of the Economic Man for the simple reason that the Economic
Man was never born.
. The common retort to Marx that Man does not live by bread
alone is unfortunately a fact. I agree with Carlyle that the aim of
civilization can not be merely to fatten men as we do pigs. But we
are far off from that stage. The labouring class far from being fat
like pigs are starving, and one wishes that they thought of bread
first and everything else afterwards.82
From the above paragraph it can be concluded that political
societies get divided into two classes- the Rulers and the Ruled. If
the Rulers fail to satisfy the just demands of poor and Depressed
Classes then it is a threat to Parliamentary Democracy.
Dr. Ambedkar even critically analyzed Marx doctrine of economic
interpretation of history. According to Dr. Ambedkar doctrine of
economic interpretation of history can be successful if the
labouring class understands the social references of life in terms of
associated living.
Dr. Ambedkar analyzed Marx doctrine of economic interpretation
of history as follows:
life of Depressed and Suppressed Classes of India without
bloodshed by contributing egalitarian principles in Constitution of
India.
Dr. Ambedkar advocated equality, liberty and fraternity for the
success of Democracy. Social Democracy recognizes liberty,
equality and fraternity as the principles of the life. His idea of
Democracy is based on Social Democracy. His idea of Social
Democracy is with the reference of Indian social situation. The
basic democratic situation could be obtained only when we search
for rational set of human relations. Dr. Ambedkar’s specific analysis
of Democracy represents an effort to define the common social
situation created by political equality, through which we must
subscribe to the development of other kinds of democracies, if we
want to maintain the basic democratic character of Indian society.
He was the opinion that political Democracy must rest on social
Democracy for its true realisation. He vehemently opposed the
undemocratic systems in India.
He opposed the system of Chaturvarnya, Caste and Untouchability,
prevailing in Indian society under the pretext of religion. According
to him, these systems were the main barriers in success of
Democracy, as these systems denied the human franchise.
Without fraternity, liberty and equality of individuals the social
relationship in society becomes unhealthy and undemocratic. Dr.
Ambedkar made a clear distinction between the old conditions
under Chaturvarnya and new conditions under the Democracy in
India, in his writings and speeches through out the life. According
to him, Democracy is mode of associated living, where the social
relationship must be based on human franchise.
Dr. Ambedkar does not confine democracy to only theory; he tried
to extend democracy to its social utility. He was very practical in
nature. He tried to civilize Indian society on the principles of
democracy. Dr. Ambedkar through his civil right movement tried to
educate the masses about the Democratic system of government.
In Dr. Ambedkar’s scheme of political thought of Democracy is
based on associated living, which influenced on all the different
elements of society. The supreme concern of his life was to make
Democracy safe for the common man and for the good of this
country. This will automatically help to other countries of the
world, who aspire for the preserving this great human tradition.
Democracy is not a gift of nature. It is habit of social living and can
be acquired by the people themselves for their emancipation and
well-being.
The social and political conditions of India on the eve of
19th Century were undemocratic. The main stream political leaders
of Congress and Muslim League were neglecting issues of
Untouchables in their political agenda. The Depressed Classes of
India were out of political order of India due to the religious
norms. With the emergence of Dr. Ambedkar Depressed Classes of
India got Democratic representation.
This Democratic representation of Depressed Classes radically
changed their life styles. Their political participation in Democratic
setup of India is because of arrival of Dr. Ambedkar’s era in India.
His role in the building of Democratic India can be understood by
his contribution to social, political, economical and religious fields.
Dr. Ambedkar gave new dimensions to democracy which were
based on social, political, and economical principles.
Reference and Notes:
1. Parkash, Prem., Ambedkar Politics and Scheduled Caste, Ashish
publishing House, New Delhi, 2002, p.53.
2. Ibid., p.53.
3. Ibid., p.52.
4. Ibid., p.52.
5. Ibid., p.1.
6. Ibid., p.2.
7. Ibid., p.2.
8. Ibid., p.2.
9. Ibid., p.3.
10. Moon, Vasant. (Ed.), Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and
Speeches, Volume-9, Education Department, Government of
Maharashtra, 1991, p.278.
11. Parkash, Prem., Ambedkar Politics and Scheduled Caste, op. cit,
p.21.
12. Moon, Vasant. (Ed.), Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and
Speeches, Volume-9, op. cit, p.275.
13. Ibid., p.276.
14. Ibid., p.286.
15. Ibid., p.284.
16. Keer, Dhananjay., Dr. Ambedkar Life and Mission, Popular
prakashan, Mumbai, reprinted:2003, p.166.
17. Ibid., p.166.
18. Moon, Vasant. (Ed.), Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and
Speeches, Volume-1, Education Department, Government of
Maharashtra, 1979, pp.86-87.
19. M. Mahmood., An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Politics, Anmol
Publications Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, First Published: 2006, p.106.
20. Kshirsagar, Ramachandra Kamaji., Political Thought of Dr.
Babasaheb Ambedkar, Intellectual Publishing House, New
Delhi, First Edition: 1992, p.53
21. Lewis, J.R., Democracy the theory and practice, Allman and
Sons, London, 1966, p.13.
22. Ibid., p.14.
23. Saha, Tushar Kanti., Democracy in Danger Criminality and
Corruptions in Lok Sabha Elections, Kanishka Publishers,
Distributors, New Delhi, First Published: 2000, p. 1.
24. Ibid., p.2.
25. Kshirsagar, Ramachandra Kamaji., Political Thought of Dr.
Babasaheb Ambedkar, op. cit, p.53.
26. Ibid., p.53.
27. Ibid., p.53.
28. Parkash, Prem., Ambedkar Politics and Scheduled Caste, op. cit,
p.18.
29. Kshirsagar, Ramachandra Kamaji., Political Thought of Dr.
Babasaheb Ambedkar, op. cit, pp.53-54.
30. Ibid., p.54.
31. Ibid., p.54.
32. Parkash, Prem., Ambedkar Politics and Scheduled Caste, op. cit,
p.61.
33. Ibid., p.61.
34. Ibid., p.62.
35. Kshirsagar, Ramachandra Kamaji., Political Thought of Dr.
Babasaheb Ambedkar, op. cit, p.54.
36. Moon, Vasant. (Ed.), Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and
Speeches, Volume-1, op. cit, p.229.
37. Jatava, D.R., Political philosophy of B.R. Ambedkar, National
Publishing House, New Delhi, 2001, p.77.
38. Ibid., p.77.
39. Parkash, Prem., Ambedkar Politics and Scheduled Caste, op. cit,
pp.64-65.
40. Moon, Vasant. (Ed.), Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and
Speeches, Volume-1, op. cit, p.415.
41. Parkash, Prem., Ambedkar Politics and Scheduled Caste, op. cit,
p.65.
42. Ibid., pp.65-66.
43. Ibid., p.66.
44. Ibid., p.66.
45. Ibid., p.66.
46. Ibid., p.66.
47. Moon, Vasant. (Ed.), Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and
Speeches, Volume-1, op. cit, p.409.
48. Kshirsagar, Ramachandra Kamaji., Political Thought of Dr.
Babasaheb Ambedkar, op. cit, p.55.
49. Ibid., p.55.
Parkash, Prem., Ambedkar Politics and Scheduled Caste, op.
cit, pp.67- 68.
51. Ibid., p.68.
52. Moon, Vasant. (Ed.), Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and
Speeches, Volume-13, Education Department, Government
of Maharashtra, 1994, p.1216.
53. Kshirsagar, Ramachandra Kamaji., Political Thought of Dr.
Babasaheb Ambedkar, op. cit, pp.56-57.
54. Ibid., p.56.
55. Ibid., p.58.
56. Moon, Vasant. (Ed.), Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and
Speeches, Volume-1, op. cit, p.377.
57. Ibid., p.237.
58. Kshirsagar, Ramachandra Kamaji., Political Thought of Dr.
Babasaheb Ambedkar, op. cit, p.58.
59. Ibid., pp.58-59.
60. Ibid., p.59.
61. Ibid., p.60.
62. Ibid., p.60.
63. Ibid., p.60.
64. Moon, Vasant. (Ed.), Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and
Speeches, Volume-1, op. cit, pp.225-226.
65. Ibid., p.227.
66. Kshirsagar, Ramachandra Kamaji., Political Thought of Dr.
Babasaheb Ambedkar, op. cit, p.61.
67. Ibid., p.61.
68. Ibid., p.61.
69. Jatava, D.R., B.R. Ambedkar study in society and politics,
National publishing house, New Delhi, First Edition: 1998,
p.74.
70. Ibid., pp.74-75.
71. Ibid., p.75.
72. Ibid., p.75.
73. Ibid., p.76.
74. Ibid., p.77.
75. Ibid., p.78.
76. Ibid., p.78.
77. Ibid., p.79.
78. Ibid., p.98.
79. Moon, Vasant. (Ed.)., Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings
and Speeches, Volume-13, op. cit, p.1216.
80. Ibid., p.1215.
81. Moon, Vasant. (Ed.), Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and
Speeches, Volume-1O, Education Department, Government
of Maharashtra, 1991, pp.106-107.
82. Ibid., pp.107-109.
83. Ibid., p.110.
84. Ibid., p.110.
85. Ibid., pp.111-112.
86. Jatava, D.R., B.R. Ambedkar study in society and politics, op.
cit, p.99.
87. Mathew, Thomas, Ambedkar reform or revolution, Segment
books, New Delhi, First Edition: 1991, p.160.
88. Ibid., p.160.
89. Jatava, D.R., Political philosophy of B.R. Ambedkar, op. cit.,
p.73.
90. Ibid., p.105.
91. Ibid., p.106.
92. Ibid., p.106.
93. Ibid., pp.106-107.
94. Ibid., p.107.
95. Ibid., p.74.
96. Parkash, Prem., Ambedkar Politics and Scheduled Caste, op.
cit, p.15.
97. Ibid., pp.15-16.
98. Moon, Vasant. (Ed.), Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and
Speeches, Volume-7, Education Department, Government
of Maharashtra, 1990, pp.55-56.
99. Parkash, Prem., Ambedkar Politics and Scheduled Caste, op.
cit, p.18.
100. Ibid., p.18.
101. Vibhute K.I. (Ed.), Dr. Ambedkar and empowerment:
Constitutional vicissitudes, University of Poona, Pune, First
Edition: 1993, Article by Vibhute K.I., Social justice,
Constitutional scheme and spirit, p.122.
102. Ibid., p.124.
103. Ibid., p.124.
104. Moon, Vasant. (Ed.), Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and
Speeches, Volume-11, Education Department, Government
of Maharashtra, 1992, p.242.
105. Jatava, D.R., Political philosophy of B.R. Ambedkar, op. cit.,
p.104.
106. Ibid., p.105.
107. Ibid., p.105.
108. Parkash, Prem., Ambedkar Politics and Scheduled Caste, op.
cit, p.4.
109. Ibid., p.5.
110. Ibid., p.5.
111. Ibid., p.5.
112. Ibid., p.1.
113. Jatava, D.R., Political philosophy of B.R. Ambedkar, op. cit.,
p.98.
114. Ibid., p.114.
115. Ibid., p.99.
116. Ibid., p.99.
 THANK YOU!

Dr. Sandesh M. Wagh

Associate Professor,
Department of History ,
University of Mumbai

What’s apps no. 9702756655

E-mail: [email protected]