Mainstream Weekly

Home > 2020 > Ambedkar’s Contribution to Democracy in India

Mainstream, VOL LVIII No 18 New Delhi, April 18, 2020

Ambedkar’s Contribution to Democracy in India

Saturday 18 April 2020

by Dr. Manas Behera

Introduction

At present we need to learn from the ideas and struggles of Ambedkar than any periods of our history if we want to strengthen, deepen democracy in India and to democratize the already weakened democratic system. Ambedkar has become more relevant than he was during his times and there lies his greatness and the greatness of his ideas. Ambedkar is already an icon in contemporary times of our society. He became an all-India leader and today he has no caste identity, no regional limit, and is a force even more powerful in many areas of India than during his lifetime.( Zelliot:2013:09) Everybody across the divide, from left to right, from liberals to conservatives are invoking the name of Ambedkar. But many including his ideological enemies are also trying to appropriate him and this poses a danger to his ideas. Ambedkar’s ideas are largely products of his struggle for radical transformation of the society and its democratization. Making Ambedkar a hero devoid of his ideas for which he struggled throughout his life is killing him morally and ideologically. The strength of the appeal of his ideas and of his struggle is multiplied now because of the relevance of his ideas in our times. So defending Ambedkar and his ideas and preventing him from appropriation by the forces who only pay lip service to him for the vote bank politics is one of the greatest challenges before the people who believe in him. The Ambedkarite project of annihilation of caste is still unfinished. The co-existence of liberty ,equality and fraternity is still far from reality. Ambedkar’s perception of Democracy as a system capable of bringing revolutionary changes peacefully is relevant in the Indian conditions. There is no alternative to democracy in our times but the question is democracy for whom? This question has answers in the ideas and struggles of Ambedkar. He dedicated his entire life to make Democracy Inclusive in India.

Defining Democracy

To Ambedkar , Democracy is not a static concept, it is dynamic. It changes both in its form and in its purposes. He defined democracy as, ‘a form and method of government, whereby revolutionary changes in the economic and the social life of the people are brought without bloodshed.’ (Ambedkar: 2003:473) He outlined conditions for the success of democracy. First is the absence of ‘glaring inequalities.’ The division of society into oppressive class and suppressed class will destroy democracy. He pointed that the history of democracy is full of examples where inequality has become one of the causes for the death of democracy. The second condition is the necessity of an opposition for the success of democracy. Democracy is the negation of hereditary and autocratic rule. It is a check on the rulers. People will give a check to the rulers, if necessary, in elections, but there is the necessity of immediate check to make the rulers accountable in day to day exercise of power. This can be provided by the opposition in the parliament. This underlines the significance of opposition in democracy. Equality in law and in Administration was the third condition necessary for the successful working of democracy. Ambedkar considered Equality of Treatment in Administration as a crucial condition because administration is supposed to execute the law impartially. Any deviation will jeopardise democracy and sustain discrimination. Constitutional morality was the fourth condition in his scheme for the success of democracy. He regarded it as the flesh of the skeleton that is the constitution. Once in power, one should not misuse it to intimidate opposition. Rather everybody should obey and practice constitutional morality not to damage democracy. Finally he objected to the tyranny of the majority over minority in a democracy. Minority should feel safe for the success of democracy. The functioning of democracy is based on majority and this majority must not behave in a tyrannical manner so that democracy works smoothly and successfully. The other conditions that Ambedkar considered necessary for the successful working of democracy are moral order in society and public conscience. Without moral order in society, democracy will go to pieces. He defined public conscience as, ‘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, it is prepared to join him in order to get him relieved.’(Ambedkar: 2003:480)

Ambedkar and Democracy

Ambedkar had a creative contribution to the development of democracy in India. His approach is clearly radical as it aimed at giving space to the most marginalized, politically, economically and socially, the Dalits in the democratic system. Ambedkar had the unique experience of being a theoretician and an activist with a background of consistent struggle against one of the most heinous inhuman practices in the history of human civilization that is Untouchability. He is both a victim of Untouchability and a crusader against it. This puts him in a unique position historically and ideologically. ‘He studied the caste system in India as a sociologist and anthropologist in order to identify the nature of Untouchability before fighting inequality.’(Jaffrelot & kumar: 2018: xxvii) Equality and liberty are the two basic pillars of any democratic society. In the background of widespread caste based inequalities democracy cannot be successful with constitutional provisions for liberty and equality. ‘In Ambedkar’s view Democracy is not confined just to a form of government and state apparatus: rather it is more than a system of political governance-it embraces social governance. Democracy is primarily a mode of associated living with an attitude of respect and reverence towards fellowmen. Therefore the roots of political democracy are located in social relationship among the people in a society. Political democracy thus, lives in a society extending to the economic and social domain. Political democracy will be more effective if the social relations are governed by fraternity and brotherhood. To him, democracy is self-government and that means that final decision on all matters must be made by popularly elected persons.’ (Thorat: 2018:xix) Ambedkar was a believer as well as practitioner of democracy. In the background of oppressive caste system in India he was well convinced that Democracy will be meaningless and irrelevant for the victims of the caste system, particularly for the untouchables. Other nationalist leaders prioritized freedom of the country and were of the opinion that after independence and economic development, the caste inequalities will be weakened at least, if not abolished. Gandhi took the question of caste in his strategy of social transformation but had a different approach than Ambedkar. The question of caste became central to the struggle of Ambedkar for justice. But there has been a lack of proper studies of Ambedkar’s struggle for democracy. During the Nationalist movement the political freedom of the country was on top of the agenda and it was obvious. But positioning Ambedkar against the nationalist struggle is a de-historicized understanding of the struggle of Ambedkar. He correctly and creatively analyzed the social situation in India and offered remedies for the success of democracy in India. He did not see differences among social, political and economic equality. They are required for the success of democracy. Many have highlighted the aspects of democracy in his struggle often neglecting his focus on economic aspects of democracy. Commenting on the ‘Aims and objective’ of the future constitution of India moved by Nehru on 13th Dec, 1946, he argued, ‘I should have expected some provisions whereby it would have been possible for the state to make economic, social and political justice a reality and I should have from that 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 nationalization of industry and nationalization of 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 socialistic economy’.(Ambedkar:1947). This shows the clear vision of Ambedkar regarding the nature of economy of independent India. He had to compromise his position as he did not get support in the constituent assembly. India emerged as a capitalist country with lip service to socialism. He knew that advocating for nationalization of both land and industry was too radical a position. But he also knew that without this the poorer untouchables cannot have access to the minimum resources for their dignified existence as well as for their access to socio-political and economic justice. To him, social and economic equalities are pre-conditions for the realisation of political equality in India. ‘Economic and social equalities were, for him, the pre-conditions of the democratic functioning of parliamentary institutions. Poverty and hierarchy including the caste system would undermine democracy, since the political mechanisms were determined by social realities. This assumption persuaded him that social and economic reforms should go on a par with political democratization. (Jaffrelot & Kumar: 2018: xxvii).

Limits of Democracy

Ambedkar brilliantly analyzed the deficits of parliamentary democracy. It is still relevant today. ‘the discontent against parliamentary is due to the realisation 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 have no doubt that what has ruined parliamentary democracy is the idea of the freedom of contract. The idea became 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, should they happen to be unequal. It did not 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 has continuously added to the economic wrongs of the poor, the downtrodden and the dis-inherited class. The second …… is the failure to realise that political democracy cannot succeed where there is no social and economic democracy…… Social and economic democracy is the tissues and the fiber of political democracy. The tougher the tissues 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 realise the significance of equality, and did not even endeavor to strike a balance between liberty and equality, with the result that liberty swallowed equality band has left a progeny of inequities….. 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 a dismal failure.’(Ambedkar: 1991:109) He gave equal importance to economic inequalities with social in equalities for the success of parliamentary democracy. Rather he stressed more on economic factor. He exposed the limits of parliamentary democracy functioning in a situation of economic inequality. He analyzed it as rule of the hereditary class over the hereditary subjects, which means the economically powerful are also politically powerful. Unless the balance of power changed the same will continue. There is a hidden radical message in it that is to change the balance of power in favour of the poor so that the democratic structure will be democratized. In the present situation of monstrous inequalities under neo-liberalism, Ambedkar becomes more relevant. He also talked of alienation of the labour indirectly in this analysis. He said, ‘they have shown a most appalling indifference to the effect of the economic factor in the making of men’s life. He appealed to the labour class to get acquainted with the radical documents like Social Contract, Communist Manifesto, Conditions of labor etc. as they are necessary for their emancipation than reading stories of kings and queens. This position of Ambedkar was close to the Marxist position, though unfortunately communists and Ambedkar could not be united despite being natural allies economically and politically. Ambedkar was very much concerned over the de-politicisation of the working class in this crucial period of history. He correctly set the objective as the capture of political power without which labour classes will not achieve anything and democracy will not be inclusive. ‘it must declare that its aim is to put labour in charge of government . For this it must organise a Labour Party as a political party. It must dissociate itself from communal or capitalistic political parties such as the Hindu Mahasabha or the Congress.’ (Ambedkar: 1991:110) there cannot be a better visionary than him in this context as it was the most advanced position for the labour class in India. Without the participation of labour in the political system the system cannot be democratic in real terms.

Freedom

He was more philosophical in his approach towards working for the upliftment of Dalits. ‘personally I don’t think there is any work in India which can be said to be nobler than the elevation of scheduled castes.’ He is more radical and inclusive in his understanding of freedom. ‘There is a world of difference between freedom by the powerful to oppress of the weak and freedom of the weak to have an opportunity to grow fully to manhood. ..if the social freedom remains what it is, if the mentality is going to remain what it is, if the freedom that they will get from the Britishers is going to be used for suppressing the oppressed and suppressed classes, why should anyone fight for it, I do not understand, if, on the other hand, you examine our cause, the principle we fight for, you will see it far transcends the limited class we have in view.’(Ambedkar: 2003:256) His understanding of freedom is much beyond the national freedom and its limitations. And his idea of freedom is more relevant today and exposes the false understandings of those who believed that after the country gets freedom all people, including the Dalits will also enjoy it at par with others. So he was convinced that the salvation of the world could not be had unless the economic and the social organization of the world and of other societies were based upon the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Hindu Villages and Democratic Space

Ambedkar addressed the question of space in Hindu villages and he correctly identified that the space of the village is not shared on the basis of equality by the caste Hindus and untouchables. ‘why have the untouchables been the slaves and serfs of the Hindus for so many thousand years? To my mind the answer lies in the peculiar organization of Hindu villages. …This settlement of untouchables is usually numerically very small as compared with the Hindu village to which it is attached. Secondly, this settlement of untouchables is economically without any resource and without any opportunity for improvement. It is invariably a settlement of landless population…it is wholly a population, destitute, and dependent for its livelihood upon the Hindu village. It lives by begging food or by offering its labour for a paltry wage. As against the Hindu village, the untouchables simply cannot offer any resistance. While this village system continues to exist in its present form, the untouchables will never achieve their independence, whether social or economic, and will never get over the inferiority complex which they have developed as a result of their state of social and economic dependence. The village system must, therefore, be broken.’(Ambedkar: 2003:277) He demanded separate settlements for the untouchables. This shows two crucial things that democracy is not confined to parliament or assemblies alone. Second, the oppressive caste structure is reflected in the political and economic geography of Hindu villages and needs to be broken for a democratic society. His analysis is objective and offers sociology and economics of caste in Indian villages. The inferiority complex that the untouchables suffer is products of a particular condition imposed on them. This explains the hegemony of Hindu culture over the Dalits. Ambedkar is more relevant today as evident from the realities of caste-ridden villages. Democracy is still mere formal as the power structure in rural areas is still controlled by the upper caste Hindus, despite reservation in PRIs. The question of land was and is central to the empowerment of the landless, mostly Dalits and is still unresolved. Unfortunately it is no more an agenda under neo-liberal discourses of development. Land ownership is the basis of feudalism and if remnants of feudalism and its culture are to be dismantled to make society and polity an inclusive democracy , the message of Ambedkar still carries weight. In our existence as the largest democracy of the world since last seven decades we have failed to address this important democratic deficit.

On women

On questions of women and gender equality he was progressive. He wanted women from depressed classes to come forward and participate in the emanicipatory struggle. He advised not to marry early and not to have many children. ‘let each girl who marries stand up to her husband, claim to be her husband’s friend and equal, and refuse to be his slave.’ He wanted presence of more women in conferences, meetings and activities. He was clearly in favour of gendering the democratic space.

On Nazism

He was opposed to Fascism and Nazism as they are barbarous, racial and enemy of democracy. ‘this is a war between democracy and dictatorship –not an enlightened dictatorship but a dictatorship of the most barbarous character based not on any moral ideal but on racial arrogance. If any dictatorship needs to be destroyed, it is this vile Nazi dictatorship. Amidst all the political dissentions that one witnesses in this country, amidst all uncertainties of the future which some feel, we are trying to forget what a menace to our future this Nazism, if it wins, is going to be. What is more important is that its racial basis is a positive danger to Indians. If this is a correct view of the situation, it seems me to that there lies on us a very heavy duty to see that democracy does not vanish from the earth as a governing principle of human relationship. If we believe in it , then, we must both be true and loyal to it. We must not only be staunch in our faith in democracy but we must resolve to see that in whatever we do, we do not help the enemies of democracy to uproot the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity…we must strive along with other democratic countries to maintain the basis of democratic civilisation. If democracy lives, we are sure to reap the fruits of it. If democracy dies, it will be our doom. On that there can be no doubt.’ (Ambedkar: 2003:280) He made a clarion call to all the Indians to be united to defeat Nazism. He linked Nazism to the survival of democracy in the world. He could visualize the dangers of racialism for India with a caste structure.

On Representation of Dalits

He redefined the idea of representation in India and fought for democratising it in the context of Dalit representation. ‘No class has a right to rule another class, much less a class like the higher classes in India. By their code of conduct, they have behaved as the most exclusive class steeped in its own prejudices and never sharing the aspirations of the masses, with whom they have nothing to do and whose interests are opposed to theirs. It is not, therefore, unjust to demand that a candidate who is standing to represent others shall be such as shares the aims, purposes and motives of those whom he desires to represent.’ ’ (Ambedkar: 1982:332) He was critical of the social attitude of the upper castes in India towards the lower castes as they always despised, disregarded and disowned them. Thus, he argued, touchable could not represent untouchables. Social divisions do matter in politics in India. Unless this is addressed in the issue of representation of the Dalits in the political system then it is not going to be democratic. This issue was his first major engagement for democracy. He advocated for separate electorates for Dalits. The existence of Untouchability and its acceptance by the upper caste Hindus made representation of untouchables by the touchable undemocratic. So, Ambedkar first raised this issue before the Southborough Committee, 1919. ‘if one agrees with the definition of slave as given by Plato, who defines him as one who accepts from another the purposes which control his conduct , the untouchables are really slaves. The untouchables are so socialised as never to complain of their low estate. .. the word untouchable is an epitome of their ills and sufferings. The untouchable is not even a citizen. …the British government by gradual growth may said to have conceded these rights at least in theory to its Indian subjects. The right of representation and the right to hold office under the state are the two most important rights that make up citizenship. But the Untouchability of the untouchables puts these rights far beyond their reach. In a few places they do not even possess such insignificant rights as personal liberty and personal security, and equality before law is not always assured to them. These are the interests of the untouchables. And as can be easily seen they can be represented by the untouchables alone….Untouchability constitutes a definite set of interests which the untouchable alone can speak for.’ (Ambedkar: 1979:261) Democracy cannot be inclusive in India without the representation of Dalits and this is what Ambedkar fought for. To him, Religion, cannot be the only basis for d determining the status of minority, rather social discrimination constitutes the real test for such determination. He suggested larger safeguards against communal majority and innovated the concept of relative majority. The dominance of communal majority has to be checked and absolute majority needs to be relative majority in the interest of democracy. The larger minority within the minorities should be prevented from being hegemonic. His idea was to give priority to more backward minorities among the minorities so that representation will be balanced and the dominance of the majority will be moderated. There cannot be more objective and scientific idea of representation in Indian conditions of discrimination for ensuring democratic representation for all. Ambedkar is not only visionary but practical in his approach in this context. He had to compromise his positions and became accommodative due to balance of forces during that period. He realised that the most marginalised in Indian society, the untouchables are the powerful sources of democratising the political system. ‘it is to the lower classes that we must look for the motive power for progress. The reservation of seats to the backward Hindu communities makes available for the national service such powerful social forces, in the absence of which any parliamentary government may be deemed to be poorer. (Ambedkar: 1982:345)

Democracy beyond State

Ambedkar always considered democracy beyond the political system. The unequal structure of caste system cannot be dismantled by state alone. It has to be at the level of society and living in society has to be democratic. The ‘Annihilation of caste’ is the pre-condition of democratic society. The term annihilation signifies the radical approach of Ambedkar towards democracy and equality. ‘Nevertheless, Ambedkar defends parliamentary democracy and wants to use democracy as a means for promoting national unity and social homogeneity. Independence opened a new chapter and he was prepared to try once again to bridge the gap between caste groups for building a unified political body-and, via this detour , a more egalitarian society.’ (Jaffrelot: 2018: xliv) He believed that the constitution will be able to bring a radical change in the society and polity in India. In the Constituent Assembly (9th Dec, 1946), he said, ‘I know today we are divided politically, socially and economically. We are a group of warring camps and I may go even to the extent of confessing that I am probably one of the leaders of such camp. But sir, with all this, I am quite convinced that given time and circumstances nothing in the world will prevent this country from becoming one. With all our caste and creeds, I have not the slightest hesitation that we shall in some form be a united people. I have no hesitation in saying that notwithstanding the agitation of the Muslim League for the partition of India someday enough light would dawn upon the Muslims themselves and they too will begin to think that a United India is better even for them’(Ambedkar:1994:7)

Ambedkar did not see any differences between political, economic and social democracy. His position regarding the form of socialist state in India with nationalization of land and Industry could not be realized. But, in his opinion, ‘Directive principles have a great value; for they lay down that our ideal is economic democracy.’(Ambedkar: 1993:352) He was opposed to the caste rigidity in the Hindu religion. So he accepted Buddhism as his religion more on social ground than on religious ground. It was a kind of protest against the rigid caste system and the search for Identity in a more humanitarian and democratic Budhhism. ‘ By remaining in the Hindu religion nobody can prosper in any way. Because of the stratification in Hindu religion, it is fact that higher varnas and castes are benefitted, but not the others? The Varna system of Hindu religion is responsible for such a strange social structure. What improvement can take place from this? Prosperity can be achieved only in the Buddhist religion.’(Ambedkar: 2003:540)

He was a democrat by conviction. He is truly accommodative and that is the spirit of democratic way of life. ‘ Democracy must learn that its safety lies in having more than one opinion regarding the solution of any particular problem, and the order that people may be ready to advice with their opinions, democracy must learn to give a respectful hearing to all who are worth listening.’ (Ambedkar: 2003:168) He considered the caste system directly opposed to democracy and its spirit. Caste and caste consciousness was everywhere, in industry, in commerce, in education, in politics, in charity and all aspects of human existence in India. There cannot be democracy in such a situation. Those who are under the illusion, including the left, that caste will automatically be weakened after independence, after industrialization, after education and so on, were proved wrong. Ambedkar said, ‘ if you give education to that strata of Indian society which has a vested interest in maintaining the caste system for the advantages it gives them, then the caste system will be strengthened. On the other hand, if you give education to the lower strata of Indian society which is interested in blowing up the caste system, the caste system will be blown up… To make rich richer and poor poorer is not the way to abolish poverty. To give education to those who want to keep up the caste system is not to improve the prospects of democracy in India but to put our democracy in India in greater jeopardy.’(Ambedkar:2003:523) This analysis was extremely objective in putting education in the correct perspective.

Conclusion

Ambedkar was a consistent and committed fighter for Democracy. He dedicated his entire life for justice and for basic rights for the most deprived marginalized and humiliated sections of the Indian Society. He had original contributions towards the ideas of and the struggle for democracy in India. He was a great visionary, Statesman and the most practical man in developing strategy and tactics in his struggle. He is a democrat by conviction and by practice. Although he had uncompromising commitment to his principles, ideology and ethics, he made many compromises in the broader interest of democracy and of people. Despite humiliations on many occasions, he had tried to learn from them and to sharpen his struggle. His approach to the questions of caste was definitely radical and inclusive than his other contemporaries like Gandhi. Today he is more relevant as democratic spaces are shrinking because of neo-liberal attacks on democracy. He is already a recognized force in the democratic politics of the country and his name sales higher in the electoral market. Everybody, from left to right, from liberal to fascist is after him. Unfortunately the Dalit political organizations are divided now in the country. The need of an all India political organisation of Dalits was underlined by Ambedkar long way back in his famous speech on 18th July, 1942 in All India depressed class conference in Nagpur. He warned that the constitution will not bring democracy on its own. People, particularly the marginalised and the deprived must fight for their rights and for a Democracy that is inclusive. The democratic space has to be expanded to accommodate those who are till now denied that space by the ruling elites. There have been significant changes in politics, in economics and in society since the times of Ambedkar. But the thrust of his ideas and of his struggle are still relevant and are becoming more relevant in conditions of wider democratic deficiencies in institutions and in processes. There is no dichotomy in the theory and struggle of Ambedkar for Democracy. All the toiling millions, the excluded, the marginalised, the deprived and the exploited must come forward in solidarity to fight for rights so that the democratic system itself will be democratised. Ambedkar fought for reservation in both private and public sector but he had to settle for only the public sector. Now under Neo-liberal attack the public sector is being reduced to non-existence. Those who are fighting for the abolition of reservation must see this new phenomenon. And those Dalit forces who are aligning with the neo-liberal capitalist forces in India and their political representatives for power must rethink. Anti-neo-liberal struggle has to be linked to the struggle for social justice. As in India the Dalits are the workers so there is no point in creating and maintaining an artificial division between the workers and the Dalits. This is reactionary politics and weakens the struggle for democracy and social justice. There is no alternative now except to put a united challenge to the Neo-liberal capitalism in its march of taking away the democratic spaces won through struggles of people like Ambedkar. The questions of caste, land, job, access to resources are still the questions of democratic, inclusive development.

‘Ambedkar was great simply because he genuinely strove to make this world a better place to live in….if Ambedkar had taken up cudgels for Dalits merely as his own people, he would not qualify for greatness. He took up the cause of Dalits because it was crucial to the ideals of human equality and democratisation, and necessary in the immediate sense to extricate Indian society from stagnation and degradation. It was an integral part of the struggle for liberation of human beings from the structures of exploitation and oppression.’(Teltumbde: 2018: 15) There is the urgent need today to revive Ambedkar for the struggle ahead instead of confining him as an ‘inert icon’ only.
Because, ‘without the annihilation of caste, there can be no revolution in India , and at the same time, without a revolution there can be no annihilation of caste.’ (Teltumbde: 2018: 19) The worst victims of the Neo-liberal onslaught today are the poorer people and they must form the foundation of any democratic resistance to it. Because, ‘A society to be democratic should open a way to use all the capacities of the individual. Stratification is stunting of the growth of the individual and deliberate stunting is a deliberate denial of democracy.’(Ambedkar: 2003:521)

References

1-BAWS( Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s Writings and Speeches , 1994, vol.13 Education Department, Govt. of Maharastra ,India PP-6-7
2- BAWS( Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s Writings and Speeches , 1991, vol.10 Education Department, Govt. of Maharastra ,India PP-107-9
3-ibid, p, 110
4- BAWS( Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s Writings and Speeches ,2003, vol.17, part III, Education Department, Govt. of Maharastra ,India PP-256-58
5-Ibid, pp-277-8
6-ibid,pp-280-81
7—BAWS (Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s Writings and Speeches, 1982, vol.2, Education Department, Govt. of Maharastra ,India PP-331-2
8- BAWS (Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s Writings and Speeches, 1979, vol.1, Education Department, Govt. of Maharastra ,India PP-261
9-BAWS (Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s Writings and Speeches, 1982, vol.2, Education Department, Govt. of Maharastra ,India PP-345-6
10-BAWS (Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s Writings and Speeches, 1994, vol.13 Education Department, Govt. of Maharastra ,India PP-7-11-
11-BAWS ( Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s Writings and Speeches , 1993, vol.12 Education Department, Govt. of Maharastra ,India P-352
12-BAWS ( Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s Writings and Speeches ,2003, vol.17, Education Department, Govt. of Maharastra ,India P-540
13-BAWS (Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s Writings and Speeches Vol.17, III, 2003, pp-168-9
14-ibid, p-523
15-ibid, p-473
16-ibid, p-480
17-ibid, p-521
18-Jaffrelot.C & Kumar.N:2018, Dr Ambedkar and Democracy, OUP, New Delhi, P-XXVII
19-Jaffrelot & Kumar, N: 2018. Dr Ambedkar and Democracy, OUP, New Delhi, P-xxvii
20-Teltumbde, A, 2018: Republic of Caste, Navayana Publishing Pvt. Limited, New Delhi, p-15
21-ibid, p-19
22 -Thorat. S: 2018 in Jaffrelot.C & Kumar.N:2018, Dr Ambedkar and Democracy, OUP, New Delhi, P-xix
23-Zelliot, E: 2013, Ambedkar’s World, Navayana Publishing Pvt. Limited, New Delhi, p-9

The author Dr. Manas Behera is head of the Department of Pol.Sc, Rama Devi Women’s University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha. She can be reached via: Manasbehera1964[at]gmail.com

Notice: The print edition of Mainstream Weekly is now discontinued & only an online edition is appearing. No subscriptions are being accepted