Kanwal Bharti
(Lecture given on the topic “Constitution, Constitutionalism and Dr. Ambedkar” in Allahabad on 27 March 2025)
(English translation from original Hindi; SR Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)
Respected Chairman, Dr. Pranay Krishna Ji, and learned friends present here!
(Asian independent) I am grateful to Vinod Tiwari Ji, on whose loving request I am present here and I also got the opportunity to present a series in this 18th Satyaprakash Mishra Smriti Lecture series organized under the aegis of Satyaprakash Mishra Sahitya Sansthan.
Let me make it clear that I am not from the academic world, so I have no hesitation in saying that I am not familiar with the contribution and work of Satyaprakash Mishra Ji. It was from Vinod Ji that I got to know about him. Mishra Ji did not like inertia and status quo, and whatever was wrong and against justice, he always raised his voice against it. I bow to the memory of such a great literary person, and put my point before you.
Friends, I do not consider myself an authoritative scholar of any subject. And this topic, ‘Constitution, constitutionalism and Ambedkar’, I do not have any special understanding of the constitution and constitutionalism except Ambedkar. In fact, this topic is in the domain of a jurist and legal expert, not of a Dalit critic like me. Anyway, I will try to throw some light on this topic with my limited intelligence and limited knowledge.
We all know the constitution, but constitutionalism is a word separate from it even though it is related to it. This is the first time I have tried to think and know something about it. Ambedkarism, Gandhism, socialism is easily understood words, but when I thought about constitutionalism, I found it very broad and complex. What Gandhi had said is recorded in Gandhi’s books, what Ambedkar had said is recorded in Ambedkar’s books. There can be no change in their thoughts or words, although their interpretations may be different. Change or amendment is not possible in the principles of socialism either, even if its interpretations are different. But this is not the case with the Constitution. The Constitution is not immutable. There have been many amendments in it, perhaps more than a hundred. And the High Court and the Supreme Court keep interpreting it according to their own convenience. Therefore, in my opinion, constitutionalism is not a philosophy that is fixed in a particular framework.
Just as socialism tells us how society should be, constitutionalism also gives us an indication of how the Constitution should be. When we say socialism, then immediately, as soon as we say socialism, the concept of constitutionalism also emerges in our mind. But still, both are not synonymous with each other. Constitutionalism also depends on the cultural morality of a country. If the morality of a country is formed by religion, then constitutionalism there will give priority to such a constitution which will be based on religious values. We can see these values in the Constitution of Pakistan and Islamic Republics. However, religious egalitarianism is also a part of constitutionalism in many countries. But it is not a form of democracy. There is a Muslim brotherhood in the egalitarianism of Islamic constitutionalism, but men and women are not equal in it. The egalitarianism of Christian constitutionalism is based on the Biblical belief that ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor master, all are one in Christ Jesus.’ But if we talk about Hindu constitutionalism, whose voices have been raised continuously for the last few years, then its position is that it does not claim any egalitarianism like Islam or Christianity. As Ambedkar said that like Islam and Christianity, Hinduism says that all humans are born from one Brahma, but it also says that some humans are born from Brahma’s mouth, some from his arms, some from his thighs and some from his feet. Therefore, there is a lack of fundamental equality in them.
Therefore, there is not a thin line between the Constitution and constitutionalism, but a thick line. The Constitution does not create the society. It neither makes the society a moral society, nor an immoral one. It only controls the society. But constitutionalism contains the spirit of creating a particular kind of society. Therefore, what inspires the creation of a good or bad constitution is undoubtedly constitutionalism. It is the name of a constitutional concept, philosophy or ideology.
Niccolò Machiavelli is considered the father of modern constitutionalism. Machiavelli arrived at the conclusion of constitutionalism after studying ancient republics. Modern constitutionalism and ancient republicanism share three central beliefs: first, the government should serve justice and the common good; second, this work should be done by the government through laws; third, this should be done securely through a well-made constitution. This work of Machiavelli changed the politics of emerging modernity and reorganized the government around the world.
Many scholars have discussed the ancient republics of India. Dr. Ambedkar has also praised the ancient republics of the Vajjis, Licchavis and Shakyas of India. But those republics were not democratic states. In those republics, only the princes took decisions by mutual consent. The general public did not participate in their decisions. It took two and a half thousand years for a republic with public participation to come to India. The concept of constitutionalism with which democracy is to be closely associated came to India in the nineteenth century, and fully in the twentieth century. Therefore, it would perhaps not be wrong to say that constitutionalism in India is a gift of British colonialism.
This colonial constitutionalism has a close relationship with democracy, which demands a strong protection for the interests of citizens, their freedom and minority communities. But constitutionalism is also a weaker concept than the constitution, because the constitution is capable of restraining governments, while constitutionalism is not capable, which is just a concept, not a power.
But most scholars are of the opinion that constitutionalism originated from the French Revolution of 1789. They believe that this revolution had declared the rights of citizens, which gave birth to constitutionalism. This constitutionalism itself created the French Constitution. This revolution had greatly influenced Ambedkar. Inspired by it, he did the Mahad Satyagraha for the human rights of the Untouchables in 1927. In that conference, he had issued a manifesto of what rights a Hindu should have. However, this was not a manifesto of human rights, but a manifesto of the rights of a Hindu. That is because at that time his emphasis was on providing rights to the deprived Dalits in the Hindu society. The rights of a Hindu that he had declared in his manifesto were as follows –
- The social status of all Hindus is equal by birth, and should remain equal.
- The public is the source of all power. Therefore, the claim of privilege by any person or class cannot be valid unless the entire public recognizes it.
- It is the birthright of every Hindu to have the freedom to work and speak.
- Any Hindu can be deprived of other rights, apart from his birthright, only by law.
- Law is not the order of any person or group of persons. Law is a mandate for change. The law should be made with the consent of all, and it should be implemented on everyone without any discrimination.
You can see that Ambedkar’s constitutionalism speaks in this manifesto. This manifesto was the constitutionalism that took shape by looking at the deprived communities and reading the Manusmriti. We can also see this constitutionalism in Ambedkar’s memorandum titled ‘States and Minorities’ given to the Constituent Assembly in 1947, in which he demanded the creation of a constitution with a socialist economy.
Ambedkar considered the role of the constitution to be essential for changing society. During the Round Table Conference in London, Ambedkar distributed a booklet among British leaders and intellectuals, titled ‘The Untouchables and the Pax Britannica’. In this, he said that society is always conservative. It cannot be changed until it is forced to change. And this work can be done only through law. You must know that when Pandita Ramabai demanded the government to open a school for girls in Bombay, the Sanatani Brahmins opened a front against her. The most prominent leader of this protest was Bal Gangadhar Tilak, who was considered a nationalist. During the same period, when the Dalits demanded their political representation, the same Tilak had said in a meeting in Sholapur, will these oilmen and tamolis go to the assembly and plough the fields? When a proposal was brought in the Central Assembly to increase the marriage age of Hindu girls from 8 years to 14 years, Madan Mohan Malaviya, the pride of the Brahmins, raised a hue and cry against it and said that the British want to end our eternal Hindu religion. Similarly, when in 1850 the East India Company government gave legal recognition to the marriage of Hindu widows and accepted their right in the property of the deceased husband, even then the orthodox Brahmin leaders had raised the same voice that to save the Hindu religion, there would have to be a rebellion against the government. You can guess from this how much the Brahmin class, which was also the ruling and intellectual class of India, disliked the reforms. The reason for this was the constitutionalism embedded in his mind, which was formed from the memories of Manu and Yagyavalkya. At the other end of this was Ambedkar, whose constitutionalism took shape from the feeling of changing the pitiable condition of the powerless Untouchables suffering from the orthodoxy of Hindus. He wanted change. He had told the whole country in 1927 by burning the Manusmriti in his Mahad Satyagraha what kind of constitution India should have. This act of his should not be seen as burning of books or literature. He had not burnt literature, he had burnt the black law. Even today copies of black laws are burnt. A few years ago in the Kisan Andolan, farmers had burnt copies of the three anti-farmer black laws.
In 1943, Ambedkar had said that if the sufferings from which the Untouchables are suffering have not been publicised as much as the sufferings of the Jews have been, then this does not mean that the sufferings of the Untouchables are not real. And neither the means nor the methods used by Hindus against the Untouchables are any less cruel, but they are as cruel as the methods and means used by the Nazis against the Jews. The Nazis’ ‘anti-Semitism’ against the Jews is not at all different in thought and action from the Hindus’ ‘Sanatanism’ against the untouchables. He read this paper at the Canadian Peace Conference. He said that now the time has come to understand the problem of the Untouchables of India in comparison with the problem of slaves, Negroes and Jews.
Ambedkar knew that discrimination against Negroes, i.e. discrimination between black and white, was not in the Bible, but in the laws that were made against them. But in India, it is the opposite. Here, there is social discrimination in Hinduism, while there is no discrimination in law. Therefore, the law is not as effective as religion is here. But this does not mean that the law has not changed the society. Many evils of Hindu society were extremely inhuman, which gradually ended during the British period due to the pressure of law. But what is the reason that the evil of untouchability and discrimination against Dalits did not end? Ambedkar gave the reason for this that only those evils were removed, which the Hindus themselves wanted to remove. Those were the evils of the Hindu family, which included Sati Pratha, widow remarriage, women education etc. But Hindus do not consider untouchability to be an evil, rather it is a structural system of Hindu society for them, which they do not want to end. What would you call this? Except that if a society does not want to remove its religious evil, then the law cannot do anything. This is the reason that despite untouchability and caste discrimination being abolished by law, these two evils still exist in Hindu society. You all know how much violence is unleashed by Hindus against Dalits if they grow moustaches, if they perform Ghodchadhi (Mare riding during marriage), if they take out their wedding procession in front of upper caste houses, if they touch a water pot. And all these are recent incidents. This news is from Rajasthan this month that the head master of a primary school killed an innocent Dalit student because he drank water from his pot. You must have also read this news from Pratapgarh this month that a Dalit was tied to a cot and burnt alive on the charge of theft. These evils exist because these are not evils of the Hindu family like Sati Pratha, widow remarriage and women education, but it is the structural system of Hindu society, in other words it is their Sanatan Dharma, which they follow. Now no Hindu has the thought of burning or abandoning his widow. Now no Hindu has the thought of keeping his daughter uneducated, but on seeing a Dalit, the feeling of untouchability comes in his mind. The religion of Hindus teaches untouchability and discrimination against Dalit castes. Therefore, in this matter he does not follow the law. In insulting or torturing a Dalit, he does not even care about the SC-ST Act. The police officers and judges who take action under this Act also do not give much importance to it. Thousands of cases are registered under this Act, but in most of the cases the culprits are acquitted with honour. In the midst of this entire process, the mentality created by the Hindu social system works. Even today, the domineering upper castes believe more in punishing the Dalit in their own way, they do not believe in the punishment of law. Ambedkar had said, and this is the experience of Dalits too, that when upper castes and Dalits meet, they meet as two different nations. One is the nation which is the ruler, and the other is the nation which is its subjects. This is the reason that even today there is no natural friendship between Dalits and upper castes and upper castes with Dalits. There can be exceptions, and I salute such exceptions.
I will not go into the debate that the RSS has started on whether Ambedkar is the architect of the Constitution or not. This will make the speech very long, and it will also be a digression. In this regard, all the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly have been published. How Ambedkar debated each and every clause of the draft constitution while resolving the doubts of the members, and what kind of problems were faced in drafting the constitution, all of that is now available, which can be seen. But I would definitely like to say that one of the problems of the RSS and the BJP is also the name of Ambedkar, which has been associated as the architect of the constitution. If Ambedkar had not been a Dalit, but a Brahmin, he would probably not have had so much trouble. I think, this same mentality is behind the breaking of Ambedkar’s statues all over the country. Wherever they see Ambedkar’s statue, Ambedkar’s picture, see Jai Bhim written on a Dalit’s bike, the hatred in their minds towards Dalits comes out in the form of action. Such incidents have started happening in large numbers since 2014. Because now Sanatan Dharma is being brought back to its original form.
The RSS itself had launched a nationwide campaign against the Constitution. It had burnt Ambedkar’s effigies, and had opposed the Constitution by organizing a large gathering in Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan. An editorial was written against the Constitution in the 30 November 1949 issue of RSS’s mouthpiece ‘Organizer’. It said – ‘The worst thing about India’s new Constitution is that there is nothing in it that can be called Indian. It has neither Indian laws nor Indian institutions. It does not even mention the unique laws of ancient India. Such as the laws of Manu, which were written much before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. Today the laws of Manusmriti inspire the world. But they have no meaning for our constitutional pundits.
Which ancient institution of India should have been in the constitution? No RSS person tells about this. But I want to ask that which law of the Manusmriti, which they call the unique law of India, did they want to keep in the constitution of India or do they want to keep? Is this the law that a 30 year old man should marry an 8 year old girl? Or this law that a Shudra has been made to serve the Dwij, he should not be socially interacted with? Or this law that a woman has neither education nor freedom, only serving her husband and staying within the four walls of the house is her religion? Or this law that if a Shudra preaches, then boiling oil should be poured in his mouth and ears? Or this law that a Shudra should not be allowed to accumulate wealth, he should be kept poor? Which law is there in that ancient and best law of the world, which the RSS wants to keep in the constitution? No RSS leader reveals this.
The matter of Hindu model was raised in the Constituent Assembly also. On 4 November 1948, Ambedkar, while speaking on the criticisms of the Constitution in the Constituent Assembly, said that some critics allege that no part of it represents the ancient politics of India. Those critics said that the new Constitution should have been prepared on the Hindu model of the Indian state. Those critics wanted that the Constitution should have been based on the village panchayat and district panchayats, and not on the principles of the West. Ambedkar said that he pities the intellect of Indian intellectuals towards the rural community. These intellectuals seem to be overwhelmed by the praise of Indian villages by Metcalfe, who described them as small republics. Ambedkar said that these people do not know that these so-called republics of villages are the biggest reasons for the destruction of India. He expressed surprise at how those who condemn provincialism and communalism became champions of villages? He said that what are villages other than the dens of ignorance, narrow-mindedness, casteism and communalism? He said that these may be republics for Hindus, but for Dalits these are no less than ghettos. He said that I am happy that in the draft of the constitution, the village has been removed and the individual has been adopted as the unit.
The fundamental rights accepted in the draft constitution were criticized the most. The reason for this was that this was a new thing for the Hindu psyche formed by the caste system. Hindus, especially Brahmins, could not even think that apart from the Dwij, Dalits and Shudras can also have some rights. While debating in the House, Ambedkar said that the history of fundamental rights in India is very strange. He said that in ancient Hindu India there were fundamental rights for only two people, one for Brahmins and the other for cows. The king was committed to protect both of them. Then the Muslims came, they abolished both these rights, of Brahmins and cows. The rights they gave to Muslims, they did not give to non-Muslims. After them came the British, and the laws they made from 1772 to 1935 did not contain the fundamental rights that the Constitution of independent India gave to its citizens. The right to equality, the right to freedom, the right against exploitation, the right to education and the right to security were neither accepted by the orthodox Hindus nor by the feudal Muslims. Both Hindu and Muslim critics criticized the fundamental rights by saying that they were taken from the Constitution of the United States. But the far-sighted and aware members of the Constituent Assembly had understood that if democracy is to be established, then these fundamental rights of the individual cannot be denied.
On 25 November 1949, while speaking on the draft constitution in the Constituent Assembly, Ambedkar shared his concern that whether India would retain the independence it had gained or lose it again? He said that the elements due to which our country had lost its independence have not ended. They are still active in the form of religion and caste. He said that he did not know whether the people of India would put religion above their country or their country above religion? But it is certain that if political parties put religion above the country, our independence may be in danger for the second time. He further said that if we want to maintain this democracy, we will have to firmly adopt constitutional methods to achieve our social and economic objectives. He said that the second thing, which can be fatal to our independence, is bhakti i.e. hero-worship. He said that bhakti in religion may be the path to liberation of the soul, but in politics, it is definitely a path leading to degradation and ultimately to dictatorship. He said a third thing that on 26 January 1950 we will enter a contradictory life. In politics, we will all be equal on the basis of one person one value, but in social and economic life we will suffer from inequality. We must remove this contradiction as soon as possible. Otherwise, people suffering from inequality will destroy the structure of this democracy built with hard work.
But alas! Neither social inequality has ended, nor economic inequality. On the contrary, it has increased even more. Today, there is a huge number of people suffering from economic inequality in India. But Ambedkar’s prediction proved wrong. The people suffering from inequality did not revolt, they did not destroy the structure of democracy. What is the reason for this? Do they not realize the socio-economic inequality, or are they not suffering from this inequality? However, the truth is that they are aware of the inequality, and they are also suffering from it. But they cannot revolt. Why? The main reason I see for this is religion. Religion, with which they are deeply connected, rather it should be said, have been connected. The establishmentarians who maintain socio-economic inequality have left thousands of saints and mahatmas among them, who keep strengthening religious beliefs, the results of past lives, fatalism, the beliefs of salvation and satisfaction-patience among the poor and the weaker sections. This propaganda created a belief in them that whatever is destined by Ram, happens. Or, who can erase the fate that is written in our lives? Or, when poverty is in our fate, what can we do? Or, the saints and sages telling that your poverty, your being a Dalit is the result of your deeds of your previous life. This is the most barbaric concept of religion, and also anti-human. A Hindu who believes in fate and karma can never be sensitive. He cannot have any sympathy for the suffering and the poor, because for him it is the result of his deeds. There is a book by Katherine Mayo, ‘Slaves of the Gods.’ There is an example in it. An old cow, which was left free on the road by its Brahmin owner, lives or dies. It was so weak that it did not have the strength to walk. One day dogs surrounded it and tore it apart. It died in agony. An English Collector saw this scene with his own eyes. He complained to the Brahmins there that you people cannot even serve an old cow. To this those Brahmins replied that Sahib this cow has suffered the consequences of its previous life. So, this teaching of religion has destroyed the compassion of man. This belief will never let the poor realize that the reason for their poverty and misery is not the karma or fate of their previous life, but the wrong policies of the government.
Finally, I will conclude my talk by mentioning Ambedkar’s constitutional concern on land reform. In 1954, while speaking on an amendment bill presented on Article 31 of the Constitution regarding land acquisition, Ambedkar opposed this bill. In this section, there was a provision to take land from the landowners by giving them full compensation. Ambedkar said that this section was not in the draft of the Constitution, so it is not our draft, and he cannot take responsibility for it. When this section was being debated, Ambedkar was probably the first person in the House who was against it. Ambedkar was against private ownership of land. He wanted that the land should be owned by the state. But the members of the Congress party were not in favour of this. There was a reason for this, they were owners of thousands of acres of land. During the debate on this section, there were three factions in the Congress. Vallabhbhai Patel was in favour of giving 15 percent compensation to the landowners along with the market price of the land. Nehru was against giving compensation. But Pant wanted to find a middle way, i.e. a method of safe delivery. This dispute was settled on the killing of land reforms. Ambedkar said that this section is so ugly that ‘I don’t even like to look at it.’
On the problem of land, Ambedkar had stressed in his debate: ‘I believe that the ownership of farmers in this country will completely ruin the country.’ He said, ‘Although I am not a communist, what I want is the Russian system of collective farming.’ He said that ‘this is the only way in which we can solve our agricultural problem.’ But this was possible only when the land was owned by the government.
In this regard, Ambedkar narrated an incident of Napoleon. He said, once Talleyrand had asked Napoleon, ‘Why do you have so much hostility towards Europe? Why don’t you agree to become the emperor of France? I will become your Prime Minister.’ Some soldiers were standing outside Napoleon’s palace, the bayonets of their guns were clearly shining in the sunlight. Napoleon was very angry. He asked Talleyrand, ‘Are you watching my soldiers?’ He said, ‘Yes, I am watching them.’ Then, Napoleon said, ‘When I have an army, why am I not an emperor?’ The answer Talleyrand gave to him is important here. He said, ‘You can do anything with these bayonets, but you cannot sit on them.’ Ambedkar said, similarly, the government cannot sit on the private property it has created, but the owners of the land will definitely sit on it. He said that Congress could have nationalized the land, but it did not take such a step to win political elections and the situation has become such that now it has become impossible for it to even determine the limit of land. He said this in 1954.
On the basis of the study I have done, I leave you after presenting my views before you on the subject of ‘Constitution, Constitutionalism and Ambedkar’. Thank you very much to all of you.
