Dr. B.R. Ambedkar MUST READ......... Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in his concluding speech in the Assembly had stated that “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 paternity, which are not to be treated as separate items in a trinity. They form a union of the 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 bedivorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity” Ambedkar would have been sad to see the present day reality of ‘right to equality’. We still live in a society where division among people exists, whether it ison basis of caste, religion, gender, region or wealth. We should be ashamed of ourselves as we directly or indirectly keep dividing people. We talk of the right to equality. Of course, equality does exist, but only on papers. We boost of a prospering nation in the 21st century, but what this proud feeling gives us? Crores ofour fellow citizens live in the ‘dark side’ of the nation, which we tend to ignore all the time.Ambedkar would have been sharply critical of the conduct of the mainstream political parties themselves. All parties have used his name. If Ambedkar would have been alive today, there wouldn’t have been any ‘politics of reservation’. Theruling parties have failed to give representation to the people from the downtrodden community, because of which the politics of appeasement have come up. He would have been angry with his ‘so called followers’ who have just usedreservation for personal means, and not for helping their fellow people.We live in cities, and keep boasting about development. But there exists a ‘nation’ within India, where Untouchability is openly practised and caste-based violenceis common. Is this a thing to be proud about?Ambedkar would have never liked the way his followers behaved with Mr. AshishNandy after his controversial statement. The subalterns behaved with Mr. Nandy the same way the RSS people or the Hindufundamentalist behaved with late M.F. Hussain. Nor he would have liked the controversy over his cartoon in the NCERT textbook. I am not saying that anyone can denigrate Ambedkar, but whatever his followers are doing is not following his ideas, but just doing his “bhakti” (worship).He would have never tolerated the AseemTrivedi cartoon controversy. He would have been appalled to see the ‘murder’ of freedom of expression in this country.Ambedkar would have been openly critical of ‘so called Maharashtrian’ Raj Thackeray and similar people, who have attacked the right to reside anywhere in India.Also, Ambedkar wouldn’t have been happy with the fact that governance handed over to Indian caste-class oligarchy now has easily slipped into the hands of the Ambanis and their ilk. These Corporate big-wigs have assassinated the fundamental rights of Adivasi brothers and sisters. And the saddest part is that noone today is coming forward for their help.At the same time, Ambedkar would have had no time either for the Maoists, who claim to speak on behalf of the disadvantaged. He would have urged them to persuade rather than coerce citizens to their point of view, to abandon the gun and enter the democratic process that the Constitution had legitimized. Apologists for the Maoists sometimes try to appropriate Ambedkar to their side, on the grounds that Dalits and adivasis have no option but armed struggle to resist and overcome their oppressors. But Ambedkarwould have abhorred violence, rejecting it as a means of settling political disputes. Infact, he even had little time for non-violentprotest on Gandhian lines. He was a constitutional democrat, who believed that arguments between citizens had to beresolved through the means of the press, the law courts and the legislature.Ambedkar might have given a Constitutionand fundamental rights according to whichIndia has to be governed. But who cares. Do people care for the future?The reality of fundamental rights is disturbing to me as it would be to Ambedkar.At last, I would only like to say that Babasaheb Ambedkar is not the just the leader of dalits. He is a national icon, who should be portrayed as a “champion of fundamental rights of people”.
Posted on: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 09:38:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015