SOCIO-ECONOMIC THOUGHTS OF B.R. AMBEDKAR

1

Socio-Economic Thoughts of B.R. Ambedkar

John Mohan Razu1

INTRODUCTION

Between 1972 and 1976, I was involved with the landless agricultural laborers predominantly amongst the Dalits in imparting informal and

conscious raising educational programs. At that time, the Indian society

characterized semi-feudal, agrarian based and labor-intensive tendencies.

Indian economy was to an extent agrarian. After my graduation, along with my friend who was a resident of one of the villages did make an initial visit

and thus opted to live and work with the landless Dalit laborers whose

villages come under Chithamoor Block of Madurantakam Taulk of Chingleput

District, Tamil Nadu. In the year 1993, after a gap of 20 years when I visited

I saw a number of changes concerning the patterns of cultivation, land ownership and labor, modes and relations of production and in sum the

whole economy of that block had changed drastically. In seventies only a

handful of tractors were seen and in the nineties more tractors and

agricultural implements were introduced. Mechanization of agriculture became predominant.

Within a span of 20 years there have been radical shifts and sweeping

changes happened both at the micro and macro levels: from agrarian to industrial, from subsistence to market-driven agriculture. My initial

conversation with the villagers revealed that their working days in a year

had come down to half and the agricultural labor had become redundant due

to the introduction of multi-purpose machineries, such as threshers,

harvesters and tractors with multiple features and attachments. Further, cash-crops, aqua and mono cultures, genetically-modified food (GM) have

replaced the subsistence and labor-intensive multi-crop agriculture. The

landscape of that place has totally changed. The value of land went up at

alarming levels. The market economy has pushed the agri-business to monopolize and control all the processes and products and thus dictated the

farmers what to cultivate, how to cultivate, and who to produce.

Use of chemical fertilizers, urea, and pesticides replacing the traditional manure and organic materials; from traditional-farming to capital-intensive,

and from subsistence crops to cash crops in Indian agriculture has

significantly changed and altered the socio-economic terrains of the Dalits.

On the one hand India is moving towards liberalization, privatization, and

1Dr. Indukuri John Mohan Razu, Professor of Social Ethics, associated with ACTS Academy of Higher Education, Bangalore, as a resource person for PhD Program.

2

globalization (LPG) and thus integrated with the global economy. And so,

India‘s growth rate and GDP shows phenomenal rise. While on the other, the

majority of the Dalits involved in agricultural activities are becoming poorer and are further pushed to the margins. Never in the history of humankind

we witnessed such an unprecedented growth and at the same time the gap

between the rich and poor has widened at an appalling levels. The socio-

economic disequilibria between communities have reached new heights. And the worst victims are the Dalits and other subaltern categories.

It is in this context an attempt will be made in this paper to delve into the

socio-economic thoughts of B.R. Ambedkar primarily delved into the locales of the Dalits who were facing the brunt of the dominant paradigm of socio-

economic development. In an increasingly globalizing Indian society, the

Dalits continue to remain way behind the socio-economic development as

compared to other categories. So, B.R. Ambedkar becomes more relevant as we conceptualize, theorize and define development in a country where the

Dalits constitute about one-fourth of the total population. An in-depth

analysis and exposition of Ambedkar‘s thoughts in the areas of socio-

economic development will therefore be explored. Alongside, I intend to

invoke the Buddha Dhamma that influenced Ambedkar to articulate, strengthen, and construct his discourse by showing the callousness and

ambiguities creeping into the present settings of our society.

I

Ambedkar‘s notion of socio-economic development can best be understood if

we view his thoughts in an integrated way because of the fact that the expertise he had on diverse disciplines and on a variety of subjects. Hence,

culling his thoughts from his writings and putting in coherent way by linking

to socio-economic development is indeed a difficult task. Nevertheless, B.R.

Ambedkar did not use the term ‗development‘, but brought it and thus

viewed and weaved the socio-economic dimensions as part and parcel of democracy. The foremost object of Ambedkar was to create a document

that embodied the core features of a modern parliamentary democracy

containing the social map for ameliorating the existing socio-economic

inequalities of our society. For him, democracy ought to provide spaces for the citizens to appropriate the growth and progress that have been achieved

through industrial and agricultural means. So, the state acts as the

harbinger for the elected government to function. The government functions

on the consent of the governed vis-à-vis the people. If this is so, the people are at the center of socio-economic planning and implementation.

3

For Ambedkar, democracy is essentially as a form of society that functions

social conscience by safeguarding the rights of the people. So, the roots of

democracy are to be manifested in social relationships. For him, social relationship is the key to democracy, and the state is responsible to

translate whatever is enshrined in the constitution to all its citizens. At the

same time, he cautions us the limitations in social democracy when it comes

to everyday functioning. Ambedkar clearly visualized that those who are socially placed on top and in the middle caste rungs enjoy the fruits of

growth and progress of development by virtue of their social standing, and

those who are at the bottom and outside could never be part of it. So,

Ambedkar was clear that ‗political democracy cannot last, unless there lies at the base of social democracy‘. Thus, he gave primacy to the social over

political. He interpreted the Indian social reality in order to change it.

For democracy to work there should be a well-defined and articulated body of laws which is called as constitution that regulates a country. The

Constitution lays down the basic structure under which its people are to be

governed. The main organs of the State, the Legislature, the Executive and

the Judiciary, define their powers, demarcate their responsibilities and

regulate their relationship with each other and with the people. These ideals and principles are reflected in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution that

states:

“We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign, Socialist, and Secular Democratic

Republic securing to all its citizens:

Justice (social, economic and political);

Liberty of thought, expressions, belief, faith and worship;

Equality of status and opportunity,

and to promote among them all

Fraternity assuring dignity of status and of opportunity and

the dignity of the individual …

The opening words of the Preamble are – ‗we, the people of India,‘ which

simply means that the people are the main constitutive subjects and thus the ultimate source of power vests with the people. For a democracy to work

or function effectively, it is the people who are the fulcrum, the base, the

4

centre, the means and the ends. It is apparent that democracy is the basis

for good governance. Good governance stands on vibrant and dynamic

democracy. What then is a working democracy? B.R. Ambedkar, the Chief Architect, in framing our Constitution cautions: "Beware of Parliamentary

Democracy, it is not the best product as it appears to be.‖2 Democracy on

its own cannot moderate itself and so it ought to be moderated by the

people.

Dr. Ambedkar gives numerous reasons for this: ―Democracy is like a

machine whose movements are slow and there is no swift action.‖3 He

continues by saying that ―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 illegal.‖4 Apart from this, ―… it

can be said in general terms that the discontent against Parliamentary Democracy is due to the realization that it has failed to assure the masses

the right to liberty, prosperity or pursuit of happiness.‖5 For Dr. Ambedkar,

Parliamentary Democracy could not check economic inequalities and in turn

in the name of liberty, has continuously added to the economic wrongs of

the poor, the downtrodden, and the disinherited class.

II

As against the social context, an approach to economic development will

have to be attempted. Usually development is equated to multi-specialty

hospitals, autobahns, GM foods, robots, HYVs, and so on. However, one

could approach the notion of development from another angle, and see what development is not. This is useful since development is perceived and

defined by many differently. We keep hearing about modernization,

progress, economic growth, social change and even civilization, as if they

are only parameters to quantify and qualify the pinnacles of human

achievements. These are the economic categories that do not fully take into consideration the other factors, and so, we fail to uncover the fuller meaning

of the term ‗development‘.

2 Valerian Rodrigues (ed.) The Essential Writings of B.R. Ambedkar, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002, p.61. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid.

5

Ambedkar considers the social-economic facets in a democracy are the axle

and pivotal force of a political democracy. The tougher the tissues and fiber,

the greater is the strength of the body. Democracy is another name for equality, participation in policy making and decision-taking, providing equal

opportunities, recognizing people as subjects of history and so on. If liberty

and freedom fails to realize equality, then our democracy is nothing but a

mockery, a name and a farce. Is our Parliamentary Democracy a farce? Does Indian democracy posit equality? Or does liberty in the name of

democracy subsume equality? Given the plural and heterogeneous

character of our Indian society, the visionaries thought that the

parliamentary system could hold the country together by providing sufficient space for its diversities to co-exist. The over-riding consideration was to

ensure the basic socio-economic needs of all people.

Over the years, aberrations and distortions have taken place in the functioning not only of the State, but also of the political administrative

system. As a result, large sections of the people are unable to enjoy even

the minimum rights the Constitution contemplated for them. Teeming

millions live in abject poverty, hunger, mal-nourished children, infant

mortality, unemployment, non-availability of pure drinking water in many areas, and lack of health care have undermined the constitutional and

fundamental rights of the people. In all these, the Dalits form a significant

number.

B.R. Ambedkar believed in the effective functioning of democracy which is

the foremost and vital component that ought to address the socio-economic

disequilibria within the Indian society. As predicted by him the socio-

economic disequilibria have not been narrowed down, but rather widening. In the socio-economic spheres, the recent publication of the Human

Development Report (HDR) by the United Nations, India ranks 126 among

193 nations despite phenomenal achievement in Gross Domestic Product

(GDP). The HDR entails Quality of Life, and comprehensively brings out nine

categories that includes cost of living, culture, and leisure, economy, environment, freedom, health, infra-structure, safety and risk and climate,

and in this India ranks 133 in the world. Further, 39 per cent of our adult

population continues to be illiterate, 35 per cent continue to exist below the

poverty line, over 25 per cent have no access to safe drinking water, and almost 60 per cent have no access to sanitation even after 60 years of

Independence. India‘s share of poorest people in the world, which was

about 25 per cent in 1980, has increased to 39 per cent.

The greatest impact of abject poverty and inequity is in India‘s rural areas,

which is about 65 per cent of the nation‘s population, but contributes to just

6

18per cent of our GDP. India‘s rank in the Human Development Index

(HDI), which is a composite measure of life expectancy and adult literacy,

and standard of living, is toying between 124 and 128 for the past few years among 177 nations. India‘s economic and social well-being indicator scores

are among the lowest at 187, which is lower than sub-Saharan Africa. Two

years ago we were ashamed to hear that there were 128 million children

were mal-nourished. It is indeed a blot to the country that claims as ―emerging economic super-power‖ and ―technological hub‖ and so on. India

has roughly one-third of all poor people in the world. It also has a higher

proportion of its population living on less than $2 per day compared to sub-

Saharan Africa. This latest estimate comes from the World Bank (WB) Report on global poverty. The number of Indian poor continues to haunt us.

Measuring poverty and those who we call as poor should be based on

purchasing power parity (PPP), exchange rates, which make comparisons

across countries possible.

When it comes to the social realm, the hierarchy-based difference is visible

in all aspects of life. Caste continues to play a major role in India‘s social

structure and those at the lower rung and outside the Hindu Varna system

continues to face discrimination both in the social and economic spheres. As Ambedkar rightly pointed out, unless and until there is a level-playing

ground based on equality and equity, democracy would make some sense,

otherwise it remains a Maya, a ploy of the dominant class and castes. He

also was highly critical of parliamentary democracy. In a 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, and there is the Judiciary to control both, within the

prescribed bounds. Often we see the conflicts arising between the judiciary, the legislature, and the executive.

Parliamentary Democracy has the marks of a popular government duly

elected by the people, of the people and for the people. However, the

democratically elected governments have failed to address the socio-economic disequilibria even after 60 years of free India. Therefore, we

have two Indias under the garb of democracy, one for the rich and the

powerful and the other for the vulnerable. If the present democracy fails to

address the divides, there is all the possibility of the forces of religious fundamentalism taking over the country. We need to go back to history

where not even a century has been completed where there has not been

discontent and dissatisfaction, against the parliamentary democracies in

Italy, Germany, Russia, and Spain.

7

III

The usage of development is value-loaded, and therefore, entails economic, political, social and religio-cultural aspects. The discourse on ‗development‘

ought to go beyond the conventional notions of ‗trickle-down‘ and ‗economic

growth.‘ In recent times, development has become a shapeless amoeba-like

world. It cannot express anything because its contents are blurred and ambiguous. In the name of ‗development‘, globalization translates its

visions and goals through its instruments such as the IMF, WB, WTO and

MNCs. Market has become the new development paradigm and not people,

or nations. The so-called ‗development,‘ ‗progress,‘ and ‗prosperity,‘ is assumed to be achieved through ruthless exploitation of natural and human

resources.

The state/government has abdicated its responsibility in the areas of education, health, social and economic facets by opening up to the private

entrepreneurs. Ambedkar may have anticipated and so candidly warned the

state/government not to resort to shirking its constitutional obligations. In

view of apparent deviations from the government, Ambedkar intensified his

attack on the caste system which should not be construed as something, but not only challenged the hegemony of the upper castes, but also broader

connotation of economic growth and development. He categorically stated

that the socio-economic development of the country is the constitutional

responsibility of the government. Ambedkar reiterated that the government was responsible to work towards narrowing the prevailing socio-economic

disequilibria. Since the constitutional democracy enshrines these with clarity

and brevity and so for Ambedkar the socio-economic privileges that are

guaranteed in the constitution and since the government/state bases its powers and functions on the constitution, it is mandatory for the

state/government to fulfill these obligations.

From the 1990s the governments at the Centre as well as the states have

been following the policies and programs being spearheaded by the forces of globalization both in urban and rural areas. The state/government is

gradually giving up its responsibility that goes against the analysis of

Ambedkar. For Ambedkar, the government by all means is obligated to plan

the economic life of the people that guarantees the people the highest point of productivity and also providing equitable distribution of wealth. The new

focus on poverty and hunger is possibly a response to a number of emerging

factors such as migration, landlessness, deprivation, hunger, poverty,

unemployment and host of issues.

8

Increasingly, there are incidences of farmers committing suicide, loss of

agricultural lands, migration, urban-rural poverty, increase in the growth of

pavement and slum dwelling,and redundancy in unskilled and semi-skilled workforce, escalating inequities. While on the other, in urban and rural

settings, the expansion of wealth and opportunities, through globalization for

the middle, upper and dominant castes, has brought prosperity and

affluence in a conspicuous manner. Hence, globalization has neither altered the socio-economic status of the vulnerable such as women, dalits and

tribals, nor offered significant opportunities or choices for the urban and

rural poor. What is happening now is totally antithetical to the socio-

economic thoughts of B.R. Ambedkar. He said that ―Liberty from State control is another name for the dictatorship of the private employer.‖

Ambedkar‘s philosophy and ideology are existentially related to the problems

of inequality being built into every system of social stratification, including socio-economic development. More specifically they are related to the denial

of human dignity and material opportunity to the untouchables in the

traditional Hindu caste structure. His socio-economic thoughts

simultaneously straddle the area of religious belief, social practice and

economic, civic and political deprivation as an existential reality. Hence, he ripped open the contradictions between the nature of relationship and the

religious belief that eventually promotes inequality and socio-economic

deprivations. His critique of Hinduism is based on the very fact that it

supported institutionalized inequality in society—inequality based on caste. On the contrary, Buddhism put morality—the rules of how an individual

should relate to his fellow-humans at it centre. Buddhism spoke of social

equality between human beings.6

IV

Ambedkar‘s socio-economic thoughts comprehensively echo the following:

… the test of justice and the test of utility to judge the philosophy of the principle of justice is a compendious one and

includes most of the other principles which have become the

foundation of a moral order. Justice has always evoked ideas of

equality, … Equity signifies equality. Rules and regulations, right and righteousness are concerned with equality in value. If all

men are equal, all men are of the same essence and the

common essence entitled them to the same fundamental rights

6 “M.S. Gore, The Social Context of an Ideology: Ambedkar’s Political and Social Thought (New Delhi: Sage

Publications, 1993), pp. 217-218.

9

and to equal liberty. In sort justice is simply another for liberty,

equality, and fraternity.7

For Ambedkar, the three maxims are grounded in religion. So, ―… religion is

a social fact, that religion has a specific purpose and definite social function

… a person if he was required to accept a religion should have the right to

ask how well it has served the purposes which belong to religion.‖8 He believed in the indispensability of religion in human affairs since ―the

postulates and sanction of morality should be the governing principle of any

society.‖9 In this way, he valued human beings and morality as the means of

all things including socio-economic development. Nevertheless, it is an irony that ―The spirit of caste unites these three tendencies, repulsion, hierarchy,

and hereditary specialization.‖10 In the way the Dalit are kept out of socio-

economic development. For instance, ―All castes in a caste system recognize

the same basic hierarchy and accept for at least tacitly acknowledge their own position within it, though there may be variations and disputes.‖11 While

explaining the various tenets and tendencies,―‖Religion may be alike in that

they all teach that the meaning of life is to be found in the pursuit of ‗good‘.

But religions are not alike in their answers to questions ‗what is good?‘ In

this they certainly differ. One religion holds that brotherhood is good, another caste and untouchability is good … agreed in the means and

methods they advocate for the promotion and spread of good?‖12

For Ambedkar, religion must mainly be a matter of principle and so it cannot be a matter of rules. The moment it generates into rules it ceases to be a

religion. Religion must be judged by social standards based on social ethics.

No other yard stick or measure could be applied. It also should function in

accordance with reason and therefore religion and slavery are incompatible. Hence, morality plays an important role that when a human comes in

relation to other human. But in religion this comes somewhere aside. Be

good to your neighbor or treat your neighbor as yourself because you are

both child of God or created in god‘s image.‖13

7 See for more details Vasant Moon (comp), Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Vol. 3, Education

Departmentof Maharashtra, pp. 24-25. 8 Vasant Moon (Comp), Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Vol. 5, Education Department of

Maharasthra, 1989, p. 411. 9 Ibid.

10 See the excerpts of C. Bougle, “The Essence of Reality of the Caste System”, in Contribution to Indian Sociology,

No. 2, 1958, p. 64. 11 Satish Despande, Contemporary India: A Sociological View, New Delhi, Viking, 2003, p. 103. 12 Vasanth Moon, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Vol. 5, Op.Cit, p. 406. 13

See Ambedkar’s writings on Social Ideology.

10

Under these circumstances, he prescribes Buddha Dhamma. Buddha‘s usage

of Dhamma is completely and fundamentally differs from what is called religion, because the differences between the two are wide and distinct.

Buddha points out the inadequacies and limitations of religions and shows

what is required of religion. The following are the distinct elements and

characteristics of Dhamma:

Religion, it is said is personal and one must keept it to oneself. One

must not let it play its part in public life.

Contrary to this, Dhamma is social. It is fundamentally and essentially so.

Dhamma is righteousness, which means right relations between man

and in all spheres.

In other words, society cannot do without Dhamma.14

Conclusion

In an increasingly globalizing world the concepts and terms that we use are intertwined in complex and ambiguous ways which needs careful scrutiny.

Prior to globalization, the usage of vocabularies and their meanings bore

clearly particular philosophical and ideological moorings. But now the

grammar of those ideological and political connotations has been hijacked by neo-conservatives and neo-liberals to suit their empire-building vision and

global market. The rich and the powerful capitalist countries including the

global financial institutions, apparatus, instruments and agencies frequently

use ‗democracy,‘ ‗governance,‘ and ‗development.‘ In the name of these three concepts, they are allowed to wage war against any sovereign nation

or can impose economic programs or bring in sanctions and moratorium if

any sovereign nation defies their dictates.

Presented at a Seminar held at Visakhapatnam on 22

nd – 23

rd 2013 jointly organized by the

Deportment of Religion and Philosophy, Andhra University, Vizag and ACTS Academy of

Higher Education, Bangalore.

14 Valerian Rodrigues, The Essential Writing of B.R. Ambedkar, New Delhi: OUP, 2002, pp. 58-59.

11