EDITORIAL ANALYSIS– The legacy of Ambedkar
The Editorial covers GS paper 2[Indian Constitution - historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure.]
Ambedkar believed that unless the moral values of a constitution are upheld, the grandiloquent words in it will not protect the freedom and democratic values of the people.
What were Ambedkar’s thoughts?
- Ambedkar attached great importance to constitutional morality in the working of the Constitution.
- He explained this — by referring to Grote, the Greek historian — as paramount reverence for the forms of the Constitution, enforcing obedience to authority acting under and within these forms yet combined with the habit of open speech, of action subject only to definite legal control.
What was Ambedkar’s opinion on whether the President was bound by ministerial advice and could act independently?
- Ambedkar was of the opinion that the president was bound by ministerial advice, and, Rajendra Prasad, the chairperson of the constituent assembly, had protracted exchanges with Ambedkar on this issue.
- Ambedkar was of the firm view that “the President could not act and will not act except on the advice of the Ministers.
- These passages are reproduced in the landmark judgment of our Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh’s case, in which the Court accepted Ambedkar’s view.
What were his views on Fundamental Rights?
- Ambedkar was also passionate about the guarantees of fundamental rights being appropriately incorporated in the Constitution.
- Guarantees of fundamental rights remain ornamental promises unless they can be judicially enforced: With that objective in mind, the draft Constitution provided that a person can move the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of his or her fundamental rights without going through the high court.
What were his views on Democracy?
- On the concluding day of the deliberations of the constituent assembly, Ambedkar expressed his misgivings about the successful functioning of democracy in our country.
- If we wish to maintain democracy the first thing in my judgment we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives.
- It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution.
- It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha.
- These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.
- Ambedkar warned that 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 to eventual dictatorship.
What did he caution about Social Justice?
- Social justice was Ambedkar’s mission.
- He fervently believed that mere equality on paper was not sufficient.
- What was needed was de facto equality, real equality of opportunity for the millions who had been denied it.
- In ringing tones, on the last day of the constituent assembly, he pointed out the perils of a “life of contradictions”:
- “How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of democracy which this Constituent Assembly has so laboriously built up.”
- The anguished questions posed by Ambedkar continue to haunt us.
- Social justice, the signature tune of our Constitution, still eludes us.
- The struggle for social justice must continue with determination and its achievement would be the best tribute we can pay to one of the greatest sons of India.
Source: Indian Express.