Ambedkar’s warning still rings true

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and retired Chief Justice of India B R Gavai have both credited their success to B R Ambedkar and the Constitution of India, acknowledging that without it, they may not have risen to top constitutional positions. While the Constitution certainly opened doors for disadvantaged communities, the larger question remains: have we truly achieved political equality and social democracy after more than seven decades as a republic?

India’s Constitution is a revolutionary document, which was designed to transform previously docile subjects into sovereign citizens with inalienable rights. Political equality is its cornerstone. That is why its framers insisted that there should be ample representation of people from all walks of life (especially from disadvantaged communities) in the legislatures and secured Articles 330 and 332, which provided reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Lok Sabha and Assemblies. The recent amendment to the Constitution, which provides for women’s reservation in the political arena, is also a step in the same direction.

While we may have representation from the SCs and the STs in the legislatures, it is predominantly (or only) because of the reservation system. The recent Bihar election is yet another eye-opener for prevailing casteism and structural inequalities in Indian politics. Bihar has 243 Assembly constituencies, among which 40 (38 for the SCs and two for the STs) are reserved. It is unfortunate that in the 203 unreserved or general constituencies, not a single candidate from the SC or the ST communities could win the election. This shows inherent casteism, structural inequalities, and discrimination. One should seriously think about why we do not have serious contenders from the Dalit communities in general constituencies.

The political parties must be blamed for this situation. The five major political parties in Bihar — the BJP, the JDU, the RJD, the LJPRV, and the Congress — did not field a single Dalit candidate from a general seat. Does that mean the mantra of jyathi nyay (social justice) is confined only to a reserved constituency? If the elections are apparently fought in the name of the party or the chief minister, or the prime minister, it is surprising that these major parties could not find a Dalit candidate to contest from a general seat!

Among the 159 SC and ST candidates who contested from general seats, 62 were independent. The Bahujan Samajwadi Party (BSP) is the only party to field 29 Dalit candidates from
general seats. The other political parties should do some soul-searching and revisit their commitment towards social justice.

Should we blame political parties and stop there? Ambedkar, a staunch advocate of separate electorates who compromised with Mahatma Gandhi during the Poona Pact, knew that a Dalit would not win in a general constituency. He observed that “the Scheduled Castes voters are almost always in a minority, if not in a hopeless minority”. He called the joint electorate system (which we follow today) a “rotten borough”, where the candidate from the reserved community has to function at the mercy of the upper caste Hindus, because of sheer majority. He also remarked, “No Caste Hindu will cast a vote in favour of an Untouchable candidate, for to him he is too contemptible a person to go to the Legislature. On the other hand, there will be found many voters among the Untouchables who would willingly cast their votes for a Hindu candidate in preference to an Untouchable candidate. That is because he is taught to revere the former more than himself or his Untouchable kinsmen.”

Ambedkar’s prophecy seems to be true. No political party that has a stake in the election wants to field a Dalit candidate in the general constituency, and if we analyse the data of the 159 Dalit candidates mentioned above, only one (Dharmendra Kumar from Hisua) was able to secure the deposit (to get more than 10% of the total votes polled). The average vote percentage of Dalit candidates is only 0.85%. There are more barriers based on gender. Only nine female Dalit candidates contested from the general seats.

Ambedkar, in his famous speech before the Constituent Assembly on the day before the adoption of the Constitution, talked about the ‘life of contradictions’ and ‘the need for social democracy.’ These ideas have relevance even after 75 years of the Constitution. Ambedkar pointed out that once the Constitution comes into force, “In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics, we will be recognising the principle of ‘one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life?” He believed that the Constitution could achieve political democracy, but we must also strive for social democracy, where liberty, equality, and fraternity become the way of life.

The Constitution undoubtedly realised the vision of electoral democracy, where every person is free to contest and win. But every election demonstrates prevailing structural inequalities and entry barriers in the forms of caste, gender, status, and party, and convinces us that social democracy is still a distant dream. It is time for society to ask like Thucydides: “It may be your interest to be our masters, but how can it be ours to be your slaves?”

(The writer is a PhD research scholar at NLS-Bengaluru and a faculty member at the School of Law, Christ University)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.