Dalit movement at the Cross Road

By V.B.Rawat

from Countercurrents.org

In June 2005, I saw a huge crowd of Madigas at the Nizam college ground sitting two days and demanding categorization of reservation meant for scheduled castes. There were rumors that the opposition Telugu Desham instigated this incident to divide the Dalit votes who have been supporting the Congress Party for long. Though, these charges may not be entirely ruled out yet those championing the cause of Dalits need to ponder over the situation as what has happened to the entire movement. Whether there was a Dalit movement or there were separate caste movement defending their own identities.


Dalit movement has a rich history of rationalism and humanism. In fact, the historical evolution took place with Buddha's revolt against Varnashram dharma. Buddha not only rejected supremacy of Brahmins but also of the Shastras. Sanskrit was the language of the Brahmins and knowledge their sole domain and Buddha not only demolished their knowledge base of Brahmins but also popularized among the masses by sermonizing in Prakrit.

And this tradition of revolt continued at the later stage also. All the indigenous reform movement and religions in India had inherently revolted against the Brahmanical value system, which gave divine sanction to untouchability and caste system. After Buddha, Mahavir Swami rejected the notion of caste and violence in the brahmanical structure. Even the birth of Sikhism is related to the caste prejudices rampant in varnashram dharma system. In the 15th century Kabir talked of rejection of caste system and talked of one God. He attacked rituals and Shastras and talked of a society based on equality.


Yet the brahmanical system continued by hook or by crook. The brahmanical literature degraded Dalits and talked very cleverly about the pre-birth theory. They promoted Gita which in return promoted not only violence but also caste system. The Brahmin intellectuals carefully planted their own people among Dalits to justify their position.

One is ashamed that even today we have gurus like Dronacharya who supported Varna Vywvastha and denied Eklavya, a Dalit to become the number one arch of his time. Accordingly, Dalits were not supposed to learn arms and only the Kshatriyas had a right to learn military training according to Varna Vyawastha. We could have accepted such norms in the primitive time and forgot about it but in the post independence India, the government followed it and formed not only Arjuna Award for best sports person but Dronacharya award for best coaches, indicating nothing has changed the mindset of our rulers. The result is that we have coaches like Dronacharya today who differentiate between their subjects and the condition is that our sports are in the worst shape.

While Mughal rule in India was a status quoits one, the emergence of British power made a lot of difference for the downtrodden people. They brought a sense of liberty for the marginalized communities. Jyoti Ba Phule belonged to Mali ( fishermen) community of Maharastra. Pune's Chitpawan Brahmin would not allow any Dalit and backward to join schools. Women and particularly of Dalit community could never dream of going to school. Phule realized that unless the community get educated they would not be able to emancipate themselves. So he started a massive work of education by starting various schools in and around Pune. The Brahmins opposed education movement among Dalits which they had denied for years. Phule exposed the brahamnical literature, wrote plays about the exploitation of the farmers and appreciated Christian missionaries for their noble work in school education.

Taking inspiration from Phule, Baba Saheb Dr Ambedkar also talked the importance of education. But education must be rationalists and reasonable. Education agitate our mind. It gives us thought about what, is good and what is bad. Hence Education is root of every movement. Agitation on certain thing is a uniting factor. It became the famous word of Ambedkar " Educate, agitate and organise'. Ambedkar was one of the tallest intellectuals of the country, a scholar who understood the crookedness of the Shastras. He was an iconoclast and questioned the very essence of Shastras. In his letters to Gandhi he says that we should amend Shastras because they talk of caste system. Gandhi said that we had to believe in Shastras if we want to call ourselves Hindu because if we challenge the very foundation of Hinduism, which is the Shastras, then we have no business in calling ourselves Hindu. In fact, this led to bitter dual between Ambedkar and Gandhi. Ambedkar not only said clearly that he was born as a Hindu but would not die as a Hindu.


Ambedkar read Gita and Ramayana and questioned the wisdom. He was among very few intellectuals of his time who never considered Rama and Krishna as idol for Indians. How can be a person who maltreat his wife, be considered an ideal man, he opined. Gita, he suggested, openly justify killing and Varnavyavastha. He cites example of Krishna's sermon to Arjuna when the latter refuses to attack his own brotherns and relatives, "Oh Arjuna, you are not killing them.. You are just killing their bodies, for soul is immortal, ever present. It cannot be burnt, neither could it be dried." Ambedkar wondered that if a person murder some one, if would be easier for his lawyer to make his presentation in the court saying my client has not killed any one. He just killed his body the soul is immortal. Are these arguments valid?

Ambedkar fought for the dignity of Dalits. The Hindu Varnavyavastha snatched the dignity from Dalits. It degraded labour. The person who works hard to earn his bred was considered lowest while the Brahmins with their narrow minded tainted vision became 'Bhoodevatas', gods on the earth. The bloodsucking Gods had inherently anti Dalit bias. So angry was Ambedkar with the Hindu law book, which he considered as the source of caste system and discrimination against Daltis in India that he launched a movement against it.


On December 25th, 1927, Ambedkar launched a Satygrah in Mahad town of Maharastra for the water rights of Dalits and against the Manu Smriti. He burnt Manu Smriti terming it a document of discrimination with a number of his supporters. It was an act of great courage to do so in the den of violent Chitpawan Brahmins in Maharastra.

It is interesting that Ambedkar fought for the rights of Dalits and had a broader vision forhis community. Unfortunately, when he started thinking of giving them a vision in 1955, he died. It was time when he embraced Buddhism and gave them an identity. Many people question Ambedkar's motivation to embrace Buddhism. Ambedkar has his own definition of Buddhism. He wanted his people to give an identity so that they get out of Varna System. Whatever we say, as long as we are a part of the Varna Vyawastha, whatever we do reflect our caste identities. Ambedkar, Phule and Periyar, all, wanted their followers to be provocative and proactive. Reject caste system and for that complete break up from the Hindu social order and embrace a better system.

Ambedkar wrote many thing over a period of 30 years. Some time he was living in deep anguish, elsewhere working with the government or framing constition and at the end as a Buddhist. And on each of these occasions he had different moods. There was a time when he became frustrated with the Varnavyavastha and he tore the Shastras. Then a time came when Ambedkar's main concern was to ensure fare participation of Dalits in political life of the country and he succeeded in getting separate electorate for them which he had to withdraw to 'save' the life of Gandhi, in 1932, known as Poona Pact. Then as a constitutionalist when he drafted constitution and later worked very hard to ensure fare deal for women in the Hindu Code Bill. In the last phase of his life when Baba Saheb embraced Buddhism, his main concern was providing a political alternative to Dalits.


It is also interesting to note that that Dr Ambedkar was a humanist to the core of his heart. Even when his so-called followers have converted him as a caste man or narrowly interpreted his ideologies and perception, Ambedkar could be termed an international humanist. A person who the persecuted all over the world today look to get inspiration. The narrow minded political fringes in the name of Dalit vision should think that Ambedkar first formed Indian Labour Party and later Republican Party of India and at no point of time he formed vision based on caste. Even on his 'thought on Pakistan' Ambedkar suggested that there should a party representing poor Hindus and poor Muslims, entirely secular, only that could save India. Muslim communalism only feed Hindu communalism.


Very unfortunately Dr Ambedkar's untimely death paralyzed the entire Dalit movement. His followers went to different streams. There are so many Republican Party of India that it is difficult who can we call as original party. The Ambedkarite movement (if it ever was), remained confined to 'Sarkari babu log', who will throng the parliament street in Delhi or Diksha bhoomi in Nagpur on December 6th and April 14th every year. It looked Ambedkar never spoke beyond reservation and varnya vyavastha. His writings of 30s were used more then the writings in the later stage perhaps to gain political leverages but that had hurt the movement.


While there is no denying fact that Ambedkar's popularity among the Dalits is not due to the 'Sarkari Babu Log' but the poor Dalits who consider him his emancipator. But hate campaign in the name of Ambedkar are uncalled for. There are many reasons for the same. Ambedkar is a uniting factor for Dalits. No doubt that he has become an icon from North to South from Hindi heartland to the southern Tamilnadu. To be frank, Ambedkar's reach to areas beyond his traditional domain is not just spreading of his ideology but using him as point of entry to gain a separate political status by the elite Dalit groups.


The worst fact is the Ambedkar is mainly known among the working class Dalits and enlightened and numerically powerful communities like Mahars in Maharastra, Chamars and Jatavs in the North India, Namshudras in West Bengal, Malas in Andhra and a few others in Tamilnadu. While Mahars hold sway in Maharastra and the Jatavs and Chamars outnumber any other community in the north contributed fairly to Ambedkarisation process. That helped people under the banner of
Bahujan Political Party which used it as a vehicle to spread its wing.


When Mayawati became the chief minister of Uttar-Pradesh, analyists mistook it as a great revolution in the Dalits of Uttar-Pradesh. The fact of the matter is while it may be proudly said that a Dalit woman
became chief minister of Uttar-Pradesh and that every Dalit felt proud of her being there at the chair yet the fact of Mayawati's ascendancy to Lucknow's thrown are different then what we perceive. They have very little to do with Ambedkar's movement and more to do with Mayawati's Chamar caste.


The Chamar consolidation behind Mayawati ensured that she has an important role to play in Uttar-Pradesh. While it gave Mayawati a substantial chunk of seats in Uttar-Pradesh and increased her bargaining capabilities, it made her vulnerable also. For the past two decade no government in UP got to work full terms of five years. Mayawati's on tally in the assembly could never reached beyond 25% of the total seats of the assembly. Mulayam Singh Yadav has the same status quo situation. Both have realized that their respective vote bank remain in their pocket and will not ditch them however both now think to go beyond their traditional vote banks and are now flirting with the Brahmins and Thakurs. So the narrow Dalit politicisation in UP has also resulted in increasing power of the Brahmins and Thakurs being wooed by both the SP and BSP. This is an unfortunate trend being followed everywhere. The reason for this is the politics of power in the villages.


BSP's over dependence on Chamars and a few other communities antagonized the other dalit communities, Mulyam Singh dependence on Yadavs and Thakurs also created problems for other backward communities and the need was to involve all the oppressed Dalits and backward together. This experiment of UP was sought to be taken elsewhere by disgruntled Ambedkarite who started crying foul on Periyar. Simply because the Dravidian parties are not taking them into consideration does not make a case to say that Periyar was anti Dalit.


This irony of the Dalits movement is that it has not resolved its own contradictions because Ambedkar is used as tool to hit at others and not resolve our own contradictions. Ambedkar's use is condemning
brahmanical literature and values is no doubt useful in bringing people together but his positive writing for an alternative vision need to reestablished. It is easier to unite the communities on agitational mode against some one but very difficult to manage it when you get power or share in power. Dalits are facing it now. The elite Dalit groups who enjoyed reservation and power now refuse to accept this reality that those living in villages, living as landless, powerless without participation in political life are to be catered. They have no emotion other then selling Ambedkar's portrait and their own self. Today, this growing chasm between different Dalit group is just not an upper caste ploy but their own contradiction. In politics every opponent is ready to hit you when you are weak. Dalit movement failed to resolved many issues important to it and now face flak from all over.


The politics of identity never helps. The Dalits vision is to fight against hegemonies but in this process of breaking hegemonies, if we create our own hegemonies then the movement will break. In our efforts to break brahmanical hegemonies we created hegemonies in our own self and therefore Valmikis ( Swachchkars), Madigas, Kuhmhars, Mangs and hundreds of other communities ask question for their fare representation. And a typical elite answer is that they have been allured by the upper castes. But the fact of the matter is that there is a wide gap between the numerically powerful communities in Dalits and the minorities.

The irony of the entire movement is that rather then working on the collective wisdom, the movement though claim to work for all communities, has by and large remain confined to a few individuals who used their community identity to gain the political clout. The Ambedkarite movement rarely talk of violence and violation of human rights. Their obsession with Manu Smriti and Hindu Gods to joke at took a perverted turn as one of the major problem that the Dalits face is to get acknowledgement from the caste Hindus. That a majority of Dalits despite all the facts, go the temples of the Brahmins and follow the same rituals. But these issues are seldom addressed in true sense. They are used as a rhetoric to lumpen the brahmanical system. The system will not go unless we want to get rid of it. The reason for not raising the issue of violence of Dalits is that many 'intellectual' feel 'uncomfortable' on this issue as they used their identity to get the entry into the media and would talk of 'philosophy'. Today, the same intellectuals have left all the work of the brahmanical system and now target the backward communities.


Why has the Dalit movement changed its track from anti brahmanical campaign to anti backward campaign? And as I mentioned earlier, it has nothing to do with social movement which we all need to secularise and democratize our societies. The entire campaign is a power game. In this power game no body want to leave anything for others. In these power games we don't talk of philosophy. No doubt the backwards have become radical Hindutva people and have physically hit the Dalits and there is a need to draw a line. Like a few Dalit powerful communities, there are few backward powerful communities. The fight between a powerful Dalit community and a powerful backward community cannot be allowed to create a permanent rift between two groups. It has to be seen that the categorization of castes into backwards and schedule castes had its own flaws. There are oppressed backward communities which should have been in the Scheduled castes.

The non ambedkarite groups, mainly the NGOs, self-styled civil society people don't talk of philosophy. They bring a bundle of individual cases and weep all the time that Dalits are beaten up. One should remember that no movement can succeed without a philosophy and there would be no takers for a philosophy unless it is popularized in the movements.


So issue of a broader secular democratic Dalit movement and atrocities on Dalits need to be worked at the same level. Narrowing Ambedkar's vision to a limited people and communities will damage the entire Dalit movement. Dalit movement is at the crossroad and need various answers.

I for all purposes, consider Ambedkar one of the tallest intellectual, a human rights defender and a humanist. For all his life he never accepted the finality of the religious text, questioned them and even burnt them. Secondly, he was a truly democrat, not a caste-ist and worked over time to talk about labour and women. Ambedkar has been misquoted by every interest groups. The upper castes, the Muslims, the Christians and the Sikhs every one has quoted Ambedkar for their own purposes. He embraced Buddhism on his own interpretations and noton the interpretations of any religious guru. He redefined it and probably would have given it the new meaning had he survived some more
years.


Ambedkar wonderfully exposed the religious myths attached to Dalits. He tore apart the fundamentals put forward by the Brahmins in their holy texts. But at the same point of time one need to understand Ambedkar fully when he decided to embrace Buddhism with millions of Dalits. Ambedkar's genuine anti Brahmin or anti varna sentiments got exploited by the religious groups for the purpose of prosiletisation. Embracing any tradition or religion is the fundamental right of an individual but the fact remain that where does it help Dalits as an institution. When we challenge the institutions of holy religious text, question their finality and even burnt them when we feel they go against humanity, is it possible that we have the same elsewhere? Dalits have every reason to believe and tear apart the Hindu verna vyavastha but should they keep quiet when the other faiths also become tormentors? Should they not support those who are victims of their own faiths? If I like ' Why I am not a Hindu', I am sure we should not forget the cry of legendary Bertrand Russell long ago who wrote " Why I am not a Christian' and a few years back another fellow came up with resounding ' why I am not a Muslim'. Faiths have always been like that. They thrive on miracles and mischief.


If Rama and his brothers were mocked by Ambedkar about how they were born, similar is the case of Christ. It is no point blaming one and keeping quiet on others. Today's favorite things are blame game. A progressive Dalit movement cannot stand on the selective criticism of a few religious texts and conspicuously keeping quiet on other. A movement cannot be build on superfluous philosophy of negativism. It has to provide its own alternative to the people. Dalits have their own distinct identity and culture and those claiming to provide them an alternative God really misquote Ambedkar and kill their revolutionary spirit as suggested by many Dalit activists.

The high voltage of political power among Dalits in Uttar-Pradesh is due to its politicization process while the religious conversion has made them apolitical. The tribals in India became the victim of this
apolitical process by NGOs and religious groups going there and taking over the leadership.


The result was the tribals remain isolated and exploited. Dalits on the other side remained politically mobile and hence their leadership took over and negotiated in their own terms and conditions. There is another fact that the number of so-called NGOs among Dalits in South is more then what we imagined in the north but the account of political power in the Dalits in the North is much higher then the South. And this is the process of turning them apolitical and more religious ultimately resulted in their exploitation. In the south the conversion process was higher then the North. The Chamars and Jatavs of Uttar Pradesh rarely converted. They always claimed to be Buddhists. In Maharastra, the Mahars became neo Buddhists and the awareness level among them was superb. Buddhism did not take away their politicization process initiated by Dr Ambedkar but the conversion to other faiths actually made them apolitical resulting in more exploitation.


Ambedkar's legacy is very rich and need to be protected by us all. Dalit movement itself is a revolt against the obnoxious brahmanical values but at the same point of time, should express solidarity with all oppressed masses of the world. The movement should build bridges with likeminded groups, secular and democratic organizations, and avoid becoming another cult group. It should broaden its ideas and perception and reach those masses where it has not reached. It should avoid becoming politically correct. Identity will never work and those who have harped thesis of ' I ' only speak for them and nobody else has a business to speak for or on behalf of Dalits should resist such things. Nobody speaks for others.


We all speak our own perception. We should avoid such hyperbole that I speak for my entire community. I speak for my philosophy and experience. Because if identities are our point of speaking then one should remember Dalits are not a homogeneous community. In fact no community in the world is homogeneous. They are as wide as any body else and hence these identities fits in there also. So if this theory of Dalit speak for Dalit is used, then the why should we accept western whites to speak for the Dalits. What prompts the Christians and Muslims to speak for the Dalits after all they have their own history of exploitation everywhere. Why should a Chamar speak for a Valmiki or Mala speak for Madiga ? And above all, why should a Dalit male speak for Dalit
female?


Tsunami discrimination against Dalits showed that how things take a dangerous if you make a community apolitical. Our political masters want them to be apolitical. But like them the agenda supported and furnished by the religious groups also end up in nothing. Dalits remained pitiable condition in Tamilnadu and Pondicherry. Their leaders were complaining outside India to the UN and to the Church while the ground level the higher ups among the backward communities ganging up against them. In fact the fishermen who happened to be Christians also refused to eat along with their fellow Christian Dalits. Why did the issue not become a hot issue accept a few headlines. We should have taken head on the prejudiced system. A religious community cannot fight a democratic battle. If we want to compare ourselves with the history of strong movements for civil rights by the blacks in the US, we will have to study the politicization process of the blacks, their fights for the right and broad spectrum of the movement. Moreover, the reach and ideological perspective of the movement were very clear. They revolve around more on the issues of human rights, civil liberties and attracted a very wide range of activists all over the US while the irony of the Dalit movement is that it remains more on the books, with the elite castes and with the organized sector and very little is done for the people sitting on the margin, in the villages.


These are dangerous and superficial ideas by those who have done little for their work. A movement based on negativism will never work. Identities have served the pocket of political masters and their 'intellectual' chums. They will not help the minorities among the marginalized. They are not based on democracy and participation. They are the collective ego of the powerful elite among them. A movement san respect for individual and without a corrective philosophy would not work. Dalits have their own cultural values and system, a system which need to explored and new values added to them. It is time for us to provide our own democratic secular progressive vision and rather then just work on an agitation mode forever.

We need to introspect and bring the last man into our mainstream, otherwise these contradiction are powerful enough to destroy the legacy of a powerful man, named as Ambedkar. If we consider ourselves grateful to his legacy, time has come to redefine the Dalit movement .

The Untouchable Case for Indian Capitalism

The Wall Street Journal, New York

The Indian left's caste-related justifications for state intervention are dying.

The plight of the Dalits, those whom the Hindu caste system considers outcastes and hence Untouchables, was a rallying cry of Hindu reformers and Indian leftists for half a century. But today these victims of the caste system are finding that free markets and development bring advancement faster than government programs.

Historically, Dalits were left to do the most undignified work in society, and were denied education or job opportunities. After independence, not only was legal recognition of caste abolished, but Delhi also created affirmative action and welfare programs. Intellectuals who fought for the betterment of Dalits worked together with leftists to pass laws righting historical wrongs.

That alliance is now breaking down. India's economic reforms have unleashed enormous opportunities to elevate Dalits—materially and socially. In research published last year, Devesh Kapur at the University of Pennsylvania and others show this transformation occurring in Uttar Pradesh state in the north, a region notorious for clinging to caste traditions.

Mr. Kapur found that Dalits now buy TVs, mobile phones and other goods very easily—at rates similar to any other caste; they have also been spending more money on family weddings. These factors and others point to practical benefits Untouchables receive from growth, the same benefits accruing to other Indians. There are more such cases in the south and west of the country.

More economic choices are changing Dalits' own expectations and, in turn, changing social structures for the better. Dalits may have seats reserved for them in public schools, but parents now prefer to send their children to private schools. Urbanization is one trend hugely in favor of those thought to be Untouchables in the village economy. Commerce in cities doesn't discriminate.

Dalits have also launched campaigns promoting the use of English, which has both helped them earn higher incomes and more dignity in society. One Dalit intellectual, Chandrabhan Prasad, thinks his community should worship "English" as a goddess.

This has the left, with its belief that only the modern state can repair social ills, in a quandary. One refrain common among Indian leftists is that 20 years of economic reform have benefited upper castes and left those at the bottom of this hierarchy worse off. But Dalits clearly don't agree.

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Dalits pay tribute to a portrait of their leader, B.R. Ambedkar.

The only remaining argument for the Dalit cause to stay intertwined with statism is the fact that the Untouchables' most respected leader, B.R. Ambedkar, supported affirmative-action laws. Because of this, he was long believed to have leftist leanings.

However, 50 years later, my research shows that Ambedkar was, in fact, one of the biggest proponents of classical liberalism in India's 20th century history—not some proto-Marxist, as some have made him out to be. Last month's 120th anniversary of his birth is a chance to reflect on how liberalization has helped and can further help Dalits.

It's true that the Dalit leader often spoke in favor of affirmative-action measures for Dalits and, as the architect of India's constitution, put some of these measures into the law. For instance, he feared that without a reservation provision for education, Dalits would not achieve social equality and freedom.

Seeing their leader support state intervention, Dalit intellectuals embraced Marxism. Mr. Prasad, a Marxist-turned-free-marketeer, notes, "The idea of Communism . . . seeped into the Dalit consciousness. Many claiming to be ardent Ambedkarites, including myself for a decade, spoke the Marxist language. A great amount of Dalits' intellectual energy, time and resources was invested in Marxism." That boosted India's broader left movement.

But this whitewashes Ambedkar's true legacy. Some economists and historians have pointed out that Ambedkar was no Marxist. My own research indicates that this man, born an Untouchable in 1891, anticipated a lot of what classical liberals like F.A. Hayek later said.

In the 1920s, Ambedkar was an early advocate of property rights. He also opposed central planning, writing as early as 1917 that it "must lead to inefficiency." Under the 1950 constitution that he drafted, not only was there little hint of Soviet-style planning, but the right to property was enshrined as a "fundamental right"—the highest and most easily enforceable of civil rights in India's legal framework. Politicians later amended the constitution to enable economic engineering.

Ambedkar was also one of few Indians to think seriously about monetary matters. He has left behind writings from the 1920s supporting the gold standard. Like the Austrian School of Economics after him, he defended private banks' ability to issue competing currencies and decried the state's monopoly over legal tender.

Ambedkar may have supported reserving seats for Dalits in public education, but he actually favored a review of the provision after a decade, so as to not make it permanent. All this was forgotten after his death in 1956.

It's important to tell the real story about Ambedkar. For one thing, it could further invigorate the Dalit community in favor of free-market ideas. His influence among Dalits remains unparalleled to this day. That, in turn, will undermine the linkage of the caste system to leftist ideas. Policy makers often invoke freedom fighters and founding fathers for their cause. Ambedkar should no longer be a pretext for statist policies.

Reform-minded policy makers can press Ambedkar's insights into service, though. In contrast to leaders who reckoned the English language was imperialist, Ambedkar once called English the "milk of lionesses." Unlike Mohandas Gandhi, who saw the village as the basis for economic activity, Ambedkar considered the "individual" to be the ultimate economic unit.

Ambedkar isn't the only classical liberal in modern India's history; nor is caste the only pretext for leftism. But if someone as influential as Ambedkar believed that classical liberal ideas could help India's most downtrodden, and if these ideas are starting to help in practice, then the political case for them only becomes stronger.

—Mr. Chandrasekaran works in public policy in New Delhi.

The Wall Street Journal American English- international daily newspaper

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303745304576354672790976918.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Hindu Morality is Caste Morality

The effect of caste on the ethics of the Hindus is simply deplorable. Caste has killed public spirit. Caste has destroyed the sense of public charity. Caste has made public opinion impossible. A Hindu’s public is his caste. His responsibility is only to his caste. His loyalty is restricted only to his caste. Virtue has become caste-ridden and morality has become, caste-bound. There is no sympathy to the deserving. There is no appreciation of the meritorious. There is no charity to the needy. Suffering as such calls for no response. There is charity but it begins with the caste and ends with the caste. There is sympathy but not for men of other caste. Would a Hindu acknowledge and follow the leadership of a great and good man? The case of a Mahatma apart, the answer must be that he will follow a leader if he is a man of his caste. A Brahmin will follow a leader only if he is a Brahmin, a Kayastha if he is a Kayastha and so on. The capacity to appreciate merits in a man apart from his caste does not exist in a Hindu. There is appreciation of virtue but only when the man is a fellow caste-man. The whole morality is as bad as tribal morality. My caste-man, right or wrong; my caste-man, good or bad. It is not a case of standing by virtue and not standing by vice. It is a case of standing or not standing by the caste. Have not Hindus committed treason against their country in the interests of their caste?

SECTION IX Annihilation of Caste. Vol-I, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writing and Speeches

Disgusted with Hinduism! why ?

I like to assure the Mahatma that it is not the mere failure of the Hindus and Hinduism which has produced in me the feelings of disgust and contempt with which I am charged. I realize that the world is a very imperfect world and any one who wants to live in it must bear with its imperfections. But while I am. prepared to bear with the imperfections and shortcomings of the society in which I may be destined to labour, I feel I should not consent to live in a society which cherishes wrong ideals or a society which having right ideals will not consent to bring its social life in conformity with those ideals. If I am disgusted with Hindus and Hinduism it is because I am convinced that they cherish wrong ideals and live a wrong social life. My quarrel with Hindus and Hinduism is not over the imperfections of their social conduct. It is much more fundamental. It is over their ideals.

Appendix II A REPLY TO THE MAHATMA BY DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR. Annihilation of Caste. Vol-I, Dr. Ambedkar Writing and Speeches.

Dr Ambedkar on Democracy

MAINSTREAM, VOL XLV, NO 51

Shyam Chand

All over India the 51st death anniversary of Dr B.R. Ambedkar is being observed on December 6, 2007. He was a genius par excellence—an economist a sociologist, a political scientist, a great historian, a legal luminary, a great constitutionalist and above all a great champion of the downtrodden.

Abraham Lincoln says: “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy.” Various philosophers, political scientists and writers have given numerous definitions of democracy. A relentless champion of human rights and staunch believer in democracy, Dr Ambedkar says: “Democracy is not a form of government, but a form of social organisation.”

Dr Ambedkar believed that in democracy revolutionary changes in the economic and social life of the people are brought about without bloodshed. The conditions for that are as follows: “(1) there should not be glaring inequalities in society, that is, privilege for one class; (2) the existence of an opposition; (3) equality in law and administration; (4) observance of constitutional morality; (5) no tyranny of the majority; (6) moral order of society: and (7) public conscience.”

Addressing the Constituent Assembly, he suggested certain devices essential to maintain democracy: “(i) constitutional methods: (ii) not to lay liberties at the feet of a great man: (iii) make a political democracy a social democracy.”

Dr Ambedkar firmly believed that political democracy cannot succeed without social and economic democracy. In his talk given on the Voice of America he argued that: “Democracy could not be equated with either republic or parliamentary form of government. The roots of democracy lay not in the form of government, parliamentary or otherwise. A democracy is a model of associated living. The roots of democracy are to be searched in social relationship, in terms of the associated life between the people who form the society.”

He was against coercive centralised institu-tional authority that Hobbesian Philosophy maintains. Associated life is consensual expression of shared experience, aspirations and values. If a small section of the society is allowed to manipulate the cultured symbols of the society that process becomes undemocratic and destructive.

For him political democracy is not an end in itself, but the most powerful means to achieve the social and economic ideals in society. State socialism within the framework of parliamentary democracy can defeat dictatorship. Fundamental rights without economic security are of no use to the have-nots. “Social and economic democracy are tissue and the fibre of a political democracy.”

In a multi-denominational society like India, the common denominator is secularism which is one of the pillars on which the superstructure of our democracy rests. It is a unifying force of our associated life. He says: “The conception of a secular state is derived from the liberal democratic tradition of the West. No institution which is maintained wholly out of state funds shall be used for the purpose of religious instruction irrespective of the question whether the religious instruction is given by the state or by any other body.” Participating in a debate in Parliament, he further emphasised: “It (secular state) does not mean that we shall not take into consideration the religious sentiments of the people. All that a secular state means that this Parliament shall not be competent to impose any particular religion upon the rest of the people. That is the only limitation that the Constitution recognises.”

Social unity can be achieved by coercive methods. For true democracy to flower and flourish, social union is must. For that he suggested safeguards for the minority. In democracy, minority does not become the victim of the tyranny of the majority. He suggested certain safeguards for the protection of the minority. “The State should guarantee to its citizens the liberty of conscience and the free exercise of his religion including the right to profess, to preach and to convert within limits compatible with public order and morality.”

A crusader against social and economic injustice and a great champion of human rights with a firm belief in democracy, he exhorted his audience at the All India Depressed Classes Conference: “It seems to me that there lies on us a very important duty to see that democracy does not vanish from the earth as the governing principle of human relationship. If we believe in it, we must both be true and loyal to it. We must not only be staunch in our faith in democracy, but we must resolve to see that whatever we do not help the enemies of democracy to uproot the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.” For that he exhorted the Dalits to defend and support democracy and secularism to safeguard their rights, life and liberty.

Dr Ambedkar laid much emphasis on the term moral and said: “The Declaration of Independence does not assert that all men are equal; it proclaims that they are created equal.” He further argued: “For the successful working of democracy there must not be glaring inequalities in the society. There must not be an oppressed class. There must not be a suppressed class.” In case of inequalities “State intervention is a must”. Right to treatment as an equal must precede the right to equal treatment as a state policy. Equality of opportunity is a misleading term. There should be opportunity for equality.

He emphasised on the need for liberty of movement, liberty of speech and liberty of action and political liberty to choose his government for securing “unalienable rights such as life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Political liberty is really a deduction from the principle of human personality and equality.” Liberty and equality exist together. One without the other is absurd. Commenting on failure of democracy in some countries, he said: “Parliamentary democracy developed a passion for liberty. It failed to realise the significance of equality and did not even endeavour to strike a balance between liberty and equality, with the result that liberty swallowed equality and has made democracy a name and a farce.”

He was against violence. A firm believer in the Buddhist doctrine of non-violence he asked his followers to ’agitate’ for their rights in a peaceful manner. Violence undermines the spirit of democracy. He would have been the first to denounce Naxalism.

Dr Ambedkar, like Tagore, was against the caste system. Tagore says : “Inhuman treatment meted out to the untouchables by Brahmins is lynching, facism, Ku Klux Klanism and the like.” (Rabindranath Tagore by Krishna Dutta and Andrew Robinson) both urged Gandhiji to work for abolition of the caste system without which democracy, after independence, would not flower and flourish. When Gandhiji declared “I would like to assure my Dalit friends…. That they may hold my life as a hostage for its due fulfillment”, Tagore was with Gandhiji. Tagore was also with Gandhiji when he signed ’Poona Pact’ with Dr Ambedkar.

At the time of adoption of the Constitution, Dr Ambedkar warned: “On 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequalities. In politics we will be recognising the principles 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 vote. 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? 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 or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of our political democracy.”

The author is a former Minister of Haryana.

'For us, Ambedkar is father of the nation'

Pronoti Datta, TNN, Jul 12, 2009, 02.55am IST

In India there are probably as many holy cows as there are gods in the Hindu pantheon. Say a critical word against them and you're likely to be besieged by protesting hordes. At the top the totem pole are the Prophet, Shivaji, Bal Thackeray and B R Ambedkar. Given his famous aversion to hero worship, the Dalit leader would have gagged at being so memorialised. One wonders what his reaction would be if he toured Uttar Pradesh where statues of Mayawati's holy trinity-Kanshi Ram, Ambedkar and herself-grace public parks or took a stroll through Mumbai, which is scattered with statues and busts of him.
Ambedkar was well aware of the dangers of idolatry. In 1949, he warned the Constituent Assembly that hero worship is a straight path to decline and ultimately to dictatorship. But his cautionary advice seems to have been cast to the winds. Politicians erecting shrines of personal political heroes in every park and chowk is widely censured. However, in the case of Ambedkar, most academics and scholars of caste defend the desire of the ordinary Dalit to idolise him.

According to writer-professor Kancha Ilaiah, the Ambedkar statue is the only way for illiterate Dalits to know the statesman. "Their father of the nation is Ambedkar,'' he said. For Dalits, that one of their own acquired a foreign education and later became one of the architects of the Constitution was simply fantastic. "To create a statue was a claim that he could be counted among leaders such as Nehru and Gandhi,'' observed Gyan Prakash, who teaches history at Princeton University.
Ilaiah, who teaches politics at Osmania University, went so far as to reason that if statues of Rajiv Gandhi have been erected across the country at the expense of the state, how can one blame Mayawati for spending over Rs 2000 crores on commemorating Dalit icons?
For sociologist Meera Kosambi, statuary is a colonial inheritance that serves little purpose. However she said, "If statues are to be erected, then (Ambedkar) is to, my mind, somebody really worth commemorating.'' Kosambi pointed out that the desire to honour Ambedkar must be understood in the context of his "contribution to the mobilisation of Dalits and giving them a pride in themselves''. It's difficult for members of upper castes to fathom this level of devotion as they have never faced the sort of degradation Dalits have, she said.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-07-12/mumbai/28199393_1_ambedkar-statue-dalit-icons-hero-worship

Window to Ambedkarism

May 07, 2011   5:07:41 PM

Chandrabhan Prasad

Refroming agriculture will in turn lead to an urbanised India

Dr Ambedkar’s manifesto for 1952 parliamentary elections focuses on few fundamental aspects of the Indian society, and in that, Ambedkarism defines itself.

First and foremost, manifesto envisions increase in production as the instrument to deal with the challenges of the poverty.

In today’s lexicon, production is measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP). More GDP means more production. In that sense, Dr Ambedkar was much ahead of today’s ideological architect of economic reforms.

Dr Ambedkar lay emphasis on economic reforms with a focus on reforms in the agriculture sector. He argued in favour of mechanisation of agriculture, and agriculture on large farms. Today’s reformers are yet to catch up with him even though 60 years have passed since the time he wrote the manifesto

In order to ensure increased production, Dr Ambedkar’s manifesto would not be bound by any dogma or pattern as he announced in 1952. This was the essence of Dr Ambedkar’s social and economic philosophy which is referred to as Ambedkarism.

Marxists made a mistake in not taking caste as a factor in scripting transformation in our country. The economic reformers are making similar mistake by scripting reforms from above — ignoring agriculture and focusing on manufacturing and service sectors.

Since a majority of the Indian population is still dependent on agriculture, Ambedkarism would reform agriculture first to widen scope of an industrial revolution in India, which in turn, would result into urbanisation of India. Manu’s caste order was born into an agrarian set up and hence, in an India completely urbanised, Manu will loose his place.

Further, under Ambedkarism, agriculture was to be refashioned into industry — agriculture on large farms replacing small land holdings.

In other words, agriculture, too, would follow the core principles of industry — on profit and loss basis. The vast majority of Indians lives on subsistence farming and continues to suffer yet, they do not want to leave farming.

Let us examine with an example of how Ambedkarism would work in the UK. Britain is considered the motherland of industrialisation, urbanisation and capitalism. As of today, only 0.4 per cent Britons live on agriculture.

Four hundred years ago, quite like India, most Britons were involved with agriculture and a majority of them faced hunger and inequality.

Two hundred years ago when the East India Company was formed, majority of Britons lived in the villages. The speedy mechanisation of agriculture fueled industrialisation of the country. Sure, machines first came to industries. Since majority of the population lived on agriculture, without mechanisation, manufacturing sector would not have expanded.

Smaller land holdings turning into big farms coincided the mechanisation of agriculture. The evolution of Britain or the rest of Europe and later, North America, into modern industrial and urban societies depended on liberating citizens from agriculture and villages.

When machines like tractors, harvesters, threshers, high breed seeds, irrigation and pesticides came, agriculture turned into an industry.

In other words, if agriculture becomes a loss making enterprise, the owners of agricultural fields and workers will look for better options. That added to migration to cities further accelerating speed of industrial revolution.

Educated in the US and the UK, Dr Ambedkar as a visionary found that unless we reformed agriculture, there was no way to reform the Indian society. Without reforming Indian agriculture, there was no way to turn India into an economic superpower.

What unites Dr Ambedkar and today’s reformers and what differentiates them are the following:

Dr Ambedkar saw increase in production as the key in ending poverty. Reformers also see higher GDP as the key in ending poverty. To me, “increase in production and higher GDP are same because production today is measured by GDP count”

To Dr Ambedkar and today’s reformers both, urbanization liberates all Indians

To Dr Ambedkar and today’s reformers, migration is a kind of revolution. He described migration from villages to cities as the new life movement for untouchables

But, here is where Dr Ambedkar would differ from today’s reformers:

Dr Ambedkar was inspired by the US and the European experience and envisioned that without reforming agriculture, India can never evolve into a modern industrial and urban civilization. Reformers are focused on manufacturing and service sectors

Since reformers ignored Ambedkarism, the Bharat versus India song is getting louder. Today, Jats and Gujjars are stopping trains. Tomorrow, they will start torching trains, post offices, and even police stations. All castes and communities rooting into agrarianism will follow suit. Democracy will be the next target.

Ambedkarism is thus not only about economic growth but also about annihilating the caste order. Reformers have no idea as how caste order prevents industrialisation. If India has to turn into a superpower like the US, it must follow the path that the developed societies took. And where does the US stand under Ambedkarism?

Keep watching this space. 

http://www.dailypioneer.com/335439/Window-to-Ambedkarism.html

MAINSTREAM, VOL XLIX NO 17, APRIL 16, 2011

Honouring Ambedkar

Nikhil Chakravartty

FROM N.C.’S WRITINGS

(April 14 this year marks the 120th birth anniversary of Dr Babasaheb Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar. On this occasion we are reproducing the following piece by N.C. and two articles on Dr Ambedkar to offer our sincere homage to the abiding memory of that towering personality.)
The award of the Bharat Ratna posthumously on B.R. Ambedkar raises mixed feelings. No doubt Ambedkar was one of the stalwarts of modern India; the high-water mark of his career was that he contributed most to the drafting of the Indian Constitution and piloting it through the Constituent Assembly. There is, therefore, a touch of irony in Ambedkar being awarded the Bharat Ratna 30 years after he eminently deserved it when the Constitution came into force in 1950.
Not only that. All these years, there has hardly been any recognition for him or his memory from those enthroned in power. That was largely because Ambedkar never belonged to the exclusive circle of the Congress leadership. Rather, in the thirties, he had to face angry diatribes and vilification at the hands of the Congress leaders, many of whom did not hesitate to malign him as a stooge of the British Raj.
But he was no toady of the Raj. Ambedkar’s antipathy towards the Congress leadership arose mainly because of his concern for the millions of untouchables in the country. He discovered that while the poor and the downtrodden responded to Gandhiji’s call for satyagraha against the Raj, the Congress bosses treated them shabbily in the social hierarchy. This gap between the profession and practice of the national leaders embittered Ambedkar who throughout his life remained a steadfast friend, philosopher and guide of the millions of untouchable outcasts in our society.
The clash with the Congress leadership came in the early thirties as the talks for constitutional reforms started with the British Government. At that time, Ambedkar challenged the Congress claim to speak on behalf of the untouchables. This was resented by the Congress leaders who, even the best of them, turned hostile to Ambedkar. But Ambedkar stuck to his guns.
Gandhiji understood the significance of the Ambedkar phenomenon, because he saw in it the alienation and isolation of the untouchable community from the mainstream of the freedom struggle represented by the Congress. He paid special attention to the untouchables, whom he called the Harijans to boost their self-respect. He himself underlook the Temple entry movement thereby seeking to break the ban by Hindu orthodoxy upon the untouchables entering the temples to pray.
Although Gandhiji’s movement did create a stir among the untouchables, it could not shake Ambedkar’s hold upon the depressed class community. He demanded a separate electorate for the untouchables, marked out in a special schedule of the British Government’s reforms plan for India. Gandhiji opposed tooth and nail the idea of a separate electorate for the Scheduled Castes, and went on a fast unto death over the issue. Finally, after protracted negotiations, the Congress leaders brought Ambedkar around to a compromise formula—a joint electorate but reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes.
After this, the Congress attempt was to boost some leader from among the Scheduled Castes who could challenge Ambedkar’s hold over the depressed class community. A young Harijan graduate from Bihar picked up by Rajendra Prasad was groomed by Gandhiji himself. Thus began the political career of Jagjivan Ram.
But Jagjivan Ram, though influential in the Scheduled Caste community, could hardly dislodge Ambedkar from his standing as the supreme leader of the depressed caste community.
After independence, particularly after the passing of the Constitution which had specifically banned untouchability, Ambedkar had hoped that the era of social inequity would now end. When he found that the upper caste domination not only continued as before in Hindu society but was reinforced by the higher castes getting affluent and powerful, leaving the untouchables in a state of destitution, Ambedkar in a state of thorough disenchantment left the Hindu fold and embraced Buddhism, as it enjoins social equality. He died embittered as he found that despite all his labours, untouchability persisted in the land of his birth.
It is in this background that one views the award of the Bharat Ratna to the memory of Ambedkar as a cynical gesture on the part of the government. One felt that this award has come more with an eye on the votes of his followers rather than as a genuine acknowledgement of the services of this great son of India to the cause of the uplift of the downtrodden.
(Mainstream April 21, 1990)

B.R. Ambedkar – a great Indian classical liberal

On April 16, 2011, in India, Liberty, Philosophy, by Sanjeev Sabhlok

Here's a truly useful piece of research on B.R. Ambedkar by Balakrishnan Chandrasekaran, published in Pragati today. I've learnt a lot from this, and so, I'm sure will readers of this blog. I'm copying it entirely on this blog, for my own record. I trust Pragati won't have violent objections. 

Well done, Balakrishnan! I'm delighted to learn about Ambedkar's economic ideas, and look forward to further studies on Ambedkar (and others) from you.  

By all standards, Ambedkar was a classical liberal, and despite controversies about his life and influence on India, he was rightly honoured as the chairman of the Drafting Committee for India's constitution, a kind of Indian Jefferson. Highly trained in economics, from Columbia University, [Ambedkar received a scholarship to Columbia from the Maharajah of Baroda. He earned his MA in 1915 and then obtained a DSc at the London School of Economics before being awarded his Columbia PhD in 1927]

Through this post, may I also invite the "Dalits" of India (and others!) to study Ambedkar carefully and understand that what he and I are saying was basically the same thing. It is important that we recover the political and economic views that Ambedkar represented, and give everyone in India – including the "Dalits" – a chance to succeed.

Ambedkar, the forgotten free-market economist

On April 14th the world will celebrate, no matter how ignorantly, the 120th birth anniversary of Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar for his role as chairman of the Constituent Assembly’s Drafting Committee, as an icon of the Dalit community, as the first law minister of independent India, for his conversion to Buddhism, for his debates with Mahatma Gandhi—for all possible reasons except for being a radical economist of his time. That too, a free market economist.

 

In fact, several scholars have claimed otherwise, the most recent of them being Anand Teltumbde in a recent issue of the Economic & Political Weekly writes:

The protagonists of globalisation have tried to project him as a proponent of the free-market, indeed, as a neoliberal, and have even gone to the extent of painting him as a monetarist (monetarists are supposed to be the intellectual initiators of neoliberalism) to claim him in support of their propaganda. In any case, how many Dalits, even among the educated ones, know what monetarism is? Ambedkar, who publicly professed his opposition to capitalism throughout his life, was thus wilfully distorted to be the supporter of neoliberal capitalism, which globalisation is!

The truth however is quite on the contrary. While Ambedkar is routinely portrayed as an intellectual who wrote against capitalism and free markets, and advocated socialism, a few well-informed writers like Gail Omvedt have claimed otherwise. Ironically one of the reasons for the prevailing misconception is the volume of Ambedkar’s scholarly output. With contributions in political science, sociology, law, and other fields spanning over four decades, much of his work on economics has been neglected.

 

This meant that the academic community in India did not go on to develop Ambedkar’s ideas on economics, some of which anticipated important threads of 20th century Western economic thought, like “economic and political decision making in an environment of dispersed knowledge” and “alternative monetary systems (and the) denationalised production of money”. Ambedkar wrote extensively on finance, monetary economics, banking systems, and interstate financial relations.

 

Perhaps the only exceptions to the gross neglect of Ambedkar’s writings on economics in India are the works of Srinivasa Ambirajan and Narendra Jadhav. Mr Jadhav argues that:

…one finds the widespread ignorance regarding Ambedkar’s contribution as an economist unfortunate. This lack of awareness, to an extent, could be explained by his phenomenal contributions in other spheres such as law, religion, sociology, and politics, which might have overshadowed his contribution to economics. Yet it is surprising that even the so-called expert studies on the evolution of Indian economic thought…do not seem to take much cognisance of Ambedkar’s contributions.

There is no work reinterpreting Ambedkar’s writings on economics from a twenty-first century perspective.

 

Ambedkar was an authority on Indian currency and banking in the early decades of the 20th century. He was trained under scholars like Edwin Cannan, Edwin Seligman, John Dewey, James Robinson, and James Shotwell. Both his MA and PhD degrees (from Columbia University) were in Economics. He also received a DSc degree in Economics from the London School of Economics. He was familiar with the works of Carl Menger, who founded the Austrian School of Economics in the 1870s. That said, he remained an independent rational thinker, favouring empiricism and logic, rather than favouring any particular economic system or ideology.

 

Ambedkar’s magnum opus, The Problem of the Rupee: Its Origins and Solutions, was first published in 1923. This was republished as the first volume of the History of Indian Currency and Banking in 1947. In his forward to the book, Cannan wrote:

I do not share Mr Ambedkar’s hostility to the system, nor accept most of his arguments against it and its advocates. But he hits some nails very squarely on the head, and even when I have thought him quite wrong, I have found a stimulating freshness in his views and reasons. An old teacher like myself learns to tolerate the vagaries of originality, even when they resist “severe examination” such as that of which Mr Ambedkar speaks.

Cannan went on to say that “In his practical conclusion, I am inclined to think, he is right”.

In the very first chapter, Ambedkar holds that:

Trade is an important apparatus in a society, based on private property and pursuit of individual gain; without it, it would be difficult for its members to distribute the specialised products of their labour…But a trading society is unavoidably a pecuniary society, a society which of necessity carries on its transactions in terms of money.

 

In fact, the distribution is not primarily an exchange of products against products, but products against money. In such a society, money therefore necessarily becomes the pivot on which everything revolves.

 

With money as the focusing-point of all human efforts, interests, desires, and ambitions, a trading society is bound to function in a regime of price, where successes and failures are results of nice calculations of price-outlay as against price-product.

Essentially, he emphasises that a “sound system of money” is the foundation for specialisation in production and trade among individuals in society, without which the prosperity of society would not be possible.

 

Unlike many of his contemporaries, Ambedkar was an original thinker as it appears from his skilful analysis of the political economics of British India. Contrary to popular belief,Ambedkar believed in the principles of free markets and advocated free banking(against government monopoly of printing legal tender), gold standard, decentralised planning, private property rights, economic freedom, free enterprise and individual liberty. Moreover, Ambedkar understood the knowledge problem in society and its relevance for decentralised planning. Ambedkar also vehemently criticised Keynes and others for favouring Gold Exchange Standard rather than Gold Standard, and extended the argument of the law of consumption.

 

The three following examples from Ambedkar’s writing substantiate this view. First, in his statement to the Royal Commission on Indian Currency and Finance in 1924-25 (whose recommendations established the Reserve Bank of India) he submitted that:

One of the evils of the Exchange Standard is that it is subject to management. Now a convertible system is also a managed system. Therefore by adopting the convertible system we do not get rid of the evil of management which is really the bane of the present system. Besides, a managed currency is to be altogether avoided when the management is to be in the hands of the Government. When the management is by a bank there is less chance of mismanagement. For the penalty for imprudent issue, or mismanagement is visited by disaster directly upon the property of the issuer.

But the chance of mismanagement is greater when it is issued by Government because the issue of government money is authorised and conducted by men who are never under any present responsibility for private loss in case of bad judgement or mismanagement.

Ambedkar thought that the government should not print the currency, instead the private banks should print and thus there will be competing currencies with direct responsibility. This is one of the core principles of the Austrian School of Economics.

 

Second, on the issues of knowledge problem and decentralised planning Ambedkar wrote (in his PhD thesis) that:

By centralisation all progress tends to be retarded, all initiative liable to be checked and the sense of responsibility of Local Authorities greatly impaired…centralisation conflicts with what may be regarded as a cardinal principle of good government.

 

Thus, centralisation, unless greatly circumscribed, must lead to inefficiency. This was sure to occur even in homogeneous states, and above all in a country like India where there are to be found more diversities of race, language, religion, customs and economic conditions.

In such circumstances there must come a point at which the higher authority must be less competent than the lower, because it cannot by any possibility posses the requisite knowledge of all local conditions. It was therefore obvious that a Central Government for the whole of India could not be said to posses knowledge and experience of all various conditions prevailing in the different Provinces under it. It therefore, necessarily becomes an authority less competent to deal with matters of provincial administration than the Provisional Governments, the members of which could not be said to be markedly inferior, and must generally be equal in ability to those of the Central Government, while necessarily superior as a body in point of knowledge.

Ambedkar further went on to say that the only argument on the above the Government of India could make is that it has “all power in its hands, not from principle but from necessity. That necessarily arose out of its constitutional obligations.” There are similarities between Ambedkar and Hayek’s view on knowledge problems and therefore need for decentralisation in planning. Note that Ambedkar wrote these ideas decades before F A Hayek published his classic article on The Use of Knowledge in Society (1945).

 

Third, while reviewing Bertrand Russell’s Principles of Social Reconstruction, Ambedkar pointed out what Russell failed to figure out in his theses on the law of consumption.

…the utility of an object varies according to the varying condition of the organism needing satisfaction. Even an object of our strongest desire like food may please or disgust, according as we are hungry or have over-indulged the appetite. Thus utility diminishes as satisfaction increases.

Ambedkar would have been against a Planning Commission with powers to plan for the whole country without adequate knowledge about it. A good government cannot issue paper money irrespective of goods and services produced in the economy. There is a greater convergence in the writings of Ambedkar and those of B R Shenoy, Hayek, Ambirajan and Ludwig Von Mises. However, there is virtually no literature exploring the possibility of understanding of these writings from a comparative perspective. The economic historians have starved young minds by focusing the politically motivated debates for far too long.

 

B Chandrasekaran works in the area of public policy and blogs at Hayek Order. This essay is based on a paper presented by him at the Austrian Scholars Conference 2011 organised by the Ludwig Von Mises Institute.

http://sabhlokcity.com/2011/04/b-r-ambedkar-a-great-indian-classical-liberal/