Ambedkar and Gandhi on Democracy: A study

Submitted By

Sanskar Pandey

UID – SM0119043

Faculty in Charge

Dr. Mayengbam Nandakishwor Singh

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, ASSAM

GUWAHATI

May 31 , 2020
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1. Introduction

1.1 Overview

1.2 Literature Review

1.3 Research Question

1.4 Scope and Objective

1.5 Research Methodology

2. Democracy.

2.1. Democracy as a form of Government:

3. Mahatma Gandhi on Democracy.

3.1. Perception of a Non Violent Democracy

4. Ambedkar on Democracy.

4.1. Factors Necessary for the successful Operation of Democracy

5. Conclusion.
1.2. Research Question

1. What is Democracy?

2. What is the ideology of Mahatama Gandhi on Democracy?

3. What is the perspective of B.R. Ambedkar on democracy?

1.3. Literature Review

1.4. Scope and perspective

Scope:

The scope of this project is limited to the ideas of democracy as viewed by Mahatma Gandhi and
B.R. Ambedkar. Also, the concept of democracy. It talks about how the views of Gandhi and
Ambedkar differ from each other.

Perspectives

1. To study the concept of Democracy

2. To know the views of Gandhi and Ambedkar or what is the perspective of democracy as
viewed by these leaders.
3. To know what is the differences between the views of democracy. How their perspective
different from each other.

1.5 Research Methodology

 Approach to Research: In this project doctrinal research was involved. Doctrinal

Research is a research in which secondary sources are used and materials are
collected from libraries, archives, etc. Books, journals, articles were used while
making this project.
 Types of Research: Explanatory type of research was used in this project, because the
project topic was not relatively new and unheard of and also because various concepts
were needed to be explained.
 Sources of Data collection: Secondary source of data collection was used which
involves in collection of data from books, articles, websites, etc. No surveys or case
studies were conducted.
 CHAPTER II

DEMOCRACY

There are various forms of government known to history- Monarchy, Aristocracy and
Democracy In the West, the Greeks claim to have invented the Democracy. The term
‘democracy’ has derived from the Greek term ‘demos’ and ‘kratos’, means people and
government. If we look at the Ancient Indian history it would be clear that India had a long
tradition of Democracy. In that the two great leader were Mahatama Gandhi and B.R Ambedkar.
There existed sharp contradiction also in their approaches to social reforms and in details relating
to political freedom. The scheme in Gandhi was very comprehensive; it never allowed social
reform to remain aside of political freedom. Gandhi bumming foreign clothes and B.R.
Ambedkar buming Manusmrithi were no mere acts of sentiments; for both foreign clothes and
Manusmrithi had the effect of bondage and slavery for the countrymen.

Democracy

The notion of democracy is not a new one rather it has a long tradition. However, the
philosophies regarding its embodiment and grounds of its justification have been revised from
time to time. The term ‘democracy’ is hard to describe as it is ambiguous like some other
political terms as liberty, equality, power etc. It is so because its perspective changes from one
person to another. In other words, what one person would regard as a model, another would
refute. Therefore, people have both positive and negative understanding of democracy and thus,
argue accordingly. Thus, democracy connotes different effects to different minds. Gandhi, one of
the greatest thinkers of political thought has explained in detail that democracy and non-violence
are integral to each other and one is dependent on the other for its successful operation. Abraham
Lincoln in his famous Gettysberg speech of 1863 defined democracy as, “… government of the
people, by the people and for the people”.1 Thus, the repetition of the word ‘people’ meant that
he emphasized the important role assigned to the ‘people’ in a democracy; that is it is a people
government.1

Democracy is an ever developing term. Democracy has been rightly described by Education
policies Commission of National Educational Association as,

“… a great social faith which, in response to the yearnings and struggles of many races and
people has been developing through the centuries.”2

Democracy demands the elimination or absence of the aforesaid elements which characterize
totalitarian dictatorship, democracy being the antithesis of dictatorship. There is another and
more important aspect, namely, the positive aspect. Positively, democracy seeks to maintain and
assert such invaluable rights as:

(a) the right to free expression of opinion and of opposition and criticism of the Government of
the day;

(b) the right to change the Governments of which the people disapprove through constitutional
means;

(c) protection from arbitrary interference on the part of the authorities, primary safeguards
against arbitrary arrest and prosecution;

(d) fundamental rights of citizens, subject to their duties to the state;

(e) the right of minorities to be protected with equal justice under law;

(f) equal treatment and fair play for the poor as well as the rich, for private persons as well as
Government officials;

(g) The right to hold unpopular or dissident beliefs.

Toleration is of the essence of democracy. Democrats love diversity and see in it an expression
of freedom. The right to differ is the sine qua non of freedom. The moment one person demands

1
D.D. RAPHAEL, PROBLEMS OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 146 (1970).
2
The Education of Free men in American Democracy, Educational Policies Commission, National Education
Association, pp. 32-33.
the privilege of shaping others to his image, kindness, generosity and tolerance removes them
from the equation. The fanatic is always a pest. The one-track mind is always a dangerous guide.

The prevailing type of democracy is representative democracy. Strictly speaking, a

representative Government is one whose officials and agents are chosen by the electorate
democratically constituted, who during their tenure of office reflect the will of the electorate, and
who are subject to an enforceable popular responsibility. But judged by this rigorous test few, if
any, existing Governments could qualify as representative. Even in the United States and
Switzerland, two of the most democratic governments, the principle of representative
government is not understood to require 25 the popular election of judges and administrative
officials. Therefore popular usage considers a representative government to be one in which the
legislative branch at least is popularly elected. This is the meaning of representative democracy.

Thus, to some, democracy ‘is a form of government’; to others, it is ‘a way of social life’. The
essence of democracy as a form of government lies in its nature of franchise, the character of the
electoral system and the relation between the government and the people existing in a particular
nation. Democracy as a way of life has a different connotation; as for example to the communist,
it means economic equality amongst citizens, to a humanist, it implies the absence of disparities
in rights on the basis of caste, creed or birth. Thus, democracy comes out to be a complex term
and the only way to come out of this complexity owning to its diversity is to analyze each of the
meanings attached to it and to trace its development and growth according to time, situation and
mental progressive innovations for human betterment.

2.1) DEMOCRACY AS A FORM OF GOVERNMENT:

Democracy is considered as ‘better a form of government’ by many thinkers from the past to
modern times. The Greeks meant by democracy a rule by many and Aristotle considered it as a
perverted form of government. In literal sense democracy is formed of two Greek words
‘Demos’ meaning people and ‘Kratia’ meaning power. Thus, ‘Democracy’ means ‘power of the
people’. Philosophers like Aristotle and Plato in ancient times, Cicero in medieval age and Sir
Henry Maine, James Russell Lowell, Lord James Bryce in modern period regard democracy
merely as a form of government. According to James Russell Lowell, democracy “is nothing
more than an experiment in government”.89 Democracy is a rule by will of majority of the
people.3

The will of majority should prevail, as it is considered that the wisdom possessed by many is
superior to those possessed by few. Also majority is physically stronger than minority and it can
resort to coercion if minority does not submit to its will. But democracy to be successful in the
real term minority citizens should not feel subjugated or oppress by the majority. So democracy
provides each citizen political equality and gives them right to speech, publication, association
and the like others. Democracy, therefore, provides the scope for free discussion and therefore, a
government by the people is subject both to discussion and to criticism. Democracy as a form of
government is based on the consent of the people but the consent or choice needs to be real,
efficient and active to give democracy its true shape and meaning. Today the efficient rule of
government on democratic principles requires qualified and wise people.

Owing to large size of population, today democracy exists not in a direct form but rather as
representative democracy. Every adult citizen in democracy enjoys the right to vote irrespective
of his caste, creed, race or faith.

Thus, in democracy the authority is enjoyed by the people or by their representative and it is
people who elect, control or remove government if it does not function lawfully and honestly.
Here, all citizens enjoy equal opportunity to progress and efforts are made to increase liberty,
equality and 116 fraternity. Democracy being treated merely as a better form of government does
not allow us to arrive at an adequate conception of democracy. It may be wrong to treat
democracy primarily and essentially as the only a ‘form of government’. It has another
dimension to its nature that is, ‘democracy as a way of life’. Let us, further analyze the notion of
democracy as an art of living also.

CHAPTER III
3
2 J. P. SUDA, A HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT 428 (1969)
 Mahatma Gandhi on Democracy

In order to have a clear understanding of democracy, the sayings of Mahatma Gandhi are quoted
below so that the real concept may be understood as described by him much before the
attainment of independence when the struggle for freedom was in full swing.

“Democracy is an impossible thing until the power is shared by all but let not democracy
degenerate into monocracy. Even labourer, who makes it possible for you to earn your living,
will have his share in self-government. But you will have to touch their likes, go to them, and see
their hovels where they live packed life sardines. It is up to you to look after this part of
humanity. It is possible for you to make their lives or mar their lives.”4

Democracy must, in essence, mean the art of science of mobilizing the entire physical, economic
and spiritual resources of all the various sections of people in the service of the common good
for all.5

Evolution of democracy is not possible if we are not prepared to hear the other side. We shut the
door of reason when we refuse to listen to our opponents or, having listened, make fun of them.
If tolerance becomes a habit, we do not run the risk of missing the truth.6

To safeguard democracy, the people must have a keen sense of independence, self respect and
oneness and should insist on choosing as their representatives only such persons as are good and
true.7

The democracy cannot be worked by twenty men sitting at the centre. It has to be worked from
below by the people of every village.8

What is really needed to make democracy function is not knowledge of facts but right education.

In the real democracy people learn not from books, nor from Government who are in name and
in reality their servants. Hard experience is the most efficient teacher in democracy.9

4
Young India of December 1,1927 3
5
Harijan of May 27, 1939
6
In the Harijan of May 31, 1942
7
MAHATAMA GANDHI, My Experiment with truth (1993)
8
In the Harijan of September 29, 1946
9
In the Harijan of January 18, 1948
Nehru felt strongly that the democratic form of government provided a peaceful method of
achieving all ends which may from time to time, be thought desirable by the community.

Democracy means to me, an attempt of the solution of the problems by peaceful methods. If it is
not peaceful, then, to my mind, it is not democracy……Democracy gives the individual an
opportunity to develop. Such opportunity does not mean anarchy, where every individual does
what he likes. A social organization must have some disciplines to hold it together………..In a
poor democracy, discipline is self imposed. There is no democracy, if there is no discipline10.

Gandhi held that if the country remains dependent on the master for its material necessaries,
education and social harmony it could never be independent. Here it is to be noted that Gandhi's
love for the village was not that of a mystic or that of an orthodox, not one bound by tradition
alone; he fully realized that the downtrodden, 'Hanijans', as he called them were tied down to the
village, so the village structure was of utmost concern in his scheme.

Gandhi believed that freedom was never to be bestowed; it has to be wrested from authority by
those who demand it and intend to use it, whereas B.R.Ambedkar expected bestowing of
freedom by the imperial rulers. Constitutional rigidity and complexities did not form a part of
Gandhi and perspectives, he preferred a suitable constitution to work a democracy; unlike
B.R.Ambedkar he was not constrained by dogmatic consideration in this regard. Gandhi had a
simple preposition in this. In his opinion, Free India Government would set up a constitution
suited to the Indian genius, evolved without dictation from outside, the dictating factor will not
be an outside one but wisdom. Parliamentary system of government was the model approved by
B.R.Ambedkar for independent India, but Gandhi had very little respect for the parliamentary
system of governance. Likewise, both Gandhi and B.R.Ambedkar shared differing views on the
nature and scope of democracy as a method of government. Democracy getting converted to
mass democracy with a propensity for domination by leaders was seen as a dangerous drift by
Gandhi. B.R.Ambedkar was unconcerned about such a possibility, instead, he developed an
inclination for mass democracy where pressure can be built up by the advancement of the
depressed. Gandhian vintage was establishment of swadeshl and swarajya for one and all, not
only for the few westernized, all segments were to be permeated, the poor and hitherto kept out
outcastes as well. But politics of atomization was not the means adopted because he foresaw that

10
The First All India Seminar on Parliamentary democracy, 1956
mobilization based on castes and confined uplift through public employment and state regulated
aid were only peripheral in effect. This marks a distinction between Gandhi and B.R.Ambedkar;
the latter was for mobilization on the basis of caste and uplift mainly through the instrumentality
of the state. Both Gandhi and B.R.Ambedkar were political and social activists. In the approach
of B.R.Ambedkar certain categories were very rigid but Gandhi had no rigidities of ideology or
principles except the uncompromising category of nonviolence.

3.1) Perception of a Non Violent Democracy

This non-violent Democracy is virtual, a reformative gesture for the transformation of a

centralized system. It is this system that Gandhi desired to establish in the Real form of a
welfarist order through institutional, structural, attitudinal and conceptual changes and to make
the democratic institution a vehicle of public service rather than vehicle of power. He desired to
utilize the institution of state in this system for the end of social, moral, spiritual and economic
elevation of the people.

State as such is not entirely abolished in his ideal democracy, in fact, its authority is
decentralized. He wishes to establish truth and ahimsa as the basis if ideal democracy. Firm in
his view, that violates the very spirit of democracy. Gandhi observes that democracy, so long as
it is sustained by violence cannot provide for, nor protect the weak. His notion of democracy is
that under it the weakest should have the same opportunity as the strongest and that can never
happen except through non violence.11

Non violent Democracy, to him, a preliminary stage in the process of achievement of the
ultimate ideal. He admitted that, a government cannot succeed in becoming entirely non violent
because it represents all the people as a whole. Hence he conceded the necessity of police force
etc. even in non-violent predominately society. As he said:

“I Do not today conceive of such a golden age. But I do believe in the possibility of
predominately Non-violent society. And I am working on it. A government representing such
society will use the least amount of force. But no government worth its name can suffer anarchy
to prevail. Hence I have said that even under a government based primarily on non-violence, a
small police force will be necessarily.12
11
CWMG. V.72, p.60.
12
In his opinion it is not the procedures or institutions which make a government truly democratic.
Democracy is essentially based on certain ideals that the government should proclaim to achieve.
13
T ruth, ahimsa social, political and economic justice, communal harmony, tolerance towards
the opponents, protection of the minorities are the basic foundations of true democratic order.
Explaining democracy as he conceived it, Gandhi said: "Such a government does not mean the
rule of the majority, but protection of the interests of even the smallest limb of the realm.14

Gandhi was neither impressed by the parliamentary form of democracy implying a tyramy of the
majority nor by the totalitarian system of socialist states implying destruction of individuality.
He conceived what may be called a spiritual democracy. He designated his conception of the
state by the word 'swaraj' which finds its consummation in the enlightened anarchy achieved
through non-violence. Democracy is its transitional arrangement. Due to the inherent danger of
tyranny of majority.

Thus a democratic government of his conception shall be dedicated towards the overall
upliftment15 of the masses, be it social, political, moral, economic or the like. In other words, the
swaraj of his conception would include an altogether quadrupled upliftment of all its citizens.16

Dharma shall form the bed-rock of the democratic order and as such the government shall be
secular and would grant full recognition to the freedom of religion, conscience and faith to each
and every citizen, and shall also strive for communal harmony. But religious neutrality of the
State should not mean an attitude of indifferences towards dharma by the State.

CHAPTER IV

Ambedkar on Democracy.

At times, it seems that Ambedkar looked at democracy as a western creation that he had learnt
from outside and imported. Certainly, he has read most of the European and American
political philosophers of democracy and drew most of his inspiration from outside for drafting
the Indian Constitution. His intellectual affinities with the Western developed during his stays
13
Navajivan, September 9, 1921.
14
Navajivan, May 30, 1 920
15
The Hindu, March 22, 1931 .
16
CWMG, V.64, p. 191-92: Harijan bandhu, January 3, 1937; Harijan, January2
in the United States and in England. A good part of his ideas ensued from them. He also
waited from the westerners an actual support. In 1931, his “Appeal on behalf of the Depressed
Classes Institute”, by which he tried to collect 40,000 pounds sterling, asked “the Europeans
and the Americans” to help a “deprived humanity” — a part of the human race (Dr. Ambedkar
often resorted in his Marathi writings to the word manuski in English translated as 
“humanness”). However, he found variants of humanism in the Indian civilization, through
Buddhism.

Dr. Ambedkar was a religious person in some ways. He considered that “Religion is
absolutely essential for the development of mankind” and diverged from the Marxists’
atheism in that respect. But his vision of religion was overdetermined by social
considerations. He rejected Hinduism because he thought that the caste system was co-
substantial to this religion, whereas equality was inherent in Buddhism.

Ambedkar, thus, assigns many more significant and positive functions to the state than mere
protection of life, liberty and property. He makes the state instrumental in bringing economic
changes leading to social changes in society. This is the difference between Gandhi and
Ambedkar with respect to their views on state. Ambedkar assigns more functions to the state
than Gandhi. However, despite assigning all these functions to the state, he does not consider
it omnipotent and absolute. The state must serve the society for which it exists.

According to Ambedkar, democracy means fundamental changes in the social and economic
life of the people and the acceptance of those changes by the people without resorting to
disputes and bloodshed. He wanted to establish the principle of one man, one vote and one
value not only in the political life of India but also in social and economic life. He wanted
political democracy to be accompanied by social democracy. He gave central importance to
social aspects of democracy over political aspects, unlike many others whose discourse on
democracy is confined to the political and institutional aspects. Ambedkar paid greater
attention to social linkage among people than separation of powers and constitutional
safeguards for democracy. The concept of power contained in his thinking has a direct
relationship between social power and political power. He was conscious of the social and
economic inequalities which corrode the national consciousness of the Indian people.
Ambedkar said, “We must make our political democracy a social democracy as well. Political
democracy cannot last unless there lies at the lease of it social democracy”. Ambedkar paid
serious attention to religious notions that promote democracy. Ambedkar viewed the religious
foundation of caste as the fundamental obstacle to democracy in India on the one hand and the
Buddhist doctrine of liberally, equality and fraternity as the foundations for democracy on the
other hand. He writes, “It is common experience that certain names become associated with
certain notions and sentiments, which determine a person’s attitude toward men and things.
The names, Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisha and Shudra are hierarchical divisions of high and low
caste, based on birth and act accordingly”.

Dr. Ambedkar while speaking in Pune on “Conditions precedent for the successful working of
Democracy” emphasized that “The first condition which I think is a condition precedent for the
successful working of democracy is that there must be no glaring inequalities in the society.”17

The democratic principles of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are considered to be the
essentials of human life in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar’s concept of democracy. He attaches more
importance to human well being and human right. The effective opposition is an important factor
in the working of a successful democracy. Democracy means a veto power. Democracy
toDr.Babasaheb Ambedkar is “a form and a method of government whereby revolutionary
changes in the economic and social life of the people are brought about without bloodshed.” 18 In
democracy, there should be no tyranny of the majority over the minority. The minority must
always feel safe that although the majority carrying on the Government, the minority will not be
hurt and that the minority will not be imposed upon. Democracy is a dynamic attitude towards
human life. It attaches a great importance to virtues like tolerance and peaceful methods. Thus,
parliamentary democracy involves non-violent methods of action, peaceful ways of discussion
and acceptance of decision with faith and dignity, There are two other pillars on the which
parliament system rests. This system needs an opposition and free and fair elections. Dr
Babasaheb Ambedkar stated that, “Democracy cannot function in the absence of basic civil
liberties – which enables the community to vindicate itself against the state furthermore, the right
to criticize, if it is to be effective, must include the right to organize opposition through political
17
(Bakshi,2000, P:48)
18
B.R. AMBEDKAR, SPACE, CONDITION, PRECEDENT FOR THE SUCCESSFUL WORKING DEMOCRACY BEFORE THE DISTRICT LAW LIBRARY
125 (1952).
parties. Representative democracy is essentially procedural. It is characterized by free
expression, free parties and free election.”

Assuming the importance of socio-economic democracy Dr. B.R. Ambedkar enshrined the
Directive Principles of State Policy in part IV of the Indian Constitution because he himself had
experienced the discrimination and humiliation for being an untouchable. He wanted to provide
all rights and liberties to the lower caste people of his country so that they could lead an
honorable life and have human dignity in an Independent India. So, in the form of DPSP
directions were given to the future Governments to establish socio-economic democracy and
justice for all the people of the Nation without any discrimination.

Dr.Ambedkar realised that the democracy in India was a product of the historical situation and a
unique national experience. The course of democratic development must protect the values of
individual liberty, fraternal relationship, and morality grounded in humanistic religious belief. He
supported the ideas of Constitutional separation of religion and state, the provision of
fundamental rights, and the assignment of important functions to the Judiciary for strengthening
the roots of democracy in India. Through legal and institutional reforms and by changing the
habits of the hearts and mind, the creative use of political resources like election, well-wishers
and friends must usher in a new life for the weaker sections of our society. For him, the purpose
of modern democracy was to being about the welfare of the people. Though whatever efforts a
people may make, they will never succeed in reducing all the conditions of a society to perfect
equality, yet the democratic order must minimize the inequalities of wealth and income and
protect the oppressed classes from the exploiter class. This is the true test of a democracy, and
other tests being the existence of an opposition to show whether government was going wrong,
equality before law and in administration, the observance of constitutional morality, the
functioning of moral order in society, and the perseverance of public conscience. In other words,
the perpetual rule of one class or a political party, the monopoly of the means of production in a
few hands, the curtailment of civil liberties, the blind faith in democratic leaders, the atmosphere
of fear and oppression, the misuse of political authority, the negative use of political recourses,
etc., are some of the vices that can invariably damage the basic structure of democracy. 19 The
existence of anything as undemocratic as caste was, Ambedkar felt, enough to kill the concept of
democratic way of life. The division of India’s population into castes and creeds, he thought,
made the country unfit for representative government. The fact is that Hindus in India divided
into touchable Hindus and the untouchable Hindus surely made the concept of ‘government by
the people’ meaningless. In such a government, every role cannot be assumed by all.

Generally, we marked that the keynote of Ambedkar’s concept of democracy as a way of life,
which was the necessity for the participation of every human beings in the formation of the
social, economic and political values that regulated men’s lives and bound them together. The
fundamental elements of his concept of democracy were, in short, liberty, equality, fraternity,
natural rights and justice. He believes that these are essential for complete development of
personality and capacities of every person. He believed that democracy offers every individual to
achieve social equality, economic justice and political justice guaranteed in the Preamble of the
Constitution. Therefore, in the Constituent Assembly he had stated that mere securing political
democracy is not sufficient. It should be followed by establishing social democracy and
economic equality. His vision was the foundation of social democracy in India.

4.1) Factors Necessary for the successful Operation of Democracy

We have already seen that Ambedkar favoured the parliamentary form of government. For the
successful functioning of this form of government, it is necessary that certain other conditions
must be fulfilled. To begin with, political parties are necessary for the effective working of
parliamentary democracy. This will ensure existence of the opposition which is very important.

Dr.Ambedkar focused on three categories of democracy in India that are (1) Political Democracy
(2) Social Democracy and (3) Economic Democracy. For him, Social and Economic democracy
are the tissues and fiber of a political democracy. The details are as follows:

Political Democracy: Dr.Ambedkar located the political power in the people thinking of that it
is the key to all social progress. According to him, the soul of democracy is the doctrine of, “One
man, one vote” and “one vote, one value”. What he means each and every man to count for one.
19
D.R JATAVA, B.R.AMBEDKAR, STUDY IN SOCIETY AND POLITICS 94-95 (1998).
No man for more than one. It means every government should be on the anvil both in its daily
affairs and also at the end of a certain period when the voter and electorate would be given an
opportunity to assess the work done by the government. We have established political democracy
just because we do not want to install by any means whatsoever a perpetual dictatorship of any
body of people.20 Democracy is unrealizable without freedom of political discussion. A right to
vote gives a man no real part in controlling government unless he is free to form his own
opinions about his vote, to hear what others have to say about the issues; and to persuade others
to adopt his opinions. He further said that “Parliamentary system of government is much more
than government by discussion. It is negation to hereditary rule. Whosoever wants to rule must
be elected by the people from time to time. He must obtain approval of the people. There are two
pillars on which the Parliamentary system of government rests and works. Those are (1) an
opposition and (11) free and fair elections. In this system of government people should know the
other side if there are two sides to a question. Hence a functional opposition is required.
Opposition is the key to a free political life. No democracy can do without it”. 21 While
visualizing high political objects, he said that democracy must in harmony with social aims. He
regarded democracy as both a social way of life and political method.

Dr.Ambedkar pointed out that there are four premises upon which political democracy rests:

(1) The individual is an end in himself.

(2) The individual has cetin inalienable rights which must be guaranteed to him by the
Constitution. (3) The individual shall not be required to relinquish any of his Constitutional
rights as a condition precedent to the receipt of a privilege and.

(4) The state shall not delegate power to private persons to govern others.22

Social Democracy: Dr.Ambedkar viewed that social democracy means a away of life which
recognises liberty, equality and fraternity as principle of life. They are not separate, they are
union of trinity. Democracy, to him is more than a form of government. It is a form of the
organisation of society. There are two essential conditions, which characterise a democratically
20
Constituent Assembly Debate, Vol.vii, p.535.
21
N.C .RATTU, LAST FEW YEARS OF DR.AMBEDKAR 32 (1997)
22
1 MOON VASANT 409 DR BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR WRITINGS AND SPEECHES.
constituted society. First is the absence of stratification of society into four classes. The second is
a social habit on the part of individuals and groups, which is ready for continuous readjustment
of recognition of reciprocity of interests.23 He regarded a favorable social setting as a pre-
requisite for the success of democracy: without this democracy would not last long. The formal
framework of democracy was of no value in it self and would not be appropriate if there was no
social democracy. Ambedkar regarded democracy as a way of life. It involved rational
empiricism, emphasis on individual, the instrumental nature of the state, voluntarism, and the
law behind the law, nobility of means, discussion and consent, absence of perpetual rule and
basic equality in all human relations. Economic Democracy:

Economic democracy: Means that the economic needs of the people are to be satisfied. No
person should die in want of food, clothing and housing, if democracy is to live up to its
principle of one man, one value. He points out that the principle of graded inequality has been
carried into the economic field. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
has no meaning in Hinduism. Rather the Hindu Social Order advocates the principle “from each
according to his need, to each according to his nobility…its motto is that in regard to the
distribution of good things of life to those who are reckoned as the highest must get the most and
the best and those who are classed as the lowest must accept the least and the worst”. 24 The
Hindu social order is founded on the fixity of occupations for each class and continues thereof by
hereditary. He viewed that the democratic order must minimize the glaring inequalities in
society. In democratic society there must be neither an oppressed class nor an oppressor class. It
is the duty of the state to prevent the monopoly of the means of production in few hands. To
empower both the Dalits and non-Dalits economically, he proposed that the state should be given
political power for the regulation and control of both key industries and agriculture; to this end
he proposed that economic powers should be incorporated into the body of the Constitution itself
without abrogating Parliamentary democracy and without leaving its establishment to the will of
democracy.

He, therefore, suggested the following proposals such as (a) Insurance shall be a monopoly of the
state. (b) Agriculture shall be a state industry. (c) Land will belong to the state and shall be let

23
Moon Vasant, ed, Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol-1, op. cit., 409
24
Moon Vasant, ed, Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches, vol-3, op cit., p.111.
out to villagers without distinction of caste or creed. (d) There will be no landlord, no tenant and
landless labourer. (e) Rapid industrialisation of economy under the complete supervision and
control of the state should be initiated.38 While we have established political democracy, it is
also the desire that we should lay down as our ideal economic democracy. We do not want
merely to lay down a mechanism to enable people to come and capture power. The Constitution
also wishes to lay down an ideal before those who would be forming the government. That ideal
is economic democracy, whereby, one man, one vote is meant.

Parliamentary government is known as responsible government mainly because the executive is

constantly watched and controlled by the opposition. Respect and official status for the
opposition means absence of absolute power for the executive. The other condition is a neutral
and non-political civil service. A neutral civil service means that administrators would be
permanent - not dependent on the fortunes of the political parties - and that they would not take
sides with political parties. This will be possible only when appointments of civil servants are not
made on the basis of political consideration. Success of democracy depends on many ethical and
moral factors also. A country may have a constitution. But it is only a set of rules. These rules
become meaningful only when people in the country develop conventions and traditions
consistent with the constitution. People and politicians must follow certain norms in public life.
Similarly, there must also exist a sense of morality and conscientiousness in the society. Law and
legal remedies can never replace a voluntary sense of responsibility. No amount of law can
enforce morality. Norms of honest and responsible behaviour must develop in the society.
Democracy can be successful only when every citizen feels duty bound to fight injustice even if
that injustice does not put him into any difficulty personally. This will happen when equality and
brotherhood exist in the society.

To make democracy successful in India, Ambedkar suggested a few other precautions also.
Democracy means rule of the majority. But this should not result into tyranny of the majority.
Majority must always respect the views of the minority. In India there is a possibility that the
minority community will always be a political minority also. Therefore, it is very essential that
the minority must feel free, safe and secure. Otherwise, it will be very easy to convert democracy
into a permanent ruffle against the minority. Caste system could thus become the most difficult
obstacle in the successful functioning of democracy. The castes which are supposed to be of low
status will never get their proper share in power. Caste will create barriers in the development of
healthy democratic traditions. This means that unless we achieve the task of establishing
democracy in the social field, mere political democracy cannot survive.