On 26 November 1949, the Constituent Assembly unanimously adopted the Constitution of India. In the debate leading up to that event, Dr. B.R Ambedkar, as Chairman of the Drafting Committee, spoke at length about the way the committee went about preparing the draft for the document that was to be the Constitution of India. But he also, in the latter part of his remarkable speech, made a few incredible observations that ring truer today than at any time in the past. Dr. Ambedkar, quite apart from being an extremely erudite man, also had great foresight.
For example, he wondered if India would lose its independence again, and said: “What perturbs me greatly is the fact that not only has India once before lost her independence, but she lost it by the infidelity and treachery of her own people”. He cited quite a few instances in our glorious history to underline this point.
And then he went on to say: “….in addition to our old enemies in the form of castes and creeds we are going to have many political parties with diverse and opposing political creeds. Will Indians place their country above creed or will they place creed above country? I do not know, but this much is certain that if the parties place creed above country, our independence will be put in jeopardy a second time and probably be lost for ever.”
He listed three things that he felt were essential for the preservation of our constitutional democracy:
“The first thing in my judgment we must do is hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives…..it means we must abandon the methods of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha……these methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy….”
“The second thing we must do is observe the caution which John Stuart Mill has given to all who are interested in the maintenance of democracy, namely, not to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with powers which enable him to subvert their institutions…..This caution is far more necessary in the case of India than in the case of any other country. For in India, Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.”
The third point he made in this connection was how critical it was to integrate and incorporate the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity in our democracy. And not just by mouthing platitudes.
Dr. Rajendra Prasad, as President of the Constituent Assembly, said in his speech that followed Dr. Ambedkar’s: “…..I would have liked to have some qualifications for members of the legislatures. It is anomalous that we should insist upon high qualifications for those who administer or help in administering the law but none for those who make it except that they are elected. A law giver requires intellectual equipment but even more than that capacity to take a balanced view of things, to act independently and above all to be true to those fundamental things of life – in one word – to have character. It is not possible to devise any yardstick for measuring the moral qualities of a man, and so long as that is not possible, our Constitution will remain defective”.
The rising trend of politicians and parties to relegate the larger interest to the garbage bin and focus on self-aggrandisement instead, the increasing prevalence and acceptance of unconstitutional and usually violent means of protest and of making your voice heard, the growing cult of nepotism, dynastic succession & absolute power as well as our apathetic surrender of the reins of the country to those whose place is actually in prison – all in the name of the will of the people – this was foreseen, more than sixty years ago, by those who gave us our freedom and our constitution.
Eerily prophetic, both of them. Our country truly misses leaders of this calibre.
*
If eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, we sure as hell haven’t paid for ours.
The Quirky Indian 
October 7, 2009 at 2:44 am
Ambedkar also said, “I have got not the slightest doubt in my mind as to the future evolution and the ultimate shape of the social, political and economic structure of this great country. I know today we are divided politically, socially and economically. We are a group of warring camps and I may go even to the extent of confessing that I am probably one of the leaders of such a camp. But, Sir, with all this, I am quite convinced that given time and circumstances nothing in the world will prevent this country from becoming one. With all our castes and creeds, I have not the slightest hesitation that we shall in some form be a united people.”
I find this ironical. I find this was added to appease few. It was a known thing that Gandhi never liked Ambedkar.
I am not here trying to make a point who was right or who was wrong. Ambedkar was scholar, no doubt. But from the time we got independence (or much more before that) till now, we have been constantly fed lies; from Nehru to Prasad to Shyama Prasad to Advani.
I cannot for sure say whether they were really prophetic in entirety based on the speeches they made. Anyone for that matter.
October 7, 2009 at 3:20 am
Hello Quirky Indian!
I’d always been wondering why a certain minimum educational qualification hadn’t been included as a criterion to contest. If the logic’s that those who’re not educated wouldn’t get to contest, then by keeping age as a bar, we’re effectively barring those below 18! Also, if one argues that everyone eventually turns 18, then it could also be argued that eventually everyone could gain certain academic qualification to get into governance!
Also though you’ve only given the excerpts of their speeches, I couldn’t find in them their addressing the concern of politics becoming a hereditary profession! Also they could not foresee that the amount of powers they’d been bestowing on legislators, would’ve made politics a lucrative business-like monopoly! In those excerpts it seems they could only foresee the possibility of someone gaining popular support through good oratory and pandering to religious and communal sentiments, but not the inescapable hijacking of our democratic process through money and crime!
I think, the basic problem with our constitution was (and is) its being tailor made to suit those on good terms with our then colonial rulers, ironically, the people who our history texts credit with ‘winning’ us freedom! And they in turn were on good terms with the then feudal lords (panchayati ‘Raj’).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_mutiny#The_Controversy:_Political_abandonment_of_the_Mutineers
Kindly note the political doublespeak in that paragraph, basically only guided by insecurity of losing ‘power’.
I’d be giving you 2 other links in this comment.
You’d take some time to go through all of them, but honestly, I’d be very much looking forward to your opinion either on your or my blogs or through mail panchalkc@yahoo.co.in
Second link I give is of my comment elsewhere as to why there’d never be real, effective constitutional reforms.
http://maddyscape.blogspot.com/2009/04/its-all-about-making-difference.html
Last link is my post containing conjectures on the genesis and (far fetched, but possible) solution for communalism:
http://ketanpanchal.blogspot.com/2009/03/communalism.html
So finally, watching a crappy Hindi movie made you blog on topics that I best like coming from you! 😉
Interesting read, on the whole!
Keep it up!
PS: Hope you don’t mind the various tangents I’m taking you on, but ironically, they all converge!
October 7, 2009 at 4:05 am
interesting QI…………..we sure need leaders of calibre…
now people are only interested in making statues
October 7, 2009 at 7:29 am
Your post is very depressing but I don’t blame you for thinking that India is already dead…
Politicians then were statesmen; politicians today are opportunists…What a pathetic observation after 62 years of Independence…Who knows, the way things are going today(infighting etc.) we may again lose our independence to China…
October 7, 2009 at 9:47 am
Ambedkar wanted us to get rid of non-violence, no wonder we hold on to violence. And the likes of Thuggerays survive in these days.
October 7, 2009 at 12:24 pm
No doubt that Ambedkar was an educated man and did a good job with the Constitution. I can sit and extol several virtues of Constitution, honestly.
But for all of Ambedkar’s thoughts that cast and creed shouldn’t rule the country, his views on subject were very coloured due to several caste-based discrimination faced by him since childhood. I could write those incidents here which may have impacted an impressionable child’s (in this case Ambedkar and his bro)mind, but it would talk up space since they were too many.
If there were no Gandhi (yes, Ambedkar spent almost all life warring with Gandhi) and we followed what Ambedkar proposed, we would have already been a divided country. He had suggested, along with British, for separate electorates of different castes. That is each caste has different representatives, chosen only by that caste irrespective of other castes living in the constituency.
Gandhi fasted, and under pressure from all country Ambedkar agreed for reserved seats (where only minority candidatures are allowed but all can vote).
There are several more things, Ambedkar criticised Gandhi’s salt campaign. He hated the word Gandhi coined for minoritities – Harijans.
There are several more things I can count. I know and remember this fresh since I just created historical documentaries for schools. 🙂 For all his erudition and just sense, Ambedkar was very prejudiced when it came to Gandhi and INC. Though his hatred of INC I can understand since INC too used to make minority members to sit on floor while eating. Upper classes sat on table. Periyar left INC just for this reason.
(Though this is beside the point but To this day don’t understand that why he would prefer Dalit which means downtrodden over Harijan which means God’s Children. There was nothing wrong with Gandhi’s intention but term was trashed upon. Can you think why?)
October 7, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Interesting to note how this post has generated such varied responses! 🙂
For instance, I had inkling of Gandhi at being odds with many, many leaders for a very long time, so somehow that aspect did not strike me while reading your post.
Whereas, my point was I, even from those excerpts, could not find them foresighted enough. But quite possibly, they did not have sufficient powers to draft the constitution such that it would have ceased to be beneficial to those in power (proximity to Britishers), then.
So possibly, my criticism of their overlooking some of the potential evils that could have plagued governance in our country would be somewhat unfair.
Because when I sit to think practically what different could they have done, I do not have many answers.
One of the very small things I can think now is that there should be very firm restriction on the intensity for campaigning before elections, like the number of rallies that could be organized in a geographical region by a given party and totally disallowing door-to-door campaigning, which basically allows for bribing/threatening the electorate. Also, ‘some’ mechanism could be put in place, by which potential legislators would be identified, and their campaigning expenditure would be incured entirely by the election commission. All this would ensure that getting elected would become lesser dependent on money and physical threats. Also, it would stop elections from looking like ‘people wanting to get elected, rather than people wanting to elect’.
Also, the idea that the basic structure of constitution cannot be changed is actually proving detrimental to our country. For instance, I learned from one of the lawyers that high-sounding words like ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ that have been used in the preamble have never been defined elsewhere in the text! So now, those are used in totally hypocritical and manipulative manner as indicated in my post where you had commented.
But at the end I would say that probably the most significant problem facing India is lack of any kind of relative incentive for working with efficiency and keeping up integrity, owing to immense resource crunch, in ANY of the vocations, and more so, in governance. And to that the fact that the same resource crunch makes siphoning away money a lot more enticing. I guess, you would easily understand why this simple observation spells doom for the future of our wanting-to-be-great country! 😦
October 15, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Sorry Quirky, not exactly related to the post but more to Ketan’s observation above…
Ketan, I’ve always felt that this could well be the reason for all the corruption in our country.
But then, again, being uncertain as I am, at times, I feel this argument is naive as you can never have enough money. You’ll always want more.
After coming to the UAE, however, I realise how true this observation is. Corruption is very low in UAE and that too without a lot of fear of the police or government. It is low because the government gives the best salaries to people in the public sector. The public sector employees have the best of working conditions, perks and it shows in their work. Whenever I’ve gone to a govt. department desk, I’ve come back amazed with the service I receive, and that too with a smile. It feels just like the service I receive in a 5 star resort in India.
So I guess, this is a very valid point.
October 7, 2009 at 3:36 pm
I am amazed at his wisdom!! He foresaw all this!
We have seen loss of freedom, but we just refuse to change, we continue to hero-worship, we need, not just Gods, but god-men or powerful leaders, politicians etc. to obey.
His common sense advice is not even understood, let alone be followed. We continue to demand stops on liberty (some times even our own!) we refuse to use our own discretion or believe anybody else can use theirs… we accept and even ask for bans, newer laws to restrict our freedom to defend ourselves, and censorship.
And we forgive our leaders (and ourselves), their unconstitutional methods.
I agree with Sraboney this is a depressing post. It’s just too true.
October 7, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Sorry Quirky Indian, already for the third reply I am posting to your post, but you could definitely take it as a compliment that your post was that very evocative and thought-provoking! 🙂 And that I’m curious of and would value your unbiased opinion (even if politically ‘incorrect’) on some of the issues that have always troubled me.
I want your personal opinion somewhat related to this post, but more so on the basic human nature.
What do you think of this idea floating around that somehow “leaders of the yore were much better than today’s”?
I would tell you, for a long time, I indeed used to believe that, but with greater insight into the human nature and behavior, I’ve stopped.
My reasons:
1. For a long time in history, right since Vedic period, leaders of the society (aristocracy–rulers, their family members and the council of ministers) were selfish and cunning people. So much so that they were not averse to killing their own father, brother, sons, brothers in law, or cheat others, and plunder their own subjects (citizens). And of course, the feudal lords (‘thakurs’, ‘sahukars’–money lenders) had followed suit. This continued right till the Britishers took reign of our country, and united it under one authority. And again, I remind, this they could accomplish only by manipulating the same ‘leaders of the society’–the warring and insecure-of-each-other kings. But even till then, the feudal lords persisted.
Then came the mutiny of 1857. It assumed large scale, but its genesis lay, not in love and affection for the fellow brethren, but which animal’s fat the cartridges be made of, which were to be used for killing, maiming, exploiting and subjugating them. Sorry this would’ve sounded sensationalist, but isn’t it the plain truth? But then out of the blue, there was a phase lasting for 30 years till independence when all the leaders were models of propriety–unselfish, intelligent, foresighted, generous, down-to-earth, who in turn had their affiliation to the INC, whose original demands were greater perks and increased salaries for the to-be-babus, with no concern for the ‘common man’! Then we won our freedom, and the same morally upright people had taken over the country to govern it. They had hand-picked capable leaders they had personally known, and who’d fought along with them for freedemn, to contest the elections in small-small villages and towns….
October 7, 2009 at 5:10 pm
…But suddenly everything stops working for the country. Socialist policies, like the license-quota-permit, dependent on good judgement and discretion of the same leaders who’d won us freedom, and by extension were morally upright and fair, started failing us. Remember, the same people who’d ‘driven out’ the Britishers had got to govern our country at all levels–right from the prime minister’s office to the village sarpanch–for at least 10 years after independence. Plus, it’s no secret, that in politics, like begets like, even if it’s not one’s progeny. If you’d be the local leader of a political party, you’d nurture under you, a leader who’d share your vision, ideals and morality. And yet, we’ve ended up with the current lot of ‘leaders’ who’re undeniably mostly inefficient, corrupt, arrogant, cunning and traitors as far as the welfare of the nation is concerned. If we’re to take this view that there was a gradual decline in the quality of leaders, then at what point did such decline start, and what was the trigger? And why could the best leaders who’d won us freedom not stem such a rot?
2. I believe, the simple reason for this paradox is that the quality of leaders was never different! The basic human nature hasn’t changed! The difference is only in perception.
We don’t hear stories about how our kings were wise, morally upright, benevolent and nonviolent(!!). There are indeed a few stories, but they’re largely folklore. Why? ‘cuz they never cared for their images! They had the throne! So maintaining a good image was never an incentive! But then with the advent of Britishers, the spirit of self-rule started seeping in, there was a perceptible benefit in being populist, being liked by the proletariat! So, the leaders and the information-dispensing agencies (press, radio) started working in concert to this common end. The literacy rate and exposure to rationalist ideas of skepticism were low, so it was easier to maintain a nice image, ‘cuz nobody would ask questions, or if asked, they wouldn’t be publicized! After freedom, the same concerted machinery continued with some success. But as literacy rate increased, people started finding disparities between the projected qualities of leaders and actual state of governance, and started asking questions! Gradually, private money started flowing in for mass media, and it’s become increasingly difficult to seem ‘statesman-like’! That’s all!
???
October 7, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Very thought provoking. One wonders why leaders and statesmen are relegated to the back pages of history. History is indeed written by the victors or the powers that be. The only time Dr.Rajendra Prasad was mentioned in my text books was when it was mentioned that he was India’s first president. And Ambedkar was just mentioned as a Dalit leader who was the architect of our constitution. Now I realize they were true visionaries who actually could see the “big picture”. If only 5% of our current crop of politicians had an iota of sense that they had.
October 8, 2009 at 1:18 pm
One of your best posts!
Yes but with that fore sight, they could have done something to stop the present condition?
October 8, 2009 at 8:10 pm
While I agree that Ambedkar was a great statesman, what he did say was actually a bit predictable.
– India had won her independence only recently when he said that, so the fear of losing it again must have been a pretty common sentiment in those days.
– Caste was an issue that he cared much about.
He ties both points together with an appeal for unity and pride in the newly formed nation.
Civil disobedience, satyagraha et. al. were Gandhi-esque forms of protest and he may have disagreed with them because of the alleged tiff with Gandhi.
I agree with his disapproval of hero worship, but ironically, Ambedkar Jayanti in Bombay has become a pilgrimage of sorts for Dalits.
As far as special interests, caste and vote bank politics, and the like go; I’m not surprised by how things are in India. And I’m sure not just Ambedkar, but a lot of people foresaw it when a region as diverse as India was knocked together into a country 60-odd years ago.
What I am surprised by is that there is a distinct ‘Indian’ identity that a lot of Indians identify with and have accepted, especially when they’re outside the country. I don’t think anyone foresaw that.
We’re definitely not out of the woods (and I don’t think we will be anytime soon, at least not in my lifetime). But, we’re certainly slightly better off now than we were when the speech was delivered (almost 4 decades of congress-dominated dynasty politics followed that).
I only hope we don’t regress on our slow crawl towards progress.
October 8, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Hey Quirky Indian, just wanted to clarify, most of my comments/doubts/issues have nothing to do with the greatness (or lack thereof), of the leaders you pointed out. My issue is with the accuracy of historical accounts that have reached down to us, and the impressions we have formed on the basis of them!
Cheers!
October 10, 2009 at 4:30 pm
[…] : The Quirky Indian What : Requiem for a Country Spicy : The Quirky Indian goes back to history and ponders about our country and what is happening […]
October 10, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Hi,
Congratulations! We are pleased to inform you that your post has been selected by BlogAdda as one of the top posts for this week’s ‘Spicy Saturday Picks’.
Keep Dishing out such wonderful posts and we will be more than happy to pick them up.
For more details do mail me.
October 10, 2009 at 7:02 pm
I would say first of all we need to set some minimum standards for people coming into our legislatures. Like Dr Prasad pointed out, education can not be a good enough indicator of wisdom/morality, but it can be a good starting point.
As for India losing its independence again, maybe it can no longer happen in terms of being conquered by a China or Bangladesh, but yes we are being sold out by our leaders.
Defense deals have always been associated with kickbacks and commissions. Anybody who wants to invest in India needs to grease the palms of our thug leaders before they can get started.
Who knows what games are played out behind closed doors? The nawabs played out short sighted games during the times of the British, essentially handing them over the country. The same can happen again, with our politicians who are just so desperate to retain power that nothing they do would surprise me.
Last of all, it is we Indians. We will keep fighting among ourselves, north vs south, hindu vs muslim, dalit vs thakur, and what have you. With such a divisive population, the politicians’ work becomes even easier!
October 10, 2009 at 8:00 pm
I think by denouncing sathyagraha, civil disobedience etc, Ambedkar was denouncing the eternal vigilance of the freedom fighters that won us liberty.
October 13, 2009 at 1:50 am
Good post. Dr Ambedkar seemed to be worried about India becoming a dictatorship.Emergency era proved his fears were right.Though Ambedkar had lot of differences with Gandhiji,it was the Mahatma who proposed his name for inclusion in the Constituent Assembly!
It is curious to note Ambedkar included non cooperation and Sathyagraha among anti or non Constituitional forms of protest. But to have a better idea of what Dr Ambedkar meant that part of speech should be read in whole which goes like this…..
“If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do? The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.”
So Ambedkar do agree with such methods during British rule,but not during the rule of Congress. Most of the Congress leaders were of the same opinion then as they believed Independence and Congress rule will solve all problems of India.The Communists and the Socialists were opposing the Constitution then saying it did not have anything to help the common man.Ambedkar’s comment was mainly against them.
Ambedkar did explain his third point in detail.He said
” 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 inequality. In politics we will be recognizing the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man, one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? 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 political democracy which this Assembly has to laboriously built up.”
The current situation is the inequalities are becoming bigger and the Left extremists are becoming stronger.
October 14, 2009 at 10:53 am
“Our country truly misses leaders of this calibre.”
If we look at leaders of that time most of them were highly qualified. Well! qualification might not ensure good judgement but when you take averages, a highly qualified person is mostly well-read and is capable of good judgement. First we need to set a standard for the people we elect. Politics today has become more or less a field for thugs and wayward.
Have to concur with Dr. Rajendra Prasad. “I would have liked to have some qualifications for members of the legislatures. It is anomalous that we should insist upon high qualifications for those who administer or help in administering the law but none for those who make it except that they are elected.”
While administrative work is done by highly qualified individuals, they are forced to report to people who can’t even frame a sentence properly.
In the recent times though I am witnessing a change in Congress team. Most recent inclusions are qualifies individuals though I won’t comment on their policies or judgement yet.
October 15, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Sol, read Ketan’s comment above… I guess he has a valid point when he says that the leaders have all along been the same. Most of them power hungry or corrupt while few of them upright. And I guess, even in the current crop, you would find a few upright good leaders – I think Vajpayee is (was) one of them.
October 15, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Brilliant post QI, and awesome observations in the comments.
It does feel freaky, the way he predicted this mess. Almost feels like he’s talking about today 60 years ago.
The problem is nobody listened to those speeches. Not then, not now.
October 15, 2009 at 3:04 pm
@Vee: I agree with you when you say we have been fed only lies. It is also a known fact that Ambedkar and Gandhi had very differing views. The point to remember is that Ambedkar, even after all his differences, accepted the supremacy of the constitution. As for whether he was prophetic or not – I would think he was, as was Dr. Rajendra Prasad. We just need to look around us to see the truth of what they said. Why I find this so amazing is that even today, there are so many of us who continue to disregard what is happening.
@Ketan: Let me try and answer all your queries at one go.
An effective argument against a degree or a qualification of sorts being a prerequisite is that in a country where so many have no access to education, this will only succeed in making politics elitist, and a preserve of the privileged. Additionally, education does not guarantee any integrity of thought or behaviour – and this is where Dr. Rajendra Prasad was right on the button. What we need is a moral yardstick, and more than education, I would think an (imperfect and approximate) proxy would be the number of cases and complaints registered against a politician. We all know the great reluctance with which the police even move to take note of any complaints against a politician. Ergo, we can safely assume that the existing cases and complaints against politicians represent only a fraction of their misdemeanours; if only the police were not such a pathetic bunch, there would have been more. In short, we collectively need to say ‘no’ to anyone of questionable moral calibre in politics, based on the number of complaints and cases against them. However, given that we have not even succeeded in weeding out known criminals, this one is pretty much a pipe dream.
As for politics becoming hereditary, and the hijacking of the democratic process: I think it’s implied in his Bhakti/hero-worship point. You deify an individual, the party becomes undemocratic and dictatorial and dynasties and coteries emerge. How long will the government be immune?
I think our constitution was drafted with all good intentions. There were too many interests jockeying for supremacy then and the document was necessarily a compromise.
The Naval mutiny: history is written by the victors. The mutiny was important because it made the British realise that, post WW2, they had neither the resources nor the manpower to hold down India militarily….so, while by itself the mutiny at no point posed any serious threat, it was certainly a catalyst for what happened later. The Congress was guided by self-interest, but I can’t really find fault with Gandhi the politician – and he was a smart politician. He had long ago realised that nothing could be achieved without a ‘national’ leadership and movement, and he had spent a lot of time rallying everyone around him. He couldn’t afford to have anarchy take over, and that is what would have happened if he had been discredited. The circumstances of India’s independence, the partition and the transfer of power would have been much more chaotic, unpredictable and scary if Gandhi had not continued to be seen as a ‘national’ leader and retained his ‘power’. I don’t think he had too much of a choice in the matter, given his larger goal.
I am not sure if disallowing campaigning, or restricting it, makes sense. The idea is to communicate your manifesto to the electorate. It needs to be regulated, perhaps. But practical implementation is impossible. What I would like are issue based debates. Let the candidates spell out where they stand. Let us see who can be more cogent and convincing. In an earlier discussion, someone had suggested that these manifestos need to be in the form of binding contracts. Is that a feasible solution?
I have mixed feelings to this ‘changing of the constitution’ thing. On the one hand, I am glad, because it means that anyone with a landslide cannot use brute majority to take us somewhere we would rather not go. On the other, you have not started with a perfect document to begin with….so how do you correct mistakes and take it towards perfection? It cuts both ways.
I completely agree with the efficiency and integrity thing. In fact, in India, it is the other way around: all laws, rules, regulations and conventions exist to push citizens into breaking the law and taking short-cuts.
Leaders were always self-seeking: I cannot fault this general statement. However, in the context of the decades before 1947, we need to remember that many of the stalwarts of the freedom movement, including most in the INC, were from privileged backgrounds: well-educated, often professionally qualified, of families of immense social standing. The status-quo, for them, would have actually meant a cushy life. They were truly the elite of British India. Yet, they rallied around a leader and worked towards an end that was uncertain and fraught with risk: loss of their standing within the existing power structure, incarceration, trial and a hard life of activism. I think this idealism continued into the first few years of independence, but, as they say, power corrupts. And we let them corrupt themselves. It is we who are at fault. I looked the other way when their indiscretions multiplied because they spoke my language, or belonged to my religion or belonged to my caste, or belonged to my sub-caste, or came from the same region. I think many of the old crop realised this was a possibility. They had hoped we would guard against it. We didn’t. There’s also a contradiction in your PR/literacy/awareness argument – since, as you say, there was low awareness and literacy in 1949, what stopped these people from drafting a document that was much more in their favour? Why the pretence of drafting a document that still reflected noble ideals?
@OG: Thanks. Yes, making statues, making money…..
@Bones: It is very depressing, but we don’t seem to learn….
@Liju: So we’re actually following what he said? 😉
@Poonam: You’re right, he disagreed with Gandhi. He disagreed with the Congress. He had very different views. But here’s the greatness of the man: as your comment shows, he did not get all that he wanted during and after independence. Yet, once the constitution was in place, he acknowledged its supremacy and wanted everyone to work within its framework. He decided that the country was bigger than all of them, and while he never gave up his ideals, he always tried to achieve them constitutionally. Coming to the term ‘harijan’: perhaps he felt it was patronising.
October 15, 2009 at 3:52 pm
@IHM: We are the ones to blame. We have allowed them to get away with it. And we continue to do so.
@Dreamer: Thank you. Yes, if only 5% had an iota of the sense they had……
@Vishesh: Thank you very much. You ask, if they had foresight, could they have prevented what’s happening? Well, yes and no. We, as citizens, also have a stake in the health and continuance of our democracy. They did the best they could. They couldn’t put down each and every point in the constitution. Dynastic succession, for example. If the DMK is the largest party in Tamil Nadu and Karunanidhi has made Stalin the leader of the party and the party accepts it, our Westminster system can do nothing to prevent him from becoming CM. The founders couldn’t do anything about this – putting in a provision to the contrary, that the succession to the leadership of a political party cannot be dynastic, would not only have seemed unconstitutional, but if every such provision was taken care of, we would have a constitution that would be extremely large, cumbersome and unwieldy. I think what most of us have forgotten is that we are the most important stakeholders in a democracy. If we neglect our duties, our vision, our common-sense, we allow the politicians to hijack our lives. And no constitutional safeguards can prevent that.
@Vegetable: Welcome and thanks for the comment.
What he said was predictable: of course it was. But the point he made was not one of foreign aggression or another imperialist takeover – the point he made was that we are our own biggest enemies. Always have been. Should we ever lose independence again, it will be our own doing. And while he cared about the issue of caste, he also realised its dangers.
Civil disobedience, satyagraha: actually, Ambedkar himself used satyagraha as a tool. His point was that such methods had no room in a constitutional democracy.
Coming to your last point on identity: you’ve hit the nail on the head. It exists primarily outside the country, because most people abroad can’t tell the difference between Indians from different regions. They club us together as Indians, whether we like it or not. Hell, they club us with Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans and often Nepalis as well.
I, too, can only hope that we don’t regress.
@Harish: Thank you for selecting this post as one of Blogadda’s “Spicy Saturday Picks”. It is an honour to be part of this list.
@Amreekandesi: Look at my reply to Ketan. Instead of educational qualifications, which may exclude very many from the political process, why don’t we use another proxy for moral qualities? My recommendation is the number of cases and complaints against politicans. If there are any, don’t allow that person to contest elections. Too sweeping a measure? Yes, but we’re desperate. But, as I also told Ketan, considering that we have not been able to weed out known criminals, what chances do we have of making this work?
The political class is screwing us, and we are happily getting screwed in the name of caste, language and religion.
@Sojo: Welcome to my blog and thanks for the comment. Was he denouncing other freedom fighters who used satyagraha, civil disobedience etc? Not really. He himself organised satyagrahas before 1947 (including many in multiple cities in 1946) but in 1949 said that these no longer had a place in the constitution. Independence and the constitution did not give him all that he wanted. His points of disagreement with the INC are too well known to repeat. But for all that, the man exemplified a good citizen: he didn’t agree with a lot that was happening, but realised that now the constitution took supremacy. That there was a time and place for everything, and the time for satyagrahas was over. I just wish most Indians realised this. This is not to say that we can’t or shouldn’t want to change things – but that there is a way of doing it. What he meant was, now that there is a constitution, we need to abide by it. An unexceptionable statement.
@Charakan: Thank you.
Please also see my reply to Sojo above.
Ambedkar was very clear about his inclusion of civil disobedience and satyagraha in the list of unconstitutional methods. By using using the phrase “constitutional methods”, he left no room for doubt. The existence of the constitution in Independent India made all such methods unconstitutional. In that very speech, he then went on to speak about liberty, equality and fraternity, and how without this in practice, there would be no progress.
We are making all his fears come true.
@Solilo: Please also see my replies to Ketan and AD. Perhaps we first need to get people of integrity into politics and we can start this process by weeding out the undesirables. That does not seem to be happening. As long as that doesn’t happen, everything else is a mirage.
@Rakesh: Thank you. Yes, there have been some very thought-provoking comments.
Paying government employees is important, but equally important is a provision for penalties and action in case of dereliction of duty. In India, we might pay them 10 times more than they are earning now – until they learn that there are consequences to their actions, that corruption will be swiftly and legally dealt with, they will have no fear. They will enjoy higher salaries and still accept bribes.
Please see my reply to Ketan’s point on all leaders being the same.
October 15, 2009 at 7:03 pm
One question. Can satyagraha be really called un constitutional ?
October 16, 2009 at 10:12 pm
[…] : The Quirky Indian What : Requiem for a Country Spicy : The Quirky Indian goes back to history and ponders about our country and what is happening […]
October 18, 2009 at 1:43 pm
One of your best posts, ever, Quirky! Was just about to shoot tip Blogadda with this link, and then scrolled down to the comments, and realised somebody beat me to it 🙂
You’ve been Saturday Picked!!! Wow!! Congratulations. This honour, obviously, is most well-deserved and long overdue 🙂
October 22, 2009 at 11:27 am
@Charakan: Good question. In my opinion, the answer is yes. While a peaceful protest or a demonstration, for example, may not be unconstitutional and is a legitimate form of dissent, widespread mass direct action to paralyse the government, or an active programme of breaking and disregarding the rule of law, in a representative democracy and in the presence of constitutional means to redress any wrongs, is not. Please note that I am not against protest or dissent. Far from it. But mass direct action is actually revolutionary, even if it is theoretically non-violent. It has no place in a representative and constitutional democracy (which is at best an imperfect compromise, never the ideal) where judicial review exists and where each eligible citizen has a vote. Theoretically, satyagraha is peaceful resistance; in practice, it has the potential to spiral into violence, rioting and arson. It engenders a total disrespect for law and order, and actually promotes anarchy. Ambedkar and other leaders feared – and history has proved them right – that this concept would be misused in independent India, not just by political parties and trade unions, but by individuals as well. Gandhi himself suspected as much, and is quoted by Bipin Chandra as having said, in 1943, to his secretary Pyarelal Nayyar, that such a movement had no room in independent India and that nobody should exceed certain limits in a democracy. All these leaders realised that once people get used to breaking the law under the guise of a cause, they do not stop at that cause but extend their disregard of the law into many other things. That is one of the shameful facts of free India, so clearly underlined today by the method of enforcement of bandhs and hartals by political parties and pressure groups, and the growing legitimacy of mass protests, that quickly degenerate into mob violence, as an acceptable form of political dissent.
Besides, in the Indian context, the “civil” part of civil disobedience has been completely disregarded, and practitioners now revel in only the “disobedience” bit. The constitution guarantees us certain rights; as long as that constitution is in force, we have constitutional avenues to redress our grievances.
Let me quote George F Kennan, in his article “Rebels Without a Program”: “This willingness to accept in principle, the working of a system based on the will of the majority even if you yourself are in minority is simply the essence of democracy. Without it, there could be no system of representative self-government at all. When you attempt to alter the system by means of violence or non-violence, this, it seems to me, can have only one of the two implications: either you do not believe in democracy at all, and consider that society ought to be governed by enlightened minorities such as the one to which you of course belong, or you consider the present system to be so imperfect, that it is not truly representative, that it no longer serves adequately as a vehicle for the will of the majority, and this leaves to the unsatisfied no adequate means of self-expression other than the primitive one of calling attention to themselves and their emotions by mass demonstrations and mass defiance of established authority.”
@Pal: Thank you very much! 🙂
October 23, 2009 at 1:51 am
Thank you Quirky for the reply and I respect your opinion, but I beg to differ. I feel Satyagraha as envisaged by Gandhiji is not unconstitutional and also feel that it should be used everywhere at all times and in all situations. Our Constitution if interpreted in the spirit in which it was written does not ban Satyagraha.
See what Gandhiji says abt its universal relevance and legality:
“Satyagraha is the way of non-violence. It is, therefore, justified; indeed it is the right course, at all times and all places. Obviously, it is irrelevant to raise issues about the legality of such Satyagraha. It is for the satyagrahi to decide. The question is asked why we should call any rule unjust. In saying so, we ourselves assume the function of a judge. It is true. But in this world, we always have to act as judges for ourselves. That is
why the satyagrahi does not strike his adversary with arms. If he has
Truth on his side, he will win, and if his thought is faulty, he will suffer the consequences of his fault. At no time and under no circumstances is the use of arms
permitted in Satyagraha. It should never be forgotten that in this
struggle the highest type of non-violence is to be maintained.
Satyagraha means fighting oppression through voluntary suffering.
There can be no question here of making anyone else suffer.”
Yes you can argue that there can be violence in any public movement but then by definition it is not Satyagraha.
As you are well aware the most famous struggle in a constitutional democracy based on Satyagraha principle was in USA lead by Martin Luther King. In several places in India also such struggles are going on, the most famous of them is Narmada Bhachavo Andolan.
Whether one agrees with the objective of such struggles or not the method of struggle, Satyagraha should be preserved and enriched.
@Charakan, we shall have to agree to disagree on this one, because I stand by my view that mass direct action, even if it is non-violent, has no place in a constitutional and representative democracy. But thank you for taking part in the discussion and sharing your views. Cheers.
November 7, 2009 at 3:55 pm
That’s one heck of an article!
I’m neither informed nor mature enough to add more, so I won’t trouble you with my nonsense here 😛
February 1, 2010 at 9:13 pm
[…] Requiem for a Country […]
February 2, 2010 at 12:26 am
[…] Requiem for a Country […]
April 8, 2011 at 12:38 pm
[…] a year ago, I wrote “Requiem for a Country”, a post on some remarkable observations made by Dr. Ambedkar and Dr. Rajendra Prasad. One of Dr. […]