AMBEDKAR REMEMBRANCE DAY SPEECH
By
Thiru. K. Ashok Vardhan Shetty,I.A.S.(Rtd)
Former Vice Chancellor, Indian Maritime University
On 20th December, 2023
At Aayakar Bhavan Chennai
(Samaj Weekly)-
Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Shri Sunil Mathur, Shri Pugazhendhi, Smt. Subashini, other dignitaries, ladies and gentlemen.
Good afternoon to all of you. I am sure you have heard of this saying of William Shakespeare: “Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.” To this, I would add another category. There are some whose true greatness is realized long after their death, and thereafter, their fame keeps growing by the day. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, popularly called Babasaheb, belongs to this fourth category.
I see a striking parallel between the lives of Thomas Paine and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. It has been said of Thomas Paine, “With his name left out, the history of liberty cannot be written.” He was an Englishman who emigrated to America and had the unique distinction of participating in two Revolutions – the American War of Independence and the French Revolution. He was one of the Founding Fathers of the USA. He was elected a Member of the Parliament of Revolutionary France. Yet, most people have barely heard of him. Why? Because in 1794 Thomas Paine wrote a book called “Age of Reason” which was a devastating critique of the Bible and the clergy. This made him highly controversial and very unpopular so much so that only six people attended his funeral in 1809. One US newspaper’s obituary read, “He lived long, did some good and much harm.” This remained the verdict of history for more than a century after his death. There was a deliberate attempt to erase his name from U.S history. But then the tide turned and in 1952 his bust was placed in the US Hall of Fame. Thomas Paine is now regarded as “the English Voltaire,” a true champion of liberty and defender of the underdogs.
Robert Green Ingersoll’s memorable tribute to Thomas Paine seems almost tailor-made for Dr. B.R. Ambedkar:
“He belonged to the lower classes … He was born in a country where real liberty was unknown, where people hugged their chains, where the privileges of class were guarded with infinite jealousy and the rights of the individual trampled beneath the feet of priests and nobles, where to advocate justice was treason. … He saw oppression on every hand; injustice everywhere; hypocrisy at the altar, venality on the bench, tyranny on the throne; and with a splendid courage he espoused the cause of the weak against the strong—of the enslaved many against the titled few.”
I hope you agree with me that this tribute fits Babasaheb perfectly. But in one sense, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was the greater revolutionary. Thomas Paine fought against political tyranny whereas Babasaheb fought against social tyranny. As he put it, “A political tyranny is nothing compared to social tyranny and a reformer who defies society is a more courageous man than a politician who defies government.”
Babasaheb’s revolt against the oppressive features of the Hindu caste system and untouchability, his open declaration that he was born a Hindu but would not die a Hindu, and his conversion to Buddhism along with 5 lakh followers about three months before his death, made him – in the words of his biographer Dhananjay Keer – “the most hated man in India”. When he died, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru released a brief condolence message in which he described Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as a “very controversial figure in Indian politics.”
Between 1956 and 1990, there was a conspiracy of silence to erase Babasaheb’s name from public memory. School textbooks either did not mention his name or mentioned it only in passing. Though he wrote very erudite tracts on economics, sociology, political science, and law, college textbooks on these subjects never discussed his ideas. But as in the case of Thomas Paine, the tide turned. From 1990 onwards, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s popularity has been resurgent partly due to the political consolidation of the Scheduled Castes across the country, partly due to the rise of SC intellectuals, and partly due to an ever-increasing number of books and articles written on Babasaheb’s ideas. Even the political parties that were strongly opposed to him and his views during his lifetime are now trying to coopt him into their fold. Economists of both persuasions – the Left and the Right – are trying to cite his works in support of their respective contentions.
Have you heard of these names – Bhagwan Das, Gobind Ballabh Pant, D.K. Karve, Dr. B.C. Roy, Purushottam Das Tandon, and P. V. Kane? If yes, can you please tell me what they were famous for? These gentlemen did make significant contributions in different fields, but they could not hold a candle to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. And yet, Bhagwan Das was awarded Bharat Ratna in 1955, G.B. Pant in 1957, D.K. Karve in 1958, Dr. B.C. Roy and P.D. Tandon in 1961, and P.V. Kane in 1964. Even Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan of Pakistan was awarded Bharat Ratna in 1987 and our own M.G.R was awarded Bharat Ratna in 1988. When did Dr. B.R. Ambedkar get the Bharat Ratna? In 1990, 34 years after his death, 3 years after the Pakistani, and 2 years after the movie star-turned-politician!
We remember V.P. Singh for implementing the recommendation of the Mandal Commission and reserving 27% of jobs in the public sector for Other Backward Classes in 1990. We should be thankful to V.P. Singh for conferring Bharat Ratna on Babasaheb in 1990. Better late than never.
We should also be thankful to Sharad Pawar who, as Chief Minister of Maharashtra in 1979, constituted a committee to compile Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s writings and speeches and got them published in 17 volumes, running to thousands of pages, through the Education Department of the Government of Maharashtra. Their publication gave a peek into the mind of one of the greatest intellectuals India has produced.
If Thomas Paine was the “English Voltaire,” then Dr. B. R. Ambedkar was the “Indian Voltaire”. In his 1944 book titled “Verdict of India”, Beverly Nichols, a famous British journalist and author, termed Babasaheb “one of the six best brains in the world”. Isn’t it a pity that Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s works are rarely read by large sections of his countrymen, especially by those who belong to the upper castes? I can see no reason for this except caste prejudice – the unstated presumption that “you can’t be an intellectual unless you belong to one of the upper castes” – and unwillingness to tolerate any criticism of the caste system and, by implication, the Hindu religion.
Let me narrate a personal incident. There is a WhatsApp group of all IAS officers of the 1983 batch to which I belong. On one occasion, I happened to mention in our WhatsApp group that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was the greatest Indian thinker and writer of the 20th century, greater than Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, C. Rajagopalachari, and Aurobindo Ghosh in terms of scholarship, originality of thinking, and the range and erudition of his writings. One of my batchmates responded with the comment “That is debatable.” I said, “Okay, let us debate it.” I own 17 volumes of Babasaheb’s collected works and have read large parts of the first 11 volumes. I asked my batchmate how many works of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar he had read. He said he had read none. I said to him, “Come on. You have not read even a single work of Babasaheb, and yet you pass a comment like this. Isn’t this your caste prejudice talking?” He did not reply.
The English mathematician, G.H. Hardy, who spotted Srinivasan Ramanujan’s mathematical genius and fostered it by inviting him over to Cambridge, was a cricket enthusiast. He came up with a categorization called “in the Bradman class.” I am sure you have all heard of Sir Donald Bradman, the great Australian batsman who retired from Test cricket with an astounding career batting average of 99.94. The career batting average of the modern greats – Sunil Gavaskar, Vivian Richards, Sachin Tendulkar, Ricky Ponting, Kumar Sangakkara, Steve Smith, and Virat Kohli – is somewhere between 50 and 60. No one has come anywhere near Bradman. G.H. Hardy used to say that someone was “in the Bradman class” if he was way, way better than others, head and shoulders above others. I told my IAS-83 WhatsApp group that I consider Dr. B.R. Ambedkar to be “in the Bradman class” because he was head and shoulders above his contemporaries in terms of scholarship, originality of thinking, and the range and erudition of his writings. No one controverted my statement this time!
About 3 months ago, a chap called RBSV Manian was arrested in Chennai for making some very derogatory remarks about Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and the Scheduled Castes. Manian said that Ambedkar was not the architect of India’s Constitution; he was simply a stenotypist who noted down what the Constituent Assembly debated. Well, Manian was dumb enough to make a public display of his caste prejudice, but I have heard several others say something similar in private. So, I think this insidious attempt to belittle Babasaheb’s contribution warrants a detailed rebuttal.
The Constitution of India was indeed discussed and approved by a Constituent Assembly consisting of 389 members. But this Assembly did not produce the Constitution out of a vacuum. As Chairman of the Drafting Committee, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s responsibility was:
● to prepare the background note for each Article of the Constitution after studying similar provisions in other Constitutions around the world.
● to suggest the draft wording of the Article.
● to lead the discussion about the Article in the Constituent Assembly.
● to reply to the points raised by other members about the Article.
● to redraft the wording of the Article based on the discussions, and so on.
Anybody who has read the Constituent Assembly Debates would know how pivotal Babasaheb’s role was in the drafting of the Constitution.
It should be noted that over 250 members of the Constituent Assembly were lawyers. Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, Rajendra Prasad, and C. Rajagopalachari were all lawyers. Why didn’t any of them become the Chairman of the Drafting Committee?
Besides Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the Drafting Committee consisted of 6 very eminent jurists – Alladi Krishnaswamy Aiyar, N. Gopalswami Ayyangar, K.M. Munshi, Mohammad Saadulla, B.L. Mitter, and D.P. Khaitan. Why wasn’t any one of them made the Chairman of the Drafting Committee?
Because everyone from Mahatma Gandhi downwards knew that Babasaheb was the man best suited for this job. It is to the eternal credit of Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, and other members of the Constituent Assembly that they set aside their personal differences with Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, recognized his merit, and made him the Chairman of the Drafting Committee.
After the Constitution of India was enacted and adopted on November 26, 1949, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the President of the Constituent Assembly, gave this handsome compliment to Babasaheb:
“I have realised, as nobody else could have, with what zeal the members of the Drafting Committee and especially its Chairman, Dr. Ambedkar, despite his indifferent health, have worked. We never made a decision so right as when we put him on the Drafting Committee and made him its Chairman. He has not only justified his selection but has added lustre to the work which he has done.”
One of the members of the Drafting Committee, Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar paid this tribute:
“Before I conclude, I would be failing in my duty if I do not express my high appreciation of the skill and ability with which my friend, the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar has piloted this Constitution and his untiring work as Chairman of the Drafting Committee.”
Another member of the Drafting Committee, K.M. Munshi appreciated Babasaheb’s services as follows:
“Many know Ambedkar as an embittered champion of the Depressed Classes of whom he is one. Only a few have enjoyed his amiability and personal charm, his human friendship and loyalty. An eminent jurist … his contribution to the evolution and drafting of our Constitution was the most constructive aspect of his life.”
So, only a very ignorant and very prejudiced person could say that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was a mere steno-typist who noted down what the Constitution Assembly debated.
Now, the hallmark of a truly great intellectual is that his ideas stand the test of time, they do not become obsolete or sound absurd in the modern context. This is where Mahatma Gandhi fails and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar succeeds. The Mahatma was a staunch defender of the caste system. He was against big industries. He believed that capitalists and landlords could be persuaded to act as trustees for the poor. Babasaheb’s views on each of these issues were the exact opposite. I find that on almost every issue, Babasaheb said the right thing.
I would like to elaborate upon one issue where Mahatma Gandhi and Babasaheb differed strongly. The Mahatma was a great votary of Village Panchayats. He envisaged a Village Panchayat as a “little republic” that would be self-sufficient, enjoy maximum autonomy, and be the legislature, judiciary, and executive combined for the village. But Babasaheb believed that “these village republics have been the ruination of India.” He said, “I am surprised that those who condemn provincialism and communalism should come forward as champions of the village. What is the village but a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness, and communalism?”
My personal experience in the IAS has convinced me that Dr.B.R.Ambedkar was right and Mahatma Gandhi was wrong.
In 1996, the SC President of Melavalavu Village Panchayat near Melur in Madurai district, two SC ward members and three other SCs were hacked to death in a running bus by caste Hindus because they had dared to contest in the Panchayat elections despite being asked not to. Interestingly, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar had described his visit to Melur in 1931 in one of his books and observed that the area was notorious for atrocities against SCs.
Between 1996 and 2006, elections could not be conducted for 3 Village Panchayats – Pappapatti, Keeripatti and Nattarmangalam – in Madurai district because the caste Hindus refused to accept the reservation of the post of President for SCs. They boycotted the Panchayat elections and threatened the SCs not to file nominations. A similar thing happened between 2001 and 2006 in the Kottakatchiyendhal Village Panchayat of Virudhunagar district.
Since caste Hindus owned the lands and the SCs were largely landless agricultural labourers, they meekly gave in. Even when, on a few occasions, a SC candidate filed his nomination, he was compelled to withdraw the same or resign immediately after he was elected unopposed. This charade went on for many years. Seventeen attempts to conduct the Panchayat elections in these 4 Village Panchayats failed. In 2004, the then CM J. Jayalalithaa sent a team of 4 Ministers headed by OPS to persuade the caste Hindus but they wouldn’t budge.
In 2006, Kalaignar Karunanidhi became Chief Minister. I was posted as Secretary, RD & PR department. Together with the District Collectors of Madurai and Virudhunagar and through a combination of carrot and stick methods, we finally succeeded in the 18th attempt and the elections to these 4 Village Panchayats were conducted smoothly. However, I was worried that the caste Hindus may humiliate the SC Presidents and make them resign. So, I organised a function in Chennai at which the President, the Vice President and ward members of these 4 Village Panchayats were felicitated by the CM. I hoped that the caste Hindus would not compel the SC Presidents to resign after attending such a function. I also passed an order directing the local BDO and Tahsildar to attend the meetings of these 4 Village Panchayats as ‘Observers’ for the first 6 months. I knew that the caste Hindus would not dare to humiliate the SC Presidents in their presence. The problem was finally solved.
There were several complaints of SC Presidents and ward members in other districts being made to sit on the floor or asked to wait outside the meeting room and come in to sign the minutes after the Panchayat meeting was over. I instructed District Collectors to have a meeting with all SC Village Panchayat Presidents and ask them if they were being humiliated in this manner. I made them issue warning memos to Vice Presidents and ward members from among Caste Hindus who ill-treated the SC Presidents and ward members. The Collectors also threatened to arrest them if there was any repetition of these incidents. The problems ceased.
You may have heard the story of Sisyphus from Greek mythology. The gods punished Sisyphus by ordering him to roll a boulder up a hill. Every time the boulder reached the top of the hill, it would come rolling back and Sisyphus would have to start all over again. This is the case with harassment of SC elected representatives. As recently as October 2020, a SC woman Village Panchayat President in Cuddalore district was made to sit on the floor during the Panchayat meeting while the Vice President and ward members sat at a table!
Imagine, if things are this bad in the 21st century, how bad they must have been in the 1940s? If things are this bad in a progressive State like Tamil Nadu, how bad they must be in the rest of the country? And, if SC elected representatives are treated this badly, how badly the ordinary SC folk would be treated in our villages?
Babasaheb was right when he said, “Democracy is not merely a form of Government. It is primarily a mode of associated living …It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards fellowmen. The caste system not only fractures national unity but also makes true democracy impossible.”
In a hierarchical society divided along caste lines, devolving legislative, judicial, and executive powers to Village Panchayats to make them autonomous village republics, as envisaged by Mahatma Gandhi, would be dangerous and only increase caste oppression.
When Shri Pugazhendhi and Smt. Subashini came to invite me, my first question was: “Why is this function being organised by the Tamil Nadu Income Tax SC & ST Employees Association? Why not by a general association encompassing all employees?” If you read Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s speeches and writings, you will find that he did not write and work for the emancipation of SCs alone. He also wrote and worked for the emancipation of workers, women, OBCs, and minorities. He was instrumental in including many provisions in the Constitution to protect the interests of these sections. Therefore, considering Babasaheb only as a Dalit leader would be unfair to his legacy, and tantamount to stigmatizing him.
Let me give you 3 examples to illustrate my point.
First, workers. In 1936, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar founded the Independent Labour Party to protect the interests of agricultural and industrial workers. As the Labour Member on the Viceroy’s Executive Council between 1942 and 1946, he introduced many labour reforms, including the reduction in the number of working hours from 10 hours to 8 hours per day.
Second, women. Babasaheb’s passion for gender equality may be seen in his quote: “I measure the progress of a community by the degree of progress which women have achieved.” He recommended education, increasing the minimum age of marriage, family planning, participation in political and social struggles side by side with men, etc. as strategies for the emancipation of women. As the first Law Minister in Nehru’s Cabinet, he drafted and moved the Hindu Code Bill to reform traditional Hindu law by banning polygamy, introducing the concept of divorce, and giving women property rights. The Hindu Code Bill could not be passed due to vigorous opposition from orthodox Hindu elements. You may be aware that Dr. B. R. Ambedkar resigned from the Cabinet in September 1951 on this score. But Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru succeeded in passing the Hindu Code later as 4 separate laws during Babasaheb’s lifetime.
Third, OBCs. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar encouraged the OBC leaders to form an All-India Backward Classes Federation on 26th January 1950, the day the Constitution of India came into force. In his resignation letter from the Cabinet, Babasaheb stated: “I will now refer to another matter that had made me dissatisfied with the Government. It relates to the treatment accorded to the Backward Classes. I was very sorry that the Constitution did not embody any safeguards for the Backward Classes. It was left to be done by the Executive Government based on the recommendations of a Commission to be appointed by the President. More than a year has elapsed since we passed the Constitution. But the Government has not even thought of appointing the Commission.” This shows that Babasaheb had the interests of the OBCs very much in his heart.
So, let us stop regarding Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as a leader of the SCs only. Like Thomas Paine, he espoused the cause of all oppressed classes and downtrodden and was a true champion of liberty. I hope that in the future Ambedkar Jayanti and Ambedkar Remembrance Day will be organized by all employees of the Income Tax department and not just by the SC and ST Association. Thank you.
