Dr.B.R.Ambedkar-the Champion of Women’s Rights
Author:K.B. USHA
Review of the Contributions of a Major Thinker
This issue of Samyukta highlights the contributions of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar.

ABSTRACT--- The operation of caste, both at the systemic level and at the functioning of patriarchy, the growing caste/class divide in feminist political discourses made Ambedkar's views on women's oppression, social democracy, caste and Hindu social order and philosophy become significant to modern Indian feminist thinking. The contemporary social realities warrant close examination of the wide range of his topics, the width of his vision, the depth of his analysis, and the rationality of his outlook and the essential humanity of his suggestions for practical action. For the Indian Women's Movement, Ambedkar provides a powerful source of inspiration to formulate a feminist political agenda which simultaneously addresses the issues of class, caste and gender.
The operation of caste both at the systemic level and at the functioning of patriarchy, the growing caste/class divide in feminist political discourses makes Ambedkar’s views on women’s oppression, social democracy, caste and Hindu social order and philosophy, significant to modern Indian feminist thinking. Although Ambedkar proved, himself to be a genius and was known as a great thinker, philosopher, revolutionary, jurist-par excellence, prolific writer, social activist and critic and strode like a colossus in the Indian sociopolitical scene unto his death, his thoughts never received adequate attention in the generality of Indian society just because he was born as an untouchable. However, the contemporary social realities warrant close examination of the wide range of his topics, the width of his vision, the depth of his analysis, and the rationality of his outlook and the essential humanity of his suggestions for practical action. Hence, for Indian women’s movement Ambedkar provides a powerful source of inspiration to formulate a feminist political agenda which simultaneously addresses the issues of class, caste and gender in the contemporary socio- political set up, which still keeps conservative and reactionary values in many respects, particularly on gender relations. The Writings and Speeches of Ambedkar show what values India should develop and how they would modernize its social and political institutions. Here I do not intend to provide a comprehensive review of all his works on various areas, because of the voluminous nature of his work; but try to attempt only a profile of his perception on women’s status and their rights. The Government of Maharashtra and Government of India have brought volumes of his published and unpublished works during the occasion of Ambedkar centenary celebrations. His works have been published in various regional languages also. Ambedkar saw women as the victims of the oppressive, caste-based and rigid hierarchical social system. He believed that socio-cultural forces artificially construct gender relations, especially by Manusmriti and Hindu religion. As Simone De Beauvoir observed, “Women are made, they are not born”, Ambedkar also raised the question, “Why Manu degraded her (woman)?”. In his The Riddle of the Woman, The Woman And the Counter Revolution, The Rise and Fall of Hindu Women, Castes in India: Their Mechanism Genesis and Development and through the issues of his journals Mooknayak (1920) and Bahishkrit Bharat (1927), Ambedkar tries to show how the gender relations and differences are constructed by Hindu Brahminical order, which conditions women to conform a stereotype feminine behavior, requiring them to be passive and submissive, suited only to a life of domestic and family responsibilities.
In the Women and Counter Revolution and The Riddle of Women Ambedkar portrays the way in which Manu treated women. He pointed out that the laws of Manu on the status of women are very important in moulding the Hindu attitude and perspective (Indian perspective) towards women, perpetuated and maintained through Hindu personal laws based on shastras, caste and endogamy, i.e. the base of Indian patriarchy. He attacked Manusmriti as a major source, which legitimizes the denial of freedom, self respect, right to education, property, divorce etc., to women by attributing a very lofty ideal to them. He observes in the law book of Manu that the killing of a woman is like the drinking of liquor, a minor offence. It was equated with killing of Sudra. Manu even advises a man not to sit in a lonely place with his own sister, daughter or even mother. Some of the other laws Manu prescribed are:
Day and night women must be kept in dependence by the males (of their families), and, if they attach themselves to sexual enjoyments, they must be kept under one’s control. Her father protects her in childhood, her husband protects her in youth, and her sons protect her in old age; a woman is never fit for independence. Nothing must be done independently by a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, even in her own house.
In the matter of property a wife was degraded by Manu just as a slave. He forbade women the study of Vedas, and performing Sanskaras uttering the Ved mantras because he projected women as unclear as untruth is. Manu instructs women: “Though destitute or virtuous or seeking pleasure elsewhere, or devoid of good qualities, yet a husband must be constantly worshipped as a god by a faithful wife. …She must always be cheerful, clever in management of her household affairs, careful in cleaning her utensils, and economic in expenditure”. Ambedkar cites evidences of higher status of women in the pre-Manu days. She was free and equal partner of man and had the right to education, divorce, remarriage and economic freedom. The story of public disputation between Janaka and Sulabha, Yajnavalkya and Maitrei, Yajnavalkya and Gargi, and Sankaracharya and Vidyadhari show that Indian women in the pre-Manu period could rise to the highest pinnacle of learning and education. It is generally believed that Dr. Ambedkar had completed the books entitled The Riddles of Hinduism, The Buddha and Karl Marx, and Revolution and Counter Revolution. All carry chapters on women entitled Elevation of Women and Degradation of Women which expose how Chaturvarna prioritised “birth” instead of “worth,” degraded women and is unable to explain the status and position of women, and endogamy.
He also suggests strategies for emancipation from oppression. He found their emancipation in Buddhist values, which promotes equality, self-respect and education. Ambedkar believes that Buddha treated women with respect and love, and never tried to degrade them like Manu did. He taught women Buddha Dharma and religious philosophy. Ambedkar cites women like Vishakha, Amrapali of Visali, Gautami, Rani Mallika, queen of Prasenajith who approached Buddha, as evidences of Buddha’s treatment of women as equals. (Paul, 1993:383-84) It was mainly the Hindu culture and social customs, which stood in the headway of women’s empowerment.
Like Ambedkar, The National Policy for the Empowerment of Women 2001, also admits, “The underlying causes of gender inequality are related to social and economic structure… and practices. Consequently, the access of women, particularly those belonging to weaker sections including Scheduled Castes/ Tribes Other Backward Classes and Minorities … to education, health, and productive resources, among others is inadequate. Therefore, they remain largely marginalised, poor and socially excluded”. (Govt. Of India, 2001: 2) Moreover, feminist scholars also realized the importance of caste in contemporary India. Many feminist scholars, especially after the Women Reservation Bill debate, agree that one cannot analyze Indian society without taking note of caste. Though patriarchy is pervasive in India, it varies in degree depending on the religion, region, caste, community and social group, maintained and perpetuated through endogamy. The contemporary situation warrants feminists to work for the emancipation of women based on the ground realities as experienced by all sections of oppressed and discriminated women, within the framework of the Indian context. Since Ambedkar himself was a victim of oppression and discrimination in all its severity, his views about women’s oppression and equal rights are more useful than anybody else’s theory based on mere observation for the feminist movement to strengthen its strategy for approaching the systemic challenges and contradictions in a more pragmatic way to bring women to the mainstream. To understand Ambedkar’s arguments and the ideals for which he stood, it is necessary to know some of his bitter and better life experiences that he underwent at the outset of the socio-political awakening from the time of his birth.
In Maharashtra the renowned social reformer Jyotirao Phule, the founder of Satya Shodhak Samaj, started a school for untouchables as early as 1848. He started a school for girls in Pune. Sayajirao Gaekwad, the ruler of Baroda, Gopal Baba Walangkar, Col.Olcott, were some of the others who worked towards the abolition of untouchability and started educational institutions for untouchables th in the second half of the 19 century. Women’s education was given ample stress in these schools. The main inspiration to raise the women question in India during this period was from the ‘First wave feminism’, which was characterized by the demand that women should enjoy the same legal and political rights as men. Its expression can be traced in many feminist works. Christine de Pisan’s Book of the City of Ladies, published in Italy in 1405, foreshadowed many of the ideas of modern feminism recording the deeds of famous women of the past, and advocating women’s rights to education and political influence. (Heywood, 1992:239). Mary Astell (1666-1731) argued that since women also are rational beings, they should be educated equally; they should be enabled to live independently, if they wish, rather than being enforced by economic necessity to become the property of man through marriage. Mary Wollstonecraft’s (1759-97) Vindication of the rights of Women claimed that women also are entitled to enjoy the same rights – right to education, employment, property and protection of civil law- as men do. She also presented th the domestic sphere as a model of community and social order. During the 19 century women’s demand on the right to vote was articulated by feminists such as Elizabeth Candy Stanton (1815-1902), Susan Anthony (1820-1906) in United States, and Harriet Taylor (1807-58) and John Stuart Mill (1806-73) in Britain. Women’s rights movements emerged in many countries such as American Women Suffrage Association, Women’s Social and Political Union in U.K, and such others. It was when its waves reached India to form a new social awakening, Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar was born at Mhow, in the erstwhile Central Province th of British India on 14th April 1891.
He was the 14 child of Ramji Sakpal and Bhimabai who belonged to Mahar and Murbadkar untouchable communities respectively. The Mahars formed the backbone of the Maratha army and also were important part of the Mumbai Army of the East India Company since they were the first to come into contact with the Europeans in India. Ramji’s father Maloji Sakpal served in the Army and later Ramji also joined the British Army. From the army school he attained excellence in English language, and had keen interest in reading and acquiring knowledge. Later he became teacher and then the headmaster of the army school. Ramji’s family was influenced by the Bhakti Movement, which was critical of, and rejected caste system. Ramji became the follower of Kabir. He was strict about vegetarian food and was interested in religious topics. Moreover, he was a sympathizer of Mahatma Phule, the then known social reformer. Ambedkar was influenced by his father very much in the childhood itself.
At the age of five, Ambedkar was admitted to a Marathi school at Dapoli in 1896. But due to Bhimabai’s death Ramji shifted to Satara. From Satara government school Ambedkar completed primary education and entered high school. Here started the painful story of oppression and humiliation which compelled him later to act to blow up the oppressive social order. At the school he was insulted due to his inferior caste status as an untouchable. Ambedkar was pushed to a side of the classroom and was not allowed to mingle with other students. He was never given the opportunity to participate in sports and other extracurricular activities with fellow students. Even the teachers were reluctant to correct Ambekar’s and his brother’s notebooks and avoided asking them questions because of the fear of being polluted. He was barred from studying certain subjects especially Sanskrit. Ambedkar was given Persian as second language when the Sanskrit teacher refused to teach him. In the midst of humiliations also, Ambedkar concentrated on his studies due to the encouragement from his father.
His experience of insults took the form of refusal of local conveyance, drinking water and the refusal of even a barber to cut his hair, caused to effervesce in him, anger against the cruel system of untouchability. In 1907 Ambedkar passed matriculation. This was a great achievement as far as untouchables were concerned. He was congratulated in a meeting presided over by S. K Bhole, one of the leaders of Satyashodak movement. Soon after matriculation he married nine years old Ramabai, at the age of fourteen. However, with the help of Maharaja of Baroda he continued higher studies and passed B.A. in 1912. In 1913 when his father expired, he was forced to take up a job, since the economic condition of the family was bad. He was appointed in a higher post in Baroda. But the insult and humiliation from upper caste colleagues disappointed him and forced him to leave the job. When he got a scholarship from the Maharaja, again he joined Colombia University for M.A.Degree with Economics, Political Science, Moral Philosophy, Anthropology and Sociology as subjects of study. He passed M.A. in Economics in 1915 and presented a thesis in the university on Ancient Indian Commerce, which was prepared under the able supervision of Prof. Edwin R.A.Seligman. Shortly after this, he was invited to a seminar of Dr.Goldenweiser in May 1916 and presented his paper on Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development. His main observations include “endogamy is the only characteristic that is peculiar to caste; …the superposition of endogamy on exogamy means the creation of caste; a caste is an enclosed class”. (Ambedkar, 1987: 7-15).
The numerical sexual disparity in marriage, he observes as “the problem of caste, then, ultimately resolves itself into one of repairing the disparity between the marriageable units of the two sexes within it”. When woman and man became a surplus woman (widow), and a surplus man (widower) due to spouse’s death, their existence was seen as a menace. To regulate them, the methods practiced in the mechanism of caste presents three singular uxorial customs, namely: “(i) Sati or the burning of the widow on the funeral pyre of her deceased husband. (ii) Enforced widowhood by which a widow is not allowed to remarry. (iii) Girl marriage”. (Ambedkar, 1987:12-13). Since man has traditional domination over woman, his wishes have always been consulted. On the contrary, woman has been an easy prey to all kinds of iniquitous injunctions, religious, social or economic that are made by man. According to Ambedkar, the society must be based on reason, and not on atrocious traditions of caste system. Therefore, in The Annihilation of Caste he suggests as a means the annihilation of caste maintained through Shastras, “Make every man and woman free from the thralldom of the Shastras cleanse their minds of the pernicious notions founded on the Shastras and he or she will interdine and intermarry”. He found education, intercaste marriage and interdine as methods, which may eliminate castes and patriarchy, maintained through endogamy.
When he was in Colombia University, he wrote to a friend on the need to educate the depressed classes, especially the womenfolk. To quote him: “We shall see better days soon and our progress will be greatly accelerated if male education is pursued side by side with female education”. (Mathew, 1991:74). Ambedkar perceived education as a catalyst for a movement for self-respect and self help.
In 1916 Ambedkar joined the London School of Economics and Political Science for the degrees of M.Sc. and D.Sc. He also joined Gray’s Inn for Barat- Law degree. However, he had to come back to India due to expiry of the fellowship. In July 1917 he returned to India and took up a job as the Military Secretary of the Maharaja of Baroda. Though the Maharaja wished to appoint him later as the Finance Minister, the oppressive and inhuman treatment of upper castes became so severe that he could not continue in service. His subordinates, even the peon, threw files on his table at a distance. He was not given drinking water at the office and was denied accommodation anywhere in Baroda. When he managed an accommodation in a Parsi hotel, he was forced to vacate again, as the upper caste inmates resisted his stay. When the Maharaja referred the matter to the Dewan he expressed his helplessness. In 1917 he returned to Mumbai and did small jobs just for a means of survival. Even in great difficulties also he continued his intellectual pursuit. His articles were published in journals like Journal of Indian Economic Society.
By the mid 1910s, the Congress also started the movement against untouchability and worked towards constitutional reforms for them. Ambedkar criticized the proposed agenda of the Congress because under it the executive and legislature derived their mandates from and were responsible to different powers. Meanwhile Depressed Classes Mission Society of India held its first All India Conference in 23-24 March 1918 in Mumbai. Though prominent leaders like Vitalbai Patel, Bipin Chandrapal, B.G Tilak, and others participated in the meeting, Ambedkar did not participate in it since he was critical of those kind of activities started by leaders belonged to upper castes. In 1918, Ambedkar was invited to give evidence before the Southborough Franchise Committee. He demanded separate electorate and reserved seats for the Depressed Classes in proportion to their population. He argued that any scheme of franchise and constituency that fails to bring about representation of opinions, as well as representation of persons, falls short of a popular government. After fifty years of the working of the Indian Constitution, the Indian women’s demand for political reservations and the lower status of other disadvantaged sections proves that his theory is correct.
Ambedkar started his movement in 1920. He started fierce propaganda against the Hindu social order and launched a journal Mook Nayak in 1920 and Bahishkrit Bharat in 1927 for this purpose. Through its issues he put due stress on the gender equality and the need for education, and exposed the problems of the depressed as well as women. It was during this period that Ambedkar could resume his studies in the London School of Economics and Political Science and Gray’s Inn. By 1923, he obtained MSc, DSc and Bar-AtLaw degrees. During 1922-23, he got the opportunity for post-doctoral research
at the University of Bonn in Germany. His exposure to the West has influenced his perception on feminist issues. It was a time when first wave feminism had been coming to an end with the achievements of franchise rights for women in Britain in 1918, and America in 1920 and Ambedkar’s perception of the women question, emphasizing their right to education, equal treatment with men, right to property and involvement in the political process resembled the global feminist demands. It is well known that Ambedkar had the habit of working for more than eighteen hours a day without any difficulty. His reading habit helped him to understand the feminist developments in different cultures and countries around the world. As J.S.Mill expressed in the Subjection of Women, the legal subordination of one sex to the other is wrong in itself and one of the chief hindrances to human development; and ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, admitting no privilege or power on the one side, nor disability on the other, Ambedkar also holds the same views on work for the untouchables and women.
After returning to India he devoted his life fully to work for the depressed classes including women. He was firmly committed to the ideals of equality, liberty and fraternity. In 1923, he started practising law at the Mumbai High Court. In Ambedkar’s movement launched from 1920 onwards, women actively participated and acquired the confidence to voice their issues on various platforms. Venubai Bhatkar and Renubai Shambharakar are worth mentioning. In 1924, Bahishkrit Hitakarni Sabha was formed to work for the socio-political equality of depressed people and promoting their economic interests. Women started participating in satyagrahas and also launched women’s associations for untouchable women for spreading education and awareness among them. In the Mahad Satyagraha for temple entry in 1927, even caste Hindus participated. Shandabai Shinde was one such participant. In the Satyagraha it was decided to burn the Manusmriti, which humiliated women, and shudras. In the demonstration after the bonfire of the Manusmriti more than fifty women participated. Ambedkar addressed the meeting thereafter and advised women to change their style of wearing saree, wear lightweight ornaments, not to eat meat of dead animals. It was upper caste women like Tipnis who taught them proper way of wearing sarees.
In January 1928, a women’s association was founded in Bombay with Ramabai, Ambedkar’s wife, as its president. Along with the Depressed Classes Conference in Nagpur in 1930, women also had their separate conference. In the Kalram Temple Entry Satyagraha at Nasik in 1930 five hundred women participated and many of them were arrested along with men and ill treated in jails. To face tortures along with their men, women also organized their Samata Sainik Dal. When Ambedkar returned to India after attending the round table conference in 1932, hundreds of women were present for the committee meetings. At various places depressed classes women’s conferences were held and they began to present their demands assertively. The encouragement of Ambedkar empowered women to speak out boldly their feelings. As Radhabai Vadale said in a press conference in 1931, “We should get the right to enter the Hindu temples, to fill water at their water resources. We call these social rights. We should also get the political right to rule, sitting near the seat of the Viceroy. We don’t care even if we are given a severe sentence. We will fill all the jails in the country. Why should we be scared of lathi-charge or firing? On the battlefield does a warrior care for his life? It is better to die a hundred times than live a life full of humiliation. We will sacrifice our lives but we will win our rights.” The credit for this self-respect and firm determination of women, goes to Ambedkar.
On 20th July 1942, The All India Dalit Mahila conference was organized and 25,000 women attended. Ambedkar was highly pleased with the awakening and activities of women. On 13th August, he wrote to one of his friends, Meshram about this. On 6th January 1945, the All India Untouchable Women’s Conference was held in Mumbai. (Limaye, 1999:57-61). In the movement, his strategy was similar to Gandhian method though he had disagreements on many things with Gandhi. To him the emphasis was on reconstruction of the Hindu society on the basis of equality rather than the social reforms initiated by Brahma Samaj or Arya Samaj because their attempts were limited only to the upper strata of the society. His in depth study of Smritis and Shashtras and his experience from the response of upper castes during his temple entry movement crystallized his conclusions on Hindu philosophy and society.
Running newspapers, women’s hostels, boarding schools participating in Sathyagrahas were some of the activities of woman for acquiring the personality development to secure efficient administrative and leadership capacity as men have. Gaining inspiration and encouragement from Ambedkar, many women wrote on topics like Planning, Buddhist philosophy and such other topics. Women also wrote plays, autobiographies, and participated in Satyagrahas. Tulsabai Bansode started a newspaper Chokhamela. This showed how Ambedkar created awareness among poor, illiterate women and inspired them to fight against the unjust social practices like child marriages and devdasi system.
Since Ambedkar was well convinced about the status of women, as the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, he tried an adequate inclusion of women’s rights in the political vocabulary and constitution of India. Therefore, by considering women’s equality both in formal and substantial senses he included special provisions for women while all other general provisions are applicable to them, as to men. Hence, there are Articles like 15(3), 51(A), and so on. His key work in the preparation of Indian Constitution made it to be known as a New Charter of Human Rights. He looked upon law as the instrument of creating a sane social order in which the development of individual should be in harmony with the growth of society. He incorporated the values of liberty, equality and fraternity in the Indian Constitution.
Based on the belief that any scheme of franchise and constituency that fails to bring about representation of opinions as well as representation of persons falls short of creating a popular government, he submitted the Constitution with a warning. He said in his speech delivered in the Constituent Assembly on 25th November 1949, “Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy.” By social democracy he means a way of life, which recognizes liberty, equality and fraternity as principles of life. He further said: “On 26th January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have 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 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 so laboriously built up.” The new social movements emerged especially from Dalits, women and peasants, to assert democratic rights and urged for a new path of development which legitimizes this warning of the Father of the Indian Constitution, when he submitted it to the nation.
Ambedkar’s defense for women as the Law Minister of free India appeared in the form of the Hindu Code Bill in Parliament on 11th April 1947, which invited strong opposition from the Hindu orthodoxy in post-independent India. The Bill provided for several basic rights to women.
It sought to abolish different marriage systems prevalent among Hindus and to establish monogamy as the only legal system. It aimed at conferment of right to property and adoption of women. It provided for restitution of conjugal rights and judicial separation. It attempted to unify the Hindu code in tune with progressive and modern thought. (Mathew, 1991:73-73; Ahir, 1990).
In 1948 when the Hindu Code Bill was introduced in parliament and debated on the floor of the house, the opposition was strong against the Bill. Ambedkar tried his level best to defend the Bill by pointing out the drawbacks of Indian society and arguing that the ideals in the Bill are based on the Constitutional principles of equality, liberty and fraternity and that in the Indian society characterised by the caste system and the oppression of women since women are deprived of equality, a legal frame work is necessary for a social change in which women have equal rights with men. He also pointed out that the aim of the Bill was “ to codify the rules of Hindu Law which are scattered in innumerable decisions of High Courts and of the Privy Council which form a bewildering motley to the common man”. (Arya, 2000:63). However, the Bill could not withstand the opposition from the Hindu orthodoxy. Their major argument was that the Bill was an attempt at the “demolition of the entire structure and fabric of Hindu Society. The very foundations not only of one pillar but of all the pillars on which the Hindu society rests are shaken”. In reality, the Bill was a threat to patriarchy on which traditional family structure, was bounded and that was the major reason behind the opposition. Therefore, on the eve of the first elections in 1951 Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru dropped the Bill by saying that there was too much opposition. On this issue, the then Law Minister Dr.Ambedkar resigned.
His explanations for resignation show how the parliament of independent India deprived its women citizens of even basic rights. His resignation letter dated 27th September 1951 reads as follows:
I will now deal with a matter, which has led me to finally to come
to the decision that I should resign. It is the treatment, which was
accorded to the Hindu code. The Bill was introduced in the House
on the 11th April 1947. After a life of four years it was killed and
died unwept and unsung after 4 clauses of it were passed. While
it was before the house it lived by fits and starts. For full one year
the Government did not feel it necessary to refer it to Select
Committee. It was referred to the Select Committee on 9th April,
1948.The report was presented to the House on 12th August, and
1948.The motion for the consideration of the Report was made
by me on 31st August 48. It was merely for making the motion
that the Bill was kept on the Agenda. The discussion of the motion
was not allowed to take place until the February Session of the
year 1949. Even then it was not allowed to have continuous
discussion. It was distributed over 10 months, 4 days in February
1 day in March and 2 days in April 1949. After this, one-day was
given to the Bill in December 1949, namely the 19th December
on which day the House adopted my motion that the Bill as
reported by the Select Committee be taken into consideration.
No time was given to the Bill in the year 1950. Next time the Bill
came before the House on 5th Feb. 1951 when the clause by clause
consideration of the bill was taken. Only three days 5th 6th and 7th
of February were given to the bill and left there to rot. This being
the last session of the parliament, the Cabinet had to consider
whether the Hindu Code Bill should be gone through before this
Parliament ended or whether it should be left over to the new
Parliament. The Cabinet unanimously decided that it should be
put through in this Parliament. So the Bill was put on the Agenda
and was taken up on the 17th September 1951 for further clauseby-
clause consideration. As the discussion was going on the Prime
Minister put for a new proposal, namely, that the Bill as a whole
may not be gone through within the time available and that it was
desirable to get a part of it enacted into law rather than allow the
whole of it to go to waste. It was a great wrench to me. But I
agreed, for, as the proverb says “ it is better to save a part when
the whole is likely to be lost.” The prime minister suggested that
we should select the Marriage and Divorce Part. The Bill in its
truncated form went on. After two or three days of discussion of
the Bill the Prime Minister came up with another proposal. This
time his proposal was to drop the whole Bill even the Marriage
and Divorce portion. This came to me as a great shock--a bolt
from the blue. I was stunned and could not say anything. I am not
prepared to accept that the dropping this truncated Bill was due
to want of time. I am sure that the truncated Bill was dropped
because other and powerful members of the Cabinet wanted
precedence for their Bills. I am unable to understand how the
Banaras and Aligarh University Bills and how the Press Bill could
have been given precedence over the Hindu Code even in its
attenuated form? I got the impression that the Prime Minister
although sincere had not the earnestness and determination
required to get the Hindu Code Bill through.
In regard to this Bill I have been made to go through the greatest
mental torture. The aid of Party Machinery was denied to me.
The Prime Minister gave freedom of Vote, an unusual thing in
the history of Party. I did not mind it. But I expected two things.
I expected a party whip as to time limit on speeches and instruction
to the Chief whip to move closure when sufficient debate had
taken place. A whip on time limit on speeches would have got
the bill through. But such a whip was never issued. The conduct
of the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs who is also the Chief
whip of the party in connection with the Hindu Code, to say the
least, has been most extraordinary. He has been the deadliest
opponent of the Code and has never been present to aid me by
moving a closure motion. For days and hours filibustering has
gone on a single clause. But the Chief Whip whose duty it is to
economize Government time and push on Government Business
has been systematically absent when the Hindu Code has been
under consideration in the House. I have never seen a case of
Chief whip so disloyal to the Prime Minister and the Prime
Minister so loyal to a disloyal whip. Notwithstanding this
unconstitutional behavior, the Chief Whip is really a darling of
the Prime Minister. For, notwithstanding his disloyalty he got a
promotion in the Party organization. It is possible to carry on in
such circumstances.
It has been said that the Bill had to be dropped because the
opposition was strong. How strong was the opposition? This Bill
has been discussed several times in the Party and was carried to
division by the opponents. Every time the opponents were routed.
The last time when the Bill was taken up in the Party Meeting,
out of 120 only 20 were found to be against it. When the Bill was
taken in the Party for discussion 44 clauses were passed in about
3-1/2 hours time. This shows how much opposition there was to
the Bill within the party. In the House itself there have been
divisions on three clauses of the Bill 2, 3 and 4.Every time there
has been an overwhelming majority in favor even on clause 4,
which is the soul of the Hindu Code.
I was, therefore, quite unable to accept the Prime Minister’s
decision to abandon the Bill on the ground of time. I have been
obliged to give this elaborate explanation for my resignation
because some people have suggested that I am going because of
my illness. I wish to repudiate any such suggestion. I am the last
man to abandon my duty because of illness. (Haksar, 1986: 56- 57)
Although most of the provisions proposed by Ambedkar were later passed during 1955-56 in four Bills on Hindu ‘marriage’, succession’, ‘ minority and guardianship’ and ‘maintenance,’ and later in 1976 some changes were made in Hindu Law, it still remains true that the basic rights of women have yet to be restored to them even after fifty years of the working of the Indian Constitution based on the principle of liberty, equality and justice to all Indian citizens. The nature of controversy on Hindu Code Bill made it clear that the rights for women documented in the Book of Indian Constitution is very difficult to translate into reality. One can find an adequate answer for this in Ambedker’s analysis of the Hindu social order and its philosophy that perpetuates inequality, slavery, poverty, ignorance and powerlessness for the oppressed classes and also to women, which has its impact in modern times also. However, the Hindu Code Bill helped the resurgence of feminist movement in India. This crusade of Ambedkar to emancipate women from injustice inspires the women leaders in Parliament to keep the issue alive until its enactment. This was the starting point for women to recognize their position and pursue rights movement by acquiring strength from ‘second wave feminism’ started in the early 1960s. Women are still fighting issues such as rape, dowry death, communalism, fundamentalism, sexual harassment, violence-domestic and social, poverty and so on.
Ambedkar’s strong disagreements with Hindu ideals compelled him to accept Buddhism as his religion. In a speech at Nagpur on 15th October, 1956 he said that according to the tenets of Hinduism only the so called higher castes have been benefited. Sudras and untouchables have nothing much to gain from it. “As soon as the wife of a Brahmin conceives, she thinks of the High Court whether any post of a Judge has fallen vacant but when our women becomes pregnant, she cannot think of anything better than a sweeper’s post under the Municipal Committee”. In contemporary India the globalization process has made this thesis applicable to all economically deprived sections irrespective of caste due to the trend of making the rich richer and the poor poorer and deneying labour rights to them. He concluded that Hinduism will ruin the Hindus and ultimately India. The inclusion of Hinduism in politics is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship. He recalled Daniel O. Connell to caution India that “No man can be grateful at the cost of his honour, no woman can be grateful at the cost of her chastity and no nation can be grateful at the cost of its liberty”. The dissatisfaction with Hinduism which led to the mass st conversion of 30000 untouchables into Buddhism even in the 21 century, is a point to rethink about the manifestations of Hinduism in the post modern era. If not, as Ambedkar said, Hinduism will remain as a religion that glorifies ignorance and preaches inequality and hatred, divides people into multitudinous castes and sub castes, sanctions poverty and keeps majority of its followers poor, illiterate, ignorant, disunited and divided. Re-domestication of women will be the ultimate result. That women can be raped and paraded naked through the streets is a reality in contemporary India and is a symptom of restoration of Manusmriti Raj.
The Parinirvan of Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar who was recognized internationally as a crusader against caste system, a vigilant fighter for the human rights of all the oppressed and enslaved and the emancipator of humanity from social and economic injustice, occurred on 6th December 1956. In the condolence message, on Ambedkar’s death in Parliament, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru said; “ Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar was a symbol of revolt against all oppressive features of the Hindu society”. His dream of society based on gender equality is yet to be realized and therefore his thoughts are important for the social reconstruction that favours women’s empowerment.
The Nation honoured Baba Saheb Ambedkar by offering Bharat Ratna posthumously to him which was received by his widow Savita Ambedkar in 1990. Dr. Ambedkar Foundation was set up under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment on 24th March 1992 for the purpose of promoting and propagating his ideology of social justice so as to reach the common masses.The Foundation implemented Schemes such as Dr. Ambedkar National Memorial, Dr. Ambedkar National Public Library, Dr.Ambedkar Chairs in Universities/ Institutions, Dr. Ambedkar Award for Social Understanding and Upliftment of Weaker Sections and the Dr. Ambedkar International Award for Social Change. It made a feature film on Ambedkar and published 144 volumes of his speeches and writings so far in various languages. Dr.Ambedkar Chairs have been set up in nine universities/institutions. Baba Amte was given Dr.Ambedkar International Award for Social Change in 1999 and Remy Fernand Claude Satorre Bonhomme of Spain has been selected for the year 2000. As Lord Casey said, Ambedkar stands as the “fountainhead of wisdom and knowledge” in modern India also.
REFERENCES

Ahir, D.C.: The Legacy of Ambedkar, Delhi, 1990.
Ambedkar, B.R. “Women and Counter Revolution”, “Riddles of Hindu Women” in Dr.
Baba Saheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol.3, Department of Education,
Government of Maharashtra, 1987.
_____. “Castes in India: Their Mechanism Genesis and Development”, “Castes in India” in Dr.Baba Saheb Ambedkar: Speeches and Writings, Vol.I Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, 1979
______. ”The Rise and Fall of the Hindu Women”, The Mahabodhi (Calcutta), 59.5-6 . 137-151. 1950.
Arya, Sudha, Women Gender Equality and the State, Deep and Deep Publications, New Delhi. 2000.
Chirakarode, Paul: Ambedkar: Boudhika Vikshobhathinte Agnijwala, Dalit Books, Thiruvalla, 1993.
Government of India: The National Policy for the Empowerment Of Women 2001, Department of Women and Child Development, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi, 2001
Haksar, Nandita, Demystification of Law for Women, Lancer Press, New Delhi. 1986.
Heywood, Andrew: Political Ideologies: An Introduction, Macmillan Press, London. 1998.
Limaye, Champa : Women: Power and Progress, B.R.Publishing Corporation, New Delhi, 1999.
Mathew, Thomas: Ambedkar: Reform or Revolution, Segment Books, New Delhi, 1991.
Contributor
K.B.USHA : U.G.C. Research Associate at the Department of Politics, University of Kerala. She has taken her Ph. D on Soviet Studies from the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Currently working on the topic ‘Political Empowerment of Women – A Critical Study of the Indian Experience.’
Courtesy: http://samyukta.info/site/node/225

Ambedkar and Kanshi Ram: similar, yet different
Badri Narayan
The major difference in perceptions and visions of both the Dalit ideologues may be observed in their views of caste and emancipatory political actions

Two outstanding leaders of the Dalit movement, Bhimrao Ambedkar and Kanshi Ram, may have fought for the same things but could not have been more different.
One was trained in Columbia University while the other was born in a tiny village of Punjab and trained in Pune Dalit Politics. As a successful propagator of Ambedkar’s ideology, Kanshi Ram turned a stoical critic of the Maharashtrian Dalit movement. As a student of the Western knowledge tradition, Ambedkar derived most of his ideological ingredients by looking at Dalits in the context of history while Kanshi Ram explored his political arguments in favour of Dalits using the interesting mixture of both historical and mythical context.
So are Ambedkar and Kanshi Ram comparable? Maybe yes. And maybe no.
Here I am not comparing Ambedkar with Kanshi Ram but trying to analyse two experiments, which are sometimes linked, overlapping and interactive.
Movements and mobilizations for Dalit emancipation: Ambedkar initiated the Dalit movements in western India and Kanshi Ram led the Bahujan movement in north and central India.
The Bahujan movement, as reflected in the formation of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and its remarkable success in previous elections in Uttar Pradesh, is most of the time understood as merely an extension of Ambedkar’s ideas and politics. We usually do not pay attention to the underlying variations and difference of perceptions, visions and strategies in the ideas and political actions of Ambedkar and Kanshi Ram. During the 1980s, when Kanshi Ram was sowing the seeds of BSP politics in Uttar Pradesh, he too associated himself with Ambedkar’s articulation. Both were of the view that political power is the master key through which one can open all the doors of progress and recognition, and to achieve this, it was very important for the Dalits to unite.
In his speeches, Kanshi Ram always asserted that the sapling of Dalit politics originated in Maharashtra but it grew and was nurtured in the soil of Uttar Pradesh. Ambedkar called the politics of emancipation of marginalized groups the “Dalit movement” while Kanshi Ram preferred to term it the “Bahujan movement”. He usually avoided using the word Dalit and said that Dalits have to give up their attitude of crying, begging and demanding. He said they have to become very strong and emancipate themselves from the vicious circle of “Dalitness” so that they could be charitable to others instead of demanding charity.
On the pedestal: A May 2007 photo of Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mayawati (second from left) standing in front of statues of herself (far left), Ambedkar (centre) and Kanshi Ram in New Delhi. Prakash Singh/AFP
Ambedkar tried to provide an ethical context to the politics of Dalit liberation; for him morality was more important for the attainment of political goals. However, Kanshi Ram, in his political experiment, did not pay much heed to the means of acquiring a political regime but laid more emphasis on the end—the attainment of political power. For him the end justified the means.
He provided a practical form to Dalit politics in Indian society. But this practical form of Dalit politics is not like those of upper caste dominant parties such as the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). It is associated with the weakening of these dominant forces by the subversive use of the tools of Brahminical and hegemonic politics.
When the BSP was forming a government in alliance with the BJP, someone put forth his view before Kanshi Ram that this was sheer opportunism. Kanshi Ram is said to have quickly replied: “If the Brahmins can become influential by making use of this opportunism then there is nothing wrong if the Dalits use this opportunism to empower themselves.” While Ambedkar based his Dalit politics on ethical and moral values, Kanshi Ram’s way of Dalit politics was practical and pragmatic in approach. He believed in using instruments of dominant groups which had been applied for centuries to oppress the marginalized.
Strategically and politically, there is a great similarity between Ambedkar’s and Kanshi Ram’s thoughts on politics. Both of them thought that the Dalits should organize themselves into such a political power that the influential political groups fail to get absolute majority. In that situation they would come to the Dalits for support.
The major difference in perceptions and visions of both the Dalit ideologues may be observed in their views of caste and emancipatory political actions. Ambedkar wanted the annihilation of caste. However, Bahujan politics, which Kanshi Ram developed in Uttar Pradesh, was different from Ambedkar’s concept and was based on awakening the Dalits towards the restoration of their caste identity and self-esteem. Kanshi Ram said: “In 1962-63, when I got the opportunity to read Ambedkar’s book Annihilation of Caste, then I also felt that it is perhaps possible to eradicate casteism from the society. But later on when I studied the caste system and its behaviour in depth, gradually there was a modification in my thoughts. I have not only gained knowledge about caste from the books but from my personal life too. After understanding its functions in Indian society, I have stopped thinking about the annihilation of caste.”
For the eradication of caste, Kanshi Ram believed in the strategy that the Dalits should use their caste as a tool for their emancipation. He felt that as long as a casteless society was not formed, caste would have to be used to dethrone Brahminism. Kanshi Ram’s idea regarding Ambedkar’s demand for a separate state for Dalits was also different. He wanted the Dalits to attain a respectable and glorious position in mainstream society and that they should not be treated as a separate entity.
Ambedkar associated the emancipation of Dalits with their religious emancipation and because of this he quit the Hindu religion and embraced Buddhism on 14 October 1956. On the contrary, Kanshi Ram and Mayawati said religious emancipation is only possible through political liberation. They were willing to convert to Buddhism only when the Bahujans acquire power in the government. That is why in spite of using the symbols of Buddha in their politics, Kanshi Ram and Mayawati did not convert to Buddhism. One of the important reasons behind this was also that most of the rural Dalits of Uttar Pradesh are associated with medieval sects (Bhaktikaleen) such as the Ravidas Panth, Kabir Panth and Shiv Narayani. The people of these sects believe in creating a space for themselves while residing in the cultural milieu of Hindu society. They won’t be able to associate themselves with Buddhism. Somewhere Mayawati fears that this can spread discontentment among rural Dalits. Perhaps this is the reason why Mayawati says that without establishing Bahujan power in this country, religious conversion will only cause harm to the welfare of the Bahujans. The history of the political actions of Kanshi Ram suggests that he always took insights from marginalized people than from ideas and ideologies. He even learnt the tricks and tactics from the groups with whom he had to fight.
The late founder of the BSP said this best himself.
“Ambedkar learnt from the books but I have learnt from my own life and people. He used to gather books, I tried to gather people.”
Badri Narayan is a writer and columnist based in Allahabad. He is also a faculty member of the Govind Ballabh Pant Social Science Institute, Allahabad.

Mayawati’s Idolization and the Question of Dalit Emancipation
S.R.Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)

During the Assembly elections 2007, the people of Uttar Pardesh (U.P.) India and especially the Dalits voted Mayawati’s Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) to absolute majority. They expected that this time with a stable government she will be able to take U.P. out of the quagmire of underdevelopment and backwardness. They also hoped that now she will work out a development agenda for the State as well as for the Dalits and implement it faithfully. During her previous three stints as Chief Minister she took the plea that due to her dependence on other parties for support she could not act independently. As such she needed a government with majority to give her a free hand in running her government. But even this time Mayawati did not come up to the people’s expectations. Neither she neither worked out development agenda nor stopped wasting public money on installing statues, creating memorials and making parks.

If judged from the point of view of development, at present U.P. is the one of the most backward states of India. As per 2001 Census Repot it has the largest population (16.16 crores) which stands as 16.16 % of total population of India. According to development parameters the total literacy rate of U.P. is 56.30 % (Male 68.8 and Female 42.2 %) whereas at the national level it is 68.84 % (Male 75.26 and 53.67 %). The sex ratio of U.P. stands at 898 whereas the national ratio is 933. According to available statistics the per capita income in U.P. during 2005-06 was Rs. 13,316 which is the lowest in the country excepting Bihar (Rs. 7875) whereas at the national level it is Rs. 25,716. During this period the per capita power production and consumption in U.P. was 113 and 167 K.W.Hour as compared with 563 and 372 K.W.Hour at the national level.

From the Public Health angle the birth rate, death rate and child mortality rate for U.P. were 30.4, 8.7 and 73 respectively whereas the national rates were 23.8, 7.6 and 58 respectively. As per the findings of NFHS-III, 2005-06 the infant mortality (number of infant deaths per thousand live births in the last five years) rate at national level is 57 whereas for U.P. it is 73. In India, 46 per scent children under three yeas of age are underweight whereas in U.P. it is 47 percent. Almost 38 % children (under three years age) are stunted (too short for their age). In U.P. their percentage is 46. Almost 79 % of children (6-35 months) and 56 % of women in India are anemic. In U.P. the figures are 85 and 51 percent respectively. From the employment angle during 2001 in U.P. only 23.78 % of total workers were Main Workers and 66 % were engaged as Agriculture Labourers. At present 32 % of U.P. population is living below poverty line against the national average of 27.5 percent.

From the above details it is clear that from the development point of view U.P. is one of the most backward sataes of India. In such a situation, not only Mayawati but every government is expected to utilize all the resources of the State for the development of the people. But it has not happened for last many years. Accordint to Sudha Pai “There is evidence that the conditions of the poorer sections in U.P. which include the major chunk of the Dalits have become worse during the 1990s. The National Human Development Report (NHDR) has pointed out the poor conditions of life in comparison with many other states. The State’s position in terms of Human Development Index was 29th in 1981 and has fallen to 31 out of 32 states (NHDR 2001:140-41). Similarly the Monthly Per Capita Consumption Expenditure registered a fall in the State between 1993-94 and 1999-2000; that this is due to a drastic reduction in the consumption expenditure on food between two periods clearly suggest deterioration in the standard of living. This down slide took place when the B.S.P. supported by B.J.P. was in power in U.P. for the most part (National Herald, Lucknow May 1, 2002). Despite the fact that the BSP. had formed a government twice during the 1990s and was again in power with the support of the Bhartiya Janta Party, the conditions of Dalits have not improved according to the draft proposals of the Tenth Five Year Plan (Jha, 28 December, The Times of India, New Delhi-2002). The BSP. did not put forward any policies for improving the socioeconomic conditions of the subaltern sections of the Dalits. The emphasis has been on political empowerment only.”

It is well known that Mayawati did not take up any development agenda during all her tenures of Chief Minister ship. During the elections BSP never came out with an election manifesto. This was done purposely. Because declaration of an agenda brings about the responsibility of implementing it and failure to do so invites public wrath. Mr. Kanshi Ram, the mentor of Mayawati, attracted Dalits by promising to fulfill the incomplete mission of Dr. Ambedkar but cleverly he never defined it in writing. “First capture political power and then any work” was the promise given by BSP. In the beginning, Dalits were instigated against higher castes by raising emotional and non-material issues but later on all sorts of unprincipled and opportunistic alliances were made to get political power. All the principles of Ambedkarism were thrown to winds and dalits were exploited emotionally in the name of caste. Personal ambitions were pursued in place of Dalit issues. This unprincipled, non developmental and corrupt politics has resulted in poverty, unemployment and backwardness of the people of U.P. and the Dalits at large.

Now it will be pertinent to see on what items the budget money was spent during this period. It has been found that major part of budget was spent on non-development projects. It is noticeable that 90 % of Cultural Department and about 40 % of Public Works Department budget was spent on parks, memorials and statues. What ever money was spent on welfare programmes, a major apart of it was eaten away by corruption. As such the poor were deprived of any benefit their of. The main cause of it has been the personal greed and corruption of Mayawati which may land her in jail in the near future. She has spent a major portion of state budget on installing statues, making parks and creating memorials. Along with the statues of Dr. Ambedkar and some other Dalit icons she has installed her own statues along with her mentor Kanshi Ram. She seems to have taken inspiration from North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Ill. She has made history by installing her own statues as a living person. According to available information she has spent more than 3,000 crores of Rupees on statutes and parks. These statues and memorials are so grand and costly which can put any king or queen to shame. According to one German scholar Maren Schempp, “Mayawati is building her own Rome.” Another scholar has labeled it as a criminal waste of public money.

Now Mayawati is ruling the State for the fourth time and she proclaims to be the savior of Dalits. In the face of this claim it will be proper to see what she has done to for the upliftment of Dalits of U.P. According to 2001 Census Report the population of Dalits in U.P. is 3.51 crores which is 21.2 % of State population and is the largest in whole of India. Ordinarily it is expected that in a state where a Dalit Chief Minister has occupied the chair for the fourth time, the Dalits of that state might have benefited much from her rule. But the ground reality is totally to the contrary. At present U.P. dalits are the most backward in whole of India leaving aside the Dalits of Orissa and Bihar. According to 2001 Census Report the Male- Female sex ratio of U.P. dalits is 900 whereas the national average of Dalits is 936. Similarly the literacy rate of U.P. Dalits is 46.3 % (Male 60.3 and Female 30.5 Percent) against the national average of 54.7 percent (Male 66.6 and Female 41.9 %). According to above Census report out of 1.33 crore children between the age of group 5-14 yeas only 58.3 lacs ( 56.4 % ) were going to school.

According to above census Report among total workers U.P. has got 42.5 % dalits working as Agriculture Labourers against the national average of 45.6 %. The percentage of U.P. dalits below poverty line is about 50 %. In U.P. Work Participation Rate of Dalits is 34.7 % which is lower than the national average. Being a dominantly agriculture based society land is an important source of production. In U.P. the number and size of land holdings with dalits is very small but land reforms have not been given proper priority in the State. What ever land was given to the landless, most of it is under illegal possession of higher castes and Mayawati cannot afford to annoy them as they form an important part of her Sarvjan (all included) followers.

On account of feudal social set up caste discrimination and practice of untouchabiity are the main factors behind atrocities against Dalits in U.P. Their number is highest in whole of India. A decrease in atrocities and prompt action against the offenders is the general expectation from Mayawati but the reality is totally otherwise. During 2001 Mayawati in order to keep her crime figures low issued a written order suspending the use of Scheduled Cases and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities ) Act but was forced to withdraw the same in 2003. This had a very adverse effect on dalits. The atrocities continued to be perpetrated but their cases were not being registered by police. Besides this, the practice of untouchability is quite prevalent in midday meals in Primary Schools, Anganwari Centres and government hospitals but very little action is taken at government level. Thus Dalits continue to suffer under Mayawati’s rule. They have not experienced any empowerment material or otherwise.


“The statues serve as a source of inspiration for dalits” is the argument put forward by Mayawati for justifying her idolization. But this argument is quite contrary to the philosophy of Dalit icons. Let us see what Dr. Ambedkar said in a letter published in Bombay Chronicle in 1916. Following the death, in 1915, of Pherozeshah Merwnjee Mehta, one of the founders of Indian National Congress, and of Gopal Krishana Gokhle, another Congress leader and founder of Servants of India society, Ambedkar notes: “The memorial for Gokhle is to take the form of establishing branches of Servants of India Society at various places, while that of Sir P.M. Mehta is to stand in the form of a statue before the Bombay Municipal Office.” While appreciating the memorial for Gokhle, Ambedkar records his dismay over a statue for Mehta being “very trivial and unbecoming.” He is “at pains to understand why this memorial cannot be in a form that will be “of permanent use to posterity.”. He suggests that the memorial should be a public library named after Mehta. Drawing from his experience at “one of the biggest universities in the U.S., Ambedkar laments how we have not yet “realized the value of the library as an institution in the growth and advancement of society.”

Later, Dr. Ambedkar acted on these principles when he had the opportunity. He was driven by the belief that education was the greatest weapon for advancement. He founded “People’s Education Society” in 1944; three branches of Siddharth College beginning 1946; and Milind Mahavidhyalya in 1950. With a view to benefit the maximum number of students he established colleges in Bombay and Marathwar which is the most backward area in Maharashtra. The other Dalit icon Mahatma Joti Rao Phule did the pioneering work of starting girl education in India in Nineteenth century. Chhatarpati Shahu Ji Maharaj opened the doors of education for Dalits. But Mayawati has refused to learn any thing from these Dalit icons.

It is true that statues serve as source of inspiration but this role is very limited. The lasting inspiration comes by following their ideals and propagating their philosophy. But Mayawati has done hardly any thing in this direction. If the money spent on statues had been spent in establishing educational institutions in the name of dalit icons, it would have brought a qualitative change in the society.

From the brief above discussion it transpires that the emancipation of dalits can be achieved not by installation of statues but by working out a Dalit development agenda and implementing it honestly. In stead of spending crores on the statues, establishing educational institutions, hospital, libraries and useful institutions in the name of Dalit icons will be a true honour and memorial to them.
Writer’s email: srdarapuri@yahoo.co.in