Prof. Palshikar! I Am Sorry: Dr. Ambedkar

    

     

        Prof. Palshikar! I Am Sorry: Dr. Ambedkar

            S. R. Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)

                     

Prof. Palshikar! I am deeply pained by the vandalism carried out yesterday in your office by four members of the so-called 'Republican Party'—an act directed at a cartoon of me. I trust that perhaps they do not fully grasp the nature of their actions; therefore, I ask that you forgive them. I, too, am profoundly saddened by what they have done, and I struggle to understand what ideal of mine they sought to uphold through such behaviour. Throughout my life, I have fought for the freedom of Dalits to speak, for they have been victims of enforced silence for centuries—rendered, in effect, deaf and mute. For ages, they were compelled to endure every form of humiliation in silence—an experience I, too, have lived through. Through my education, I became their voice, dedicating my life to ensuring they had a means to express themselves. Yet, by acting as they did against you yesterday, they have effectively silenced that very voice. 

No! I cannot remain silent. I must speak out about this incident, especially since it was carried out in my name. I understand that this was triggered by a cartoon of me featured in a book. Citing my alleged 'insult,' some of my overzealous followers created an uproar in Parliament, bringing its proceedings to a complete standstill. Others even demanded that the scholars who authored the book be prosecuted under the SC/ST Act. One of my well-wishers even went so far as to call for the dissolution of the very institution that produced these books. I am deeply distressed to learn of all this. I have been a lifelong lover of books; I spent my entire life curating a diverse collection in my personal library—a collection I also took the time to read. If demands are now being made to ban a book in my name, you can well imagine how much pain this causes me. 

I had hoped that once the government, in the House—yielding to pressure from a few individuals for the sake of electoral politics and without any proper justification—gave an assurance that the cartoon would be removed from the book, those demanding it would be satisfied. Yet, they were not; instead, they went to your office yesterday and engaged in acts of vandalism. This is an affront to my own approach—one where I have always patiently listened to the barbs and criticisms of my opponents and responded to them with civility. Throughout my life, I have faced countless such criticisms, yet I have never lost my composure. I have always subscribed to the sentiment famously attributed to Voltaire: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I engaged in serious debates on critical issues with figures like Gandhi, Nehru, and Patel, but I never sought to suppress the views of my opponents; rather, I always responded with arguments, facts, and decorum. In fact, during my very first meeting with Gandhiji, I told him, "If you wish to defeat me, do so through principles, not through appeals to emotion." If some people, invoking my name, choose the path of vandalism over dialogue, it stands in direct opposition to my own principles. 

The cartoon that has sparked this entire uproar was published in 1949, while I was present. I saw it then and understood the satire—as well as the underlying concern—expressed by Shankar regarding the slow pace of the Constitution-making process. I actually found it quite apt. Both Nehru and I were concerned about the sluggish pace of the Constitution-making process, though such delays were, in fact, natural given the nature of the task. Later, in my speech on November 25, 1949—the day the Constitution was adopted—I provided a justification for the time taken to draft it. I have learned that the book containing the aforementioned cartoon also discussed the reasons for the slow pace of the Constitution-making process and posed questions to students based on the cartoon. If only those who engaged in vandalism and uproar—claiming it was in response to an insult to me—had taken the time to read the context provided in the book, perhaps they would not have acted this way. 

Throughout my life, I have always advocated for constitutional methods of protest. Every movement I led was peaceful and remained strictly within the bounds of the law. I have never endorsed violence or vandalism. To those who engage in destruction in my name, I would advise them to read the specific portion of my speech delivered upon the adoption of the Constitution, where I stated: "We must abandon the methods of *satyagraha*, non-cooperation, and civil disobedience. While there may be some justification for resorting to unconstitutional means when no constitutional avenues remain to achieve social and economic objectives, there is no such justification when constitutional methods are available. These methods are the grammar of anarchy, and the sooner we abandon them, the better it will be for us."

It causes me great distress today to see the extent to which efforts are being made—both by the state and non-state actors—to suppress voices of dissent in our country. I recall the high hopes with which we enshrined the freedom of expression in our Constitution. Today, I observe that some individuals, leveraging their numerical strength or brute force, succeed in silencing the legitimate voices of the vulnerable. Governments today, too, employ similar tactics to stifle the voice of the public. The culture of reasoned argument and debate has all but vanished from our nation. I am aware that some people suppress the voices of others by claiming that their religious or sectarian sentiments have been offended. I have witnessed how, through orchestrated uproar, certain groups managed to get books—such as those written about Shivaji, or works by Taslima Nasrin and Salman Rushdie—banned. These very people did not even spare me. You may recall that when the Maharashtra government published my previously unpublished book, *Riddles in Hinduism*, certain individuals demanded its ban, labeling it anti-Hindu and hostile toward Hindu deities. It was only through the efforts of my Dalit followers and intellectuals—who organized a massive public demonstration in Bombay in its defense—that the book was saved. Yet, what they did yesterday is entirely contrary to the principle of freedom of expression. If, tomorrow, some people were to demand a ban on my writings based on the criticisms contained within them, what argument would the Dalits have left to oppose such a move? 

I understand why my Dalit followers act this way. I am well aware of the depth of their respect for me and the extent to which they are emotionally connected to me. Whenever someone tells them something—whether true or false—about me, they become agitated and resort to such actions. It is not entirely their fault; they are often misled by their own leaders. Many of them have not even read my work in its entirety, leaving them susceptible to the influence of others. It seems to me that the Dalit community has not truly grasped the essence of my slogan: "Educate, Agitate, and Organize." It also pains me deeply to witness the nature of Dalit politics being practiced in my name today. The Republican Party, which I founded with such high hopes, has now splintered into fragments, with its leaders forging unprincipled and opportunistic alliances for personal gain. Instead of addressing the issues faced by Dalits, they are engaged in pure "vote-bank" politics and a pursuit of power, all while emotionally exploiting the people. The situation surrounding this cartoon is a case in point. 

It causes me great distress that some of my overzealous and ill-informed followers have reduced me to being merely a messiah for the Dalits. I, in fact, belong to the entire... I belong to the nation. When I spoke of liberty, equality, and fraternity, it was not solely for the Dalits; I sought these for all the people of this country. When I drafted the Hindu Code Bill, I advocated for the complete emancipation of all Hindu women. It is true that I secured certain special rights for the Dalits—rights that were essential for them to attain equality. Therefore, I urge my followers and admirers not to confine me within the boundaries of a single caste, but rather to view me on the canvas of the entire nation.

I also request my followers not to elevate me to the status of a deity, for I prefer to remain a human being. It seems you have forgotten my words regarding the 'worship of individuals'—a practice I warned against, saying, "If you do not nip this in the bud, the very idea of ​​hero-worship will lead to your ruin." By deifying an individual, you begin to place your faith in one person for your own security and liberation; the consequence is that you develop a habit of dependency and turn away from your own duties. If you fall prey to such notions, your condition within the national mainstream will become even more precarious than that of a mere log of wood drifting in a river. "Your struggle will be entirely in vain." It seems to me that by taking issue with my cartoon, my followers are intent on turning me into a deity. I do not wish to be anyone’s prophet; like the Buddha, I simply want to remain a human being. Throughout my life, I have offered sharp criticism of many people—criticism that was, in fact, well-founded. No one in this world is beyond error; therefore, criticism is an essential component of public life. 

I also urge my followers to truly understand my life’s philosophy and values, and to embody them in their own conduct. They must clearly grasp that their own freedom of expression will remain secure only if they, in turn, protect the freedom of others; otherwise, they will merely strengthen the rising fascism and fundamentalism in the country. To those political leaders who exploit my name, I say this: instead of engaging in the emotional manipulation of Dalits, or playing the politics of 'vote banks' and caste, you should focus on a politics of substantive, issue-based change—one that would foster the well-being not only of Dalits but of all Indians. 

Prof. Palshikar! I would like to express, once again, my sincere regret for the mistreatment you faced at the hands of some of my so-called followers.

Constitutional Democracy and the Role of Public Movements in India: An Ambedkarite Perspective

 

Constitutional Democracy and the Role of Public Movements in India: An Ambedkarite Perspective

SR Darapuri National President, All India Peoples Front

            

1. Introduction

Constitutional democracy is not limited to elections, parliamentary institutions, or the formation of governments. It also requires the protection of fundamental rights, equality before the law, institutional accountability, and the participation of citizens in public affairs. In India, the Constitution provides the framework for democratic governance, while public movements have historically played a vital role in challenging injustice, expanding civil liberties, and holding the state accountable.

From an Ambedkarite perspective, democracy must extend beyond political equality to include social and economic equality. Public movements are therefore essential to making constitutional principles effective in the everyday lives of citizens, particularly Dalits, Adivasis, women, workers, religious minorities, and other marginalised communities.

2. Constitutional Democracy: Principles and Challenges

The Indian Constitution establishes a democratic framework based on liberty, equality, fraternity, justice, and the rule of law. Fundamental Rights protect individual freedoms, while the Directive Principles of State Policy establish objectives for social and economic transformation.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar warned that political democracy could not endure without social democracy. In his address to the Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1949, he cautioned that India was entering a life of contradictions: political equality would coexist with social and economic inequality.

This contradiction remains central to Indian democracy. Elections provide citizens with political choice, but caste discrimination, economic inequality, communal polarisation, gender injustice, and unequal access to public institutions can undermine substantive democratic participation.

Constitutional democracy also depends on independent institutions, including the judiciary, election administration, public services, and law-enforcement agencies. When these institutions fail to act impartially or become insufficiently accountable, the constitutional rights of citizens may be weakened.

3. The Historical Role of Public Movements

Public movements have been central to India's democratic development, both before and after independence.

The anti-colonial movement mobilised millions against British rule and established the principle that political authority must be accountable to the people. However, the struggle for independence did not automatically eliminate caste oppression, patriarchy, or economic exploitation.

Dr. Ambedkar's movements for access to public water, temple entry, education, political representation, and the abolition of untouchability challenged the social foundations of inequality. The Mahad Satyagraha of 1927 asserted the right of Untouchables to use public water and became a landmark in the struggle for equal citizenship.

Similarly, workers' movements, peasants' struggles, women's movements, Dalit and Adivasi mobilisations, and campaigns for civil liberties have widened the scope of Indian democracy. These movements have challenged unjust laws, exposed administrative failures, demanded redistribution, and brought excluded groups into public debate.

The Right to Information movement, the campaign for rural employment guarantees, and the mobilisation that contributed to the enactment of the Forest Rights Act demonstrate how sustained public pressure can influence legislation and public policy.

4. Public Movements as Instruments of Constitutional Accountability

Public movements perform several important democratic functions.

First, they defend fundamental rights. Peaceful demonstrations, public meetings, petitions, and civil disobedience can challenge violations of freedom of expression, equality, association, and personal liberty.

Second, they hold governments accountable. Movements can expose corruption, misuse of public funds, police excesses, custodial violence, and failures in the delivery of welfare programmes.

Third, they promote social justice. Dalit, Adivasi, women's, labour, and minority movements challenge entrenched hierarchies and demand equal access to education, employment, land, justice, and political power.

Fourth, they deepen democratic participation. Elections occur periodically, whereas public movements enable citizens to articulate grievances and influence decisions between elections.

Fifth, they advance constitutional reform. Social mobilisation has contributed to demands for legal protections, transparency, affirmative action, labour rights, and stronger accountability mechanisms.

Public movements thus connect constitutional principles with people's lived experiences. They can make democracy more participatory, responsive, and socially inclusive.

5. The Ambedkarite Perspective: Educate, Agitate, Organise

Ambedkar's political philosophy provides a powerful framework for understanding the relationship between constitutional democracy and public movements.

His call to "Educate, Agitate, Organise" emphasises the importance of political consciousness, collective action, and organised struggle against structural injustice.

Education develops the capacity to question social hierarchies and understand constitutional rights. Agitation enables people to challenge injustice through democratic mobilisation. Organisation transforms scattered grievances into sustained collective power.

Ambedkar also emphasised constitutional methods for achieving social and political objectives. His approach does not imply passive acceptance of injustice; rather, it highlights the importance of organised, rights-based, and accountable political action.

For Ambedkar, democracy was not merely a form of government but a way of associated living grounded in liberty, equality, and fraternity. Public movements become democratically transformative when they challenge social domination while respecting the equal rights and dignity of all.

6. Public Movements and the Crisis of Contemporary Democracy

Public movements face significant challenges in contemporary India. Restrictions on peaceful assembly, the criminalisation of dissent, prolonged legal proceedings, and the use of preventive detention can discourage democratic mobilisation. Social divisions, misinformation, political polarisation, and unequal access to media also affect the ability of movements to build broad coalitions.

The selective or excessive use of state power against protesters raises serious questions about constitutional accountability. At the same time, public movements must remain committed to non-violence, democratic participation, transparency, and respect for the rights of others.

A constitutional democracy must protect both the right to govern and the right to question those who govern. Peaceful dissent is not a threat to democracy; it is one of the means through which democratic institutions can be corrected and strengthened.

Public movements, however, cannot substitute for independent institutions, representative government, or the rule of law. Their effectiveness depends on their ability to build democratic organisations, establish credible evidence, develop constructive policy alternatives, and sustain public participation.

7. Strengthening the Relationship Between Constitutional Democracy and Public Movements

The democratic potential of public movements can be strengthened through several measures:

1.     Protect peaceful dissent: Safeguard freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, association, and legitimate protest under the Constitution.

2.     Ensure institutional accountability: Strengthen independent oversight of police conduct, administrative decisions, and the implementation of fundamental rights.

3.     Promote social representation: Ensure that Dalits, Adivasis, women, workers, minorities, and other marginalised groups participate meaningfully in decision-making.

4.     Expand civic education: Improve public understanding of constitutional rights, democratic institutions, and legal remedies.

5.     Build broad-based coalitions: Connect struggles against caste discrimination, gender inequality, economic exploitation, and communal exclusion.

6.     Institutionalise public participation: Strengthen social audits, public hearings, local self-government, transparency mechanisms, and participatory policymaking.

7.     Maintain democratic standards within movements: Encourage internal democracy, accountability, non-violence, and respect for constitutional freedoms.

These measures can help transform public mobilisation from episodic protest into sustained democratic participation.

8. Conclusion

Constitutional democracy and public movements are mutually reinforcing. The Constitution provides the legal and moral framework for democratic action, while public movements help ensure that constitutional promises are not reduced to formal declarations.

India's democratic experience demonstrates that rights and social protections often require sustained public mobilisation to become effective. From the anti-caste struggles of Dr. Ambedkar to contemporary campaigns for transparency, social justice, and civil liberties, collective action has repeatedly challenged the gap between constitutional ideals and social realities.

An Ambedkarite understanding of democracy demands more than electoral competition. It requires the transformation of hierarchical social relations, the protection of civil liberties, the accountability of public institutions, and the creation of conditions in which every citizen can exercise meaningful political and social power.

Ultimately, public movements are indispensable to constitutional democracy because they enable citizens to defend their rights, challenge arbitrary authority, and hold the state accountable. A democracy becomes genuinely constitutional when the power of the state is limited by law and the power of the people is strengthened through liberty, equality, fraternity, and organised democratic action.