RELEVANCE OF AMBEDKAR’S PHILOSOPHY IN CONTEMPORARY INDIA

Abstract

The independence of a nation does not equate always to the freedom of the people living in that nation. There could be a subset of the population that holds a disproportionate share of the influence and authority of the state. Prior to the implementation of the Indian Constitution, the idea of the status of a certain group of people was predicated on the fact that they were born into that group, rather than on the talents and qualities of the individuals themselves. The basic foundations of Indian society were built on a foundation of graded inequity because religious dogmas had eaten away at the country's social fabric. Dr. Ambedkar served as Chairman of the Drafting Committee that was established in 1947 by the Constituent Assembly to write a constitution for an independent India. The committee was entrusted with a task to write a constitution for India. Dr. Ambedkar could not find satisfaction in either Walter Bagehot's or Abraham Lincoln's notions of democracy. Bagehot describes democracy as a government by debate but Abraham Lincoln referred to it as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Ambedkar meant to refer to democracy as substantial changes in the social and economic lives of the people, as well as the acceptance of such changes by the people without resorting to disagreements or violence. He wished to eliminate the paradox that was brought about by the economic and social disparities. He desired to see the idea of one man, one vote, and one value established not just in the political life of India, but also in the social and economic life of the country. He said that we need to make our political democracy a social democracy as well. If social democracy is not as its foundation, political democracy will not survive for very long. Dr. Ambedkar's whole life may be summed up as a brave fight against social injustice, cruel treatment, and uneven treatment at every turn. This fight was nonstop, unceasing, and required him to be courageous at all times. He was the consummate speaker for the voiceless members of society, including women, landless labourers, small peasant farmers, and working-class employees. As a result, it is important to bring up certain questions in order to contemplate his legacy. Have his projects developed in the manner that he had hoped for them to? Is India heading in the path that he considered to be the best option? Have his inheritors enshrined his views as orthodoxy or expanded upon them while tackling new challenges?