Fighting British colonialism to become an independent nation is one part of the job, and becoming free in a society is another. Both correspond to each other, according to several mainstream nationalist leaders. Getting external freedom is important, but not enough to be a free society. Hence, India’s freedom was incomplete without the Constitution. The battle against British colonialism provided a platform to become a nation. The idea of freedom and nation is intertwined in freedom, realised after the adoption
Fighting British colonialism to become an independent nation is one part of the job, and becoming free in a society is another. Both correspond to each other, according to several mainstream nationalist leaders. Getting external freedom is important, but not enough to be a free society. Hence, India’s freedom was incomplete without the Constitution. The battle against British colonialism provided a platform to become a nation. The idea of freedom and nation is intertwined in freedom, realised after the adoption of the Constitution of India.
The government has been celebrating the 75 years journey of India – calling it Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav – as a central focus on various occasions. Commemorating 75 years of the Constitution is another major event that led to a debate in Parliament, where Dr BR Ambedkar was invoked.
Against this backdrop, how can one read freedom in the spirit of Ambedkar’s transformative constitutionalism? For decades, Indian politics has been centred around the Constitution in which Ambedkar is symbolised as an iconic figure. His constitutional identity is used for several purposes but not his transformative constitutionalism. Ambedkar’s articulation of the spirit of freedom in transformative constitutionalism needs to be comprehended through how citizens are free to exercise their freedom, and if a citizen is free from the social impediments of caste, gender, patriarchy and faith. What is the status of India’s freedom in the 76 years in a Constitutional Republic? An Ambedkarite interpretation always offers a perspective of self-introspection of a democratic practice. In a constitutional democracy, the idea of freedom is an uncompromised right and of incommensurable value.
Freedom is part of fundamental rights; it gives a wider scope to engage with social individual life, and it gives complete freedom to live their life with dignity; this is a normative claim when a citizen exercises their freedom. But freedom is also a complex idea that a person defends by suppressing other’s freedom. In a liberal capitalist democracy, individual liberty sometimes takes precedence over social freedoms. Similarly, in the age of democratic authoritarianism, majoritarian liberty is defended in the name of a democratically electoral mandate, and a so-called common good is weighed against a citizen’s idea of the good life.
Freedom is protected through a mechanism of constitutional democracy. Democracy is a normative principle of way of life, and a Constitution is a document that binds its norm in order to protect its basic rights. This is the principle of contract in a democratic government. Each citizen lives their right to life, in a given restriction of a public common good. But democracy is not merely ruled by its principles; it is ruled by the people through means of representation; they are elected by the people. In other words, it is a mechanism of political electoral democracy which governs our lives. Therefore, the questions are—who governs? How is one governed?
Freedom is one of the important pillars of democracy. According to the Constitution, all are free and equal by the rule of law. This is the norm of civic ethics in a constitutional democracy. These constitutional rights remain formal without substantive notions of freedom and equality in social life. Do we have the right to freedom and equality in our public social life? This is an important question to be asked in the 75th year of the Indian republic. How and why are freedoms curtailed in our social public life? Where does freedom lie? If citizens do not have social freedom there is no meaning of political freedom. Where does social freedom lie? How is social freedom operated? Who controls freedom? How is it being assigned?
There is a deeper connection between equality and freedom. If the citizens do not have equality, there is no meaning of freedom. Equality becomes a basic principle for freedom. But it varies from group to community. For example, how do we understand Muslims and Dalits as far as the idea of freedom is concerned? Both have different conceptions of freedom as far as their way of life is concerned. Does the government have a problem with the idea of freedom even as it celebrates Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav? The Opposition has accused the government of making empty slogans of Ambedkar’s constitutionalism and insulting Ambedkar in Parliament. Some argue that Muslims are treated as unequal as compared to Hindus, which leads to their unfreedom. Dalits are denied social equality, and their freedom is suppressed. Here, freedom means to live a free life and exercise basic fundamental rights, where people can freely exercise their right to life, religion, food, and their way of life.
What’s there in a name was a question asked by VD Savarkar in his book, Essentials of Hindutva. The name and freedom have, therefore, a deeper complex relationship. How does a name play a role in a democracy? The name of a Muslim person can be treated like that of a second-class citizen by some. Similarly, a Dalit is sometimes not free to wear clothes of his choice, or to celebrate Ambedkar’s Jayanti; A Dalit doesn’t have the right to ride a horse for his wedding, if he dares to do so, he is either beaten to death or forced to engage a police force to protect the marriage procession. Dalits are forced to live in the norms of casteism. Some Adivasis complain they are being Hinduised despite their distinctive identity. A woman is not free and faces several restrictions. Where does freedom lie then?
In his book, Ambedkar’s Preamble, Aakash Singh Rathore talks about the theory of Ambedkar’s constitutionalism embedded in the preamble of the Constitution. In his recent book, Valerian Rodrigues argues that “Constitutionalism informs such norms and stipulations with rights, morality, and legitimacy of power”. Anurag Bhaskar’s The Foresighted Ambedkar argues that Ambedkar was a far-reaching constitutional maker whose efforts made the Constitution possible. Ambedkarite movements on the ground argue that transformative constitutionalism lies in the true spirit of the preamble. Thus, the chanting of the preamble in public meetings and discourse is the making of Indian democracy substantive is the core of Ambedkarite transformative politics.
Ambedkar’s contestation with the law emerged from his experience of untouchability that was assigned in the law of caste, which is integral to Hinduism. A modern law can counter the ancient law. A modern law is the Indian Constitution, and ancient law is Manusmriti, he argued. In a constitutional democracy, constitutionalism seems to be a normative principle, that he emphasises through the idea of constitutional morality. Constitutional morality should be part of a democratic public discourse, where one develops a sense of public conscience. He wrote that, “Public conscience means conscience, which becomes agitated at every wrong, no matter who is the sufferer and it means that everybody whether he suffers that particular wrong or not, is prepared to join him in order to get him relieved.” He also emphasised the idea of social conscience. “Social conscience recognises rights which chooses to enact, rights will be safe and secure ... .Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realise that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is a top dressing on Indian soil which is undemocratic,” he said.
In his speech, What Way Emancipation, Ambedkar said, “The law may guarantee various rights. But those alone can be called real rights, which are permitted by society to be exercised by you. The law guarantees to the untouchables the right to wear decent clothes. But if the Hindus do not allow them to put on these clothes, what is the use of this right?” Many marginalised groups experience everyday marginalisation of their freedom of rights in this regime. Their food habits, dress codes, and religious practices are questioned “In short, that which is permitted by the society to be exercised can alone be called a right. A right which is guaranteed by law but is opposed by the society is of no use at all,” Ambedkar said.
Dr Ambedkar further raised the following: “Untouchables are in need of social liberty, more than that which is guaranteed by law. So long as you do not achieve social liberty, whatever freedom is provided by law to you is of no avail…man has a body and a mind. What is the use of physical freedom if he is not free according to his will?”
A prisoner is unchained and is set free…The freedom of mind is the real freedom…One whose mind is not free, though he is alive, is dead. Freedom of mind is the proof of one’s existence,” he further wrote.
Social freedom is when citizens are recognised by a name that dignifies their existence. Theoretically, the Constitution allows them to live with dignity, but in social and political life, the society suppresses the basic dignity of some citizens. Ambedkar, in several of his writings, argues that one may pass legislation relating to economic and social problems to make a farce of the constitutional method without considering inequality between class, caste, gender and minority problems. “It is perfectly possible to pervert the Constitution, without changing its form by merely changing the form of the administration and to make it inconsistent and opposed to the spirit of the Constitution,” he wrote. Unfortunately, attaining true constitutionalism remains difficult.
(Jadumani Mahanand is a professor at Jindal Global University. The views expressed are personal)
One Subscription.
Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines
to 100 year archives.
Archives
HT App & Website