Thoughts on economics and liberty

Tag: Ambedkar

Congratulations to Ambedkar for being recognised as the greatest Indian after Gandhi

I chanced upon this article by Ramachandra Guha.

I'm very pleased that Indians – both a jury and the general public through net voting – have considered Amebedkar to be the greatest Indian since Gandhi. Maybe Rajaji should have taken that slot, but I'm happy for Ambedkar, a predominantly classical liberal thinker, to get this recognition.

What is heartening is that even though intellectuals (who are generally out of touch with reality) STILL consider Nehru to be the co-recipient of this status, the rest of India thinks that Nehru should come 15th!

I'd rate Nehru higher, but this at least tells us that Indians are no longer enamoured of Nehru's ideas.

In the jury vote, B.R. Ambedkar and Jawaharlal Nehru tied for first place; each had 21 votes. The online poll also placed Ambedkar in first place, but ranked Nehru as low as 15th, lower than Vallabhbhai Patel, Indira Gandhi, and Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Even Sachin Tendulkar, A.R. Rahman, and Rajnikanth were ranked higher than Nehru by Net voters. [Source]


In the jury vote, the industrialist J.R.D. Tata and the social worker Mother Teresa were ranked immediately below Ambedkar and Nehru.

According to me, JRD's selection is JUST RIGHT.

I would rank thus:

1. Rajaji

2. Sardar Patel

3. Ambedkar

4. JRD Tata

5. Nehru (for contributions to democracy)

6. Vajpayee (for contributions to democracy)

7. Jayaprakash Narayan

My blog posts on Ambedkar

Nehru was a Brahmin. Ambedkar was a Brahmin. But Rahul Gandhi? What a joke!

Many happy returns of the day to the Republic. Let's remember Ambedkar today.

Ambedkar's Buddhist liberalism and rejection of communism

Beware the "great" man. Abide by your agreed Constitution. Key messages from Ambedkar

B.R. Ambedkar – a great Indian classical liberal

Further thoughts on fast-unto-death (and Ambedkar)

Continue Reading

The obnoxious impertinence of Directive Principles of State Policy

India has a very poor Constitution, that (a) labours in great detail about subsidiary institutional arrangements that are best left to the relevant parliament to make (as example, I cite the protections for the all-India services), and (b) imposes the policy opinions of the Constituent Assembly on all future generations through the Directive Principles of State Policy.

The idea that someone, in 1948 or 1949 could tell us in 2012 what kind of policies we ought to have is obnoxious and impertinent in the extreme.

Fortunately, Somnath Bharti, a Supreme Court lawyer who is also a prominent FTI member, has pointed out the following speech by Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly. If nothing else, it absolves Ambedkar from this 'crime' against modern India:

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah. My objections, stated briefly are two.
In the first place the Constitution, as I stated in my opening speech in support of the motion I made before the House, is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State. It is not a mechanism where by particular members or particular parties are installed in office.
What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether. If you state in the Constitution that the social organisation of the State shall take a particular form, you are, in my judgment, taking away the liberty of the people to decide what should be the social organisation in which they wish to live.
It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the socialist organisation of society is better than the capitalist organisation of society. But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation which might be better than the socialist organisation of today or of tomorrow. I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves.
Continue Reading

Many happy returns of the day to the Republic. Let’s remember Ambedkar today.

India's Constitution has served the nation for 62 years. It is time to look back and think about its origin and future prospects.

Despite my many criticisms (particularly in BFN) of its shortcomings (most shortcomings created by socialsits like Nehru, Indira Gandhi, and the menagerie that was known as Janata Party), it is basically a robust document with considerable merit. With a few key improvements (including a total reorganisation of the Constitution's structure), the Westminster system with the first-past-the-post electoral process can serve India well for another thousand years.

All said and done, the Constitution has proven its worth.

Today it is important to remember Ambedkar's contributions to India, including as Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee.

Ambedkar is a difficult man to understand, presumably because he had to overcome the many (to most of us unimaginable) social strictures of having been born a Dalit, but from what I've been reading about him, he had a strong faith in liberty. While I'm by no means an Ambedkar expert, the following four blog posts provide hints to his greatness as a thinker and leader.

I'd like to see the Republic Day of India associated much more strongly with the memory of Ambedkar's work and message. India desperately needs his message of liberty.

Amebedkar's output was prolific. His complete works take a total of 21 volumes!

Continue Reading

Ambedkar’s Buddhist liberalism and rejection of communism

While Ambedkar came from a classical liberal mould (e.g. see my blog post here), his sympathies for the concept of "equality" derive from a particular interpretation of Buddhism (a view that Dalai Lama might not necessarily agree with). Nevertheless Ambedkar did not let his preference for equality over-ride liberty, a perspective rooted in his interpretation of Buddha's message. 

The Buddha was not just a democrat but wanted people to think for themselves. That significantly influenced Amebedkar's worldview which was therefore largely classical liberal although he might have preferred some level of redistribution.

His essay which I discussed yesterday shows some of the tensions he faced in arriving at a consistent worldview. Ambedkar notes, though, that Buddha supports the acquisition of wealth. That is an important point, for the Buddha did not require perfect economic equality:
His [the Buddha's] teaching is to acquire wealth. I give below his Sermon on the subject to Anathapindika one of his disciples.
Once Anathapindika came to where the Exalted One was staying. Having come he made obeisance to the Exalted One and took a seat at one side and asked 'Will the Enlightened One tell what things are welcome, pleasant, agreeable, to the householder but which are hard to gain.'
The Enlightened One having heard the question put to him said ' Of such things the first is to acquire wealth lawfully.'
'The second is to see that your relations also get their wealth lawfully.'
'The third is to live long and reach great age.' 'Of a truth, householder, for the attainment of these four things, which in the world are welcomed, pleasant agreeable but hard to gain, there are also four conditions precedent. They are the blessing of faith, the blessing of virtuous conduct, the blessing of liberality and the blessing of wisdom.
The Blessing of virtuous conduct which abstains From taking life, thieving, unchastely, lying and partaking of fermented liquor.
The blessing of liberality consists in the householder living with mind freed from the taint of avarice, generous, open-handed, delighting in gifts, a good one to be asked and devoted to the distribution of gifts.
Wherein consists the blessing of Wisdom? He know that an householder who dwells with mind overcome by greed, avarice, ill-will, sloth, drowsiness, distraction and flurry, and also about, commits wrongful deeds and neglects that which ought to be done, and by so doing deprived of happiness and honour.
Greed, avarice, ill will, sloth and drowsiness, distraction and flurry and doubt are stains of the mind. A householder who gets rid of such stains of the mind acquires great wisdom, abundant wisdom, clear vision and perfect wisdom.
Thus to acquire wealth legitimately and justly, earn by great industry, amassed by strength of the arm and gained by sweat of the brow is a great blessing. The householder makes himself happy and cheerful and preserves himself full of happiness; also makes his parents, wife, and children, servants, and labourers, friends and companions happy and cheerful, and preserves them full of happiness. 
Later in the essay Ambedkar grapples with (economic) equality and even makes sympathetic remarks about the Russian revolution. He concludes, though, by extricating himself from this preference and distancing himself from communism.
The Russians are proud of their Communism. But they forget that the wonder of all wonders is that the Buddha established Communism so far as the Sangh was concerned without dictatorship. It may be that it was a communism on a very small scale but it was communism I without dictatorship a miracle which Lenin failed to do.
The Buddha's method was different. His method was to change the mind of man: to alter his disposition: so that whatever man does, he does it voluntarily without the use of force or compulsion. His main means to alter the disposition of men was his Dhamma and the constant preaching of his Dhamma. The Buddhas way was not to force people to do what they did not like to do although it was good for them. His way was to alter the disposition of men so that they would do voluntarily what they would not otherwise to do.
It has been claimed that the Communist Dictatorship in Russia has wonderful achievements to its credit. There can be no denial of it. That is why I say that a Russian Dictatorship would be good for all backward countries. But this is no argument for permanent Dictatorship. Humanity does not only want economic values, it also wants spiritual values to be retained. Permanent Dictatorship has paid no attention to spiritual values and does not seem to intend to. Carlyle called Political Economy a Pig Philosophy. Carlyle was of course wrong. For man needs material comforts" But the Communist Philosophy seems to be equally wrong for the aim of their philosophy seems to be fatten pigs as though men are no better than pigs. Man must grow materially as well as spiritually. Society has been aiming to lay a new foundation was summarised by the French Revolution in three words, Fraternity, Liberty and Equality. The French Revolution was welcomed because of this slogan. It failed to produce equality. We welcome the Russian Revolution because it aims to produce equality. But it cannot be too much emphasised that in producing equality society cannot afford to sacrifice fraternity or liberty. Equality will be of no value without fraternity or liberty. It seems that the three can coexist only if one follows the way of the Buddha. Communism can give one but not all. [Source]
While Ambedkar is still (broadly speaking) a classical liberal, his clarity of thought in this regard was less than B.R. Shenoy's.
Continue Reading
Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial