Members of Dalit community display a portrait of Bhim Rao Ambedkar during 'Bharat Bandh' in New Delhi | PTI
Members of Dalit community display a portrait of Bhim Rao Ambedkar during 'Bharat Bandh' in New Delhi | PTI
Text Size:

We Indians have a way of belittling our icons. We turn Gandhi into a naive saint, a harmless preacher of non-violence, Bhagat Singh into a hot-headed rebellious nationalist, and Charan Singh into a caste leader. We have done something similar to Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar’s intellectual legacy. Reclaimed from decades of neglect, his thinking has now been reduced to his reflections on the caste system. It is time we recovered some other, deeper, dimensions of his thought and secured a due place for him in the canons of intellectual history. His reflections on democracy qualify him as the first candidate for such a recovery.

Babasaheb Ambedkar was the first Indian, and arguably the only Indian in the 20th century, who offered a theory of radical democracy, a theory that can guide us in the 21st century. This needs to be remembered, because the celebration of his intellectual and political legacy tends to focus almost exclusively on his critique of caste-based injustice. This needs to be reminded today, when India’s democracy is being dismantled by those who preside over his birthday celebrations.

Ambedkar was not the first Indian thinker to reflect on democracy. But he was the first one to offer original answers to the three basic questions that a theory of democracy must address. One, a theory must set out a norm, an ideal of what democracy should be like. Two, it must evaluate the current state of democracy in the light of its ideal and offer a critique. Three, it must spell out a path to a democratic ideal, from where we stand to where we should aim to be. Ambedkar’s answers were original because these were not drawn from some abstraction. His reflections were firmly located in the Indian context.

Dr Ambedkar’s answers were strikingly different from the two ways of thinking about democracy that dominated his times. On the one hand were ‘liberals’ like Jawaharlal Nehru who expected the Western fairytale of democracy to be replayed in India, albeit with a time lag. For them, Western democracies were the model towards which India had begun its journey by enacting a Constitution and holding free and fair elections. On the other hands were the critics, mostly from the Left, who thought that the democratic experiment in India was a sham, nothing but a rule of the capitalist class cloaked in procedures of democracy. Gandhi, too, shared this disdain for Westminster-style democracy. Dr Ambedkar offered a theory of cautious and conditional optimism, an optimism drawn from the abstract promise of democracy and a caution rooted in the Indian context.


Also read: Why Ambedkar changed on separate electorate. His shift was strategic not voluntary


Substantive ideal of democracy

Ambedkar offered a substantive definition of democracy, radically different from the procedural definition that dominated the 20th-century theories of democracy. He was not unmindful of the procedural aspects of democracy, but for him, all these democratic mechanisms like elections and parliament were there for a purpose: “to bring about welfare of the people”. He went on to offer a definition of democracy for our times that would set him apart from the dominant theorists of democracy. For him, democracy was “a form and a method of government whereby revolutionary changes in the economic and social life of the people are brought about without bloodshed”. [Conditions Precedent for the Successful Working of Democracy, 1952]

Departing from Western democratic imagination that foregrounds liberty, Ambedkar put equality and fraternity at the heart of democracy. “The roots of democracy lie not in the form of Government, Parliamentary or otherwise. A democracy is more than a form of Government. It is primarily a mode of associated living. The roots of Democracy are to be searched in the social relationship, in terms of associated life between the people who form a society.” [Prospects of Democracy in India, 1956] For this ideal, he turned to the Buddhist tradition. He insisted that Buddhist Sanghas were the models for parliamentary democracy.


Also read: Indians have put their republic on a pedestal, forgotten to practise it each day


Critique of existing democracy

In the light of this ideal, Ambedkar offered a thoroughgoing critique of the existing societies that claimed to be democratic. Though his critique was general, his focus was, understandably, on Indian society. The “associated living” that democracy presupposes simply did not exist in India. Caste system has divided the Indian society into many parallel, self-contained communities that did not allow for the conversation and negotiation necessary for a healthy democracy. Thus Ambedkar’s critique of the caste system was not merely that it was unjust and oppressive for the “depressed classes”, but also that it fractured national unity and made democracy impossible.

Ambedkar turned this critique into a general theory of preconditions for a successful democracy. He reminded us, “democracy is not a plant that grows everywhere”. He would often cite the case of Italy and Germany where absence of social and economic democracy led to the failure of nascent political democracy. For him, the first and foremost condition for democracy was that there should be no glaring inequalities, that every citizen should enjoy equal treatment in everyday administration and governance. This needs to be backed up by popular acceptance of constitutional morality, widespread public conscience and the upholding of moral order in society. Finally, Ambedkar reminded us that there is no democracy without the existence of and respect for opposition, that tyranny of majority is antithetical to democracy.


Also read: India’s democracy crumbling? Constitution shows how to create democracy in unlikely settings


Path to democratic future

Ambedkar had an unusual approach to making the transition from the present to the desired future. Unlike the social revolutionaries of his time, he did not advocate a violent or even non-violent overthrow of the existing democratic order. In fact, at one point he argued against continuation of satyagraha or civil disobedience in independent India. This might look disappointingly conservative for a radical theorist of democracy. But a closer look would show a more nuanced radicalism at work.

In India, Ambedkar was the first serious student of social consequences of political institutions. He understood that every institutional design has a built-in drag, that it has consequences irrespective of the intent of those who designed it. Whether it was the choice of the parliamentary system over the presidential, or the role and powers of an elected panchayat in a village, or the formation of linguistic states or the partition of the country, Ambedkar brought a razor-sharp understanding of how each of these decisions would affect the most marginalised sections of society. The institutional design he proposed in States and Minorities showed a nuanced approach to using the political form of democracy for social transformation. Needless to say, none of his apparent moderation took away his resolute commitment to nothing short of annihilation of the caste order.

We don’t need to stretch our imagination far to anticipate what Ambedkar might have said about the continuation of inequalities, including caste inequalities, and on the rise of majoritarian democracy in today’s India. What does require careful reflection and imagination is turning these fragments of original thinking into a coherent theory of radical democracy for the 21st century. That is a task for those who take Babasaheb’s intellectual legacy seriously, beyond birthday celebrations.

Yogendra Yadav is the National President of Swaraj India. Views are personal.

(Edited by Neera Majumdar)

This article is part of the Dalit History Month 2021 series. Read all the articles here.

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Why news media is in crisis & How you can fix it

India needs free, fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism even more as it faces multiple crises.

But the news media is in a crisis of its own. There have been brutal layoffs and pay-cuts. The best of journalism is shrinking, yielding to crude prime-time spectacle.

ThePrint has the finest young reporters, columnists and editors working for it. Sustaining journalism of this quality needs smart and thinking people like you to pay for it. Whether you live in India or overseas, you can do it here.

Support Our Journalism

VIEW COMMENTS

61 COMMENTS

  1. INDIA
    Today India is similar to Germany was from 1933 to 1945 under the late Adolf Hitler. The Democracy of India is doomed because our elected leaders treat people sinuously, people mostly believe in ” Might is Right”. I am a UP NRI residing in Canada since 1975, have studied, travelled and worked around the world for over 50 years and I am 75 years old. My comment is based on my learning and experience and I don’t belong to any political party. India has the potential to become a ” Super Power” of the Global village because they have precious human resources to manufacturing the essential products of the Human need. The tragedy of India is it lacks genuine leaders and public administrators. The reality of India presently ” No one is safe and no one’s property is safe”. The children of India have no future, elders have no protection. IAS, IPS and PCS are iniquitous. Corruption, bribery and influence peddling have damaged India. A SHO is unsafe in New India.
    Respectfully submitted

    Ramesh Mishra
    Victoria, BC CANADA

  2. So you mean to say…that tyranny of the minority is better than tyranny of the majority…
    Just shut up already.

  3. One of the Rothschild’s American agents for Opium was Abiel Abbot Low of Russell and Co. He funded the Columbia Univerisity with drug money.

    His son Seth Low was the President of Columbia University USA , when Churchill ( whose mother is Rothschilds ) arranged for our BR Ambedkar to study in Columbia University.

    He was locally taken care of by the Parsee drug agents of Rothschilds. The Rothschilds propaganda was that the Maharaja of Baroda and Kohlapur sponsored him.

    His Subedar Major father Ramji Maloji Sakpal in the British army was stationed at Mhow Cantonment. He was known to be very servile and a desh drohi informer to the British. So was his grandfather. Ramji Sakpal was educated by Rothschild and given a job as “teacher” in the Mahar regiment. BR Ambedkar was his 14th child.

    BR Ambedkar was groomed by British East India Company, as a worthy son his father who was a staunch loyalist of British East India Company. Rothschilds wanted checks and balances in India, lest there be a popular revolt. BR Ambedkar was chosen by Rothschild to take over the mantle from Gopal Krishna Gokhale, a British stooge ( Mahatma Gandhi’s mentor ) , and whose would die of diabetes very soon.

    History can be subverted by the victors , right? I will be re-writing this part of Gokhale/ Gandhiji nexus– history soon.
    This time around , they needed to maintain fissures deep WITHIN Hinduism .

    Already they had driven a wedge between all the major religions of India. So much that when the whole of India united as one to fight Rothschild in 1857, Sikhs and the Mahars of Maharashtra supported them .

    BR Ambedkar was installed as a professor in Sydneham College Mumbai by the snooty Lord Sydneham himself, the Governor of Bombay himself, on orders from Churchill.

    The intense grooming of BR Ambedkar to put fissures into Hindusim was a long drawn out one.

    In his childhood his entire studies were sponsored by Maharaja Gaekwad ( as per our invaders version ), while actually he was sponsored by the Parsee Opium agents of Rothschild.

    BR Ambedkar was used to constantly throw egg on the face of Mahatma Gandhi who tried his level best NOT to allow fissures between various castes in Hinduism. BR Ambedkar was groomed by Rothschild to hate Hinduism, and he left no stone unturned to display this.

    All his biographies are doctored to declare how much he was ill treated in his childhood as an untouchable Mahar.

    In 1928, BR Ambedkar was appointed to the Bombay Presidency Committee so that he could work with the all-European Simon Commission. The whole of India under Lala Lajpat Rai and Bhagat Singh ( Lala martyed himself in this protest ) was against the Simon Commission, which included only whites.

  4. Tyranny of minority on a tolerant minority at last found its natural consequence!
    The previous benefactors are the only ones who are upset now!

  5. What is clear from the many comments on all opinion pieces is that The Print has become more about strong opinions (assessed by the looks of it, Qualitatively and quantitatively, biased) rather than as is what is views. It is attempting to influence rather than inform in both its avatars – digital print and YouTube videos.

    It is taking away the sheen from its many great programs like cut the clutter, off the cuff, Ilanomics, SP’s take on Defence, DK’s political commentaries etc. which are excellent.

    As such, I am still holding on to my faith that The Print will become the last bastion of equanimity depending more on “desi” numbers than on “foreign” numbers; about balanced headlines rather than contrived phrases for its articles and programmes etc and more about informing rather than influencing.

    Tailpiece: Inform and not influence.

  6. Very good article by Yogendra Yadav. Keep it up.
    By the way updates for some of the reader’s comment.

    Minority for Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar does not mean Muslim, christian, Sikh or Parsis only. From him SC/ST are also minorities. (Read his arguments in second Round Table conference debates where argued for separate electorate for SC )
    Regarding reservation, it is not the poverty alleviation program but representation to the marginalised communities.
    It is observed that most of the higher posts reserved for SC/ST are abolished and given to general category people because of non availability of “suitable” candidates. Some of these posts require distinguish merit similar to general category. For example, in the scientific and defence institute there is no relaxation in selection criteria for reserved category. Now if some well to do reserved category persons are having that requisite qualifications and get these jobs, then what is the issue. Afterall what is envisaged in the constitution about representation to marginalised communities
    is getting fulfilled.
    One example why representation is required for the marginalised communities is that the caste system is so rigid and discriminative that the present president who is SC was not allowed to enter the Puri, Orissa temple.

  7. Toady the inequality is in not in caste but more a religion based inequality which was there even at time of Congress favouring Muslims more but that didn’t made the liberals fear or say democracy was in danger but today when after 70 years someone has look towards the generous tolerant Hindus all of sudden the country is in danger. Hindus should definitely receive more attention as it’s our country the name Hindustan stands for something and the people of it should be protected. We don’t want to be next Indonesia or Malaysia.

  8. There was never ever democracy in any form in india it was and is the tyrant of majority in India .so nothing new has been discovered Not for nothing the traslation of Might is right exists in each and every lagnuage of india Hindi…jiski lathi uski bhais or Marathi…Bali to kan pili.

  9. What happened to the agitation of rich farmers of Punjab, Haryana and Western UP? Shri Yogendra Yadav, their tallest self appointed leader, has abandoned them in the heat and dust of Delhi borders, surrounded by a rising covid wave, and is now comfortably back in his air-conditioned Delhi house, churning out content for consumption of the gullible.

  10. PM Modi must abolish cast system in India through his executive order from today on Amedkar birthday. No cast system in India.

  11. Yogendra Yadav has a very convenient memory. When Congress (in Centre and states) and AAP (originally in Delhi) had / have power, it is Democracy. Else, it is not democracy. It is majoritarianism.

    Leading thousands of Farmers against Acts of Parliament is Democracy by his definition. Democracy on streets!

    Let him study the views of Ambedkar on Section 370 during the Constituent Assembly which Mr YY has cried copious tears about. Let him read Ambedkar views on economics particularly urbanization. He opposed Gandhi views totally.

    Let us not look at Ambedkar thru a selective prism of one’s convenient political beliefs.

  12. Ambedkar said tyranny of majority is no democracy. Indians must read him again. What a misleading head line. It is not for common Indian to read him again . It is for leftists like Y Y to read him again. Ambedkar was for reform of some social ills of the majority Hindu society. For which he impressed upon the Constituent Assembly to provide for reservation in jobs for a period of ten years , which period latter had been extended definitively. This had been acceptable to Hindu society as no major anti-reservation movement had been initiated or supported by the vast majority of Hindus. But politically failed leaders like this authour go on misrepresenting Baba Saheb views and instead of thanking vast Hindu society for accepting Reservations for Dalits as an act of magnanimity that aims to uplift them , go on preaching that Idea of RESERVATION is like REPARATION . It is not so. IT CAN NEVER BE SO. For the last 10 centuries India was being ruled by the Muslims Sultans , Christian Britisher-overlords and their decedents Congress party s pygmies . For any deprivation of Dalits ,Muslim and Britisher and Congress regimes are more culprit than a common person following Hindu religion. As it is twenty first century — century of knowledge and information at the speed of light. . People are not likely to accept what ever Leftus write and preach. So be careful in writing and publishing. Even the credibility of the media outfits or portals is also at stake .

  13. Two countries for the minority were created in 1947. Hence what the majority wants in India rules. Minorities can still go to those countries.

    • In what way is this man sick? You have not specified just made a statement anticipating that it will be accepted. No justification given.

    • Well said…..SICKULARS like Yogendra Yadav have no locus standing. SICKULARS like him have never condemned genocide of Kashmiri Pandits and being made refugees in their own country….That is the TYRANNY OF A RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY when they are in a MAJORITY…..Even in Kerala,in Mallapuram district, Hindus have been systematically evicted…..and no on bars an eyelid….SUCH IS HIS HYPOCRISY!!!

  14. Educate. Agitate. Organise.

    And the rest of you:

    Learn. Listen. Acknowledge privilege of the rich creamy layer!

    #Exclusion of Creamy Layer from Quota System

    May the spirit and ideas of Baba Saheb Ambedkar keep inspiring us!

    A leader who opened up new horizons for India! A champion of liberty, equality and fraternity!

    The more you read Ambedkar, the more you get an insight into how the 21st century has misunderstood (or rather misused ) his egalitarian ideas!

    Back then, when the Brahminical order had marginalized many on the basis of caste, he talked about the ” Annihilation of Caste ” on the concept of Equality! “Misreading” him means that people start imagining and manipulating that he was raising voice against some particular caste …..

    ……”Understanding” Ambedkar’s spirit means that he was not against any caste, rather he was against “marginalization” itself….he was against the “privileged” who were mainstream only because of being born in a particular caste. How could birth in a particular caste give you special privileges?….this was the radical question he raised in independent India.

    He dedicated his life to the cause of equality, and ironically his ideas are being used to destroy his own spirit!

    “To make the rich richer, and the poor poorer, is not the way to abolish poverty”, Ambedkar had said….aren’t we doing the same by our policies???

    Ambedkar strongly believed that the govt. should frame its policies for the benefit of the marginalized, and not at all for those who are already in the mainstream.

    My contention is against the second and third generation benefactors of the reservation policy repeatedly being considered underprivileged when they have actually already moved from the “margin” to the “centre”.

    Ambedkar had roared like a lion when he probably saw the future:
    “If I find the constitution being misused, I shall be the first to burn it.”

    I’m sure he would have been disgusted to see how his spirit of equality would totaly be crushed in the decades to come! The rich and privileged who have moved from the “margin” to the “centre” three to four generations back are still considered “underprivileged”.

    Yes, I’m talking about the “creamy layer” (the declared and undeclared both…cutting across all reserved categories), the extremely affluent , who dont need it anymore! Why would the kids of people owning acres and acres of land, moving about in posh cars and carrying the latest i phones need reservation in exams???? This seems to me an archetypal paradox which would even confuse the omniscient God !!!!!

    If Ambedkar would have been present today to see how his ideas have been distorted he would have as he himself said ” burnt the constitition”.

    I urge my fellow country women/ men to rethink on this issue, and to get a “creamy layer” marked for this affluent, privileged class. Yes, a creamy layer does exist, but its a “creamy layer” only in name. The “creamy layer” should be extended to all categories………..

    ……. Nothing less than this would be fair to posterity. In fact , in its present state, reservation is being granted to the already extremely privileged.
    In spirit, the Reservation policy has become just the opposite of what Dr.Ambedkar had visualized it to be.

    Being a citizen of India, I love my country and feel a strong urge deep within my conscience to raise voice against this inequality. Therefore, friends please join hands with me to persuade all the people of this country to rethink and persuade the Government to create a creamy layer across all categories, and then deprive this privileged class from reservation in jobs etc.. In this way , we would be able to abide by the socialistic pattern of our constitution…..Or else , the centres of power and privilege will keep on changing , and the poor , marginalized will always be relegated to the margins of the cultural fabric! I’m sorry to say that we have also been caught in this vicious circle where the “centres” and “margins” keep changing with time. The “oppressors”and the “oppressed” keep exchanging roles!

    I bow down in deep reverence to this great architect of modern India ….whose spirit and ideas will take us from darkness towards light!

  15. Yogendra Yadav should be the last person anyone should take advice from. For him tyranny of majority by CONgress is ok, but not by any other party.
    If he can have his way, he would like to have a government represented by a bunch of losers,
    His heart is rooting for a CONgress and Leftist government.
    He and his bunch of Dalaals have taken the poor farmers down the road to disaster, like the way Datta Samant did to the Mill Workers through his unreasonable demand with the Mill owners.

  16. Yogendra Yadav should be the last person anyone should take advice from. For him tyranny of majority by CONgress is ok, but not by any other party.
    If he can have his way, he would like to have a government represented by a bunch of losers, urban naxals and the JNU gang.
    His heart is rooting for a CONgress and Leftist government.
    He and his bunch of Dalaals have taken the poor farmers down the road to disaster, like the way Datta Samant did to the Mill Workers through his unreasonable demand with the Mill owners.

  17. The so called communists all extinct from Pakistan. Somehow the communists are surviving in India, aptly supported by out western and northern border tyrannies. They will keep on do their bidding without shame. And this guy is no different.

  18. What if the so called minority is Villan
    The idea of Islamic prophet is shit and he resemble Asharam baapu

  19. Are Salim chacha, ye patti dare hue logon ko jakar samjhao. Aajkal aur koi dhandha nahi chal raha kya.

  20. What kind of democracy is this where minorities are on the upper hand. When the majority is poor and un educated .

  21. Y Y graduated from journalism and psephology to a critic of everything . He forgets that India had , and many politicians still swear by , tyranny of the minority . Which he’s unable to see , has become increasingly violent and demanding .
    Good luck to anyone taking him seriously .

  22. Just a random observation to point out, Dr ambedkar argue that the idea of associated living that presupposes the democracy simply did not exist in india and the self contained communities did not allow for conversation and negotiation necessary for healthy democracy. But, when Constitution was being drafted he fought hard and eventually succeeded in ensuring reservation for SC/ST communities in loksabha and state assembly constituencies. This goes directly against his proclaimed necessity of dialogue and negotiation between different communities. Further, it cements the division and differences between them antithetical in a way towards a prospering democracy.

  23. True tyrnee of majority in a democracy can be very devastating for the people of any country. For example, Rajiv Gandhi the former prime minister as able to deny the fundamental rights of Indian Muslim women in Shabano case even after the Supreme Court’s ruling other wise, with the help of stupendous majority of his Congress party from gally to Delhi. This was only the contribution of prime ministership of Shri Rajiv Gandhi. With less majority , the present Government of Shri Narendra Modi reversed the tyrnee of previous Congress Government and restored the fundamental rights of Indian Muslim women.

  24. Minority appeasement is not democracy either, Majority is under obligation to appease minority they need to earn the respect.

    Democracy is everywhere always rule of majority with constitutional protection for minority. This athoest/communist crowd has subverted this notion.

  25. यादव जी आपके विचार और लेख हमेशा गहन चिंतन के लिए प्रेरित करते हैं, यह लेख भी उनमे से है जिसने सोचने पे मज़बूर किया। क्या यह कहना गलत होगा की अम्बेडकर जी की प्रजातंत्र की सोच काफी हद तक धर्म (religion ) की तरह है? किसी भी धर्म की उत्पत्ति भी सामाजिक खुशहाली और विश्वसनीय आर्थिक लेन-देन की सुविधा के कारण हुई थी।

    – दीपक शर्मा

  26. Ambedkar was a British stooge, we cannot make him our guide.
    He did not only not participate in our freedom stuggle but also worked hard against it.
    During lifetime even SC/ST rejected him.
    Today vested interest makes him in to a god! Just propaganda!

  27. Baba saheb ambedkar is no god.There is no need to accept every word he uttered.Even the constitution of India was the result of hard work of a team of legal luminaries,economists and political scientists headed by a brilliant outstanding ICS officer Sri. Benegal Narasing rao. Ofcourse anyone saying this will get brickbats.

  28. I think Vijaya Galande has given the correct reply to this democratically written article by Mr Yogendra Yadav who often says there is no democracy in India.Then how he can organize demonstrations haratals in different parts of India.

  29. I think Vijaya Galande has given the correct reply to this democratically written article by Mr Yogendra Yadav who often says there is no democracy in India.Then how he can organize demonstrations haratals in different parts of India

  30. A good article. While Babasahebs idea of democracy, and India we’re futuristic and many ideas relevant even today ., the generation of politicians then during the era of Ambedkar did not read, understand and assimilate the idea, thought process and purpose if his writings. It should not be limited to Constitution alone.
    Most important for all to note is that due to misunderstanding, mis interpretation, mis guidance of all that Ambedkar wrote thought and said situation has become worse. No doubt he is used politically for celebrations, in seminars etc which I agree with Yogender Yadav.
    But surely many of what Ambedkar wrote and said need to be tuned to today’s reality. Times have changed, perspectives have changed, conditions have changed.
    An Ambedkar II is the need of the hour. None of the present politicians can be entrusted with the fine tuning the legacy of the Great Intelectual.

  31. Andolanjeevi – you haven’t even won in a panchayat election. Who are you to talk to others about democracy?
    Read about why Ambedkar didn’t convert to Islam and converted to Buddhism instead and then take yourself off to Pakistan – the land of pure (for people like you).
    Andolanjeevi is a useless fellow. Hasn’t contributed positively to anything at all!!

  32. Ambedkar has said many things on many topics. Author is cherry picking selective statements to suit his political narrative.

  33. It was Nehru who destroyed the ideas of Ambedkar and forcibly imposed his Idea of India ignoring what the majority of Indians wanted. Yogendra Yadav is no different from communists for whom democracy means rule by force. Yogendra Yadav is essentially a dictator whose Ideas have no support in India. He believes that majority of Indians are fool and in democracy only few like him should have the final say. I am sure he can’t even win an election, the essential part of democracy.

  34. Ambedkar said many things. So let’s not pick and choose and interpret as per our own beliefs and convenience.

  35. Why can’t he speak directly Muslim majority countries tyranny is ok, why don’t these people get out of India and live in Pakistan?

  36. Why not redefine Democracy as rule by minority. The losers in election rule. Wouldn’t that be interesting?

    • Democracy demonstrated what a monster it was even during infancy. Majority murdered Socrates. Socrates laid the foundation of sciences by his insisting on definitions. France launched on mass murder by Guillotine, bankrupted itself and Pounced on Europe after that. Hitler was no Taimur Lang. He was leader of EFFECTIVE MAJORITY in Germany Democracy backed by other parties.

      India has MMMM Mad Murder of Meritted by Majority by Reservation policy and Socialism. It is very unfortunate as Merrited and Investors produce much much more than they consume.

  37. There was ETHNIC CLEANSING of HINDUS from KASHMIR.

    More than 2000 woman are abducted raped and forcefully converted and men enslaved in pakistan.

    This statistics show that HINDUS will not be safe as a minority.

    Whereas the major minority birth rate is much higher than HINDUS.

    In states like Assam and West BENGAL democracy is sought to be subverted by sheer uncontrolled population growth.

    So SALIMBHAI is only spewing venom on non believers.

  38. Appeasement of minorities is NOT democracy. Blocking of Highways & holding democratically elected government to ransom is NOT democracy. Keeping farmers enslaved to APMC agents is NOT democracy. And the list goes on & on & on . . . . .

  39. Ambedkar had some choosy words about Islam and religious conversions. He also wanted Sanskrit to be the national language. He was heavily discriminated by Congress.

    • He even wanted to review cast based reservations after 10 years. What about this aspect 😳😳😳😳😳

  40. DID Ambedkar SAY PAYMENT TO FARMERS THROUGH DALALS WAS DEMOCRACY?
    DID HE SAY CELEBRATING REPUBLIC DAY WITH 1000S OF TRACOTRS ON ROAD CAUSING DISRUPTION IN THE CAPITAL WAS DEMOCRACY.
    ACCEPTING A DEFEAT GRACEFULLY IS DEMOCRACY, PLEASE LEARN

  41. Disclaimer: With malice to none and with no prejudice to any idea

    I tend to agree with the writer in reference to tranny and violence. Tyranny and violence ( most times interlinked) of ALL kinds either by the majority or the minority or criminals or extremists or insurgents, is not part of democracy and needs to be condemned unequivocally .

    Tail piece: By the way Dr. Ambedkar has also expressed extensive views on many other aspects of Governance, society and progress, especially on matters included in the Constitution. A revisit to all his works is definitely revealing, especially his ideas of India.

  42. I hope Yogendraji is fine. I did not see the word “MODI” in his article. I recommend somebody call him to check if he is doing fine. and that Idea of india is intact or not?

Comments are closed.