not doing justice to the vision of democracy

Worldwide, as never before, the 131st birthday (14 April) of Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar was celebrated in various forms. To respect him and other anti-caste symbols like Jyotirao Phule of Canada The province of British Columbia has declared April ‘Dalit History Month’, In the United States, the federal states of Colorado and Michigan have ‘Doctor. BR Ambedkar Equity Day, In India, the Indian government has instructed public institutions to formally celebrate Ambedkar’s birthday. The Uttar Pradesh government observed this day as “Social Harmony Day”. Tamil Nadu government has declared it “Equality Day”, At the same time, attempts are being made by parties, organizations and individuals of different ideological persuasion to (mis)appropriate Ambedkar for their own interests without making any attempt to adopt Ambedkar’s principles of socio-cultural justice and economic fairness.

Celebration Requires Substance

A critical examination of these celebrations, at least in India, shows that they are primarily a celebration of Ambedkar’s fervor, primarily with electoral gains in mind. This may be important but it does not do justice to Ambedkar’s great libertarian vision of democracy. Most of these celebrations seem to have been oblivious not only to Ambedkar’s anti-caste and anti-patriarchal vision, but also to deliberately ignore his world-view on economic equality, fairness and justice. The current economic system being followed by political parties at the center and state level is mostly opposed to the model envisaged by Ambedkar. For the lesson to be learned for today, it would be appropriate to revisit some of the salient features of his work on economic democracy. As Labor Minister (Member) of the Viceroy’s Council (1942–1946) and through his writings such as State and Minorities (1947), Ambedkar clearly laid out his view of the essence of political economy.

It was in 1928 that Babasaheb fought for the passage of the Maternity Benefit Bill in the Bombay Legislative Council. It was later taken up by the Madras Legislative Council in 1934. In 1942, Ambedkar changed the working hours from the earlier 12 hours to eight hours a day. Ironically, the present government, during the COVID-19 pandemic, wanted to bring back the norm of working 12 hours a day. Recently, some trade unions had to submit a memorandum to the Bharatiya Janata Party government opposing their plan to change the Factories Act, 1948 to restore 12-hour work. In fact, in 2020, the Uttar Pradesh government had to withdraw the 12-hour work time after the protest of the trade unions and the Allahabad High Court issued a notice to the government.

The process of large-scale ‘contracting’ and ‘informalisation’ of workers since the 1990s has not only increased the economic inequality between employer and employee, but also increased the economic inequality between high-paid permanent employees and low-wage regular, contractual and Economic inequality has also increased among temporary workers. other. The number of contract workers in the organized manufacturing sector has also increased from 15.5 per cent in 2000-01 to 27.9% in 2015-16. In states such as Bihar, Uttarakhand and Odisha, the majority of the organized manufacturing workforce is on contract. Despite the prohibition under the Contract Labor (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, contract workers are being paid less wages/wages for similar work. This is a clear violation of the law and Article 141 of the Constitution, as observed by the Supreme Court of India in 2016. The Supreme Court overturned the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision that temporary employees of the Punjab government were not entitled to the same. Equal pay for equal work as permanent employees. Even among regular workers, according to the Periodic Labor Force Survey (PLFS) data (2017-18), 45% were paid less than ₹10,000 per month and 72% were paid less than ₹18,000 per month. less was paid. Only about 3% of the regular workers earned ₹50,000 to ₹1,00,000 per month and only 0.2% earned more than ₹1,00,000 per month. The rise of new classes and new contradictions threatens the democratic existence and secular fabric of this country. Ambedkar was clear that the continued existence of clear inequalities and tyranny of the majority would ring the death knell of Indian democracy.

adherence to principles

It is worth recalling here that Ambedkar, as a member of the Viceroy’s Council, not only established equal pay for equal work, but also incorporated it as part of the Directive Principles in the Indian Constitution. However, women are still receiving an average of ₹70 to ₹90 a day, which is less than men as both formal and informal workers. Imagine what would have happened if Ambedkar was alive. He must have been equally shocked to see the huge wage gap between the workers in the formal and informal sector. Informal workers constitute 93 percent of the formal and informal sector workforce in India. Some recent estimates suggest that informal sector workers receive an average of 30% to 40% of the actual daily wages of formal workers. Four labor codes (on wages, social security, occupational safety and industrial relations) brought by the BJP government after strengthening 44 labor laws are going to worsen the condition of workers.

Workers in the unorganized sector organized a protest in Tamil Nadu in April 2022, urging the state government to pass a resolution in the state assembly, demanding the central government to withdraw four labor codes. One of these codes – the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (IRC) – directly violates the right to strike, which was recognized by Ambedkar as one of the fundamental rights of workers. This was the reason why the Indian Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill was passed in 1943 with the efforts of Ambedkar, which made the recognition of trade unions mandatory. Ambedkar had many other contributions in institutionalizing laws relating to workers’ insurance, minimum wages, workers’ welfare, etc., many of which covertly try to overturn or overturn the four labor codes. Therefore, it is high time that we stand by the ideals of the framer of the Constitution.

Ambedkar’s vision

It is essential to understand the main reasons behind Ambedkar’s active interest in economic and labor rights. First, he argued strongly for simultaneously addressing the real questions of political, social and economic democracy because they are intertwined with each other in such a way that abandoning one jeopardizes progress made in the other. will be given. Second, he believed in economic justice as much as he believed in social justice.

editorial | follow without praise

This becomes clear when we study his work, State and Minorities, The document not only included comprehensive safeguards for the emancipation of the Scheduled Castes, but also laid down their vision of socio-cultural justice and economic fairness. He argued for nationalization of major and basic industries, agriculture and insurance sectors. He wanted the state to allot agricultural land only on tenancy basis to the people (irrespective of caste, class and creed) for collective farming. This vision was clearly against what was being done in the country in the post-liberalisation period and had intensified over the past decade. Airports, Indian Railways, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL)/Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL), Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), Public Sector Banks and other public sector organizations on-going monetization/sale-off/privatization are seriously attacking economic democracy.

It is not without reason that labor was placed under the Concurrent List in the Indian Constitution. In addition, labor inquiry committees and labor commissioners were set up by Babasaheb to improve the conditions of workers as far as possible under the existing law. Therefore, the central and state governments should not only take the lead in taking necessary measures to stop the privatization race and repeal the four labor codes, but also take proactive steps to follow the stereoscopic vision of democracy – social, economic and Political – If they want to celebrate Babasaheb in true sense. Without following Ambedkar’s ideals and only appropriating the symbol is another excuse to divert people’s attention from everyday materiality. Dr. Ambedkar was dead against hero worship or devotion in politics, which he saw as a sure path to the decline of democracy and eventually dictatorship.

C. Lakshmanan is Associate Professor, Madras Institute of Development Studies (MIDS), Chennai. Aparajay is an independent researcher