IDEA OF SOCIAL JUSTICE IN INDIA WITH

SPECIAL

REFERENCE TO DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR

SUBMITTED BY:Puja Srivastava

127164

Page | 1

IDEAS OF JUSTICE:

In our day to day life we discuss about different duties, actions

and deeds of others and ours and try to justify whether they are

right or wrong, just or unjust. Different kinds of things are

said to be just and unjust, such as, institutions, social

systems, decisions, judgments, attitudes and dispositions of

persons and persons themselves. The term justice implies the

quality of being just, right or reasonable. It is opposed to what

is unjust, wrong or unreasonable.

1The term ‘justice’ is originated and derived from Latin word

‘jus’, meaning law. This again cognate with jussum, meaning what

is ordered. The idea of justice is not restricted to any

boundary. It has a broad and wide meaning which changes with time

and place. Justice is a dynamic concept. Since 6th century B.C.

thinkers, scholars and philosopher has been defining the concept

on the basis of their own deliberative thoughts, ideas and

experiences. Thoughts of some philosophers are inclined towards

liberal way, some adhered them to socialist stream and others to

utilitarianism and different school of their own. Each of the

theories and approaches have developed so far, adopt a unique2‘informational base of judgement’ which involves including (and

1 Ivaturi, RS, Legal aid a Constitutional Mandate. 2013. Available from: http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/7785/10/10_chapter%203.pdf Page | 2

excluding) relevant information in making judgements about the

justice and appropriateness of different social situations.

To establish a just order is the central theme of the idea of

justice. The idea of justice aims to make the world a place where

human-being may exhale with happiness, self respect and dignity.

A just order has no place for any kind of narrow minded,

orthodox, irrational and superstitious belief.

In politics justice is used as a guide to public policy. The

question of justice arises under two conditions: (a) in a

scarcity situation –where goods, services, opportunities, etc.

are too scarce to satisfy all contestants; and (b) in an open

society –where allocation of various benefits is not tied to

fixed status of various individuals but they are free to demand a

fair share on some reasonable ground. Actually, justice is the

problem of open minded people. The idea of justice took shape in

only an open society. In a closed authoritarian or totalitarian

society, the notion of justice does not exist at all. As there is

lack of rights and liberty for individuals and also there exist

inequality of treatment by the side of government.

Existing societies are of course seldom well-ordered, for what is

just and unjust is usually in dispute because the sense of

2 Taherzadeh, Shirin M., Amartya Sen’s Contribution to a Theory of Social Justice. University of Cape Town Student Research Paper, (online) 2012. Available from: www.idll.uct.ac.za/usr/idll/resources/student/smtaherzadeh_2012.pdf

Page | 3

justice differs from state to state, community to community and

ultimately from people to people. What is just in India need not

to be just in United States. It is very difficult to be agreed on

a particular point for the establishment of a just order.

Different definitions by different thinkers on justice are

discussed below.

As we know that the history of political philosophy was

originated in Greece. 1According to Greek philosophy there are

four cardinal virtues of a society, they are, temperance,

fortitude, prudence and justice. So, justice was one of the

virtues of the society. Different thinkers and philosophers

interpreted the term differently. Greek philosopher Polemarchus

said that justice means “giving each man his due” or “what was

fitting”. This implied that, justice was “doing the right thing”,

that is “good to friends and harm to enemies”. Polemarchus

repeated the Greek morality which is reflected from 2Solon’s

prayer, “may I be pleasant to my friends and hateful to my

enemies”.

Thracymachus, a Sophist, defined justice or right, as the

interest of the stronger party namely, the ruler. 3He said that,

“each type of Government enacts laws that are in its own

1 Mukherjee, Subrata & Ramaswamy, Sushila, A History of Political Thought: Plato to Marx. PHI Learning Private Limited; 2012, p-72.

2 Ibid, p-73.

3 Mukherjee, Subrata & Ramaswamy, Sushila, A History of Political Thought: Plato to Marx. PHI Learning Private Limited; 2012, p-74.Page | 4

interest, a democracy democratic laws, a tyranny tyrannical ones

and so on; and enacting these laws they make it quiet plain that

what is ‘right’ for their subjects is what is in the interest of

themselves, the rulers, and if anyone deviates from this he will

punished as a lawbreaker and wrongdoer.”

Socrates, the great philosopher according to whom, knowledge and

wisdom is the very first virtue, emphasized on the reasoned

behavior. He discarded the concept of Polemarchus arguing that,

helping friends might also involve in ignoble acts and it is

difficult to decide about who is and who is enemy. Socrates also

disproved the concept of Thracymachus and reasoned that justice

is not the advantage of the stronger because the ruler’s duty is

to serve the interest of the people. Plato was one of the

disciples of Socrates, whose work on justice has an important

place in Political Theory.

‘The Republic’, the greatest and well known work of Plato was all

about justice, right conduct or morality. Greek meaning of the

‘Republic’ is ‘justice’. This book deals with the notion of

justice and its realization within the individual and the state.

Plato like Socrates, also rejected the traditional theory of

justice. He criticized Polemarchus’s statement and says that if a

insane person will demand his gun then it will not be the just

action to give him his gun. Plato also rejected the radical

theory of justice of Thracymachus. According to him,

Page | 5

Thracymachus’s justice is based on 1unconventional immoralism.

Plato called this the theory of injustice as it favors the

stronger to suppress the comparatively weaker. Apart from the two

notions there were one more theory called the pragmatic theory of

justice was popular according to which, justice was the interest

of the weaker. In his criticism of the theory, Plato says that

the theory is based on fear and not on morality. He argued that

justice is something internal it could differ from person to

person.

Justice, according to Plato, meant that every individual should

assigned a place in society according to one’s natural aptitudes

and skills. It is said that Plato’s justice means 2‘departmental

excellence’. Plato says that every human soul has three

qualities: rational, spirit and appetite. In each soul, according

to Plato, one of these qualities is found to be predominant.

Individual in whom the: - rational faculty is predominant

constitutes the ruling class possessing the virtue of wisdom;

spirit is predominant constitute the warrior class possessing the

virtue of courage; appetite is predominant constitute the

artisans and productive class possessing the virtue of

temperance. Justice is “one class, one duty; one man one work.”

According to Plato, interference and meddlesome or any kind of

interchange in job between three social class would bring harm to

1 Ramaswamy, Sushila, Political Theory: Ideas &Concepts. Macmillan Publication; 2005.

2 Mukherjee, Subrata & Ramaswamy, Sushila, A History of Political Thought: Plato to Marx. PHI Learning Private Limited; 2012.Page | 6

state and this is injustice. 1Plato’s credit lay in identifying

justice as merit, rewarding each person in terms of what is due

to them and expecting from them their due to the society.

Plato observes the distribution of responsibility in accordance

with ability but ignored the distribution of wealth in society

which forms an important part of the idea of justice. But he

instructed his philosopher ruler to avoid extremes in wealth in

the society. Plato deliberately ignores the view of justice as

equality and this led 2Popper to accuse him of supporting a

totalitarian ethic and disregarding democracy, individualism and

equality.

Aristotle, a genius well versed in a number of disciplines and

father of Political Science, has presented views ‘on justice’.

Aristotle regarded justice as a complete virtue, though not

absolute. Aristotle divides justice in two categories.

1. General concept of justice: This concept of justice is the

lawful, which does not mean the obedience to the laws of any

specific state.

2. Particular concept of justice: This concept refers to what

is fair and equal. He divides particular concept into

distributive and rectificatory or remedial or corrective

justice. Distributive justice is concerned with what people

1 Ramaswamy, Sushila, Political Theory: Ideas &Concepts. Macmillan Publication; 2005, p-287.

2 ibid, p-286.Page | 7

deserve and what one has right to receive such as offices

and wealth, rewards and dues according to contributions

based on merit. Rectificatory or remedial justice referred

to justice of transactions, voluntary (buying, selling or

lending) and involuntary (being a victim).

The important fact was that all persons would be treated in a

manner of equal merit. This has been called by Aristotle as

Complete Justice. Aristotelian justice is based on the principle

‘everyone should have his own’ and Platonic justice is based on

the principles ‘everyone should do his own’.

The period from 5th century to 15th century A. D. is considered

as the age of medieval political philosophy. In this period,

politics was dominated by religious fathers. These Christian

fathers laid stress on the autonomy of the Church. Among them

St. Ambrose (340–397AD), St. Augustine (354–430AD) and Pope

Gregory (540–604AD) are worth consideration. St. Augustine is

the greatest among the fathers of the Roman church. According

to him, justice and peace are the qualities of the city of God;

therefore they can be realized only in a society which

symbolizes the city of God and not in a society which represents

the Kingdom of Satan. In the middle age, the only figure who has

philosophical significance was St. Thomas Aquinas (1227–1274AD).

It was he who represented the totality of medieval thought. His

theory of law and justice constitutes the most important part of

Page | 8

his political philosophy. 1St. Thomas Aquinas defined justice

“as a fixed and perpetual will to give to everyone his own

rights.” This definition of St. Thomas Aquinas is in close

conformity with the Aristotelian principle of distributive

justice.

Among modern political theorists Utilitarians, Idealist,

Individualist, Socialist, Anarchist and Liberal thinkers are

main and all these thinkers realized the importance of Justice

but they were unable to define it. The Idealist philosopher

Hegel (1770-1831) thought that to maintain justice is the right

and the duty of public authority but he does not deal with the

concept of justice anywhere. Thus, he envisaged no higher

conception of justice.

Similarly, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) regards punishment as a

matter of justice. He states that if the guilty are not

punished, justice is not done. 2According to him, “if justice

and righteousness perish; human life would no longer have any

value in the world.”

For the utilitarian hedonistic thinker, Jermey Bentham (1748-

1832), who prescribes ‘greatest happiness of the greatest

number’ as the goal of legislation and public policy, justice1 Mishra, Dharmendra Kumar and Mishra, Anshu, The Protean Face Of Justice (From Plato to Amartya Sen). Available from: http://essayforth.com/read-file/the-protean-face-of-justice-from-plato-to-bhu-pdf-2267030/

2 Khobragade, Dr. Vinod, Ambedkar, Social Justice and Indian Constitution. World Focus; April, 2013, p-78.Page | 9

is basically related with utility. An action is just if it is

giving greatest happiness to the greatest number. Bentham’s idea

of justice is merely a subordinate aspect of utility.

J. S. Mill, the utilitarian and the individualist, in his book

“Utilitarianism” has tried to define Justice by listing those

things that are commonly classified as just or unjust in the

following way– First, it is considered unjust to deprive someone

of his legal rights, Second, injustice also comes from depriving

someone of something to which he has a moral right to possess,

Third, it is considered just that a person receive what he

deserves, and unjust that he obtains something what he doesn’t

deserve, Fourth, form of injustice is to violate an agreement

with someone, Fifth, it is considered unjust to show favoritisms

and preference in inappropriate circumstances, Finally, the idea

of equality is also seen as a component of justice. Thus, to

Mill, the standard of justice should be grounded on utility,

believed that the origin of the sense of justice must be sought

in two sentiments other than utility namely, the impulse of self

defence and feeling of sympathy. Thus, Mill does not present his

own theory of justice. To Mill, the standard of justice should

be grounded on utility, believed that the origin of the sense of

justice must be sought in two sentiments other than utility

namely, the impulse of self defense and feeling of sympathy . In

defining it, he looks to what other people mean by the term

justice.

During the nineteenth century, socialist doctrine of justicePage | 10

came into existence. The most extensive work on the idea of

justice was done by P.J. Proudhan (1809-1865), an anarchist

philosopher, who supports the elimination of all form of

compulsory government or state. According to him, 1‘Justice

demands the realization of an order which is neither communism,

nor despotism, nor anarchy, but liberty in order and

independence in unity.’

In the twentieth century, the modern concept of justice is

different from traditional concept. The traditional concept

focused on the just man. The modern concept, on the contrary, is

marked by a shift of emphasis from the idea of a just or

virtuous man to that of a just society. In other word, the

traditional view of justice embodied a conservative idea; the

modern view embodies a progressive idea. The traditional view

insisted on the individual conforming to a pre-conceived image

of society; the modern view of justice seeks to transform

society itself for the realization of certain human values.

After a long span of time, John Rawls, an American philosopher,

presented his ‘Theory of Justice’ in 1971. Rawls says that a

good society is characterized by the number of virtues and

justice is the first virtue of good society. Rawls has described

his theory as the theory of pure procedural justice (discussed

in next chapter). He criticized the utilitarians who, in

1 Mishra, Dharmendra Kumar and Mishra, Anshu, The Protean Face Of Justice (From Plato to Amartya Sen). Available from: http://essayforth.com/read-file/the-protean-face-of-justice-from-plato-to-bhu-pdf-2267030/ Page | 11

calculating ‘the greatest happiness to the greatest number’, do

not care if it leads to any kind of discrimination to any member

of the society. Rawls argued that no one could compensate for

the sufferings of the distressed by enhancing the joys of the

prosperous.

Rawls was inspired by contracterians, especially John Locke and

Imannual Kant. According to Rawls, justice is what free and

equal persons would agree to as basic terms of social

cooperation in conditions that are fair. On this basis he

propounded a theory which is known as “justice as fairness”,

from which Rawls derived two famous principles of justice-- the

liberty principle and the difference principle. They are as

follows:

1. Each person has an equal right to fully adequate scheme of

equal basic liberties which is compatible with a similar

scheme of liberties for all.

2. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two

conditions. First, they must be attached to offices and

positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of

opportunity; and second, they must be to the greatest

benefit of the least advantaged members of society.

Rawls placed liberty at the centre of his theory of justice. He

explained liberty with reference to three aspect: 1) the agents

who were free; 2) the restrictions or limitations from which one

was free and; 3) their ambit of freedom. The basic liberties

Page | 12

according to Rawls includes:

Freedom of thought;

Liberty of conscience as it affects social relationships on

the grounds of religion, philosophy, and morality;

Political liberties (e.g. representative democratic

institutions, freedom of speech and the press, and freedom

of assembly);

Freedom of association;

Freedoms necessary for the liberty and integrity of the

person (viz: freedom from slavery, freedom of movement and a

reasonable degree of freedom to choose one's occupation);

and

Rights and liberties covered by the rule of law.

Rawls argued that these ‘principles of justice’ will emerge in

the ‘original position’ with unanimous agreement. The original

position is a hypothetical situation. The people in the original

position were rational and impartial. In this situation,

according to Rawls the principle of justice would be decided

from the ‘veil of ignorance’. Behind the veil people are not

aware of their social, political and economic differences.

According to Rawls ignorance of these details about oneself will

lead to principles which are fair to all. Through the contract

of mutual advantage Rawls defined justice.

Page | 13

Amartya Sen, has not only contributed immensely to the field of

economics, but his work has reshaped the discourse on poverty,

development and social justice. Noble laureate Amartya Sen has

presented an alternative approach by criticizing John Rawls’s

‘Theory of Justice’. Sen has presented his views on justice in

his book ‘the Idea of Justice’. Amartya Sen places great

emphasis and importance on first examining and evaluating the

merits and limitations of the ‘informational bases’ of existing

theories before putting forth his own approach.

According to Sen, there is no such thing as ‘perfect justice’.

He says that, we should proceed to address questions of

enhancing justice and removing injustice. On the Rawls idea of

‘just institutions’ Sen insisted on the realizations and

outcomes. He said that the idea of justice demands comparisons

of actual lives that people can lead, rather than a remote

search for ideal institutions.

In his books, ‘Road to Serfdom’ and ‘Law, Legislation and

Liberty’, Hayek suggested that ‘the state should positively

promote competition and ensure that the market is not reduced to

an instrument of distributive justice’. Similarly, Friedman in

his creation ‘Capitalism and Freedom’ praised competitive

capitalism as an essential condition of freedom and opposed all

measures of human welfare and social security. Robert Nozick in

his ‘Anarchy, State and Utopia’, like other libertarians, Hayek

and Friedman, emphasized on the liberty, free market and open

competition. Unlike Rawls he argued against the welfare state.Page | 14

He criticized Rawls for his conception of greatest benefit of

the least advantaged.

Nozick contended that the State has no authority to redistribute

the property of its citizens who were originally its clients. He

develops an ‘entitlement theory’ of justice centered on

individual inalienable rights, which includes first and foremost,

liberty. Robert Nozick is primarily concerned with the

distribution of property, and argues that justice involves three

ideas:

1) Justice in acquisition: how you first acquire property

rights over something that has not previously been owned

2) Justice in transfer: how you acquire property rights over

something that has been transferred (e.g. by gift or

exchange) to you by someone else;

3) Rectification of injustice: how to restore something to its

rightful owner, in case of injustice in either acquisition

or transfer.

Socialists claim that liberals and libertarians fail to recognize

the ultimate moral significance of the ideal of social equality

and its intimate link with justice. Marx and Engels are convinced

that with the destruction of capitalism, private property and

bourgeois class, it is possible to construct a society based on

social equality and realize justice.

Page | 15

Another perspective of justice has been come in view in this

modern era, that is, the ‘feminist perspective’. Choodorow and

Gilligan reject the idea of universal moral psychology concerned

with justice. 1According to Gilligan, “men tend to engage in a

mode of moral reasoning and moral discourse that emphasizes the

rights and justice defined as equal treatment, reciprocity or

fairness while women tend to engage in a moral discourse that

emphasizes relationship, responsibility and caring.” 2Okin argues

that, “male, theorizing about justice ignores male domination and

male privilege as an issue of justice.” She broadens the debate

on social justice by introducing the question of gender and

distribution of wealth within the family. 3Young points out that

the core concerns of sexual liberation, reproductive rights,

sexual division of labour, equality in family relations are the

issues of justice.”

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar is known as the champion of social justice in

India. For Dr. Ambedkar, an ideal society is based on liberty,

equality and fraternity. All these ideas are beautifully and

wisely presented in the his works, writings, speeches, and above

all in the Constitution of India architected by Dr. Ambedkar. His

ideas leads to a conception of welfare state, where institution

has to plays a significant role. But at the same time, Dr.

1 Ramaswamy, Sushila, Political Theory: Ideas &Concepts. Macmillan Publication; 2005, p-320.

2 ibid.

3 ibid.Page | 16

Ambedkar talked about imposing control upon them so that they may

not work arbitrarily.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

We can conclude that the idea of justice has a long history and a

giant philosophy. But still, to answer the question, ‘what is

justice?’ is very difficult. My research topic is the idea of

justice in Indian context. Thus the obvious statement of problem

concerning Indian society is discussed below.

The social scene of India was immensely embedded in the orthodox

of casteism. State used to function on the very ethical basis.

There was lack of rationality. People were of conservative nature

as far as the question of their rigid beliefs was concerned, for

example, according to the direction of shastras, 1‘Varnanam

bramhano guru’,which implies that the Brahmins are the

enlightened one and no one could be accepted as ‘guru’ merely

because he/she is well versed. Everything was based on their

caste heredity.

Justice in India has always been the problem of the open minded

people, who thinks with their faculty of rational. Indian society

was not only cursed for the so called lower class of the society

but also for the females, who does not belong to untouchables.

Although they were not restricted for performing prayers in

temple or taking water from tube wells but they hardly were

1 Ambedkar, B. R., Annihilation of Caste, 1936. Available from: http://drambedkarwas.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/who-were-the-shudras.pdfPage | 17

familiar and emancipated of their rights and liberty. The concept

of equality with opposite sex was the matter of syn. For the

majority of the population the three notion of justice, that is,

equality, liberty, and basic human rights were absent. India was

in fact, is a male dominating society. Hindu text has some

examples through which it could be concluded that there were some

female who were educated but it was very rare case. Majority was

in dark world.

During the British era in India, Indians were fighting for the

political reforms. During this era they were not active for

social reforms. They were of the view that the social and the

political reform could not go parallel with each other, both are

two different thing. We can have example of the speech,

delivered by 1Mr. W. C. Bonnerji in 1892 at Allahabad as

President of the eighth session of the Congress, in which he said

that, “I for one have no patience with those who says we shall

not be fit for political reform until we reform our social

system. I fail to see any connection between the two. Are we not

fit (for political reform) because our widows remain unmarried

and our girls are given in marriage earlier than in other

countries? Because we do not send our daughters to Oxford and

Cambridge?” In such society, where is justice? What is the

concept of justice? What is the role of power or government

regarding justice? Are they not bounded for answering any

question of injustice? What is the status of liberty enjoyed by

1 Ibid.Page | 18

individuals? Where lays the concept of equality? Is there any

relation between authority and citizens?

Dr. Ambedkar said, “The path of social reform like the path to

heaven at any rate in India, is strewn with many diffulties.

Social reform in India has few friends and many critics.” So, it

is clear that there is something which is unwanted or

problematic with the perception of the concept of social justice

in India.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

In Political Science and Sociology there have been a number of

excellent thinkers since the emergence of the very subject.

Almost all the renowned thinkers have presented their precious

views on the topic of ‘Social Justice’. But, as we know that, the

concept got its worldwide focus in 19th century, the modern era.

Modern thinkers like, John Rawls, Robert Nozic, Amartya Sen, Dr.

B. R. Ambedkar.

John Rawls (1921-2002), is noted for his contributions to

political and moral philosophy. In particular, Rawls' discussion

about justice introduced five important concepts into discourse,

including: the two principles of justice, the “original position”

and “veil of ignorance,” reflective equilibrium, overlapping

consensus, and public reason. Rawls’ most famous work, A Theory

of Justice (1971), provides an introduction to this body of

thought. Using a thought experiment Rawls called “the original

position” from which agents behind a “veil of ignorance” selectPage | 19

principles of justice to govern society, Rawls argued that two

principles serve to organize society, the "liberty principle" and

the "difference principle." He rooted the original position in

and extended the concept of “social contract” previously espoused

by Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke which made the principles of

justice the object of the contract binding members of society

together. In addition, Rawls’ advocacy of treating people only

as ends and never as means rooted his philosophical speculations

in and extended Kant’s categorical imperative. By equating the

principle of justice with fairness, the representatives in the

original position and operating from behind the veil of ignorance

would elect to organize society around the liberty principle and

the difference principle.

In Anarchy, State, and Utopia , American philosopher Robert

Nozick (1938–2002) develops an entitlement theory of justice , a

libertarian theory of justice centered on individual inalienable

rights (including, first and foremost, liberty). As an

entitlement theory, it is concerned with the justice of what one

has acquired. Nozick's entitlement theory has three elements—

acquisition, transfers, and rectification—which are described in

greater detail below. Nozick's theory can be classified as

historical and unpatterned. Broadly, Nozick constructs a typology

of theories of justice in which he distinguishes between

historical and unhistorical (i.e., end state or current time

slice) principles of distributive justice, as well as patterned

and unpatterned principles. All four combinations of principles

Page | 20

of distributive justice are possible, but Nozick defends his own

historical unpatterned theory against the other three

conceptualizations (or combinations).

An Idea of Justice is a book by Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen. The

book has been described by The Economist as "commanding summation

of Mr Sen’s own work on economic reasoning and on the elements

and measurement of human well-being”. Sen's book is principally a

critique and revision of John Rawls' basic ideas in A Theory of

Justice. One of Sen's main arguments throughout the book is that

the project of social justice should not be evaluated in binary

terms, as either achieved or not. Rather, he claims that justice

should be understood as existing to a matter of degree, and

should correspondingly be evaluated along a continuum.

Furthermore, he argues that we do not need a fully established

abstract ideal of justice to evaluate the fairness of different

institutions. He claims that we can meaningfully compare the

level of justice in two institutions without positing an ideal,

transcendental idea of justice. He names the opposite position

institutional transcendentalism. Sen defends one of Rawls' most

fundamental theoretical concepts: justice as fairness. Although

this is a vague notion fraught with difficulties in any

particular case, he nevertheless views it as one of Rawls'

strongest insights while rejecting the necessity of Rawls' two

principles of justice emerging from the Original position thought

experiment in A Theory of Justice.

Page | 21

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar the, pioneer of social justice in Indian

context, has done a number outstanding work. His works are best

for India as they depict the true scenario of Indian society.

Some of his important works regarding social includes, ‘The

Annihilation of caste’, ‘Castes in India’, ‘essays on

untouchables and untouchability’, ‘Manu and the Shudras’, ‘Mr.

Gandhi and the emancipation of untouchables’, ‘the untouchables

and the pax britannica’, ‘The untouchables who were they and why

they became’, untouchables or the children of india’ , ‘which is

worse’, ‘who were the shudras’ etc. These works of Mr. Ambedkar

contains the practical aspect of Indian society. He actually

concerned about the upliftment of so called Dalits. Ambedkar

favoured neither liberal nor Marxist perspectives on social

justice. Instead, he favoured radico-liberal perspective based on

useful means for social transformation. Ambedkar's idea of social

justice was based on our indigenous historical, social and

cultural roots.

OBJECTIVES:

1) To study the concept of justice.

2) To study social justice in Indian context.

3) To focus the work of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar.

4) To find out the present scenario of social justice in India.

METHODOLOGY:

Page | 22

In planning a study an investigator have to select the method or

methods most appropriate to the particular problem under

consideration. My research work is on the “idea of social justice

in India with special reference to Dr. B. R. Ambedkar” is of

descriptive type. In this I have used the secondary datas. The

primary data includes the writings, delivered and undelivered

script of speeches and other works of Dr. Ambedkar. The secondary

data include magazines, journals, books and different website

links.

HYPOTHESIS:

1. The concept of justice is very ancient in India.

2. Indian society has been concerned with the just allocation

of goods and services since ancient era.

3. Dr. Ambedkar’s concept of justice is not concerned with only

so called ‘DALITS’.

4. Indian society of today is more just than ever before.

SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY:

Justice is a relative concept. It is ever changing as well as

challenging quest for human being. Think of the world where there

is arbitrariness all the way. People are vagabonding and lost in

fulfilling their lust. There is no order, no law, nothing just.

Though it is difficult to know the nature and content of justice

yet the idea of justice has been effective in the course of

Page | 23

centuries in performing the function of excluding arbitrariness,

in providing rational method of settling disputes. The

significance of study lies in the importance of justice in

society. Yes, it is difficult to define justice exactly but any

act of injustice could be felt very easily in the society. There

are three important elements of justice: liberty, equality and

rights. If any one of the three lacks injustice prevails.

Different thinkers have worked for the social justice in the

world. In India, the scene of society was not consolidating.

There was hardly anything like justice in practice. The concept

of caste on the basis of birth was religiously followed by Hindus

of the society. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar was the foremost crusader of

social justice in India, as he was victim of the rigid system.

This study focuses on his work and tries to find out the

influence of his vision on the contemporary society.

I have divided the study into five chapters. The first chapter is

introduction and tries to cover all the important definition of

justice since ancient times to the modern one this chapter

presents the objectives, methodology and significance of the

study. The second chapter deals with the concept of social

justice. In this the socio-political condition of India during

(before and after) the very emergence of modern era. The third

chapter discusses about Indian philosophy in short. The third

chapter sketches out the biography of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. It

tries to contextualuize his evolution in the background of his

family condition and the childhood experiences that led him to be

Page | 24

the crusader of social justice in India. Ambedkar’s philosophy of

social justice is dealt in the chapter. Also, the means depicted

by him for the establishment of just order is discussed in this

chapter. The fourth chapter makes an attempt to understand the

present scenario of the social justice in India. To what extent

social justice has been achieved is the center of discussion in

the chapter. On the basis of the whole study, certain conclusion

regarding the idea of justice in India is drawn and is mentioned

in the final chapter five.

CONCLUSION:

We have concluded that justice is very important for a state. It

is a multi dimensional concept. It has been very difficult to

give a universal definition of justice. As we have not got an

unanimous definition of justice yet. 1Hans Kelson says, ‘No other

question has been discussed so passionately; no other question

has caused so much precious blood and so many bitter tears to be

shed; no other question has been the subject of so much intensive

thinking by the most illustrious thinkers from Plato to Kant;

and yet this question is today unanswered as it ever was. It

seems that it is one of those questions to which the resigned

wisdom applies that man cannot find a definite answer, but can

only try to improve the question’. In political science we

confined justice to the idea of just distribution of goods and1 Mishra, Dharmendra Kumar and Mishra, Anshu, The Protean Face Of Justice (From Plato to Amartya Sen). Available from: http://essayforth.com/read-file/the-protean-face-of-justice-from-plato-to-bhu-pdf-2267030/Page | 25

services in the state. This idea of distribution changes with one

society to another. Therefore the definition of justice differs

from Plato to Rawls.

SOCIAL JUSTICE:

Justice is genus of which social justice is one of its species.

In the previous chapter we have discussed about the concept of

justice. Here, for us the primary subject of justice is the

structure of society, the way in which the major social

institutions distribute fundamental rights and duties and

determine the division of advantages. Social Justice is the

central issue of present day’s politics, economics, sociology,

social philosophy, jurisprudence and the allied studies. 1Krishna

Iyer in his book 'Justice and Beyond' has rightly proclaimed,

"social justice is not an exact static or absolute concept,

measurable with precision or getting into fixed world. It is

flexible, dynamic and relative." The term ‘social’ is concerned

with human being and ‘justice’ comprises with liberty, equality

and rights, in the language of political science. Thus, social

1 Krishna Iyer, Justice and Beyond, Deep and Deep Publication, New Delhi, 1982, p.63.Page | 26

justice is concerned with, to ensure liberty, provide equality

and maintain individual rights to every human being of society.

The term “social justice” was first used in 1840 by a Sicilian

priest, Luigi Taparelli d’Azeglio, and given prominence by

Antonio Rosmini–Serbati in La Costitutione Civile Secondo la

Giustizia Sociale in 1848. 1Majority of the scholars supported

that the term and the idea of “social justice,” has been emerged

out of the social and the political landscapes of laissez-faire

capitalism in the late 18th century “as a child of industrial and

French revolutions.” However, it has received worldwide

recognition and popularized in the 19th century by the western

thinkers. The concept of social justice and its perception by the

state and the society have significance evolutionary path in

India.

The term ‘social justice’ is used more comprehensively so as to

include economic, legal and political justice. It is all about

the distribution of benefits and burdens throughout the society.

It advocates restoring the dignity of human beings who have lost

it due to lower economic, educational and cultural status. It

seeks to eradicate social discrimination at all levels. In other

words, the term social justice is usually applied to comprehend

all the three aspects of justice, that is, social, economic, and

political.

1 Khobragade, Dr. Vinod, Article: Ambedkar: Social Justice And Indian Constitution. World Focus, April 2013, p-78.Page | 27

1In a wider sense, the term social justice implies a reordering

of social life in such a manner that the material and moral

benefits of social effort are not concerned by a tiny privileged

class, but accrues to the masses to ensure the upliftment of the

lower, weaker and underprivileged section.

Social Justice is a concept that has fascinated philosophers ever

since Plato. 2In his ‘The Republic’ he formalized the argument

that an ideal state would rest on four virtues wisdom, courage,

moderation, and justice. For Plato, the state was an ideal, of

which justice was the reality. Justice was the principle on which

the state had to be founded and a contribution made towards the

excellence of the city. Plato says that, ‘just societies

recognize and educate every individual talent according to the

dominant element in one’s soul and order these elements into

coherent class. Plato’s social justice is distributive; giving

what was due to an individual namely good training and skills, in

return for proper discharging of one’s responsibilities.

Aristotle says justice consists in what is lawful and fair, with

fairness involving equitable distributions and the correction of

what is inequitable. His justice is in the law abidingness.

Hobbes believed justice is an artificial virtue, necessary for

civil society, a function of the voluntary agreements of the

1 Guaba, O. P., An Introduction to Political Thoery. Macmillan pub. 2006. P-193.

2 Mukherjee, Subrata & Ramaswamy, Sushila, A History of Political Thought: Plato to Marx. PHI Learning Private Limited; 2012, p-72.Page | 28

social contract; 3Locke was also concerned with social justice as

claimed by Dunn; for Hume, justice essentially serves public

utility by protecting property (broadly understood). For Kant,

it is a virtue whereby we respect others’ freedom, autonomy, and

dignity by not interfering with their voluntary actions, so long

as those do not violate others’ rights; Mill said justice is a

collective name for the most important social utilities, which

are conducive to fostering and protecting human liberty.

The contemporary debate on the nature of justice focuses on the

distinction between procedural justice and substantive justice

which largely coincides with the notion of the social justice.

The champions of procedural justice hold that it is necessary to

determine a just procedure for the allocation of social

advantages, that is goods and services, opportunities and

benefits, powers and honours; then its outcome will

automatically be accepted as just. They are not concerned if

after the establishment of the procedural justice, inequality

arises. On the contrary, the champions of substantive justice

argue that the allocation or distribution of social advantages

among various sections of society itself should be just – that

is the primary issue, the procedure for making such allocation

is a secondary issue which can be adjusted suitably to meet the

requirements of just distribution. Substantive justice

corresponds to the philosophy of socialism. It holds that the

test of justice in society consists in ascertaining whether the

3 Ibid, p- 232.Page | 29

poor and the under privileged have adequate opportunity to

improve their lot. It demands that the opportunities of self-

development should be progressively extended to the

underprivileged and disadvantaged sections of society.

The exponents of procedural justice are – John Rawls, F. A. Hayek

(1899 – 1992), Milton Friedman (1912 – 2006), Robert Nozick (1938

– 2002), Isaiah Berlin..

Rawls establishes social justice of justice as fairness, through

his two principles of liberty and difference from, behind the

veil of ignorance which is considered as the original position.

Primary goods (rights, liberties, power, opportunities, income

and wealth), are distributed in the original position, that is,

the basic structure of the society. 1In Rawls’s word, “all the

social values – liberty and opportunity, income and wealth and

the bases of self – respect, are to be distributed equally

unless distribution of, any or all of these values is to the

advantage of the least favoured.” Rawls advocated for the

greatest benefit to the least privileged in the impartial

original position. Accoding to him, a special reward for

extraordinary ability and effort to any individual can be

treated as just only if it results in the greatest benefit to

the least privileged.

The rule of allocation “to each according to his ability” can be

applied only if higher efficiency of the concerned individual1 Mukherjee, Subrata & Ramaswamy, Sushila, A History of Political Thought: Plato to Marx. PHI Learning Private Limited; 2012, p-498.Page | 30

results in ameliorating the condition of the least privileged.

Rawls concept implies that in order to strengthen a chain, we

should start with strengthening its weakest link and after that

one is free to acquire according to our ability. Rawls wanted to

be efficient in initiating the process of distribution but what

if after distribution any kind of inequality occurs. John Rawls

has given his ideas in 1971, since then it has been much

discussed, and attempts have been made by many others to improve

and clarify it, not least by Rawls himself.

Rawls theory of justice has been criticized by different schools

of thought. Collectivists argue that Rawls has discovered the

ground for the justification of the existing capitalist class.

Some critics argue that the identification of the most

disadvantaged sections is very difficult. Libertarians argue

that Rawls has sacrificed liberty for the sake of equality. They

argued that we should not force the meritorious and industrious

to work for the benefit of the most disadvantaged sections.

Also, people must ready to take risk for their advancement in

life. Communitarians say that Rawls political philosophy does

not grade any conception of good life as superior or inferior to

others. This ethical neutrality evades the opportunity of the

pursuit of common good. Marxists uphold that Rawls has tried to

determine the principles of justice in a hypothetical situation

where people deliberate behind the ‘veil of ignorance’. They say

that any kind of deliberation without knowledge of prevailing

socio-economic condition is meaningless.

Page | 31

But if we observe minutely then we will find out that Rawls has

tried to combine different value system in order to arrive at

his theory of justice. He accepted criticisms and made

improvement in his book ‘the Political Liberalism’. It is true

that Rawls theory provided a back up to the capitalists but at

the same time his philosophy talks about the advancement of the

backwards and undertroddens.

Amartya Sen is known as a welfare economist and social

philosopher. One of Sen’s central critiques of Rawls’s theory of

justice is his exclusive focus on, primary social goods.

Starting with liberty, Rawls’s priority principle of justice,

Sen questions the absolute precedence of liberty over other

rights and needs. He argues that in some instances this serial

order needs to be qualified, especially in cases of poverty

where the prioritising of economic needs can lead to “matters of

life and death”. Although Sen agrees with Rawls that primary

goods are a means to pursuing the different individuals’ ideas

of the good, he argues that like income, primary goods are often

“concerned with good things rather than with, what those good

things do to human beings”. Sen argues that because Rawls

focuses solely on the equal distribution of the means, and

because he does not take into account the inter-personal

variations in people’s ability to convert those means, his

theory fails to consider the extent to which these freedoms can

be realized. Sen’s main critique of the utilitarian perspective

and Rawls’s theory of social justice is the restricted use of

Page | 32

either utility or primary goods as measures of well- being for

the purposes of justice. As an alternative to these limited

measures, Sen puts forth the ‘capability approach’ which focuses

on the relationship between people’s resources and what they can

do with those resources. 1Sen argues, “account would have to be

taken not only of the primary goods the person respectively

holds, but also of the relevant personal characteristics that

govern the conversion of primary goods into the person’s ability

to promote their ends”. Sen argues that what is relevant to a

theory of justice is to be able to differentiate between

functioning, and having the freedom to do as one pleases, or

have as one chooses. Sen’s approach has influenced the discourse

on social justice tremendously.

In his work, ‘Law, Legislation and Liberty: The Mirage of Social

Justice’ (1976), Hayek argued that the idea of social justice

itself is irrelevant. Justice is the characteristic of human

conduct, and not of a society. Hayek is procedural theorist and

suggested that state should positively promote competition in the

society and ensure that the market is not reduced to an

instrument of distributive justice. He argued that market does

not reward individuals for virtue or even hard work but for

economic value of their efforts and contributions. He points out

that social justice is brought about only if the market and

1 Taherzadeh, Shirin M., Amartya Sen’s Contribution to a Theory of Social Justice. University of Cape Town Student Research Paper, Institute for Development and Labour Law, 2012. Available from: www.idll.uct.ac.za Page | 33

economic freedoms are abolished. 2According to him, ‘to apply

social justice is to invite totalitarianism.’ This never means

that he support for minimal state or laissez faire. In fact, he

advocates state provision for minimum income for the unfortunate

but not as a matter of justice. Hayek attributes the rise of

social justice to the rise in the number of salaried employees.

Milton Friedman in his book, ‘Capitalism and Freedom’ (1962) and

Free to Choose (1980), argued that we should indeed be

unconcerned about income inequality in a free-market economy. His

idea of social justice is known as the idea of progressive

justice. Friedman argues that businesses are guilty of trying to

rig markets and get economic favours from governments. This

increases inequality as economic resources are directed to those

who are already rich and powerful. He says that, government

should create an unconditional basic income, he referred it to as

‘negative income tax’, because the income information on tax

forms would be used to establish a basic income for those with

low or zero earnings. According to him, minimum wages are bad for

the poor, because they make a few people better off while making

others even poorer because they cannot find work at the legal

minimum, depriving them of a chance to move up the ladder of

income levels in the labour market. This effects the poorest,

most marginal, and most discriminated against groups the most.

Government should provide public goods, which Friedman referred

2 Ramaswamy, Sushila, Political Theory: Ideas & Concepts. Macmillan pub. P-312.Page | 34

to as positive neighbourhood effects, that is generalised goods

which cannot be charged for in any kind of practical way.

Nozick entitlement theory has been discussed in previous chapter,

according to which social distribution of goods as just if it is

generated by processes that are just. His theory is purely

procedural theory of distributive justice which defends whatever

arises from a just situation by just step is itself just. Nozick

was against imposition of tax and says that state has no

authority to redistribute the property of some of its citizens to

improve the situation of others in order to maintain equality. He

says that, tha desire for equality arises out of envy, which is

an irrational prejudice.

Isaiah Berlin is a classical libertarian and a champion of

negative liberty. He was critique of ‘positive’ freedom, which

was central to many defenses of welfare legislation.

Miller held the concept of social justice as more contesting and

socially more relevant, in his book ‘Social Justice’ (1976). In

the work he has defined the problem of social justice as that of

determining ‘the principles which should be chosen to govern the

distribution of wealth, prestige and other benefits among the

members of the society. He identified three criterion of

distribution:

1) Protection of Acknowledge rights: The demand for the

protection of existing rights and maintenance of existing

Page | 35

ranks implies the denial of any relief the underprivileged

sections, creating a hierarchical order.

2) Distribution according to desert: It upholds market society

system and determines one’s share of social benefits

according to one’s contribution to the social goods. The

principle sought to apply the law of the ‘survival of the

fittest’ to the social life.

3) Distribution according to need: This is hypothetical

situation as distribution according to need is possible only

if there is abundance of goods and services.

Solution to the problem of social justice can reasonably be found

by a judicious combination of the third and the second

principles. In the first place, people should learn to minimize

their needs and make adequate contribution to the production for

society.

Indian philosopher Gandhi looked at social welfare in his own

unique way. Gandhi never equated happiness with economic

prosperity and physical pleasure alone. Gandhi never drew a sharp

distinction between economics and ethics. Gandhi says that

individual’s happiness lies in the happiness of society and vice-

versa. To Gandhi, the individual was as important, if not more,

than the society, as he firmly believed that the happiness of the

individual formed the constituent part of the happiness of the

society. So, for him, social welfare meant the conscious

submission of the individual and a voluntary contribution of

Page | 36

one's possession to the society, which consisted of all, not a

majority and, in return, the social system, built upon the

principles of non-violence and democracy. He asked the wealthy or

the upper middle class Indians to give up some of their comforts

and adopt simple lives. This did not mean that Gandhi wanted all

Indians to be paupers. According to him, voluntary poverty was an

act of nobility which could be achieved only by those who had

possessions. Thus, Gandhi's concept of social welfare was

'Sarvodaya' based on a healthy give and take between the

individual and society.

There is another important thinker who is known as the champion

of the social justice is dealt in the next chapter.

INDIAN PHILOSOPHIES REGARDING JUSTICE:

The concept of social justice and its perception by the state and

the society have significance evolutionary path in India. 1In

ancient times, the monarchical state functioned in accordance

with Dharmasashtras for social justice. It implies the very

ethical basis of the organization and function of the state.2Works on political theory in Classical India fall into two broad

camps: pragmatic and ideological. The pragmatic texts have as

1 Tripathi, Ambikesh Kumar, Concept of Social Justice in Political Thought with special focus on Gandhi and Ambedkar. Shodh Drishti, (Online) 2012 Vol.3,No.7 ISSN :09766650. Available from: http://academia.edu/2473131/. (Accessed 19th july 2013).

2 Slakter, David, Sovereignty and Dharma: The Role of Justice in Classical Indian Political Thought. (online) 2012. Available from: http://universityofliverpoolcomplete_thesispdf (Accessed 19th july 2013).Page | 37

their primary focus the consolidation and maintenance of

political power, with a Realpolitik approach to both foreign and

domestic relations. Kautilya’s Arthasastra is the paradigm

example of this type of text, as well as the collection of fables

in the Panchtantra. The ideological approach permeates the legal

texts, which focus more on an idealized form of social order,

governed by laws which are generally taken to predate the

political order. Texts in this group include various Dharmasutras

and Dharmasastras, the most prominent of which is Manu’s Code of

Law. The Mahabharata includes elements of both the pragmatic and

ideological approaches to political power.

India, being one of the ancient civilizations, is known for her

intellectual richness resulted with great innovative ideas. The

philosophy developed by Indian scholars has been the base for

different branches of studies. Philosophy has always been a

powerful instrument in the armory of law. Philosophy and Law

guide the people to comply with societal expectations. The

concept of Dharma is based on truth, equality, righteousness and

similar high moral values. The orthodox ritualists consider

dharma primarily as a matter of ritual performance and purity.

Early Indian legal theorist talked of ‘matsyanyaya’, that is,

justice in the world of fish, where big fish can freely devour

the small fish. Avoiding matsyanyaya was very essential part of

justice. ‘Niti’ and ‘Nyaya’ both stands for justice in classical

Sanskrit. 1The word ‘niti’ was used for organizational propriety

1 Sen, Amartya, An Idea of Justice. Belknap Press; 2009.p.xv.Page | 38

and behavioural correctiveness and the term ‘nyaya’ stands for a

comprehensive concept of realized justice. The sense of ‘nyaya’

is not a matter of judging institutions and rule, but of judging

the societies themselves. No matter how proper the established

organization might be, if a big fish could still devour the small

fish at will, then that must be a patent violation of human

justice as ‘nyaya’. These are very ancient concept of justice.

Inspite of these noble conceptions the Indian society had its

problem of extreme orthodox and conservative beliefs about caste

and class. It is known that justice is the problem of the free

mind in the open society.

The saying goes on that, India has very rich philosophy. From

vedic age to the post vedic era Indian philosophy has no

alternative. Hinduism was the oldest philosophy of the land. The

laws and rules of the society were inspired by the philosophy of

division and stratification of Hindu philosophy. In ancient Hindu

thought ‘dharma’ meaning what is right or broadly, duties, is

central. An individual’s ‘dharma’ is derived from the caste of

his birth.

1In ‘Manusmiriti’, Manu says that, “for the protection of this

whole creation, which one of dazzling brilliance assigned

separate activities for those born from the mouth, arms, thighs,

and feet. To Brahmins, he assigned reciting and teaching the

Veda, offering and officiating at sacrifices, and receiving and

giving gifts. To the Kshatriya, he allotted protecting the

subjects, giving gifts, offering sacrifices, reciting the Veda,Page | 39

and avoiding attachment to sensory objects; and to the Vaisya,

looking after animals, giving gifts, offering sacrifices,

reciting the Veda, trade, moneylending and agriculture. A single

activity did the Lord allot to the Sudra, however: the ungrudging

service of those very social classes.” It is the King’s duty to

uphold ‘dharma’ and the spirit of righteousness.

The era of 6th century BC, witnessed the emergence of an extra

ordinary philosophy. The Buddhist philosophy has its emergence in

the very era. Buddha was the philosopher who challenged the

stratification of society, that is, caste. Buddhism considered as

the antithesis of the Hinduism. Justice in Buddhism can be

interpreted on the basis of three fundamental insights.

1) It needs to be seen as the achievement of mental balance. This

can be acquired by spiritual practice. Balance in this respect is

the mediation between cognitive and emotional qualities of the

mind.

2) It can be understood on the basis of overcoming the kleshas

(mental defilements) The most fundamental klesha is avidya with

regard to the status of the Ego. If the Ego is seen as an

isolated entity which must fight for its place in society

(justice), this is wrong, and it leads to craving or desire so

that the Ego can establish its illusion by possessing, or the

very attempt is frustrated so that hatred would be the result.

Here justice is realization that the individual is totally

dependent.

Page | 40

3) This dependency is realized in the most basic concept of

pratityasamutpada, the co-dependent origination. If all is

interdependent, justice means a proper recognition (and

behaviour) that only if things or people are being given their

proper place we may speak of justice.

Islam is another philosophy that is nurtured in India. A

significant population of India belongs to Islam. Islamic thought

considers justice as the most privileged ethical idea meaning

maintenance of things in their proper stations and the regulation

of practical life in accordance with the requirements of

stability. Justice affirms the maintenance of both religious and

rational government.

CASTE SYSTEM IN INDIAN SOCIETY:

According to well-known ethnologists, the population of India is

a mixture of Aryans, Dravidians, Mongolians and Scythians. All

people came into India, from various directions and with various

cultures, centuries ago, when they were in a tribal state.

Through constant contact and mutual intercourse they evolved a

common culture that superseded their distinctive cultures. 1It

may be granted that there has not been a thorough amalgamation of

the various stocks that make up the peoples of India, and to a

traveller from within the boundaries of India the East presents a

marked contrast in physique and even in colour to the West, as

does the South to the North. 1 Ambedkar, B. R., Who were Shudras. Available from: http://drambedkarbooks.wordpress.com/dr-b-r-ambedkar-books/ Page | 41

Unless we go through the history of the Indian society we cannot

come to know about the piece of land called India and the

existing diversity. India is a plural society both in letter and

spirit. It is rightly characterized by its unity and diversity.

There is diversity not only in regard to racial composition,

religious and linguistic distinctions, but also in the patterns

of living, lifestyles, land tenure system, occupational pursuits,

inheritance and succession laws, and practices and rites related

to birth, marriage, death etc. people follow different religions

and beliefs according to their own conscience. In spite of this

Indian society has its unique complexity from the ancient era.

The Hindu’s concept of ‘chaturvarnya’ was the foundation of the

society. 1The nineteenth Hymn of the tenth mandal of the Rigveda

is known as the famous Purusha Sukta, which is a theory of the

origin of the universe. In other words it is a cosmogony. Verses

11 and 12 of the Purusha Sukta explains how the four classes,

namely. (1) Brahmins or priests, (2) Kshatriyas or soldiers, (3)

Vaishyas or traders, and (4) Shudras or menials, arose from the

body of the Creator.

The verses says :

11. When (the gods) divided Purusha, into how many parts did they

cut him up? What was his mouth? What arms (had he)? What (two

objects) are said (to have been) his thighs and feet?

1 Ibid.Page | 42

12. The Brahmana was his mouth, the Rajanya was made his arms;

the being called the Vaishya, he was his thighs; the Shudra

sprang from his feet.

1The Egyptians has cosmogony somewhat analogous with that of

Purusha Sukta. According to it, it was god Khnumu, ' the shaper,'

who shaped living things on the potter's wheel, "created all that

is, he formed all that exists, he is the father of fathers, the

mother of mothers... he fashioned men, he made the gods, he was

the father from the beginning... he is the creator of the heaven,

the earth, the underworld, the water, the mountains... he formed

a male and a female of all birds, fishes, wild beasts, cattle and

of all worms."Also a similar cosmogony found in the chapter one

of the Genisis of the old Testament. But a deep rooted problem is

concerned with the cosmogony in India. The cosmogony gave birth

to the orthodox structure of the society based on the conception

of ‘caste’.

The system of four varnas is mentioned in Bhagavad Gita also.

Here lord Krishna says that whole world has been created by him

and classified them according to the mode of ‘Prakrti’

predominant in each and apportioning corresponding duties to

them. This is almost like Plato’s idea. It is a part of a

mythological story and here lord Krishna emphasized on the

performance of one’s duty honestly. Here, lord Krishna is trying

1 Ambedkar, B. R., Who were Shudras. Available from: http://drambedkarbooks.wordpress.com/dr-b-r-ambedkar-books/ Page | 43

to convince Arjun for war against ‘Kaurabas’, who were his

brothers, like warrior.

This is argued that this classification or the varna system was

based on occupation of a person, initially. The society was not

characterized by inequality and discrimination. 1In pre-Buddhist

era Brahmins accepted cooked food in non-Brahimin houses. This at

least signifies that there was a feeling of fellowship in the

society. But the harmony of society was disturbed by the

Brahiminical masters and the epidemic of untouchability injected

in the society.

We cannot imagine of the orthodox practice of society as a result

of which, some very stupid and irrational incidents occurred. 2In

several Jatakas there are stories of about hundreds of Brahmins

lost their caste; some even commit suicide because they touched

‘chandals’ or they drank or ate food or water touched by them.

These incidents imply that how a section of the society was

unwanted so that people used to go away from them. This act of

rejection of a section of society started to be followed from

generation to generation and varna system took the shape of rigid

caste system based on heredity. This concept of the four classes

used to be followed strictly in the Indian society. 3Dr. Ambedkar

1 Ilaiah, Kancha, God as Political Philosopher: Buddha’s Challenge to Brahminism. Samaya publication; 2004,p-29.

2 Ibid, p-33.

3 Ambedkar, B. R., Annihilation of Caste. http://drambedkarbooks.wordpress.com/dr-b-r-ambedkar-books/ Page | 44

says that, “the reverence, which the Hindu society had for this

ideal mould of ‘Chaturvarnya’, is not only beyond question but

also beyond description.”

Now the source from where the conception of the caste has been

transformed since years has been cleared. But we must know that,

what is the meaning and different dimensions of the word ‘caste’.

Many thinkers defined the word ‘caste’. Caste System according to

Wikipedia is, “an elaborate and complex social system that

combines some or all elements of endogamy, hereditary

transmission of occupation, social class, social identity,

hierarchy, exclusion and power.”

1Mr. Nesfield, defines caste as "a class of the community which

disowns any connection with any other class and can neither

intermarry nor eat nor drink with any but persons of their own

community ". 2Dr. Ambedkar says that, “caste in India means an

artificial chopping off of the population into fixed and definite

units, each one prevented from fusing into another through the

custom of endogamy.”

Indian society is so much engrossed in the caste system that it

is divided and sub divided in many parts. Here a part of

population called ‘shudras’ and other minorities in comparison to

the ‘brahmins’, faces discrimination. They are kept away from the

main stream of the society. All the rights were made for the1 Ibid.

2 Ambedkar, B. R., Annihilation of Caste. http://drambedkarbooks.wordpress.com/dr-b-r-ambedkar-books/Page | 45

males and by the males of the so called upper caste. Some of the

population was categorized as ‘untouchables’. There are a lot of

stories about the discrimination of the lower caste by the upper

one. These practices were not only against human rights but also

discarding of all the ethics and moral values. Some of them are

follows which will make a clear image of the Indian society.

The untouchables were not allowed to use the public streets if a

Hindu was coming along. It was assumption that he will pollute

the Hindu by his shadow. The untouchable was required to have a

black thread either on his wrist or in his neck as a sign or a

mark to prevent the Hindus from getting them polluted by his

touch through mistake. At some places the untouchables were

required to carry, strung from his waist, a broom to sweep away

from behind the dust he treaded on lest a Hindu walking on the

same should be polluted. 1In Poona, the untouchable was required

to carry an earthen pot, hung in his neck wherever he went, for

holding his spit lest his spit falling on earth should pollute a

Hindu who might unknowingly happen to tread on it.

2High caste Hindus, as, Kalotas, Rajputs and Brahmins including

the Patels and Patwaris of villages of Kanaria, Bicholi-Hafsi,

Bicholi-Mardana and of about 15 other villages in the Indore

district (of the Indore State) informed the Balais of their

1 Ambedkar, B. R., Annihilation of Caste. http://drambedkarbooks.wordpress.com/dr-b-r-ambedkar-books/

2 ibid.Page | 46

respective villages that if they wished to live among them they

must conform to the following rules :

1) Balais must not wear gold-lace-bordered pugrees.

2) They must not wear dhotis with coloured or fancy borders.

3) They must convey intimation of the death of any Hindu to

relatives of the deceased—no matter how far away these

relatives may be living.

4) In all Hindu marriages, Balais must play music before the

processions and during the marriage.

5) Balai women must not wear gold or silver ornaments; they

must not wear fancy gowns or jackets.

6) Balai women must attend all cases of confinement of Hindu

women.

7) Balais must render services without demanding remuneration

and must accept whatever a Hindu is pleased to give.

8) If the Balais do not agree to abide by these terms they must

clear out of the villages. The Balais refused to comply; and

the Hindu element proceeded against them. Balais were not

allowed to get water from the village wells; they were not

allowed to let go their cattle to graze. Balais were

prohibited from passing through land owned by a Hindu, so

that if the field of a Balai was surrounded by fields owned

by Hindus, the Balai could have no access to his own field.

Page | 47

The Hindus also let their cattle graze down the fields of Balais.

The Balais submitted petitions to the Darbar against these

persecutions ; but as they could get no timely relief, and the

oppression continued, hundreds of Balais with their wives and

children were obliged to abandon their homes in which their

ancestors lived for generations and to migrate to adjoining

States, viz. to villages in Dhar, Dewas, Bagli, Bhopal, Gwalior

and other States.

In his ‘Annihilation of Caste’ Dr. Ambedkar shared some incidents

at Kavitha in Gujarat, where the Hindus of Kavitha ordered the

untouchables not to insist upon sending their children to the

common village school maintained by Government.

Another instance occurred in the village of Zanu in the Ahmedabad

district of Gujarat. In November 1935 some untouchable women of

well-to-do families started fetching water in metal pots. The

Hindus looked upon the use of metal pots by untouchables as an

affront to their dignity and assaulted the untouchable women for

their impudence.

Another event is from the village Chakwara in Jaipur State where

untouchables, who had returned from a pilgrimage, had arranged to

give a dinner to his fellow untouchables of the village as an act

of religious piety. The host desired to treat the guests to a

sumptuous meal and the items served included ghee (butter) also.

But while the assembly of untouchables was engaged in partaking

of the food, the Hindus in their hundred, armed with lathis,

Page | 48

rushed to the scene, despoiled the food and belabored the

untouchables who left the food they were served with and ran away

for their lives. And why was this murderous assault committed on

defenseless untouchables? The reason given is that the

untouchable host was impudent enough to serve ghee and his

untouchable guests were foolish enough to taste it. Ghee is

undoubtedly a luxury for the rich. But no one would think that

consumption of ghee was a mark of high social status.

In politics also, it was claimed that there predominance of

Brahimins, in government machinery, after independence. 1In some

parts of India, particularly Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, non-

Brahimin movements had been launched to displace the dominant

Brahimin castes in those states, from their disproportionate

control over jobs in the public services and other advantages in

society. 2The leadership of the nationalist movement and of

Indian National Congress in virtually the entire sub continent

was in hands primarily of men from the elite Hindu castes

especially Brahimins in most regions, Kayasthas in North India,

Banias in many region and other regional high caste groups in

other parts of the country. But later due to adult franchise, in

election, new leaders from previously unrepresentative class /

castes began to emerge and castes itself get mobilized.

1 Brass, Paul R., The Politics of India since Independence. Cambridge University Press, 2008, p-6.

2 ibid, p-247.Page | 49

The lower classes are listed in three categories: The first

category is called SC (schedule caste). This category includes in

it community who are ‘untouchables’. 3Actually, 16.2% of Indian

population belongs to schedule caste. The second category is of

ST (schedule tribes). This category includes those communities

who did not accept the caste system and preferred to reside in

deep in the jungles, forest and mountains of India. STs are also

called ‘adivasi’, meaning aboriginal. They form about 8% of the

total population. The third category is called sometimes OBC

(other backward caste). This category includes in it, castes who

belong to ‘shudra varna’ and also former untouchables who

converted from Hinduism to other religions. They are about 50% of

the total population. On the basis of their strength they

attracted the attention of various political parties and

government as their votes are of significant number and it plays

an important in deciding the government.

CONCLUSION:This is the picture of our society where the notion of human dies

with every breath of life. We insult the human being as we are

hollowed from all the feelings of humanity. There were no rights,

no liberty and fraternity was impossible. The community was the

community of masters and slaves. One group was for ordering and

other was for serving. I have not mentioned the practices of the

3 Govt. of India ministry of social justice and empowerment. Available from: http://socialjustice.nic.in/sscv.php

Page | 50

ancient period because they are beyond my knowledge but I am sure

that it would be worst. The discriminated people were not

emancipated to the level so that they may collectively snatch

their rights and exhale in the free air. But it does not means

that this is for granted. Now the mobilization of the lower caste

has been commenced. However people are still ready for taking

undue advantage of the lower caste by playing the dirty politics,

but it could be checked.

LIFE HISTORY OF AMBEDKAR:

It is said that some people are born great and some achieve

greatness by their noble deeds. Both the sayings are suitable to

Dr. Bhimrao Ramjirao Ambedkar, the Champion of human rights and

Page | 51

Social Justice in India, Dalit leader, Constitution maker, a

nation builder and a ‘Global Icon’. The condition of birth,

family circumstances, society and child-hood experiences all have

a part in moulding the thinking processes of an individual. It is

important to study these conditions and experiences, economic and

political influences. The material conditions of a life put a

great impact on an individual, in fact, make an individual what

he or she actually is. So, before starting with Dr. Ambedkar’s

social justice, we first have an overview of his life and

experiences.

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar was born in a well to do family on 14th

April 1891, in Mhow. His father’s name was Ramji Sakpal and his

mother was Bhima Bai. Ambedkar’s grandfather’s name was Maloji

Sakpal. The Ambedkar family belonged to Ambavada, a small village

of Kheda Taluka of Ratnagiri district in Maharashtra. 1Ambedkar’s

original surname was after the name of his village,

‘Ambavadekar’, which was later on changed to Ambedkar by one of

his loving teachers. Ambedkar’s father was a ‘vasandar mahar’

getting eight annas per month as ‘vatan’ remuneration. In his

family primary importance was given to the military service and

only secondary importance to ‘vatan’ service. Ambedkar’s

forefather had been in military service of the then Mughal

Empire, Maratha and Peshwas. They were gallant soilder.

1 Bharill, Chandra, Social and Political Ideas of B. R. Ambedkar. Aalekh Publisher; 1977. P-1. Available from: http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/ambedkar/ Page | 52

Ambedkar was fourteenth child of his parents. In his later life,

he humoursly called himself ‘chaudave ratna’, meaning fourteenth

jewel of his parents. Ambedkar’s father after retirement from

military services, settled down at Dapoli village in the Konkan

district of Maharashtra. Ambedkar with his elder brother, joined

primary school at Dapoli. He lost his mother when he was only

six. At this very primary level, he became conscious of the evil

called untouchability. 1Separatist and inhuman treatment given by

some teachers hurt him though there were some teacher who

encouraged him and treat him softly.

Ambedkar’s father lost his job at Dapoli so he settled down at

Bombay, for a job and education of his children. He did not got

any job there. The source of income for the family was the former

job’s pension. Ramji Sakpal admitted his sons Anand Rao and Bhim

Rao in the Elphenstine High School, Bombay. But due to bad

economic condition Anand Rao stopped studies and began to

contribute in income of the family. Only Bhim Rao got opportunity

to continue his education and he tried to make best of the

opportunity. But the school was not free from the orthodox of

untouchability. Ambedkar was interested in learning Sanskrit and

he was not allowed to do as he was an untouchable. He was forced

against his will to choose Persian.

He matriculated in 1907. It was extra ordinary achievement for an

untouchable in those days. His teacher and admirer manage an

1 Bharill, Chandra, Social and Political Ideas of B. R. Ambedkar. Aalekh Publisher; 1977. P-3. Available from: http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/ambedkar/ Page | 53

interview with Maharaja of Baroda, who later provided him

scholarship for higher studies. After graduating from Elphenston

College, Bombay, in 1912, Ambedkar joined Baroda State force as a

lieutenant. 1Ambedkar got married at 14 with Ramabai, when she

was 9 years old. His father died on 2nd Feb. 1913. Ambedkar left

for Bombay. After that did not back to Baroda and planned for

higher studies. He was selected for Gayekwad scholar and left

India for education in US after signing an agreement according to

which he had to serve Baroda Forces for ten years after studies.

In Coloumbia University, he studied economics, sociology,

anthropology and political science. He was awarded the degree of

Masters of Arts in 1915 for his thesis “Ancient Indian Commerce”.

After MA he awarded Doctor of Philosophy for his dissertation on

“National Dividened of India- a Historic and Analytical Study” in

1917. He left America for London in June 1916. In London he

joined Gray’s Inn for Law and London School of Economics and

political Science for economics. Ambedkar worked hard but after

some time Deewan of Baroda informed him that the period of

scholarship was over and he would have to back as per agreement.

Dr. Ambedkar leave for India and reached for Bombay on 21st

august 1917 and joined the service of Maharaja of Baroda as his

military secretary and later after experience he made Finance

Minister of Baroda.

1 Rajasekhariah, A. M., B. R. Ambedkar : The Politics of Emancipation. Sindhu publication;1971, p.9. Available from: http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/ambedkar/ Page | 54

Though he held high office he was maltreated by the staff of the

Baroda state. Ambedkar was not able to find the place where he

could stay, due to his caste of untouchables. Ambedkar started

staying in a Parsee Inn without disclosing his caste. But this

could not pass unnoticed for long and 1and one morning Ambedkar

found himself threatened by a crowed of Parsees at the Inn gate

with sticks to beat him unless he left. After the disgust

situation in Baroda he left for Bombay. In Bombay he started to

find out suitable job for him and not found it for a year. Then

Ambedkar uses his intellectual pursuits and got republished his

paper on ‘Caste in India’ and ‘Small Holding in India and their

Remedies’. In 1918, he appointed as the professor of Political

Economy in Sydenham College at Bombay. He became popular among

students as a effortless professor. Here also some 2Gujrati

Professors objected to him for drinking water from the pot

reserved for professionals. Ambedkar found such attitude of

intellectuals as very disappointing.

By now Ambedkar saved some money from his salary. He took help

from his friend and Maharaja of Kolhapur and went for higher

studies at London School of Economics and political Science. He

was awarded the degree of the Masters of Science in June 1921 for

his thesis on “Provincial decentralisation of Imperial Finance in

British Rule”. He submitted another thesis on “the Problem of

Rupee” in London School of Economics and political Science. He

1 Ibid, p-29.

2 Ibid, p-16.Page | 55

returned India in 1923 and started as a ‘barrister’ in Bombay.

After this his public life started and he was known as 1“poor

man’s barrister”.

While practising law in the Bombay High Court, he tried to uplift

the untouchables in order to educate them. His first organised

attempt to achieve this was the ‘Bahishkrit Hitakarini Sabha’,

which was intended to promote education and socio-economic

improvement, as well as the welfare of "outcastes", at the time

referred to as depressed classes. For the protection of Dalit

rights he started many periodicals like Mook Nayak, Bahishkrit

Bharat, and Equality Janta. He was appointed to the Bombay

Presidency Committee to work with the all-European Simon

Commission in 1925. This commission had sparked great protests

across India, and while its report was ignored by most Indians,

Ambedkar himself wrote a separate set of recommendations for the

future Constitution of India. By 1927 Ambedkar decided to launch

active movements against untouchability. He began with public

movements and marches to open up and share public drinking water

resources, also he began a struggle for the right to enter Hindu

temples. He led a satyagraha in Mahad to fight for the right of

the untouchable community to draw water from the main water tank

of the town. In 1930, Ambedkar launched Kalaram Temple movement.

This was non-violent movement for which he was preparing since

three months. About 15000 volunteers assembled at Kalaram Temple

satygraha making one of the greatest processions of Nashik. The

1 Ibid, p-11. Page | 56

procession was headed by military band, batch of scout, women and

men walked in discipline, order and determination to see the god

first time. When they reached to gate, the gates were closed by

authorities. This movement was for human dignity and self-

respect.

Due to Ambedkar's prominence and popular support amongst then so

called untouchable community, he was invited to attend the Second

Round Table Conference in London in 1932, where he took the issue

of ‘Communal Award of a separate electorate’. British had agreed

with Ambedkar. Gandhi protested by fasting while imprisoned in

the Yerwada Central Jail of Poona. The fast provoked huge civil

unrest across India and orthodox Hindu leaders, Congress

politicians and activists such as Madan Mohan Malaviya and

Palwankar Baloo organised joint meetings with Ambedkar and his

supporters at Yerwada. Finally, Dr. Ambedkar had to agreed with

Gandhi.

Dr. Ambedkar was an economist and until 1921 his career was as a

professional economist. It was after that time that he became a

political leader. He wrote three scholarly books on economics: 1)

Administration and Finance of the East India Company; 2) The

Evolution of Provincial Finance in British India, and 3) The

Problem of the Rupee: Its Origin and Its Solution. 1The Reserve

Bank of India (RBI), formed in 1934, was based on the ideas that

Ambedkar presented to the Hilton Young Commission.

1 Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._R._Ambedkar Page | 57

In 1935, Ambedkar was appointed principal of the Government Law

College, Mumbai, a position he held for two years. In 1936,

Ambedkar founded the Independent Labour Party, which contested in

the 1937 Bombay election to the Central Legislative Assembly for

the 13 reserved and 4 general seats and securing 11 and 3 seats

respectively. Ambedkar published his book The Annihilation of

Caste in the same year. This strongly criticised Hindu orthodox

religious leaders and the caste system in general.

Upon India's independence on 15 August 1947, the new Congress-led

government invited Ambedkar to serve as the nation's first law

minister, which he accepted. On 29 August, Ambedkar was appointed

Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, charged by the

Assembly to write India's new Constitution. After completion of

the task, Ambedkar resigned from the cabinet in 1951 following

the stalling in parliament of his draft of the Hindu Code Bill,

which sought to expound gender equality in the laws of

inheritance and marriage.

Ambedkar independently contested an election in 1952 to the lower

house of parliament, the Lok Sabha, but was defeated. He was

appointed to the upper house, of parliament, the Rajya Sabha in

March 1952 and would remain as member till death.

He studied Buddhism all his life, and around 1950, he turned his

attention fully to Buddhism and travelled to Ceylon (now Sri

Lanka) to attend a meeting of the World Fellowship of Buddhists.

Ambedkar had been suffering from diabetes. His health worsened

Page | 58

during 1955. Three days after completing his final manuscript The

Buddha and His Dhamma, Ambedkar died in his sleep on 6 December

1956 at his home in Delhi.

INFLUENCES:

Dr. Ambedkar was influenced by some of the great and timeless

philosophies. The ideas of Buddha, Saint Kabir, Jyoitba Phule and

John Dewey deeply influenced his thinking. He says that, “my

social philosophy may be said to be enshrined in three words:

liberty, equality and fraternity. My philosophy has roots in

religion and not in political science. I have derived them from

the teachings of my master, the Buddha.” It was Buddha’s realist

conception of the world that became central to Ambedkar’s

worldview. Saint Kabir’s concept of ‘Begumapura’ which means ‘a

city of no sorrow’ also left a mark on Ambedkar’s thinking as

Kabir’s concept criticized the caste system and gave importance

to human dignity and fraternity. Apart from Saint Kabir,

Ambedkar considered Jyotiba Phule as his ‘Guru’ because of

Mahatma Phule’s commitment to the education of the oppressed.

Another person who was responsible for forming Ambedkar’s

thoughts, particularly on polity, was John Dewey, a professor at

Columbia University. He has extensively quoted Dewey in his

writings on democracy and social freedom. In his Annihilation of

Caste, he wrote “Prof. John Dewey who was my teacher and to whom

I owe so much says that every society gets encumbered with what

is trivial, with dead-wood from past, positively perverse. As a

Page | 59

society becomes more enlightened, it is responsible not to

conserve and transmit the whole of its existing achievements, but

only such as make for a better future society.

SOCIAL JUSTICE OF AMBEDKAR:

Dr. Ambedkar was a product of unequal social order with

stigmatized identity. He vehemently criticized the social

reformers of his time for paying only lip service to the issues

of caste and untouchability. If we go through the works and

writings of Dr. Ambedkar, then we will find out that, he did

nothing else than propounding ideas for the establishment of

‘social justice’ or for the betterment of human community,

whether it be men or women, upper caste or the lower one, rich or

poor. His thought is like is like ocean of which every drop is

important enough for the establishment of a just society.

Ambedkar’s quest for social justice can be visualized in the

philosophy, policy and ideals of the constitution of India, apart

from his writing. All his thoughts and philosophies are important

for the establishment of a just social order, especially in

India.

Ambedkar’s idea of social justice is the most relevant of all the

ideas of social justice. 1R. C. Guha says that, “today, B. R.

Ambedkar is the only national, or at least pan-Indian, hero that

we have. Patel is admired only in his native Gujarat, Bose hardly

remembered except in his native Bengal. Azad is forgotten by1 Guha, Ramchandra, THE DARLING OF THE DISPOSSESSED. The Hindu, 08/12/2002. Available from: http://ramachandraguha.in/archives/ambedkar-the-hindu.html Page | 60

Muslim and non-Muslim, Nehru villified by left and right. While

Gandhi is still admired, and to an extent followed, by some brave

social activists, in the wider popular consciousness he has no

serious impact anymore.” But his works and he has not get the

kind of attention he deserved, according to Vivek Kumar, it is

beyond doubt that Ambedkar has been a victim of the process of1"reductionism". 2Amartya Sen, a Nobel Prize-winning economist,

also claims that, “Ambedkar is my Father in Economics. He is true

celebrated champion of the under privileged. He deserves more

than what he has achieved today. However he was highly

controversial figure in his home country, though it was not the

reality. His contribution in the field of economics is marvelous

and will be remembered forever..!”

From his writings and works different scholars derived the

essence of his theory of justice. 3Vivek Kumar extracted five

basic principles, from writings and speeches of Ambedkar, through

which justice can be dispensed in the society. These are: (1)

Establishing a society where individual becomes the means of all

1 Kumar, Vivek, Ambedkar, The Nation-builder. 28 April, 2004, The Pioneer. Available from: http://www.countercurrents.org/dalit-vivekkumar280404.htm

2 Ambedkar my father in Economics: Dr Amartya Sen, May 5, 2007. Available from: http://atrocitynews.com/2007/05/05/ambedkar-my-father-in-economics-dr-amartya-sen/

3Kumar, Vivek, Babasaheb Ambedkar's Ideas of Social Justice and Just Society. Dialogue October- December, 2007, Volume 9 No. 2. Available from: http://www.asthabharati.org/Dia_Oct%2007/viv.htm

Page | 61

social purposes; (2) Establishment of society based on equality,

liberty and fraternity; (3) Establishing democracy- political,

economic and social; (4) Establishing democracy through

constitutional measures; and (5) Establishing democracy by

breaking monopoly of upper strata on political power.

Ambedkar was of the opinion that social justice can be dispensed

in a free social order in which an individual is end in itself.

According to Ambedkar, “an individual is an end in himself and

that the aim and object of society is the growth of the

individual and the development of his personality. Society is not

above the individual and if the individual has to subordinate

himself to society, it is because such subordination is for his

betterment and only to the extent necessary”. He considers

individual as the unit of the state and all social purposes. Dr.

Ambedkar ignored the village as the unit of administration in the

draft constitution. Ambedkar showed the real image of Indian

villages to the Constituent Assembly by stating that Indian

villages were devoid of equality, liberty and fraternity, and

hence of democracy.

Dr. Ambedkar advocated the need of democracy for social justice.

According to him, 1”Democracy is not a form of government, but a

form of social organization.” Ambedkar’s notion of social justice

is based on ‘social democracy’. Social democracy is a type of

democracy, which is associated with equality. American

1 Chand, Shyam, Dr. Ambedkar on Democracy. Mainstream, Vol XLV, No 51. Available from: http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article467.html Page | 62

philosopher Tocqueville, was also an advocate of the notion of

social democracy. 1He was impressed with the societal premises –

equality, of status, manners and customs of American democracy.

He considered democracy as state of society rather than political

form. After Tocquevillie, it was Bryce who explained the idea of

democracy as a way of life and a type of society. 2Bryce says

that, “a social democracy is a society that requires its members

to consider themselves socially equal.” 3Ambedkar addressed in

constituent assembly that‚ “we must not be content with mere

political democracy. We must make out political democracy. We

must make out of a social democracy as well. Political democracy

cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy.

What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life, which

recognizes liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of

life.”

4Addressing the Constituent Assembly, he suggested certain

devices essential to maintain democracy: “(i) constitutional

methods: (ii) not to lay liberties at the feet of a great man:

(iii) make a political democracy a social democracy.”

1 Ramaswamy, Sushila, Political Theory: Ideas &Concepts. Macmillan Publication; 2005, p-379.

2 ibid.

3 Rajinthkumar, A, Ambedkar Notion of Social Justice: A Different Prespective.International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 2, Issue 12, December 2011. Available from: http://www.ijser.org/researchpaper%5CAmbedkars-Notion-of-Social-Justice-A-Different-Perspective.pdf

4 Chand, Shyam, Dr. Ambedkar on Democracy. Mainstream, Vol XLV, No 51. Available from: http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article467.htmlPage | 63

Dr. Ambedkar bitterly criticized the socialists of India, who

were following their fellows of Europe and were applying the

economic interpretation of history to India, according to which

man is an economic creature, that his activities and aspirations

are bound by economic facts, that property is the only source of

power. So, 1”socialist of India, according to Dr. Ambedkar,

preach that political and social reforms are but gigantic

illusions and that economic reform by equalization of property

must have precedence over every other kind of reform.” Economic

motive is not the only motive by which man is actuated but social

status of an individual also becomes a source of power and

authority as per Indian condition. 2Dr. Ambedkar says, “I can't

see how a Socialist State in India can function for a second

without having to grapple with the problems created by the

prejudices which make Indian people observe the distinctions of

high and low, clean and unclean.”

Basically, Ambedkar is focusing on adoption of such means that

best suited to the concerned society. And for India,

establishment of social democracy is the only way for the

achievement of equality and justice. Thinkers such as,

1 Ambedkar, B. R., Annihilation of Caste. http://drambedkarbooks.wordpress.com/dr-b-r-ambedkar-books/

2 Ambedkar, B. R., Annihilation of Caste. Available from: http://drambedkarbooks.wordpress.com/dr-b-r-ambedkar-books/Page | 64

3Montesquieu and Hobbes, believed that all forms of government

are not suited to all countries.

Dr. Ambedkar’s notion of democratic government was based on the

fundamental idea of “government of the people, by the people and

for the people”. But, “democracy” meant much more to him than

democratic government. 1It was a way of life for him as he says,

“Democracy is not merely a form of government. It is primarily a

mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience.

It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards

fellowmen.”

Ambedkar wanted to bring fundamental changes in the social and

economic life of the people and the acceptance of those changes

by the people without resorting to disputes and bloodshed. His

means of bringing such changes are constitutional means.

2In final speech to the Constituent Assembly, he invoked John

Stuart Mill in asking Indians not “to lay their liberties at the

feet of even a great man or to trust him with powers which enable

him to subvert their institutions”. According to Ambedkar, there

is nothing wrong in being grateful to great men who have rendered3 Mukherjee, Subrata & Ramaswamy, Sushila, A History of Political Thought: Plato to Marx. PHI Learning Private Limited; 2012, p-251.

1 Dreze, Jean, Dr. Ambedkar and the Future of Indian Democracy. Indian Journalof Human Rights, January- December 2005. Available from: http://econdse.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/JD-Ambedkar-and-future-of-democracy2005.pdf

2 Guha, Ramachandra, Ambedkar’s Desiderata: In six decades of ‘progress’ Indiahasn’t realized our founders’ vision of social democracy. Available from: http://www.ambedkar.org/research/Ambedkars%20Desiderata.pdf Page | 65

life-long services to the country. But there are limits to

gratefulness. 1His worry was that in India, “bhakti or what may

be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in

its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the

politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion

may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics,

bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to

eventual dictatorship.” Ambedkar was sharply critical of the

conduct of the mainstream political parties themselves. He wanted

complete mobilization of lower caste.

In politics also, it was claimed that there predominance of

Brahimins, in government machinery, after independence. 2In some

parts of India, particularly Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, non-

Brahimin movements had been launched to displace the dominant

Brahimin castes in those states, from their disproportionate

control over jobs in the public services and other advantages in

society. 3The leadership of the nationalist movement and of

Indian National Congress in virtually the entire sub continent

was in hands primarily of men from the elite Hindu castes

especially Brahimins in most regions, Kayasthas in North India,

Banias in many region and other regional high caste groups in

other parts of the country. But later due to adult franchise, in

election, new leaders from previously unrepresentative class /1 ibid.

2 Brass, Paul R., The Politics of India since Independence. Cambridge University Press, 2008, p-6.

3 ibid, p-247.Page | 66

castes began to emerge and castes itself get mobilized. According

to Ambedkar, self representation was necessary because the aims,

beliefs, aspirations, and knowledge of the caste Hindus and the

Dalits differ. According to him, “between two Hindus, caste-like

mindedness is more powerful than the like-mindedness due their

both being Hindus”. Therefore, he emphasized that there would be

conflict of interest among the Hindus and the Dalits and, hence,

caste Hindus could never represent the interest and opinion of

Dalits if the latter did not get self-representation. Ambedkar

wanted self representation of the Dalits because he was also

convinced that only the Dalits could voice these interests. In

his own words, “-as can be easily seen they can be represented by

the untouchables alone. That was the very conflicting issue

between Gandhi and Ambedkar. Dr. Ambedkar wanted the annihilation

of caste anyhow and he regretted that no any Indian was concerned

of it. It is argued that, M. K. Gandhi also wanted the abolition

of caste system. On this very issue there is conflict between

Gandhi and Ambedkar. The two Indians are very important as both

wanted to establish a good society with different means. The

former came from a caste of Vaishya status, while the latter was

born into an Untouchable caste. Gandhi, as a believing Hindu,

felt that Hinduism needed to be reformed of the excrescence of

Untouchabilty. Ambedkar, on the contrary, was convinced that the

problem was a part of Hinduism and was enshrined in its sacred

scriptures.

Page | 67

Apart from securing the rights for the Dalits and other backward

castes, Dr. Ambedkar introduced a Bill to safeguard the rights of

Hindu women. The bill was envisaged to secure a dignified and

equal status for the Hindu women with number of clauses. There

were laws against dowry. Instead of Polygamy Monogamy was made

legal. The Hindu marriage became a contract instead of sacrament.

The consent of wife was to be made compulsory in the event of

adoption. By all these rights Ambedkar had envisioned to empower

Hindu women and hence a strong nation and just society.

Dr. Ambedkar says that, “my ideal would be a society based on

Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.” These very points sketch the

lines of the explanation of Dr. Ambedkar’s idea of social

justice. The motto "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" first appeared

during the French Revolution. His philosophy too is "enshrined"

in these three words. 1Dr. Ambedkar says that "let no one however

say that I have borrowed my philosophy from the French

Revolution. I have not. I have derived them from the teachings of

my master, the Buddha. I found that his teaching was democratic

to the core".

Liberty:

1 Wijesiri, Lionel, BUDDHA DHAMMA: Liberty, equality, fraternity and Buddhism.Available from: http://www.lakehouse.lk/mihintalava/buddhism04.htm Page | 68

Liberty is very fundamental part of human life. It is said that

to renounce liberty is to renounce being a man. But 1Indian

viewed liberty as a curse rather than boon even when it was given

to them, aptly argued by Kancha Ilaiah, the great scholar of

India. India was a highly orthodox and conservative society where

the ideas like equality and liberty is considered as contempt to

the prevailing society. Dr. Ambedkar found liberty as an

essential part of life. He wanted to terminate the orthodox

believes. He wanted liberty of at least deciding one’s own course

of action which was not enjoyed by Indians due to the hierarchy

of caste. He compared the Indian caste system with the slavery,

which does not mean legalized form of subjection but it is a

state of society in which some men are forced to accept unwanted

conduct. Ambedkar says that, 2 the supporters of caste who would

allow liberty in the sense of a right to life, limb and property,

would not readily consent to liberty in this sense, inasmuch as

it involves liberty to choose one's profession.” But objecting to

this kind of liberty is to perpetuate slavery according to him.

In the Caste System, some persons are compelled to carry on

certain prescribed callings which are not of their choicebut

merely due to their birth in a particular caste.

Some people seem to blame Rama because he wantonly and without

reason killed Shambuka. Ram Raj was a Raj based on Chaturvarnya.

1 Ilaiah, Kancha, God as Political Philosopher: Buddha’s Challenge to Brahminism. Samaya publication; 2004, p-101.

2 Ambedkar, B. R., Annihilation of Caste. http://drambedkarbooks.wordpress.com/dr-b-r-ambedkar-books/Page | 69

As a king, Rama was bound to maintain Chaturvarnya. It was his

duty therefore to kill Shambuka, the Shudra, who had transgressed

his class and wanted to be a Brahmin. This is the reason why Rama

killed Shambuka. That is why Manu-Smriti prescribes such heavy

sentences as cutting off the tongue or pouring of molten lead in

the ears of the Shudra, who recites or hears the Veda. For an

individual as well as for a society, there is a gulf between

merely living and living worthily. To beat a retreat, to

surrender and to live the life of a captive is also a mode of

survival. This very disappointing situation of society without

liberty cannot lead to the establishment of social justice

according to Dr. Ambedkar.

Equality:

Equality serves as one of the foundational idea of justice, since

human equality and rights of men was firmly established in the

political thought. We are well aware of the hierarchical Indian

used to view equality as the contempt to ‘Dharmashastras’ and

other orthodox views. In Indian society there was nothing like

the notion of equality. Dr. Ambedkar says that, “equality may be

a fiction but nonetheless one must accept it as the governing

principle.” Equal treatment is focused for the establishment of

social justice. Thinkers talks about substantive justice and

procedural justice. Equality plays important part in a

substantive theory of justice in two ways: (1) ensuring an

Page | 70

egalitarian distribution of goods; (2) as an ordering principle

at lesser level as a part of due process which requires equal

cases shall be treated alike. Also, procedural theories of

justice have a feeble sense of justice that implies, all human

beings are entitled to be treated by the rules of social

practice.

Dr. Ambedkar, denied all the arguments against equality and says

that, “the objections to equality may be sound and one may have

to admit that all men are not equal. But what of that ?” Further

Dr. Ambedkar also argued and asked that, “a man's power is

dependent upon (1) physical heredity, (2) social inheritance or

endowment in the form of parental care, education, accumulation

of scientific knowledge, everything which enables him to be more

efficient than the savage, and finally, (3) on his own efforts.

In all these three respects men are undoubtedly unequal. But the

question is, shall we treat them as unequal because they are

unequal?” From the standpoint of the individualist it may be just

to treat men unequally so far as their efforts are unequal. It

may be desirable to give as much incentive as possible to the

full development of every one's powers. But what would happen if

men were treated unequally as they are, in the first two respects

? Dr. Ambedkar have showed us the two sides of a coin, that is,

what is the reason that we are not ready to escape equality and

accept equality. He says that, those individuals in whose favour

there is birth, education, family name, business connections and

inherited wealth would be selected in the race. But selection

Page | 71

under such circumstances would not be a selection of the able

one. It would be the selection of the privileged. The reason

therefore, which forces that in the third respect we should treat

men unequally demands that in the first two respects we should

treat men as equally as possible. On the other hand it can be

urged that if it is good for the social body to get the most out

of its members, it can get most out of them only by making them

equal as far as possible at the very start of the race. Another

reason why we must accept equality argues that, “statesman is

concerned with vast numbers of people. He has neither the time

nor the knowledge to draw fine distinctions and to treat each

equitably i.e. according to need or according to capacity.

However desirable or reasonable an equitable treatment of men may

be, humanity is not capable of assortment and classification. The

statesman, therefore, must follow some rough and ready rule and

that rough and ready rule is to treat all men alike not because

they are alike but because classification and assortment is

impossible. The doctrine of equality is glaringly fallacious but

taking all in all it is the only way a statesman can proceed in

politics which is a severely practical affair and which demands a

severely practical test.”

He quotes‚ ‘Caste is the monster that crosses your path, you

cannot have political reform, and you cannot have economic

reform, unless you kill this monster’.

Fraternity:

Page | 72

An ideal society should be mobile, should be full of channels for

conveying a change taking place in one part to other parts. In an

ideal society there should be many interests consciously

communicated and shared. There should be varied and free points

of contact with other modes of association. This is fraternity,

which is only another name for democracy. Democracy is not merely

a form of Government. It is primarily a mode of associated

living, of conjoint communicated experience. It is essentially an

attitude of respect and reverence towards fellowmen.

Analyzing the idea of democracy of Ambedkar in details, it can be

found out that Ambedkar had unshakeable faith in democracy. In

his conception of exploitation less society, democracy has an

extra-ordinary role which he defined as ‘one person, one vote';

and 'one vote, one value'. Democracy means empowerment of any

person for participating in the process of decision-making

relating to her/him, democracy means liberty, equality and

fraternity. Ambedkar was of the opinion that Hindu society failed

to be united and it was unfortunate that religion was a rock on

which Hindu built their houses. He criticised the Hindu social

order according to which the Dharmashastras, Vedas and the

orthodox stratification are above an individual. Ambedkar’s

perspective of social justice is based on social democracy as

well as economic one. Dr. Ambedkar says that, 1“social and

economic democracy are the tissues and the fibre of a political

1 Ambedkar, B. R., Annihilation of Caste. http://drambedkarbooks.wordpress.com/dr-b-r-ambedkar-books/Page | 73

democracy. The tougher the tissue and the fibre, the greater the

strength of the body.”

Dr. Ambedkar not only have given a great philosophy of social

justice for the part of state, but also depicted very means of

achieving the ‘justice’for a common man. The treasure of his

thoughts has given very important sologan for the class under

exploitation. He gave the sologan of Educate, Agitate and

Achieve. He taught the importance of education in overcoming all

the miseries. Dr. Ambedkar allows people to agitate for the

genuine purposes, but with constitutional means. And finally, he

insisted the achievement of determined goals.

CONCLUSION:

We can conclude that although Ambedkar’s life was not easy, he go

on with full determination. Through hard labour and patience he

was determined to eliminate the problem of mankind. He was chief

advocate of human rights India ever had. He is the most revered

figure in fact, God of the Dalit diaspora. Although he is not

very much popular for his views for the upliftment of women, he

was the one who insisted for the equlity of status of men and

women. Dr. Ambedkar’s theory of social justice becomes akin to

Plato and John Rawls’s theory of social justice. According to him

the principle of social justice lays down the foundation of a

society based on equality, liberty and fraternity. Ambedkar had

enshrined these values in the Constitution of India. The value of

equality in the preamble of the Indian Constitution is not only a

Page | 74

slogan. Rather it has been substantiated with equality of

opportunity (Article 16) and equality of condition that is

reservation (Articles 330, 332, 335 and 46), before at least John

Rawls whose theory of justice is considered to be the masterpiece

of the twentieth century.

PRESENT SCENARIO OF JUSTICE:

India is the largest functioning democracy in the world. 1It has

17.5% of the world's population but only 2.4 per cent of land

resources and 4.2% of world's natural resources with a society

which is multi-cultural, multi-lingual and multi religious. The

challenges are compounded by development issues faced by around

355 million people living in poverty line. From the time of its

birth, India has continued to face the challenges of poverty and

development.

The republic of India became independent on August 15, 1947.

“Justice, Social, Economic and Political” is the spirit and

1 Speech by the President of India, Shri Pranab Mukherjee delivering the first

N.K.P salve memorial lecture on "constitution and governance" Rashtrapati

Bhavan Auditorium, New Delhi: 16-02 2013

http://presidentofindia.nic.in/sp160213.html Page | 75

vision of our Constitution as adopted by us which we, the people

of India have solemnly given to ourselves on 26th November 1949.

The preamble of the constitution declared in clear terms, to

securing justice for its citizens – social, economic and

political and is secured through various provisions of

Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. The Preamble of the

Constitution has also used the terms like “Socialist”, “Social

and Economic Justice”, “Equality” etc, these terms indicates that

the state would extensively involve in social welfare of people,

and would try to establish an egalitarian society

Economic justice aims at economic democracy and a Welfare State.1States of the country envisaged by Directive Principles of State

Policy, aims at the banishment of poverty by the multiplication

of the national wealth and resources and equitable distribution

of amongst all who contribute towards its production. It

involves the elimination of glaring in equalities in wealth,

income and property. Political justice implies that all citizens

should have equal political rights, such as right to vote and

participate in the politics of the country, irrespective of

his/her proprietary or educational qualification.

Social Justice is the foundation stone of Indian Constitution.

Indian Constitution makers were well known to the use the various

principles of justice. They wanted to search such form of

justice, which could fulfill the expectations of whole

1 Basu, D.D., Introduction to the Constitution of India. LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur pub. 2010, p-25.Page | 76

population. Social justice denotes the equal treatment of all

citizens without any social distinction based on caste, colour,

race, religion, sex and so on. It means absence of privileges.1Social Justice is a fundamental right. Social Justice is the

comprehensive form to remove social imbalances by different

groups or sections in the social structure or individuals by

means of which alone the welfare state could be established.

But on the rational grounds, the framers of our constitution have

made special provisions for the advancement of those sections who

are socially and economically backward. After independence, the

Constitution of India piloted by Dr. Ambedkar prescribed certain

protection and safeguards for the SCs and STs with the objective

of promoting their educational, economic and political interests.

The Government has yet so far provided various plans and

programmers offering them opportunities to develop. It provided

general infrastructure and resource development-like providing

educational facilities, health services and building

communication networks etc.

Moreover a separate chapter of Directive Principles of State

Policy has been devoted towards the welfare responsibilities of

the government, which lays down the norms of ideal governance for

people’s welfare. It has been pointed out, that current economic

policies of the government, which are largely influenced by

globalization and capitalism, are not in conformity with its

1 Basu, D.D., Introduction to the Constitution of India. LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur pub. 2010, p-25Page | 77

welfare obligations. 1On the one hand, economy is growly very

fast but its benefit is confined to 10-15% population; the rich

poor divide is increasing continuously; the agriculture sector is

neglected from the focus of economic development; the small scale

industries have been devastated by the impact of neo-liberal

policies; the regional disparities have been increased

substantially. There is an urgent need to change the economic

policies with people focused plan both in terms of expenditure

and implementation.

Poverty and exclusion continue to dominate socio-economic and

political discourse in India. Poverty reduction has been an

important goal of development policy since the inception of

planning in India. Various anti-poverty, employment generation

and basic services programmes have been in operation for decades

in India.

2Nearly half the population (49%) is engaged in agriculture,

while 24% are working in secondary sector and 27% in tertiary

sector. 3The Planning Commission released the poverty estimates1 Kumar, Avneesh, Social Welfare and Constitutional Responsibilities of Government: An Analysis of the Current Scenario. Available from: http://www.vifindia.org/article/2012/january/03/Social-Welfare-and-Constitutional-Responsibilities-of-Government-An-Analysis-of-the-Current-Scenario

2 Kumar, ND Shiva, Unemployment rate increases in India. TNN Jun 23, 2013. Available from: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-06-23/india/40146190_1_urban-india-urban-women-rural-women

3 Balchand, K., Now, Planning Commission lowers the poverty line. March 21, 2012, ‘The Hindu’. Available from: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/now-Page | 78

for the country showing a decline in the incidence of poverty by

7.3 per cent over the past five years. The new poverty estimates

for 2011-12 are: “Rural poverty has declined by eight percentage

points, from 41.8 per cent to 33.8 per cent, and urban poverty by

4.8 per cent, from 25.7 per cent to 20.9 per cent. At the

national level, anyone earning Rs. 672.8 monthly that is earning

Rs. 22.42 per day in the rural area and Rs. 859.6 monthly or Rs.

28.35 per day in the urban area is above the poverty line.

Population as on March 1, 2010 has been used for estimating the

number of persons below the poverty line.

The total number of people below the poverty line in the country

is 35.46 crore as against 40.72 crore in 2004-05. In rural areas,

the number has come down from 32.58 crore five years ago to 27.82

crore and the urban BPL number stands at 7.64 crore as against

8.14 crore five years ago. One of the most astonishing

revelations is that poverty has actually gone up in the north-

eastern States of Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram and

Nagaland. Even big States such as Bihar, Chhattisgarh and Uttar

Pradesh registered only a marginal decline in poverty ratio,

particularly in the rural areas, whereas States such as Himachal

Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu,

Karnataka and Uttarakhand saw about 10 per cent decline in

poverty over the past years. States with high incidence of

poverty are Bihar at (53.5 per cent), Chhattisgarh (48.7 per

cent), Manipur (47.1 per cent), Jharkhand (39.1), Assam (37.9 per

planning-commission-lowers-the-poverty-line/article3013870.ece Page | 79

cent) and Uttar Pradesh (37.7 per cent). However, it is in

poverty-ridden Odisha that monthly per head expenditure of just

Rs. 567.1 and Rs. 736 in rural and urban areas respectively puts

one above the poverty line, while in Nagaland, where the

incidence of poverty has gone up, the per capita consumption

expenditure of Rs. 1016.8 and Rs. 1147.6 in rural and urban areas

puts one above the poverty level. Among social groups in the

rural areas, Scheduled Tribes (47.4 per cent) suffer the highest

level of poverty, followed by Scheduled Castes (42.3 per cent),

Other Backward Castes (31.9 per cent) as against. 33.8 per cent

for all classes. In rural Bihar and Chhattisgarh, nearly two-

third of the SCs and the STs are poor where as in States like

Manipur, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh it is more than 50 per cent. In

urban areas, 34.1 per cent of SCs, 30.4 of STs and 24.3 per cent

OBCs fall under this category against 20.9 per cent for all

classes.” There is nothing like economic justice yet achieved by

India after 66 years of independence.

1Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen and his disciple Jean Dreze, in “An

Uncertain Glory: India and Its Contradictions” founded that, in

India there is problem is with the management of democracy. They

stated that: "the achievement of high growth must ultimately be

judged in terms of the impact of that economic growth on the

lives and freedoms of the people." Sen says that development is

1 Sen, Amartya & Dreze Jene, An Uncertain Glory: India and Its Contradictions.Available from: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-economic-growth-

human-development-amartya-sen-jean-dreze/1/287087.html Page | 80

equal to freedom is equal to social justice. They found that,

something must have gone terribly wrong in the last six decades

of Indian democracy, for their record in the social sector-be it

healthcare, education or gender justice-is dismal; we are even

worse than Bangladesh in living standards.

1Amartya Sen has also noted, “the thrust of developmental policy

in India has undergone a paradigm shift from an exclusive focus

on efficiency to one on equity; from the rate and pattern of

growth, and on inequalities, distribution of income and wealth to

the extent to which people are deprived of the requirements for

leading a fulfilling life and suffer “capability deprivation”.

2The unemployment rate per 1,000 population is at 27, while it

was 25 two years ago. As on January 1, 2010, the number of

unemployed was 9.8 million. By January 1, 2012, it has increased

to 10.8 million. In rural areas, the unemployment rate for both

male and female is almost at the same level, 2%. But, in, urban

areas, women are more unemployed than men. The rate is 5% for

women and 2% for men.

1 K. C. Chakrabarty, Financial inclusion in India – journey so far and way foreward. Available from: https://www.bis.org/review/r130909c.pdf

2 Kumar, ND Shiva, Unemployment rate increases in India. TNN Jun 23, 2013. Available from: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-06-23/india/40146190_1_urban-india-urban-women-rural-women Page | 81

1The overall unemployment rate was, however, the highest in Jammu

and Kashmir, the Annual Employment and Unemployment Survey report

for 2012-13 released by Labour Bureau under Union Ministry of

Labour and Employment found. The lowest unemployment rate among

SC population was witnessed in Himachal Pradesh, according to the

findings of survey. As per the survey, the unemployment rate per

1000 persons (age group 15 years and above) among SC population

was highest in UT Chandigarh at 151, followed by Jammu and

Kashmir — 132, Delhi was found at 82, followed by Punjab — 55,

Haryana — 42 and Himachal Pradesh — 36, as per report. In case of

OBC population also, UT Chandigarh had the highest unemployment

rate of 124, followed by HP — 97, Delhi — 78, Haryana — 52,

Punjab — 38 and J&K — 32, as per survey report. Unemployment rate

in general category was found to be highest in J&K at 100,

followed by HP — 69, Haryana — 50, Punjab — 48, Delhi — 43 and UT

Chandigarh — 40. Unemployment among young generation (age-group

15 to 29 years) in northern region was maximum in Jammu and

Kashmir at 241, followed by HP — 177, Delhi — 159, UT Chandigarh

— 136, Punjab — 135 and Haryana — 123.

2An another aspect is that India has, as per the Human

Development Report 2013 released by the United Nations

1 Unemployment rate among SC, OBC highest in Chandigarh: Report. Business Line, September 24, 2013. http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/unemployment-rate-among-sc-obc-highest-in-chandigarh-report/article5163877.ece

2 Rajadhyaksha, Madhavi, India ranks 136 in human development index. TNN Mar 15, 2013. Available from: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-03-15/india/37743090_1_india-s-hdi-human-development-index-india-ranks Page | 82

Development Programme (UNDP), ranked the country at a low 136

among 186 countries on its human development index (HDI) — a

composite measure of life expectancy, access to education and

income levels. 1India's Human Development Index (HDI) showed an

impressive gain of 21% between 1999-2000 and 2007-08 with the

Muslims and the backwards catching up with others on socio-

economic indicators even though the gap was still very big. 

2As per Population Census of India 2011, the Literacy rate of

India has shown as improvement of almost 9 percent. It has gone

up to 74.04% in 2011 from 65.38% in 2001, thus showing an

increase of 9 percent in the last 10 years. It consists of male

literacy rate 82.14% and female literacy rate is 65.46%. Kerala

with 93.9% literacy rate is the top state in India. Lakshadweep

and Mizoram are at second and third position with 92.3% and

91.06% literacy rate respectively. Bihar with 63.08% literacy

rate is the last in terms of literacy rate in India. In spite of

these figures, there is a hot debate in India on whether the

state of India is imparting the qualitative education or not.

1 Chauhan, Chetan, Muslims, SC/ STs gained most: HDI report. Hindustan Times, New Delhi, October 21, 2011. Available from: http://www.hindustantimes.com/business-news/muslims-sc-sts-gained-most-hdi-report/article1-760022.aspx

2 Literacy Rate in India. Available from: http://www.indiaonlinepages.com/population/literacy-rate-in-india.html Page | 83

1While government spending on various welfare schemes continues

to rise every year, India's ranking in terms of social security

is pretty low when compared to its Asian neighbours. Asian

Development Bank's recent report pegs India's social protection

index (SPI), a ratio of total expenditure on social protection to

the total number of intended beneficiaries, at just 0.051, way

below the Asian benchmark score of 0.2 and lower than even that

of Sri Lanka, Nepal and Maldives. India's dismal performance in

terms of SPI is mainly on account of low share of government

spending on social welfare schemes as a percentage of GDP, which

was just 1.7% in contrast to 19.2% in Japan, 7.9% in Korea and

5.4% in China during 2009.

Another scene of the condition of India could be estimated by the

fact that, 2The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) released the

“Crime in India 2012” report recently. The report reveals the

sorry state of affairs regarding crime trends and the criminal

justice system of our country, especially vis-à-vis the crime of

rape. It is most alarming that the singular crime of rape is the

fastest growing crime in India and has increased by 902% over

1971 to 2012. The incidents of rapes reported increased from

24,206 in 2011 to 24,923   in 2012.

1 Saxena, Kavya, Fast on growth, slow on social security. The Indian Express, Tuesday, July, 09, 2013. Available from: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/fast-on-growth-slow-on-social-security/1139196/

2 Shakil, Albeena, Rape and Honour Crimes: The NCRB Report 2012. Vol - XLVIII No. 31, August 03, 2013.Page | 84

The continuation of child marriage in India despite a social

campaign against it that is nearly 200 years old reflects the

complexity of the whole scenario. The statistics of the extent of

child marriage in the country are disturbing. 1According to the

National Family Health Survey (2005-06), as much as 46% of women

in the 18-29-year age group were married before they turned 18,

in spite of many laws on the statute books, including the most

recent one, the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (2006) which

bans marriage of girls below 18 years.

2Children from marginalized social groups drop out of schools in

greater numbers as compared to other children. Problem of

exclusion and segregation in schools could not solved yet.

SOCIAL WELFARE PROVISIONS IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION:

The National Commission for Scheduled Caste (NCSC) classifies

different safeguards in the following broad heads: 1) Social

Safeguards; 2) Economic Safeguards; 3) Educational & Cultural

Safeguards; 4) Political Safeguards; 5) Service Safeguards.

Articles 17, 23, 24 and 25(2)(b) of the Constitution enjoins the

State to provide social safeguards to Scheduled Castes. Article

17 relates to abolition of untouchability being practiced in

society. The Parliament enacted the Protection of Civil Rights1 Editorial, Will Child Marriages Ever End? Economic & Political Weekly, November 2, 2013, vol xlviII no 44.

2Ramachandran, Vimala & Naorem Taramani, What It Means To Be a Dalit or TribalChild in Our Schools: A Synthesis of a Six-State Qualitative Study. Economic &Political Weekly, November 2, 2013 vol xlviii no 44.Page | 85

Act, 1955 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to tackle the problem of

untouchability, which is being practiced against Scheduled

Castes. Article 23 prohibits traffic in human beings and 'begar'

and other similar forms of forced labour and provides that any

contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in

accordance with law. Although there is no specific mentions about

the SCs in this Article but majority of the bonded labours comes

from SCs. Thus, this Article has a special significance for them.

The Parliament enacted Bonded Labour system (Abolition) Act, 1976

for identification, liberation and rehabilitation of bonded

labourers. Article 24 provides that no child below the age of 14

years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged

in any other hazardous employment. Even in this Article, there is

no specific mention about the SCs but substantial portion of

child labour engaged in hazardous employment belong to SCs.

Article 25(2)(b) provides that Hindu religious institutions of a

public charactershall be opened to all classes and sections of

Hindus. The term Hindu includes persons professing Sikh, Jain and

Buddhist religion.

Articles 23, 24 and 46, form part of the economic safeguards for

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The provisions of

Articles 23 and 24 have already been discussed in earlier

paragraphs. Article 46 provides, "The States shall promote with

special care the educationaland economic interests of the weaker

sections of the people, and in particular, of the Scheduled

Page | 86

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from

social injustice and all forms of exploitation."

Articles 15(4), empowers the State to make special provisions for

the advancement of any socially and educationally backward

classes of citizens and for SCs. This provision has enabled the

State to reserve seats for SCs in educational institutions in

general and professional courses etc.

Reservation of seats for SCs/STs in the local bodies of the

States/UTs, Legislative Assemblies of the State and in Parliament

is in practice. Article 243D assures the reservation of seats for

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in every Panchayat

according to the proportion of population. Such seats may be

allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Panchayat.

No less than one third of reserved seats should be allotted to

women. Article 243T assures the reservation of seats in

Municipality area. The rule is same. Article 330 assures

reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the House of the People.

The allotment of seats is based on the number of the seats and

proportion of SCs and STs in the state or Union Territories.

Article 332 assures reservation of seats in the state legislative

assembly. The allotment of seats is based on the number of the

seats and proportion of SCs and STs in the state or Union

Territories.

The allotment of seats is based on the number of the seats and

proportion of SCs and STs in the state or Union Territories. The

Page | 87

effect of this amendment is that the SCs/STs promoted earlier

than their counter-part in general category by virtue of

reservation policy shall be senior to general category in the

promoted scale/post.

Besides the SCs and STs, there exists a huge proportion of people

who are identified as socially and educationally backward

classes. However, it is the constitutional obligation of the

government under Articles 340(1), 340(2) and 16(4) to promote the

welfare of the OBCs.

Part IV of the Indian Constitution deals with the Directive

Principles of State Policy (DPSPs). These directive principles

are examples of the scheme of social justice in our constitution,

and these principles anticipate a lot of provisions for the

welfare of people at large relating to education, environment,

promotion of justice, free legal aid, living wages, protection of

marginalized groups, forest and wildlife, etc. Some of the

directive principles are: Article 39(a): The state shall direct

its policy towards securing adequate mean of livelihood to man

and woman; Article 39 (A): Promotion of justice, equal

opportunities, and free legal aid; Ar. 41: Security of work, to

education, and to public assistance in several cases; Article 42:

Security of just and humane conditions of work; Article 45: Free

and compulsory education to every child till the age of 14 years,

etc.

SOCIAL WELFARE AND JUSTICE:

Page | 88

1In his budget speech finance minister, Mr. P. Chidambram spoke

of the need to pay ‘special attention’ to the sections that had

been left behind. Social sector allocations for education,

health, sanitation, welfare, rural development, in Budget 2013-14

fails to convince that government understands the need to invest

in the people. 2Budgetary allocation for the social sector

increased from Rs. 39,123 crores in 2005 to Rs. 2,13,689 crores

in 2013-14. The public spending in the social sector increased

from 5.3% of GDP in 2004-05 to 6.7%of GDP in 2011-12, and around

7% of GDP in 2013-14. The fact to focus is that in the period of

2001 to 2011, India added as many as 1.81 crores person to its

population and the number has gone up now. 3Another fact that

needs to be kept in mind that this spending of Rs. 2,13,689

crores accounts for expenditure on education, youth affairs and

sports, art and culture, health and family welfare, water supply

and sanitation, housing and urban development, information and

broadcasting, welfare of SC, ST and other backward classes,

labour and labour welfare, social welfare and nutrition, women

and child development and other social services.

1 Goswami, Urmi, Social Sector Outlays: An Assesment. Vol. ISSN- 0971-8400, Yojna, march, 2013. P-21.

2 ibid.

3 Goswami, Urmi, Social Sector Outlays: An Assesment. Vol. ISSN- 0971-8400, Yojna, march, 2013. P-21.Page | 89

1Sharing the concerns of the members of the House for the welfare

of the SC/ST, the Finance Minister, Mr. P. Chidambram announced

that the budget has sub- plans for them and reiterated that the

funds allocated to the sub- plans cannot be diverted and must be

spent for the purpose of the sub plans. He said that, he made an

allocation of Rs. 41,561 crores to SC sub plans and Rs. 24, 598

crores to the tribal sub plan. He also says that, the gender

budget has Rs. 97,134 crores and child budget has Rs. 77,236

crores allocation in 2013-14.

Apart from this, the Ministry of Women and Child Development was

asked to prepare schemes for addressing concerns of women,

especially single women and widows and for this an amount of 200

crore Rupees was allocated. 3511 crore Rupees was allocated to

the Ministry of Minority Affairs.

The ministry of social justice and empowerment has a number of

schemes and programmes for the empowerment of SC, ST, OBC, women

and Physically Challenged and other victims of injustices. Some

of the examples are –

2The Post Matric Scholarships scheme enables a considerable

number of Scheduled Caste students to obtain post-matric and

higher level of education resulting in their overall educational

and economic development. The Scheme provides for 100 per cent

1 Chakraborty, Pinaki, Budget 2013-14 & Beyond: What it means for fiscal consolidation? Vol. ISSN- 0971-8400, Yojna, march, 2013. P-2o.

2 Government of India, Ministry of social justice and empowerment. Available from: http://socialjustice.nic.in/pmsscd.php Page | 90

Central Assistance to the State Governments and UT

Administrations over and above the respective committed liability

of the State/UT. The committed liability of the North Eastern

States has, however, been dispensed with. The scheme presently

covers over 30 lakh Scheduled Caste students.

Educational Development Programme for Scheduled Castes Girls

provides a package of educational inputs through residential

schools for Scheduled Castes girls in areas of very low literacy

and where traditions and environment are not conducive to

learning amongst SC girls. This Scheme is implemented by the

Zilla Parishads of the concerned Districts.

Government of India introduced a 'Self Employment Scheme for

Rehabilitation of Manual Scavengers' (SRMS) from January 2007,

with the objective to rehabilitate remaining Manual Scavengers

and their dependents in a time-bound money. The identified manual

scavengers and their dependents are provided capital subsidy upto

Rs. 20,000 and concessional loan for undertaking self employment

ventures. Beneficiaries are also provided training for skill

development for a period upto one year, during which a stipend of

Rs. 1000 per month is also provided. 1As per this scheme in the

financial year 2012-13, Rs. 100 crores were allotted but less

than a quarter, that is Rs. 20 crores was the expenditure.

2The National Scheduled Castes Finance & Development Corporation

(NSFDC) was set up in 1989 as a "Company not for profit" under1 Government of India, Ministry of social justice and empowerment. Available from: http://socialjustice.nic.in/scavengers.php Page | 91

Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 with the objective of

financing income generating activities of SC beneficiaries living

below double the poverty line limits (presently Rs.81,000/- p.a.

for Rural Areas and Rs.1,03,000/- p.a. for Urban Areas). NSFDC

assist the target group by way of loan & advances, Skill

Training, Entrepreneurship Development Programmes and Providing

Marketing Support through State Channelizing Authority (SCA). An

amount of Rs.879.80 crore has been made available to the

Corporation upto 30th September, 2013, as equity share

contribution, towards the authorized share capital of Rs.1000.00

crore. NSFDC may provide term loan upto 90% of the cost of

project, subject to the condition that State Level Channelizing

Agencies contribute their share of assistance as per their

schemes and also provide the required subsidy besides tying up

financial resources from other source, if any.

Various schemes of Government of India aim to bring about

improvement in the quality of life of the Scheduled Tribes (STs).

Policies of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, the nodal Ministry

for overall development of the Scheduled Tribes, focus on the

integrated socio-economic development of the Scheduled Tribes.

The Ministry provides grants to the State/Union Territories under

Special Central Assistance to the Tribal Sub-Plan and under

Article 275(1) for socio-economic development of the STs and for

creation of infrastructure in tribal areas. Several Centrally

Sponsored Schemes and Central Sector Schemes are also implemented2 Government of India, Ministry of social justice and empowerment. Available from: http://socialjustice.nic.in/nscfdc.php Page | 92

by the Ministry for ensuring education, coaching, skill

upgradation, training facilities to the STs. 1Some of the schemes

are: Special Area Programs (SAP), Grant-in-Aid to NGOs for STs

including Coaching & Allied Scheme and Award for Exemplary

Service, Vocational Training Centres in Tribal Areas,

Strengthening of Education among ST girls in low literacy

Districts, Market Development of Tribal Products/ Produce, Grant-

in-aid to State Tribal Development Cooperative Corporations for

Minor Forest Produce, Development of Particularly Vulnerable

Tribal (PTG), Support to National/State Scheduled Tribes Finance

& Development Corporations, Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship for

ST Students, Scheme of Institute of Excelence/Top class

institute, National Overseas Scholarship Scheme etc.

Similar programmes and schemes are there for other target groups

but still they are insufficient. They could be proved sufficient

if they were implemented effectively, that is, for whom the

scheme really is, would have benefitted. That is why 2the

ministry sponsored evaluation / research study on the welfare

programmes / schemes implemented by it for educational, economic

and social empowerment of its target groups, to check their

effectiveness in implementation.

But the ‘social inclusion’3 cannot be achieved by putting well-

phrased nice-sounding laws on the statute book; what is required1 Government of India, Ministry of social justice and empowerment. Available from: http://socialjustice.nic.in/schemespro2.php

2 Government of India, Ministry of social justice and empowerment. Available from: http://www.dauniv.ac.in/notices/Research.pdf Page | 93

is political commitment and the will to put political muscle

behind their implementation. Social inclusion project is an

ideological and political commitment. No political party can

attain its social goals by merely incorporating laws on the

statute book unless it is dedicated and sincerely committed to

its comprehensive social agenda for inclusion of millions of

excluded poor who have already missed the bus.

CONCLUSION:

As per conclusion we can say that we have not achieve the success

we ought to. Still in our society there is the existence of

misery in the name of discrimination of a big section of society.1Charles Dickens ‘Tale of Two Cities’, could describe the Indian

situation in the best way. As it says: “it was the best of times,

it was the worst of times; it was the age of wisdom, it was the

age of foolishness; it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch

of incredulity;… we had everything before us, we had nothing

before us…”. Similarly at the present, we can also say about the

tale of two Indians: “We have the best of times; we have the

worst of times. There is sparkling prosperity, there is stinking

3 social inclusion means ensuring that everyone is included in society ratherthan excluded. This includes, for instance, promoting positive attitudes andperceptions (e.g. disabled people in politics), modifying the builtenvironment (e.g. ramps in public buildings), providing information inaccessible formats (e.g. our website in large print) and making sure that lawsand policies support the exercise of full participation and non-discrimination(e.g.employment discrimination laws)

1 Sezhiyan, Era, Globe for the rich - Zero for the poor: Globalisation of Indian Economy. Available from: http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article19.htmlPage | 94

poverty. We have dazzling five star hotels side by side with

darkened ill-starred hovels. We have everything, we have

nothing.”

CONCLUSION;

Page | 95

1‘Nothing is so finely perceived and finely felt, as injustice.’

We have done a lot with the definitions of justice and the

establishment of just social order by the just allocation with

different perspective. Justice is one of the virtues of society.

It is the only tool through which we can establish a legitimate

society or state. So, in every society there used to be some kind

of rules and laws for the sake of justification of the action

taken. No one can deny that, India has such rules or laws on

which the state used to work. Indian society was based on the

1 Sen, Amartya, An Idea of Justice. Page | 96

philosophy of various ‘dharmashatras’. The question is do they

were sufficient for dispensing justice in the Indian society;

what type of societies was prevailing in India.

As India is a big country, we do not have synchronized knowledge

about Indian society and the philosophy on which it worked.

Actually Indians have apathetic attitude towards their native

philosophy. They were highly inspired from the western

philosophy. 1Kancha Ilaiah regretted and says that,

“unfortunately Indian political scientists have not made any

serious attempt to study our ancient philosophy.” Also whatever

we know is not unanimously accepted. There are conflicts between

the scholars for the same thing and the importantly to a great

extent. For instance, Kautilya, the author of ‘Arthashastra’, is

perceived as virtuous and secular by Hindus and non-Hindu took

him with contempt and characterizes him as a brutual and anti-

democratic. 2As scholars say, “he worked out ways to disintegrate

and destroy the tribal peoples who were maintaining the tribal

democratic institutions in their societies.” Indians worked with

the prejudiced and biased mind set up. The philosophy of Buddha

serves a good example as it is criticized here, in India.

3James Mill have commented on ancient India as: “In first stage

of the society the leader in war is also the judge in peace and

1 Ilaiah, Kancha, God as Political Philosopher: Buddha’s Challenge to Brahminism. Samaya pub. 2004.

2 Ibid, p-75.

3 Ibid, p-14.Page | 97

legal and juridical functions are united in the same person. In

the first place there are hardly any laws, and he alone is

entitled to judge who is entitled to legislate since he must make

law for every occasion.” Frederich Hegel defined Indian society

as stationary civilizations, in which no change worth the name

had taken place for thousand years. 1“The most important reason

for the unchanging nature of the civilization was that they did

not comprehend the idea of freedom, since a single person was

supreme, subordinating all others under the rule of oriental

despotism. The despotism was naturally ordained by the caste

system in India.” From these arguments it can be concluded that

there was nothing like justice in the ancient Indian society nor

there any procedure for the just allocation of goods and

services. The prevalence of irrational rigid caste system

followed by discrimination of marginalized section completely

denies the statement that in India there was prevailing the

concept of justice.

Indian society was totally engrossed in the hierarchical caste

structure. The society was divided into upper and the lower

caste; touchables and untouchables; Brahimins, Kshatriyas,

Vaisyas and Shudras. Untouchables were given only duties with no

rights. The higher castes in Hindu society enjoyed all rights and

privileges. The division was evil for the Indian society. But

before Dr. Ambedkar no one raised the strong voice against the1 Mukherjee, Subrata & Ramaswamy, Sushila, A History of Political Thought: Plato to Marx. PHI Learning Private Limited; 2012, p-243.

Page | 98

evil. Since Dr. Ambedkar also belonged to the untouchables, so he

felt the injustice due to the caste system. His contempt was not

based on the irrational hatred but on the basis of his deliberate

thinking and extraordinary rationale became able to understand

the root cause of such human right violation. He criticized the

caste system of Hindu religion. That’s why Dr. Ambedkar has been

viewed and reviewed only as ‘a Dalit Leader’.

As Vivek Kumar says that, ‘let us accept the fact that Babasaheb

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar has been victim of a process of reductionism’.

But this reduction of a multidimensional wisdom is not just. It

is true that he was the first one who advocated about the rights

of Dalits and stood against the inhuman practice of

untouchability in India. Because there was the monopoly of

uppercaste in the government people accept their discrimination

for granted. Also since uppercaste was brought up in different

environment than the Dalits, they had not experience the

injustice done to the Dalits. Dr. Ambedkar experienced the

injustice and his rationale could not take it for granted, so he

came up for reforming the condition of Dalits.

The allegation of being only Dalits leader is not true. We know

Dr. Ambedkar as the Chief Architect of the Indian Constitution.

If we believe him as the architect of Indian constitution then

how can we say that he was only the leader of Dalits and

neglected the other caste. In the Constitution of India there

are provisions for the people of India not for any single

community. Actually these allegation put from the masses who arePage | 99

uneducated and do not possesses open mind. These mass thinks Dr.

Ambedkar’s affirmative action for Dalits as against them.

Affirmative action comprises of dispensing justice to those whom

it has been systematically denied in the past because of an

established social structure whether it be untouchables or women

or any other marginalized section of the large population. Today,

Dr. Ambedkar is accepted not only as a Dalit leader or only a

Constitution maker but also as a ‘nation builder’, a human

rights, champion, and ‘Global Icon’.

Dr. Ambedkar’s idea of social justice is the most relevant in

contemporary era according to R. C. Guha. His trinity of liberty,

equality and fraternity is very important for the establishment

of social justice especially in the Indian context. Although he

gave a superb idea he believed in action. According to him any

form of government could not help if the members, that is, people

of the government is not working or working apathetically. The

present scene of India is the best example of that very fact. We

have great plans and programmes but unimplemented or ineffective

implementation. For instance we can have the example of

reservation policy of SC, ST and OBC. Ineffectiveness could be

seen in the fact that after more than six decades of independence

we cannot see any kind of significant change.

Page | 100

India really needs 1 ‘escape velocity’ not for being away from

the problem but for changing the orthodox mind set up of its

people regarding caste; for changes and development of the

particular class who is still far from the mainstream of society.

Government should check their policies and its implementation.

They must have realization of the cause of failure or of their

programmes for development. But the situation is better than ever

before.

2The economic and living conditions of scheduled caste and

scheduled tribe households have experienced changes during the

phase of accelerated economic growth in the last decade based on

2001 and 2011 Census data. There has been considerable progress

in the well-being of SCs and STs during the last decade. There is

hope. We are not where we should or where we can be and this is

the only the matter of discontent.

We are lagging due to corruption and ineffective implementation

of plans and programmes by government. At the same time we have

1 Editorial, Phoney Financial Inclusion. Economic and political weekly, Vol - XLVIII No. 45-46, November 16, 2013.

2 Bhagat, R.B., Conditions of SC/ST Households A Story of Unequal Improvement.Economic and political weekly, Vol - XLVIII No. 41, October 12, 2013.

Page | 101

constitutional tools to counter it and honest people to raise

voice against the very peoblem.

Page | 102