Impact of DR Ambedkar
Impact of DR Ambedkar
Nationalisation of Industries.
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar thought that fast development of India is impossible without
Industrialization. According to him creating large scale employment produces essential goods for
mass consumption. It utilizes raw materials, reduces foreign dependence and increasing security
to labour, ultimately leads to the overall economical development of the country. The private
sector industries can not make big industries for want of large scale investments. So, government
should come forward to start large scale industries .The smaller industries should be kept in
private sector. The insurance and transport companies should be nationalized. Rights to strike
should be given to labourers. After the independence the industrial policy of the Indian
government is in keeping with Dr. Ambedkar's expectations.
population is not controlled. Hence he forcefully argued for population control and family planning
in India. Later on in keeping with his views the govenment of India has adopted family planning
as a national policy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new resonance
which private capitalism has produced in Europe and which should be a warning to
Indians."
ANTICIPATING criticism against his proposals that they went too far, Dr..
Ambedkar argues that political democracy implied that "the individual should not
be required to relinquish any of his constitutional rights as a condition precedent to
the receipt of a privilege" and that "the state shall not delegate powers to private
persons to govern others". He points out that "the system of social economy based
on private enterprise and pursuit of personal gain violates these requirements".
Responding to the libertarian argument that where the state refrains from
intervention in private affairs - economic and social - the residue is liberty, Dr.
Ambedkar says: "It is true that where the state refrains from intervention what
remains is liberty. To whom and for whom is this liberty? Obviously this liberty is
liberty to the landlords to increase rents, for capitalists to increase hours of work
and reduce rate of wages." Further, he says: "In an economic system employing
armies of workers, producing goods en masse at regular intervals, someone must
make rules so that workers will work and the wheels of industry run on. If the state
does not do it, the private employer will. In other words, what is called liberty from
the control of the state is another name for the dictatorship of the private
employer."
India's experience with neoliberal reforms since 1990 shows that Dr. Ambedkar's
apprehensions regarding the implications of the unfettered operation of monopoly
capital, both domestic and foreign, were far from misplaced. As has been
documented and written about extensively, during this period of neoliberal reforms,
there has been no breakthrough in the rate of economic growth. At the same time,
there has been a distinct slowing down of the rate of growth of employment and
practically no decline in the proportion of people below the poverty line.
Agriculture has been in a crisis for some time now and the rate of growth of
industry has also been declining for several years now. At the same time, despite a
slower growth of foodgrains output, the government is saddled with huge excess
stocks, which it seeks to sell abroad or to domestic private trade at very low prices.
The government and its economists, instead of recognising that the crisis is the
product in large part of the policies of liberalisation, privatisation and
globalisation, propose a set of so-called second-generation reforms. At the centre
of these reforms is the complete elimination of employment security. The war cry
of the liberalisers is: "Away with all controls and the state, and let the market rule."
In this context, one cannot but recall Dr. Ambedkar's words that liberty from state
control is another name for the dictatorship of the private employer. Whether on
labour reforms or on agrarian policy or on the question of the insurance sector or
the role of the public sector in the context of development, Dr. Ambedkar's views
are in direct opposition to those of neoliberal policies.
It is indeed a pity that self-styled leaders of Dalit movements, who invoke Dr.
Ambedkar's name day in and day out, do not examine carefully his views on key
issues of economic policy and their contemporary relevance for the struggles of the
oppressed. One may not expect much from those Dalit-based political forces which
think nothing of cohabiting with the Sangh Parivar, but even many sections of the
Dalit movement which proclaim a radical stance on social (and sometimes
economic) issues do not raise the question of land or of the role of the state in the
sharp manner in which Dr. Ambedkar does.
-----------------------------------**********************************************************************************
**********************************************************************************
**************************************************************
His analytical faculty and pragmatic approach could be understood for the first time
in his 42-page research paper entitled Administration and Finance of the East India
Company submitted in Columbia University as the dissertation for MA (Economics)
degree in 1915. This dissertation offers a historical account of the administration and
finances of the East India Company and brings out economic and legal implications
which ran counter to the interest of Indians.
An important finding of this study made him score above RC Duttas analytical
faculty. It is regarding the heavy tribute that India had to pay regularly to Britain by
way of home charges which was entirely the creation of war and was illegitimate.
The act of 1858, which goes by the name Act for better government of India, states
that: the revenues of India shall not, without the previous consent of both Houses of
Parliament, be applicable to defray the expenses of any military operations carried
on beyond the external frontiers of such possessions by her Majestys forces
charged upon such revenues.
This provision of the act was used by many scholars in India including RC Dutta to
justify this heavy tribute by India as salutary financial provision. The basic drawback
of this justification, according to Ambedkar, lies on two crucial points (i) the revenues
of India have been spent outside India for non-indian purpose, even after the Act
and (ii) the fatal error lay in this, - the excepting clause in the above section which
sanctions the expenditure of Indian revenue outside of India omits the vital word
previous. To have any salutary impact previous consent of the Parliament is a
necessary requirement. The previous consent was not taken. This escaped the
notice of everybody including Indian scholars. This finding of Ambedkars work not
only established his identity as a brilliant analytical economic historian but as a bold,
patriotic Indian as well.
The other work on economics was entitled Provincial Finance in British India, which
was his Ph.D. thesis in Columbia University USA in 1917, and was published in book
form in 1925. It was considered to be a basic contribution to the theory of public
finance. To be more specific it dealt with Centre-state financial relationship in British
India covering the period 1833 to 1921. This probing analysis was highly acclaimed
all over the world.
Professor Dr Edwin Robert Anderson Seligman, the then Professor of Political
Economy, Columbia University, New York, an authority on the subject, editor in chief
of Encyclopedia of Social Sciences and one of the founder members of American
Economic Association, commented that, the value of Mr Ambedkars contribution to
this discussion lies in the objective recitation of the facts and the impartial analysis of
the interesting development that has taken place in his native country. The lessons
are applicable to the other countries as well; nowhere, to my knowledge, has such a
detailed study of underlying principles been made.
The inquiry into the causes of financial malady of British India and the suggestion of
sharing the financial responsibility by the Centre and provinces were really
commendable. Apart from the international recognition of Ambedkars thesis at that
time his ideas even today go a long way in determining the federal structure that has
been adopted by different nations including India. It may be mentioned here that the
Finance Commission, which is appointed for five years as per the Constitutional
The Mahar Vatan system was an outcome of The Bombay Hereditary Offices Act
(1874), which was used to exploit rural poor of the Mahar caste. Mahars used to
hold very low-level government jobs, mostly odd jobs of all government departments
round the clock. In fact, these Mahars and their families were at the beck and call of
government officers for 24 hours without any defined task. The range of their jobs
included removal of carcasses to running with the tonga of officers throughout their
journey. In return Mahars were given a piece of land called Vatan to be cultivated by
them, and a part of the produce was passed on to the government as Baluta.
Sometimes, a paltry sum of money used to be given by way of wage. This
remuneration was not regular and officers would increase or decrease the sum and
the size of the land - arbitrarily. This inhuman exploitation was perpetrated by giving
them an ego-boosting description like Vatandars (which means landlords) and in
turn they were saddled with heavy duties.
As Labour Member of Viceroys Executive Council from 1942 to 1946, Ambedkar
introduced a number of welfare measures for the working class of India. Notable
among them are establishment of employment exchanges, machinery for fixation of
minimum remuneration, tripartite dispute settlement mechanism, fixation of working
hours, working conditions, maternity leave, leave with pay etc. which, even today
offers a safety net to labourers. These labour welfare measures take care of not only
the productivity of labour, but insurance of the claim of legitimate share of labour in
the total production or income of the industry. In a sense, it takes care of growth and
development as well. Higher productivity of labour means the growth of income and
legitimate share of the labour means more equitable distribution of income and less
inequality of distribution, which in turns means development. Ambedkar, a man
educated in USA and UK, was not an armchair economist. He was an economist in
thought and action with a rare vision.
The writer is a former professor and head of department of economics,
Jadavpur University
Ambedkars identity as an economist might have escaped notice because of
his fame as a leader of the downtrodden sections of the Indian society.
--------------------------------**********************************************************************************
**********************************************************************************
**********************************************************************************
*********