Dr. B. R. Ambedkar was a great jurist, statesman, philosopher, activist, sociologist, economist, liberalist and an exceptional humanist. Some may add even more qualities to what has been stated above, as it would always be less to describe him within few words. This dichotomy would be faced by anybody describing him, as he was not an individual but an ‘institution’ in himself.

 

His contribution in framing of India’s constitution is phenomenal.

 

Drafting of the Indian constitution was a mammoth task. With about 444  articles and 12 schedules, Indian constitution qualifies as the longest constitution of the world. Indian constitution came into force in 26th January 1950; it was drafted during the time period of three years from December 1946 to December 1949 and debated in the constituent assembly.

 

Eminent Indian historian Ramchandra Guha describes the process of drafting of Indian constitution as follows:

 

“The proceedings of the Constituent Assembly of India were printed in eleven bulky volumes. These volumes some of which exceed 1,000 pages - are testimony to the loquaciousness of Indians, but also to their insight, intelligence, passion and sense of humour. These volumes are little known treasure-trove, invaluable to the historian, but also a potential source of enlightenment to the interested citizen. In them we find many competing ideas of the nation, of what language it should speak, what political economic systems it should follow, what moral values it should uphold or disavow”.

 

The drafting committee, chaired by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar along with six other members was responsible for the drafting of Indian constitution.

 

Babasaheb Ambedkar was a name synonymous with Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity - the four ideals of the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. He was the most suitable person to be appointed as the chairman of the drafting committee of the Indian constitution. This suitability was with respect to two aspects of his individuality. Firstly, he was amongst the most qualified jurist of India at that point of time, whose works were recognized by legal stalwarts like Ivor Jennings. Secondly, being a “Dalit”, Dr. Ambedkar was the best person to know the cruel realities of caste system and suggest any constitutional reforms for removing social inequality.       

       

He was a mixed balance of  a Social Reformer and Legal Scholar. The idea of justice as envisaged by him was based on the utilitarianism.  ‘It  is  the  greatest  happiness of  the  greatest  number  that  is  the measure of right and wrong’. This was against the positivist school of legal thought that argued that ‘society operates according to its own laws, much as the physical world operates according  to  gravity  and  other  laws  of  nature’.        
                                   
His greatest gift to the constitution was not the tangible constitution itself but a notion of “Constitutional Morality” which would help the constitution to remain preserved in most difficult circumstances. He stated - “Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realize that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top dressing on an Indian soil which is essentially undemocratic”.

 

He was ahead of his contemporaries in terms of his ideas on Democracy. His ideas on democracy were different from what India and World had accepted at that point of time. He was well aware about the realities of India and the non-workability of imported ideas of western democracy in the Indian set-up.

 

The following words  of  writer  Rudyard Kipling would provide a glimpse of pre-independence India. When he was asked about the possibility of self-government  in  India. 

‘Oh  no!’  he answered:’  they are 4000 years old out there, much too old to learn that business. Law and order is what they want and we are there to give it to them and we give it them straight’.

 

The above words truly reflect the wanting state of India at that time, but at the same time it also reflects the British ideology on the needs of India, which they very shallowly determined. They provided only ‘law and order’ and not ‘social order’. The Britishers' complacency towards ‘social order’ was reflected in the Government of India Act, which was devoid of any ‘Bill of Rights’.

 

In UK itself the first comprehensive equality legislation in the form of Equality Act 2010, came almost 60 years after India had set an example by inculcating fundamental rights in Part III, in the Indian constitution. In United States also there was no equality legislation as such. What we see today as ‘affirmative action’ in US came in 1961, after Indian constitution had come into force. Moreover, system of providing ‘quota’ is considered to be illegal by the Supreme Court of United States whereas Indian Constitution guarantees reservation to certain under privileged sections.                                 

 

The loopholes of implementing tailor-made model of Governance and Democracy of the above-mentioned countries were well understood by Ambedkar. Therefore he added dimension of ‘Social Democracy’ to Indian constitution, which is absent in most other constitutions.

 

Dr. Ambedkar believed that the goal of democracy should be to bring positive changes to the social life. Therefore the constitution that he gave India  is not merely a legal framework for India’s governance but as Glanville Austin describes it, it’s a “social document”.

- from Internet