difference between nehru motilal constitution and b r ambedkar constitution
Answers
Answer:
Nehru and Ambedkar differed on socialism. While Nehru talked of equal opportunities for all, for Ambedkar, equality between castes was an inalienable part of socialism
Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar (14 April 1891 – 6 December 1956) and Jawaharlal Nehru (14 November 1889 – 27 May 1964) were contemporary Indian statesmen. Both are described as builders of modern India. While Nehru was born into a Brahmin family and was the son of eminent lawyer and Congress leader Motilal Nehru, Ambedkar came from a Dalit (Mahar) family. Both led different childhoods. While Nehru lived a life of opulence and luxury, Ambedkar had to face untouchability as a child and even adulthood did not bring him freedom from the sting of the abhorrent practice.
Much to his dismay, Ambedkar saw that his entire community was forced to live with untouchability. That was when he decided to put an end to this obnoxious social practice. His family was poor but he travelled to America and Britain for higher studies on scholarships awarded by Maharaja Gaikawad of Baroda. He acquired the highest degrees in economics and law. Nehru was also educated in Britain. Both were excellent writers and authored many acclaimed books.
Dr Ambedkar was a top-notch scholar and had done his master’s from Columbia University in the US, majoring in Economics, with Sociology, History, Philosophy and Anthropology as other subjects of study. He was also a PhD (from Columbia) and a DSc (London School of Economics) in Economics, and a barrister. He had a deep knowledge of Hindu religion and Buddhism. Nehru did not hold as many high academic degrees as Ambedkar but he too was a scholar of rare intellect. If anyone could be compared with Ambedkar in terms of intellect and knowledge, it was no one other than Nehru.
Both joined politics in the 1920s but through different routes. Dr Ambedkar returned to India from England in 1923 after becoming a barrister and was appointed as a professor in law in Mumbai. He launched two social movements – one for getting Dalits access to Chavdar Tank and another to the Kalaram temple.
AMBEDKAR ON CASTE
Dr Ambedkar said that the Congress, since its birth, had talked of two kinds of reforms – political and social. Some Congress leaders wanted to take up both the causes together, while others preferred political over social. By social reforms, he meant reforms within the family, such as a ban on child marriage and encouraging widow remarriage. But social reform aimed at disbanding the institution of caste was not on the Congress agenda. Yet, no social reform was possible in India without breaking the stranglehold of caste, because caste was at the root of all social evils. That was why the Congress’ social-reform movement soon lost steam and political reform became its prime agenda. According to Dr Ambedkar, a political revolution couldn’t succeed unless it was preceded by a socio-religious revolution. But the Congress never worked for a social revolution aimed at dismantling castethe economic point of view.
Ambedkar and Nehru
He wrote, “The effect of caste on the ethics of the Hindus is simply deplorable. Caste has killed public spirit. Caste has made public opinion impossible. A Hindu’s loyalty is restricted only to his caste.”[2]
Regarding society, Ambedkar said that it should be based on liberty, equality and fraternity. He held that democracy was not only a form of government but a system in which all the citizens participate in governance, after thinking through issues and discussing them with each other.[3] Respect for one’s fellow beings is the basis of democracy.
According to Ambedkar, how the Hindu system gave birth to classes such as the Untouchables and Tribals demands deep contemplation. If the Hindu civilization gave birth to these classes, then it doesn’t qualify to be called a “civilization”. It is a conspiracy for suppressing humans and enslaving them. It is “satanic”.[4]
In other words, Hindu religion and its philosophy create a heaven for the Brahmins and a hell for the common man. He did not agree with the argument that a section of the Hindus is rigid and believes in caste while another section is not so rigid because it does not believe in caste. Ambedkar said that the gist of Manusmriti, the Vedas and the Bhagwad Geeta is the same. They are all cast in the same mould. The same thread runs through all of them and they are parts of the same whole.[5] He thus believed that all Hindu scriptures promote caste.
Explanation:
PLEASE MARK ME AS BRAINLIEST