speech:the grammar of anarchy
Answers
Answered by
4
During “India Against Corruption” movement, many questioned the ‘constitutionality’ of ‘fast unto death’ as a form of protest. People used Dr Ambedkar’s ‘Grammar of Anarchy’ speech as the justification. In this speech, Ambedkar says that protests of the form of ‘fast unto death’ were of times when there was no constitutional government, and now that India has constitutional government, people shouldn’t resort to such forms of protest. Many also termed it as against the `spirit of the Constitution’.
Ambedkar’s arguments merely say that fast unto death isn’t acceptable in democracy but don’t say the reasoning behind it. Why shouldn’t fast unto death be allowed, when it is nonviolent? If it is not to be allowed, why didn’t the Constitution put specific restrictions on it?
Merely quoting Ambedkar’s speech is thus an incomplete argument against fast unto death. We should examine, why Ambedkar said what he said, to make a sense of his statement.
One possible reason could be that Ambedkar’s opposition for fast unto death as a form of protest arises from his deep disagreements with Gandhi’s politics. Gandhi used fast unto death several times as a weapon both against British and once against the separate electorates too. Ambedkar had to relinquish his demands and compromise due to Gandhi’s fast. Ambedkar’s opposition to such form of protest can be seen in some of his statements, even before independence.
From this, we may infer that the actual reason for Ambedkar’s opposition is Gandhi and Ambedkar’s experience of being on the other end of the Gandhian protest. Incompatibility with Constitution is only used as a mask when he made these remarks in Constituent Assembly.
As one can see, there’s a lot of subjectivity in the above interpretation and hence a larger scope of disagreement. Surely, no one knows the inner workings of Ambedkar’s mind. So, we can’t possibly tell. But, this can be one of the promising reasons.
The other way to understand Ambedkar is not to link the dots historically as we did above, but examine Ambedkar’s arguments by situating them in his broader philosophy of Constitution.
Pratap Bhanu Mehta (PBM) summarises Ambedkar’s approach as that of Grote’s ‘constitutional morality that emphasises “self-restraint, respect for plurality, deference to processes, scepticism about authoritative claims to popular sovereignty”.
PBM says that Ambedkar criticised Satyagraha because it is against the principle of constitutional morality in two ways:
1. Fast unto death presumes monopoly of truth that doesn’t acknowledge other’s point of view. It is thus against the “respect for plurality” aspect of constitutional morality.
2. Fast unto death’s “agents see themselves as personifying the good of the whole”. Demands through Satyagraha posit “authoritative claims to popular sovereignty”, which is against constitutional morality.
We note that both the arguments of “respect for the plurality of viewpoints or shades of truth” and “no authoritative claim for popular sovereignty” embody an underlying principle of anti-absolutism — there’s no one truth and there’s no one place for sovereignty. There are four problems with this argument.
1. Disregard for genuine cases: The concepts of “no single truth” and “no single centre for popular sovereignty” may seem true in many cases but by saying that everything is a shade of grey in all circumstances delegitimises genuine claims in some cases.
2. Favours those who can create shades of grey: The condition of “respect for the plurality of truth” favours those who can turn even an evident truth into a facade of shades of grey. The mighty state with its influence over the media can easily create narratives to delegitimise protestors’ problems and demands.
3. Favours the beneficiaries of the status quo: In a context, where inaction and persistence of status-quo is a victory of the state and a defeat for the common citizen, any narrative that creates hurdles for protestors helps the sustenance of status qu
Ambedkar’s arguments merely say that fast unto death isn’t acceptable in democracy but don’t say the reasoning behind it. Why shouldn’t fast unto death be allowed, when it is nonviolent? If it is not to be allowed, why didn’t the Constitution put specific restrictions on it?
Merely quoting Ambedkar’s speech is thus an incomplete argument against fast unto death. We should examine, why Ambedkar said what he said, to make a sense of his statement.
One possible reason could be that Ambedkar’s opposition for fast unto death as a form of protest arises from his deep disagreements with Gandhi’s politics. Gandhi used fast unto death several times as a weapon both against British and once against the separate electorates too. Ambedkar had to relinquish his demands and compromise due to Gandhi’s fast. Ambedkar’s opposition to such form of protest can be seen in some of his statements, even before independence.
From this, we may infer that the actual reason for Ambedkar’s opposition is Gandhi and Ambedkar’s experience of being on the other end of the Gandhian protest. Incompatibility with Constitution is only used as a mask when he made these remarks in Constituent Assembly.
As one can see, there’s a lot of subjectivity in the above interpretation and hence a larger scope of disagreement. Surely, no one knows the inner workings of Ambedkar’s mind. So, we can’t possibly tell. But, this can be one of the promising reasons.
The other way to understand Ambedkar is not to link the dots historically as we did above, but examine Ambedkar’s arguments by situating them in his broader philosophy of Constitution.
Pratap Bhanu Mehta (PBM) summarises Ambedkar’s approach as that of Grote’s ‘constitutional morality that emphasises “self-restraint, respect for plurality, deference to processes, scepticism about authoritative claims to popular sovereignty”.
PBM says that Ambedkar criticised Satyagraha because it is against the principle of constitutional morality in two ways:
1. Fast unto death presumes monopoly of truth that doesn’t acknowledge other’s point of view. It is thus against the “respect for plurality” aspect of constitutional morality.
2. Fast unto death’s “agents see themselves as personifying the good of the whole”. Demands through Satyagraha posit “authoritative claims to popular sovereignty”, which is against constitutional morality.
We note that both the arguments of “respect for the plurality of viewpoints or shades of truth” and “no authoritative claim for popular sovereignty” embody an underlying principle of anti-absolutism — there’s no one truth and there’s no one place for sovereignty. There are four problems with this argument.
1. Disregard for genuine cases: The concepts of “no single truth” and “no single centre for popular sovereignty” may seem true in many cases but by saying that everything is a shade of grey in all circumstances delegitimises genuine claims in some cases.
2. Favours those who can create shades of grey: The condition of “respect for the plurality of truth” favours those who can turn even an evident truth into a facade of shades of grey. The mighty state with its influence over the media can easily create narratives to delegitimise protestors’ problems and demands.
3. Favours the beneficiaries of the status quo: In a context, where inaction and persistence of status-quo is a victory of the state and a defeat for the common citizen, any narrative that creates hurdles for protestors helps the sustenance of status qu
Similar questions