What did ambedkar meant by contradictions in his concluding speech to the constituent assembly
Answers
Answered by
74
HEY MATE......
HERE IS UR ANSWER......❤❤
The word contradiction in Dr. B.R.Ambedkar's concluding speech to the constituent assembly referred to the disparity that was existing in the political, economic, and social arenas of society at that time. The newly adopted constitution had envisaged the principle of one man one vote, and one vote and one value, that denoted equality in terms of voting rights for all citizens of the country.
But on the contrary, vast inequalities existed amongst the different strata of society due to casteism and unequal wealth distribution. As a result, though politically each citizen of India irrespective of gender, caste, and income held equal ranks in voting rights, socially and economically they did not hold equal ranks and thus the contradiction.
HOPE IT HELPS YOU AND MARK AS BRAINLIEST........☺☺
HERE IS UR ANSWER......❤❤
The word contradiction in Dr. B.R.Ambedkar's concluding speech to the constituent assembly referred to the disparity that was existing in the political, economic, and social arenas of society at that time. The newly adopted constitution had envisaged the principle of one man one vote, and one vote and one value, that denoted equality in terms of voting rights for all citizens of the country.
But on the contrary, vast inequalities existed amongst the different strata of society due to casteism and unequal wealth distribution. As a result, though politically each citizen of India irrespective of gender, caste, and income held equal ranks in voting rights, socially and economically they did not hold equal ranks and thus the contradiction.
HOPE IT HELPS YOU AND MARK AS BRAINLIEST........☺☺
Answered by
4
Answer:
15. (i) In his concluding speech to the Constituent Assembly Dr. B.R. Ambedkar stated his anxiety over the unequal status of the dalits. He said that in politics the dalits would definitely enjoy equality but in social and economic life they would have inequality.
(ii) In politics they would be recognising the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. But in their social and economic life, they would continue to deny the principle of one man one value.
(iii) In this way, they would continue to live a life of contradictions. Naturally they needed equality in social as well as economic life
Similar questions