114th Birth Anniversary of B. R. Ambedkar: A thought

The answer lies in the politics of castes. To garner the votes of the so called backward classes our corrupt politicians have turned B.R. Ambedkar into a figurehead, and the rest of the country plays along, after all a holiday is a holiday.

What has fifty seven years of reservation and other such policies served. The answer is celebration of mediocrity. There is an interesting website by Rochana Bajpai where the intentions of the minority protection clauses are discussed. She states,

The continuation of a system of political safeguards in independent India for religious minorities and other ethno-cultural groups would, it was argued, perpetuate social divisions in the `body politic’ and thereby endanger the integrity and stability of the fledging nation. The concern regarding the impact of minority safeguards on the political integrity of the country dominated in this period, and other anxieties regarding minority safeguards were all mediated through this central concern. A second concern pertained to the implications of minority safeguards for the emergence of a common national identity. Nationalist opinion, for all its appeals to an eternal India, recognized that the new state had to create a common national identity that could unite its citizens, transcending group identities based on `caste, creed, and religion’ that divided them. Minority safeguards implied the recognition of group identities in the political realm, that it was felt, would promote particular group identities at the expense of wider national identities among citizens, and thereby inhibit the development of a common national identity for all citizens necessary for securing the political integrity of the nation.

Minority safeguards were regarded as inhibiting the development of a common national identity among citizens in several ways. At the level of the individual, it was felt that safeguards would encourage individuals to think of themselves and to associate primarily in `narrow’ group terms in public political matters, rather than in terms of `larger’ national issues. At the level of the group, it was felt that minority safeguards would legitimize and strengthen group identities that were `distinct from, and potentially in competition with, common citizenship identities.’

Nationalist opinion looked upon group identities with suspicion: while religious identities were seen as direct rivals to national identities, having recently formed the basis of claims for an alternative nation-state, caste, regional and other ascriptive groups were also viewed as competing loci for citizens’ affections, detracting from a common citizenship identity in proportion of their strength.

Third, not only did minority safeguards undermine the creation of a common national identity by vitalizing group identities, the content of these group identities was regarded as antithetical to the content of the national identity that the Constitution-makers sought to fashion. Minority safeguards were instituted for groups defined in terms of the ascriptive criteria of religion, caste, and tribe, whereas the national identity aspired to by the nationalist elite was defined in secular liberal democratic terms that eschewed references to ethno-cultural criteria.

While the `nation’ had not been regarded as antagonistic to such `communities’ in early nationalist visions of the nation, in our period, ascriptive criteria were held in disfavor. The Indian nation was conceived not in ethnic or cultural terms, but as a political community, united by its commitment to common political ideals of secularism, democracy, rights, equality and A common national identity was also regarded as a prerequisite for the successful functioning of a democratic state. Pandit Govind Vallabh Pant argued: `...For the success of democracy one must train himself in the art of self-discipline. In democracies one should care less for himself and more for others. There cannot be any divided loyalty. All loyalties must exclusively be centred round the State.

It can be seen that the constituent assembly was fully aware of the real dangers of reservation and all of their gloomy predictions have turned out to be true.

The politics of reservation has meant that mediocre people with a certificate are ruling the roost, and we have developed a nation where merit has no value. Clowns like Laloo Yadav and Ram Vilas Paswan are multi millionaires and remain in power not by preaching allegiance to the State but to narrow caste and religion.

If this is the Constitution that B. R. Ambedkar has drawn up then his birthday should be celebrated as a black day in Indian History.

The constitution was destroyed by Indira Gandhi with the help of the Supreme Court, and in the 54 years of its existence it has only helped the corrupt politicians and big money. Today we live in a divided nation where the only god is money earned by hook or by crook, and contributing greatly to the global warming by the hot air released by crooked leftist politicians and historians.

Nobody cares for the Nation and today India is perhaps one of the few countries where there is no nationalistic feelings and the citizens are totally devoid of civic sense and genuine feelings for each other.

One of the major drawbacks of the Indian education system is mass copying , but then why blame the students, the father and sub fathers of our constitution wrote our constitution by taking bits and pieces from the American constitution and British law and any other document they could lay their hands on. This constitution has not served any purpose for the freedom and development of the nation. It is an insult to all those valiant freedom fighters who gave up their lives and well being to make this country independent.

It is time that this constitution is scrapped and the true nationalists get together and draw up a new one which will bring a new dawn to this country and put an end to the politics of reservation, corruption and bring true freedom to the people of India.