EDITORIALS & ARTICLES
Elaborate the concept of constitutional morality as given by B.R.Ambedkar. (UPSC CSE Mains 2018 - Sociology, Paper 2)
- Ambedkar’s inspiration for the concept of constitutional morality, that he introduced in his speech of November 4, 1949 on the draft constitution, and on November 25, 1949 in his final reply to the debate, was the 19th century British historian and Enlightenment thinker George Grote (1794-1871). On defending Athenian democracy against its critics from Plato onwards to his contemporaries, Grote suggested that Athens had given to the world a notion of democracy that rested on the twin planks of freedom and self-restraint.
- In tune with the constitutional morality, citizens had the right to freely criticise the holders of power as long as they observed restraint. But for this to happen, they had to be confident that every political leader held the constitution to be sacred. The relationship between political authority and the rights and responsibilities of citizens was based on shared respect for the morality of the constitution. The government had special responsibility; morality had to be taught to the people through example. Constitutional morality bred moderate politics, otherwise societies will land up, according to Grote, with the sort of excesses that were bred by the French revolution.
- Ambedkar applied the same logic to the Indian case. It is only when society is saturated with constitutional morality, that we can take the risk of omitting the details of administration in the constitution. For constitutional morality has to be cultivated; it is not a natural sentiment. Indians had yet to learn it because our society is profoundly undemocratic.
- The first implication was that the virtue had to be inculcated in the people by a government that is passionately attached to the morality of the constitution. Leaders had to be exemplars. They could not show disrespect for the constitution and expect respect from the citizens for their own constitutionally mandated positions of power. Therefore, the first goal they had to protect was the freedom of the citizens.
- The second implication of Ambedkar’s notion of constitutional morality, self-restraint, was that all clashes of interest and all conflicts had to be resolved within the framework of the constitution, and in accordance with the morality of the constitution. For Ambedkar, the adoption of the constitution and the transition from subject to citizen, marked the end of agitational politics. Since the 1920s the Indian people had mobilised in one of the major struggles for freedom in the 20th century. Mass movements had succeeded in challenging the colonial government on practically every policy. Now it was time for Indians to transit from agitational politics to the politics of responsible citizenship. It must mean that we abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha”.
- In a vital way Ambedkar’s argument inaugurated the idea that we can resolve issues democratically only through dialogue between equals. There is much more that can be said about democracy through dialogue. The crucial point is that we can practice self-restraint in politics if we are confident that power holders respect the morality of the constitution. But if they begin to denigrate the constitution, particularly the chapter on fundamental rights that marries freedom to self-restraint, sections of society are encouraged to infringe the dignity of their co-citizens, that dignity that is protected through rights. They can only do so if they are confident that the political elite is not passionately attached to the morality of our constitution, which is the morality of democracy and justice.
- When the power elite fails to honour the constitution, both the politics of freedom and that of self-restraint are compromised, uncertainty wracks society, and anomie follows.
Next
previous
Latest News
General Studies