Vol. 10 · pages 121–125

104 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (v) Adoption of the Rules of Procedure for the Plenary Conference. (vi) Setting up of Tripartite Organizations in Provinces. (vii) Representation of Labour in the Legislatures and other Bodies. (viii) Model Rules for Provident Funds. Of these items, there are two the importance of which I am sure will not escape you. I refer to Social Security and the Representation of Labour. They are inseparable. What is significant is that they are inescapable. They are matters of serious consideration all over the world and the Beveridge Report is only one instance of the general interest which the problem has aroused all over the world. We in India cannot shut our eyes to them. It is not for me to tell you how you should deal with them or what would be the correct attitude to take in regard to them. But you will permit me to make two observations which are germane to the issues which they cover. The first is this. Two Contradictions Those who are living under the capitalistic form of industrial organization and under the form of political organization called Parliamentary Democracy must recognize the contradictions of their systems. The first contradiction is between fabulous wealth and abject poverty not in its simple form but in its aggravated form in which we see it, wealth to those who do not work and poverty for those who do. The second contradiction lies between the political and the economic systems. In politics, equality ; in economics, inequality. One man one vote, one vote one value is our political maxim. Our maxim in econimics is a negation of our political maxim. There might be differences of opinion in the matter of resolving these contrasts. But there can be no difference of opinion on the point that these contradictions do exist. It is true these contradictions, though glaring, passed unnoticed by the mass of the people. But today the situation has changed and the contrasts which even the keenest was not aware of are now brought home even to the dullest. The second observation I wish to make is this. Ever since the basis of social life was changed from status to contract insecurity of life has

105 FIRST SESSION OF PLENARY LABOUR CONFERENCE become a social problem and its solution has occupied the thoughts of all those who believe in the betterment of human life. There has been an enormous energy spent in enunciating the rights of man and the different sorts of freedom which must be regarded as his inalienable birthright. All this, of course, is very good, very cheering. What I wish to say is that there will be very little security unless and until, to use the words of the Report of the Economic Group of the Pacific Relations Conference, these rights are translated into terms which the common man can understand, namely, peace, a house, adequate clothing, education, good health, and, above all, the right to walk with dignity on the world’s great boulevards without the fear of a fall. For Dignified Existence We, in India, cannot fail to recognize these problems or bypass them. We must be prepared for the revaluation of values. It will not be enough to make industrial development of India as our goal. We shall have to agree that any such industrial development shall be maintained at a socially desirable level. It will not be enough to bend our energies for the production of more wealth in India. We shall have to agree not merely to recognise the basic right of all Indians to share in that wealth as a means for a decent and dignified existence but to devise ways and means to insure him against insecurity. Before I conclude there is one matter to which I would like to make reference. Discussions at our meetings have sometimes tended to be rather discursive and unbusinesslike. I have no intention to be over-critical in this matter, but I would ask delegates to be as brief as possible and to keep to the point at issue. I do not wish to restrict the opportunities of any delegate to participate in the discussion and to make his contribution but I would ask you to remember that what we want to get at is the view of the delegate. He is welcome to explain his views. But the statement of his views need not always be accompanied by an elaborate chain of reasoning, at any rate where the reasoning is of the obvious kind. I am sure every one of you is as anxious as I am to make our proceedings thoroughly businesslike and thereby avoid laying ourselves open to the charge which Carlyle levelled against the House of Commons. zz

20 * Labour and Parliamentary Democracy [Speech delivered at the concluding session of the All India Trade Union Workers’ Study Camp held in Delhi from 8th to 17th September 1943 under the auspices of the Indian Federation of Labour. ] I appreciate very much the kind invitation of your Secretary to come and address you this evening. I was hesitating to accept this invitation and for two reasons. In the first place I can say very little which can bind the Government. Secondly I can say very little about Trade Unionism in which you are primarily interested. I accepted the invitation because your Secretary would not take a ‘ No ’ from me. I also felt that this was probably the best opportunity I can have to speak out my thoughts on Labour organization in India which have been uppermost in my mind and which I thought may even interest those who are primarily interested in Trade Unionism. The Government of human society has undergone some very significant changes. There was a time when the government of human society had taken the form of autocracy by Despotic Sovereigns. This was replaced after a long and bloody struggle by a system of government known as Parliamentary Democracy. It was felt that this was the last word in the frame work of government. It was believed to bring about the millennium in which every human being will have the right to liberty, property and pursuit of happiness. And there were good grounds for such high hopes. In Parliamentary Democracy there is the Legislature to express the voice of the people; there is the Executive which is subordinate to the Legislature and bound to obey the Legislature. Over and above the Legislature and the Executive there is the Judiciary to control both and keep them both within * Speech published by the Indian Federation of Labour, 30 Faiz Bazar, Delhi. Copy spared by Shri R. T. Shinde of Bombay.

107 LABOUR AND PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY prescribed bounds. Parliamentary Democracy has all the marks of a popular Government, a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is therefore a matter of some surprise that there has been a revolt against Parliamentary Democracy although not even a century has elapsed since its universal acceptance and inauguration. There is revolt against it in Italy, In Germany, in Russia, and in Spain, and there are very few countries in which there has not been discontent against Parliamentary Democracy. Why should there be this discontent and dissatisfaction against Parliamentary Democracy ? It is a question worth considering. There is no country in which the urgency of considering this question is greater than it is in India. India is negotiating to have Parliamentary Democracy. There is a great need of some one with sufficient courage to tell Indians “Beware of Parliamentary Democracy, it is not the best product, as it appeared to be.” Why has Parliamentary Democracy failed ? In the country of the dictators it has failed because it is a machine whose movements are very slow. It delays swift action. In a Parliamentary Democracy the Executive may be held up by the Legislature which may refuse to pass the laws which the Executive wants, and if it is not held up by the Legislature it may be held up by the Judiciary which may declare the laws as illegal. Parliamentary Democracy gives no free hand to Dictatorship, and that is why it is a discredited institution in countries like Italy, Spain and Germany which are ruled by Dictators. If Dictators alone were against Parliamentary Democracy it would not have mattered at all. Their testimony against Parliamentary Democracy would be no testimony at all. Indeed Parliamentary Democracy would be welcomed for the reason that it can be an effective check upon Dictatorship. But unfortunately there is a great deal of discontent against Parliamentary Democracy even in countries where people are opposed to Dictatorship. That is the most regrettable fact about Parliamentary Democracy. This is all more regrettable because Parliamentary Democracy has not been at a standstill. It has progressed in three directions. It has progressed by expanding the notion of Equality of Political rights. There are very few countries having Parliamentary Democracy which have not adult suffrage. It has recognized the principle of Equality of Social and Economic opportunity.

108 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES And thirdly it has recognised that the state cannot be held at bay by corporations which are anti-social in their purpose. With all this, there is immense discontent against Parliamentary Democracy even in countries pledged to Democracy. The reasons for discontent in such countries must obviously be different from those assigned by the dictator countries. There is no time to go into details. But it can be said in general terms that the discontent against Parliamentary Democracy is due to the realization that it has failed to assure to the masses the right to liberty, property or the pursuit of happiness. If this is true, it is important to know the causes which have brought about this failure. The causes for this failure may be found either in wrong ideology or wrong organization, or in both. I think the causes are to be found in both. As an illustration of wrong ideology which has vitiated Parliamentary Democracy I can only deal with only two. I have no doubt that what has ruined Parliamentary Democracy is the idea of freedom of contract. The idea became sanctified and was upheld in the name of liberty. Parliamentary Democracy took no notice of economic inequalities and did not care to examine the result of freedom of contract on the parties to the contract, should they happen to be unequal. It did not mind if the freedom of contract gave the strong the opportunity to defraud the weak. The result is that Parliamentary Democracy in standing out as protagonist of Liberty has continuously added to the economic wrongs of the poor, the downtrodden and the dis-inherited class. The second wrong ideology which has vitiated Parliamentary Democracy is the failure to realize that political democracy cannot succeed where there is no social and economic democracy. Some may question this proposition. To those who are disposed to question it, I will ask a counter question. Why Parliamentary Democracy collapsed so easily in Italy, Germany and Russia ? Why did it not collapse so easily in England and the U. S. A. ? To my mind there is only one answer—namely, there was a greater degree of economic and social democracy in the latter countries than it existed in the former. Social and economic democracy are the tissues and the fiber of a Political Democracy. The tougher the tissue and the fiber, the greater the strength of the body. Democracy is another name for equality. Parliamentary Democracy developed a passion for liberty. It never made even a nodding acquaintance with