 Good afternoon one and all Dr. Aniruddha Babur this side your host for today's afternoon Today is a very important day and not just because we are starting the Dr. Ambedkar Nature series, but also today is a birth anniversary 130th birth anniversary of Dr. B. Adam Vedkar So I'm personally Have a sense of pride in me that Our test of college has granted this opportunity to dot-tox webinar committee to organize this lecture series dedicated to Dr. B. R. Ambedkar so With this sense of gratitude Kindly allows me to begin and open today's session dear friends and all the dignitaries How is the growth of a democratic nation assist? Have you ever thought of it all of you? The obvious and most Intuitive answer is the extent of prevalence of democratic norms However in a democratic nation These democratic norms are regulated and promoted by laws and legal institutions a Progressive democracy requires that the laws are framed for the fullest realization of human potential And these laws are adequately enforced These aspects were aptly covered by dr. D. R. Ambedkar the father of Indian constitution Indiconsuited assembly debates by reference to the constitutional morality In terms of dr. Ambedkar, I can recall constitutional morality is a paramount reverence for the forms of the constitution and enforcing obedience to authority and Acting under and within these forms yet combined with the habit of open speech of action subject only to definite legal control and Understrained censure of those very authorities as to all their public acts combined to with perfect Actions in the bosom of every citizen amidst the bitterness of party contest at the forms of Constitution will not be less sacred in the eyes of his opponents than his own As a look and the idea is it very rarely for both parts of discourse Later on legal discourse until recently Reference it by Supreme Court in number of judgments Ladies and gentlemen dear friends I welcome you again to the first lecture of the Doc Docs webinar series Which we have dedicated to the life Struggle and thoughts of dr. V. Adam bedkar So in the lecture series, we are pleased to announce that We are going to organize a first lecture that would be delivered by V. Geeta and She's a feminist historian and translator She is feminist historian and translator from Amaladu who writes on caste gender labor and education She writes in English and Tamil and lives in Chennai her published work includes undoing impunity speech after sexual violence, which was published in 2016 and towards a non-grammarine millennium from IoT tasks to Perrier 1998-2008 and she is currently completing a book on bedker's relationship to socialism in fact when we decided to organize This lecture series on a bedkar Titled the relevance and significance of dr. Pierre on bedkar today and tomorrow We had something in our mind that is to contextualize a bedker in the context of the modern needs of India How did a bedkar visualized this nation and where are we standing now and what would be the future road map in reference to the model of the embed charisma This would be I believe the foundational aspect That will be covered not only by you know our present speaker, but the subsequent speakers as well so without wasting any more time without Without sharing any more without wasting any more second I Request madam we need her to take a charge of this virtual stage and Begin her presentation. We are really eager to listen to you ma'am today is a fortune-tepril and You know on this occasion. We are really grateful to you that you have agreed to deliver the lecture So this is how a text of college is celebrating I'm bedkar. Jane. This is how we all are going to celebrate I'm bedkar. Jane the 130th birthday anniversary of the dr. Thank you so much over to you ma'am, please. Thank you very much dr. Bobber and Thanks, Texas College for Asking me to deliver the opening lecture of your series very honored to be here I only wish we could have all met in person and I would have very much to like to visit you in Nagaland To be that as it may we may do with what we have at the moment So while preparing for this lecture I went back to the constituent assembly debates on the sixth schedule of the Constitution of India, which was discussed at great length in 1949 and one of the issues that emerged as extremely contentious had to do with the Autonomous councils that were to be set up in the former district of Assam which included present day Nagaland amongst other places and The course of the debates there were many who were opposed to the setting up of such autonomous Tribal councils as they were called then and there was a lot of back and forth in the Constituent Assembly on Why should we do this? Will does not impair the unity of the country and how might we trust the Naga people? Isn't there a tradition amongst them of being headhunters? how would they fit into the modern Indian nation state and so on and so forth and Many of the objections were raised by predictably a non Nagas and largely from the plains and after this discussion had gone on for several Hours you had Jaipal Singh the very important indigenous people's leader from Central India from what is today Jharkhand intervening and he said he was extremely upset and struck by the animosity that was on display in the Constituent Assembly And at the contempt that some people seem to have for the Naga people and he considered it extremely Unfortunate and he said for those of you who hold these extremely problematic opinions I recommend that you read more and he references the anthropologist Hyman Dov's book and says that These prejudicial opinions must be got over and that the need for these autonomous councils must be recognized and accepted So following Jaipal Singh you had A.B. Thakkar also speaking and A.B. Thakkar as some of you might know Was a Gandhian. He had first visited the Naga Hills in the 1920s and while he supported the demand for autonomous councils and he endorsed the Many aspects of the sixth schedule. He also made it clear that he thought the Naga's were not yet ready to be part of the Indian nation-state in their present stage and That they were somewhat within course backward people and this would be a way of Eventually integrating them into the nation-state. So that was Thakkar and then you had many others speaking and finally Dr. Ambedkar had to Intervene because he as you know Was the head of the drafting committee of the Constituent Assembly and he had worked very hard to draft a sixth schedule along with others And he made the case as to why the drafting committee and the members of the fundamental rights committee and the minorities committee Had thought it fit to grant These autonomous councils in several parts of what we today call the northeast of India Many of which were at that time part of the huge province of Assam So Dr. Ambedkar pointed to the fact that the Naga's were not The same as the rest of the Indian people that culturally historically they shared more with Communities and histories that lay beyond the borders of the Indian nation that they were entitled to their own governing councils and Their historical difference must be acknowledged and accounted for and Again, there was a lot of Argument and people said Ambedkar Was sort of doing Was endorsing a move that would work against the unity of India and so on and so forth and Ambedkar came back to argue that while he sees the importance of these autonomous councils He does not think that they would come in the way of the unity of India and he speaks of the role to be played by the executive and How the role of the governor is to be minimized and so on and so forth. It's a very extended discussion I won't go into it, but what is interesting? In the context of the present and looking at it in 2021 is that Those that endorse the right of the people of Naga land and in and the various communities that make up the Northeastern part of this country to have their own Governing councils autonomous council tribal councils and names have varied over the years All of them acknowledge the historical specificity of these communities and Jai pal Singh in particular Endors this demand and Nicholas Roy from The Cassie Hills also endorsed this demand and both Jai pal Singh and Nicholas Roy also pointed out to the fact that Even the granting of these autonomous councils was much less than what the people in this region want and This is also something that border law who went on to become the chief minister of Assam He also said that we are granting Less than half of what people wanted and of course, I don't have to tell the citizens of Naga land The historical development since then, you know it much better than I you also know What Roy and Singh and border law I meant when they said that we are offering much less than what was asked for And be that as it may within the terms of reference of the constituent assembly This was what was agreed upon and this was what came to pass and became the sixth schedule Now what's important for me is to sort of Take a look at Ambedkar's own position on these councils and how do we understand his argument that the Nagas are a historically specific and culturally specific community and that they need Constitutional protection in the form of these councils and I think this is a very interesting question because Ambedkar had Extremely complex views on the so-called tribal question and if any of you who has read the annihilation of caste It's likely that you feel somewhat dismayed when he notes that The so-called aboriginals of India are not yet ready to Represent themselves and that their representatives must be nominated and this forces a great deal of dismay amongst Contemporary scholars and I'm sure it caused dismay even in its own time But the important thing for us to notice is that this was not the only position of them They could took on the so-called tribal question earlier on this position was stated in 1936 but earlier on During the Simon Commission hearings and some of you know what that was the British government Set up a commission under Sir John Simon in 1928 29 to travel to India and to judge the readiness so to speak of Indians for greater Indian presence in the colonial government and During the Simon Commission hearings You have Ambedkar cross examining the number of British bureaucrats and then you see him actually pushing the case for Tribal self-representation. So it's quite curious that eight years later. He would Sort of say that the aboriginal people's of India Their representatives must be nominated Subsequently when the matter came up for discussion in the late 1930s He took a different position and said I think I have enough on my hands Working for the cause of the so-called untouchables the delights of today So I do not think that I should be the one that has To take responsibility for the tribal question as well So he was very aware of the specificity of that question at some point He seems to have imagined that This cannot be addressed through a politics of direct representation That the aboriginals of India must be represented by a nominee who was selected by the colonial government But he didn't hold on to this position entirely all the time What's interesting about this position? There are two things that are interesting. One is that His arguments as to why the aboriginal peoples of India cannot represent themselves Do not really hinge on his understanding of Their histories or their cultures, but it has everything to do with how the so-called Hindus as he calls them Have over a period of historical time dealt with the aboriginals So like a lot of modern thinkers He held that the aboriginals must be brought within The framework of modern So-called civilized life and that the Hindus have not done their bit in ensuring That the aboriginal peoples can be part of modern society. They have not gone about educating them They have not gone about ensuring that a modernity has sort of available to them with all his all its gifts and promises So his critique was really of the past Hindus in this in this matter but In 1949 when it came to the sixth schedule, we see him taking a very different line It's not so much anymore about who shall represent the indigenous people of the northeast, but it's more about how Can be historically and culturally Ways of living of these groups of people be Endosed protected and continued on terms that they decide so here he was sort of Viewing the indigenous question in the northeast in terms of politics of statutory constitutional protection of minorities So he viewed them as minorities within the larger political framework of the indian nation So this is where I want to sort of this is what I want to use as an entry point to understand the democratic politics of dr. Ambedkar And the importance he assigned to the term minority So for many of us the term minority appears very self-explanatory So if there are 100 people in a society and 80 of them belong to a particular ethnic group or linguistic group or religious group or social group They constitute the majority and the others are the minorities Ambedkar though was not content with that very simple numerical definition of a minority He complicated that argument quite In a very interesting way from his earliest days in political life So When he was called upon to speak at the simon commission hearings He defined the Dalits as a minority now That's a very rare move because the Dalits are the so-called untouchables who are outside the social framework of Hindu society Um, and not usually viewed as a minority. They are seen as victims of the caste system, which is how Gandhi saw them They are seen as those who are oppressed But seldom were they seen as a minority, but ambedkar argued that they constitute a minority They were not a minority like the muslims were he said the muslims by virtue of their religion Are a religious minority whereas the Dalits He said are a minority in view of the fact that throughout history They have been consistently oppressed. So he called them an oppressed minority minority so in a very interesting way he sort of Extended the meaning of the term minority right from the 1920s And as far as the Dalits were concerned, he also insisted that They were different and now what did he mean by the fact of difference? Did it mean that they were not Hindus? Did it mean that they belong to another race? How did he view this difference that he thought that um that characterized Dalit existence? So in his uh early speeches say in his very first official submission to the British government where he argues that Dalits should be elected rather than nominated to whatever legislature existed in British India You have ambedkar saying that In the legislature, there are many people who represent particular interests. You have merchants. You have landlords. You have the muslims You have the Anglo-Indians. You have the Christians And they represent particular interests And he went on to say These interests are all important. Yes But the Dalits represent an interest which is far more important than all of these Not because they're they their interests are somehow Greater than the that are the others But their interests are important because as far as Hindu society is concerned The Dalits have their very person confiscated. These are his words So their very personhood has been confiscated They've been relegated to the realm of non personhood. They're not viewed as human beings So they have the greatest stakes in asserting their humanity So he therefore Defined Dalits has been different in this sense that they have had their very persons confiscated To represent themselves therefore becomes a very urgent and inevitable political gesture So this is in 1919 In 1928 as I stated earlier, he Characterized them as a suffering minority as an oppressed minority And interestingly enough he said What we are asking for these political safeguards just as how the Naga councils would have been one sort of political safeguard These political safeguards. I don't think it's going to make the caste Hindus View the Dalits with affection. I don't think that's going to happen in a hurry But he said they will create the conditions for Dalits to be part of political life And being present in political spaces. They can make their point of view known Expand the nature of political discourse And in this mingling of Dalits and non Dalits You will see that certain sorts of prejudices and barriers are bound to break down. So he felt that being in politics was a very Important pedagogical Move where we all learn to respect and to listen to each other So politics was to be a sort of school for democracy So that's why he made such a case for Dalit self representation As minorities as people whose persons have been confiscated to be Representing themselves in the Legislature in British India. This was in the 1920s In the 1930s, he argued that the Dalits Are not Hindus and this is an interesting move on his part because he didn't start out his political life arguing Dalits were not Hindus But from the beginning he Let's say challenged the Hindus On the question of untouchability, he said if you think Dalits are Hindus, why are you not letting them into your temples? If you argue that Dalits Must be prevented from converting to Christianity or Islam And that they should remain Hindus then why are you so averse to your fellow Hindus drinking water from a common tank? You say you have this extremely Expensive and rich philosophical tradition where all beings are one in the eyes of the great Brahman Of the spirit of the unknown spirit of which we are all Constituents if that is the case if your philosophy is indeed so generous then why is it in practice? You are unable to give up untouchability. So in the early years through the 1920s He challenged the Hindus to fight against untouchability, but over the years especially during the 1930s He Slowly began to sort of move away from that position and to argue Clearly there's no point in arguing with you, arguing with you Hindus because it's very clear that You are not willing to see Dalits as your fellow human beings If that's the case why must Dalits continue to be part of this so-called Hindu fraternity? And it's not even a fraternity. It's a caste system. I'll come to that in a minute But basically Ambedkar's arguments was that the Dalits are not Hindus And that they are a separate entity a separate political entity They have to be viewed as a minority They have to be granted separate electorates by which he meant that Dalits will vote to elect fellow Dalits to The assembly or to parliament Usually that's not the case all of us vote to elect candidates in our constituencies But if you had separate electorates then only Nagas can elect Nagas only Muslims can elect Muslims Dalits can elect Dalits now This might seem a bit odd for many of us because in a democracy ideally all of us are equal Each of us should learn to respect the other's interest as one's own interest But we know that's not how it is. You can have a best friend who's a non-Naga But when it comes to the assertion of naga rights chances are you might end up quarreling and arguing you may see Things very differently. Now as long as you're in dialogue, that's fine But supposing that dialogue breaks down and your interest as a naga person Cannot be protected in political or institutional terms Then you know that you're not as equal as your fellow non-Naga So for America that was a question if Dalit interests cannot be protected as well as the interests of caste Hindus Um, then it's very important for Dalits to keep asserting why their interests are different Why their situation is different why historically they deserve to be treated in a certain way And so on and so forth So America's understanding of the whole term minority was a very complex and interesting aspect of his political thought and he held on to this for more or less his entire life and I think this is important for us to keep in mind because This is what made him understand the need for eternal responses in the Northeast that minorities need statutory protection In a context where the majority is very unlikely to yield to their demands. This was very true of the Dalits and He also saw how um an emergent Indian state might not tolerate the claims that might be put forth by various other minorities ethnic minorities linguistic minorities, um, and so on So this is uh, as far as his understanding of the minority question is concerned The second thing is he also held very complex moves on the um political Shape of India. Now we know India is a is a republic a democracy That it is a unitary nation state that is it has a central government and it has all these state governments But in over the years things have evolved in such a way that the power vested in the central government has Not really sort of been fundamentally transformed Dr. Babur himself has written about India's federalism and and what sort of federalism on maker imagined it to be What is it in practice? Um, our our regional governments and the central governments Equal in their sovereignty um, how might one understand the division of power within the federal Between the central government and the state government and so on. It's a complex question and I come from a state the state of Tamil Nadu That where our political leaders have always argued that India is an imperfect federal Quality they have pointed to a great many factors including the the budget including the the taxation system The sharing of river waters number of issues on which they feel the states ought to be Given greater leeway and greater power and greater authority and so on Anyway, it's a it's a continuing dialogue now Ambedkar's position on this was very interesting And I think there are three aspects to his position on the relationship between the state and the center One is that he was very conscious all the time That in most states in India and here I'm not talking of the northeast where caste is not such a Central feature of everyday life But in those parts of India where caste is a very important principle of social organization You see that in any region with Maharashtra or Tamil Nadu or any part of India There are regionally dominant castes So you'll have the Yadavs in Uttar Pradesh for an example We'll have the Maracas and Say Maharashtra We'll have the Patel's and Gujarat. You have the one years in Tamil Nadu different castes So most of our states have At least two or three dominant castes and Ambedkar's fear was Even if you have a fully functional democracy where we all vote and so on Chances are that one or more of these regional castes will Dominate the quality and the Dalits will necessarily therefore be at the mercy of caste Hindu combined and then How would they be able to press forward their rights? How would they be able to function with their own interests? in mind And this is where he envisaged the rule for the federal or central government He viewed the central government and the federal government as arbitrating in ways that would protect An oppressed minority like the Dalits So that's one reason why he favored a more unitary than a federal More sort of decentralized form of the quality. That's at one level At another level though, you'll find that he was very critical of a federation where you had The so-called princes of India, you know that India had a lot of princely states prior to becoming independent And these princely states were not very comfortable with democracy And in British India when the British proposed the federation He wasn't sure what that would mean because these hundreds of Indian states with no democratic politics In that's that's sort of part of their their regions If they were to come into British India, they would be a very strong A conservative if not regressive force that would further strengthen colonial rule So this was an argument also he had against the kind of broad-based federation that was on the anvil in the 1930s Subsequently during the Constituent Assembly debates, he argued at several levels As we saw with the Sixth Schedule He was for a certain decentralization of power A certain shall we say The emergence of certain autonomous ways of functioning and so on and Therefore his position was sort of shifting over the period of time as far as the central and state governments were concerned But what's also interesting is Ambedkar when he spoke of The Sixth Schedule and as far as the Nagas are concerned in defending the autonomous forces He pointed to a very interesting and in some ways an unfortunate example To the reservations in the united states within which the native american Indians were to live and govern themselves Now we all know that the the native peoples of the united states are amongst the poorest And the most neglected of the populations in the united states And that they suffer from a high incidence of illness Addiction low levels of literacy and and certainly certainly they are one of the most subjugated of the american peoples So at that time perhaps Ambedkar didn't have a full enough picture of how the situation was and he imagined that if they were in their own um Specific spaces and had the rights of self-governance Their lives would be far better off and he that model he thought would work for india as well Now we know the problem with that model more than i i do. You know it much better than i do Be that as it may the thing is that That example that he invoked was also something that he invoked for the dalits because he said the dalits would fare better If they had nothing to do with the caste indians if they had their own separate villages Now this is a this is a very ironic move because on the one hand Ambedkar constantly argued that the caste system keeps us all apart in extremely Cruel ways. So why did he want separate villages for the dalits? It was actually on the basis of this logic That if dalits had their own spaces, they would not have to deal In an everyday sense with caste hindu oppression and caste hindu discrimination The logic was very similar when it came to the nagas when it came to the khasis and various others in the northeast so basically away from the hindus people could nourish their own culturally historical ways of being and Protected by the unitary indian state They would still have access to modernity And the way ambedkar understood the indian state was that it would be Adjust republic that it would be bound by constitutional morality that its leaders would abide by the letter and the spirit of the constitution and so on but then The the ambedkar's genius was such that even as he insisted these were important matters He also made it clear During the simon commission hearings that this is what we want This is the this is the state that we want, but there's no guarantee This is the state that we will get Because the way things are structured In india and the way the constituent assembly Sort of push ambedkar to draft the constitution on the basis of the 1935 act Made it very clear that the unitary indian state cannot but be a hindu major victorian state And ambedkar himself argues that he says in india you really don't have a political majority. You have a communal majority So he was very uh This was a genuine historical dilemma a modern state Which will take upon itself the responsibility of Of of of economic life of education of health was a necessary entity But how do you make the state representative and answerable to all the diverse Interests and populations in the indian subcontinent? So this was a challenge that he faced and he did not have any great illusions about how The the the indian state would be in practice, but neither did he see a way out of Engaging with the indian state He did not think that the state could be put away or challenged to armed violence because he didn't think such challenges would succeed And he himself While he believed in just wars did not think violent solutions made for the lasting peace So there were all these issues that he had in mind when he spoke of minorities their rights Their protections what the state ought to do for them and so on and so forth So today when we look back at that whole period and understand ambedkar's Contribution to the making of the sixth schedule Um, and it's links with his overall understanding of the minority question What do we then sort of Take as important from that history? Now one thing is very evident. We know that um to trust to the Unitary indian state to protect our rights is not a very sensible thing because like all Governments which have power and authority Unless the people put up a spirited resistance governments will be automatic So it is our movements our working with the law and the constitution our going to the courts Our protests on the streets the way we action democracy that makes the state accountable But the state is not always accountable and we know that from our long post independence history So how do we then view ambedkar's uh commitment to the state as a Representative of the sovereign will of the will of the people of india Now for ambedkar. It was a principle. He didn't think it was a dogma The state represents the sovereign good is a principle But how do you actualize that principle and who actualizes it? So it's the citizens who actualize that principle and here ambedkar Also has left us with a very rich legacy of how do you think about citizenship? What is citizenship? What is the role of the citizen in ensuring that the state is accountable? How do you understand citizen? action And here I think what is very important is ambedkar's critique of what he called the hindu social order or the caste system and untouchability Now some of us might wonder what does it have to do with citizenship as far as ambedkar was concerned It had everything to do with citizenship So one of his most important Set of writings not published during his lifetime But much later had to do with untouchability. They are called essays on untouchability And there he has several sections on how Caste Hindus or those that consider themselves superior to the Dalits and to the so-called lower caste Suffer from three things a they suffer from the want of a public conscience By which he means that they don't see the public as Constituted by several different groups Which are all not equal to each other and all of whose interests must be kept in mind They only think of the public in terms of their own caste interests So he said the caste Hindus suffer from the want of a public conscience So he has an essay by that on that theme second thing is Cast Hindus suffer from what of a social conscience that is they don't feel responsible for their fellow human beings The first case he said they don't have a public conscience They don't think of the public except In terms of their own caste and he says they lack a social conscience because they don't feel that they are responsible for their fellow citizens Um or as the by biblical saying has said they don't think that they are their brother's keepers Then the third thing that he also says it you can have a very good constitution You can have a preamble Charter of fundamental rights all of which are excellent Such as is there in our constitution But those that action the legal system those that work in government Those that are responsible for realizing the constitution They can be socially lawless he says So he says how if ordinary citizens Choose to act on the basis of what they think is culture or tradition And practice social discrimination practice untouchability Practice discrimination against women think of the indigenous population as less than a civilized consider them barbaric So where do all these ideas come from all these ideas come from the fact that the caste system Has made some of us think there's superior to others and that mentality Means that while in a formal sense, we'll abide by the law But in our daily interactions, we will continue to be as a maker sex socially lawless So you can be both law abiding and lawless and it was his argument And this I think uh this understanding of of of the hindu social order Of of the caste system. This is something that I want to spend some time on for the rest of my job because I think It tells us something about indian citizenship. So Why did ambedkar think that why did he think caste hindus don't have a public conscience don't have a social conscience? They will abide by custom and tradition and only in a formal sense by the law now Here we need to understand how ambedkar Um defined and understood the caste system or the caste system has been defined in many ways those who are students of sociology and anthropology I'm sure you're familiar with the literature But I think for him As somebody who was born into a community that was considered untouchable The caste system was fundamentally a system of power and authority So he described it in some extremely telling ways. So he viewed it as a system of hierarchy. It was a hierarchical social system where Communities are stacked one on top of each other In a pyramidal fashion. So at the bottom you have some people And just above them you have a lesser number of people above them even lesser above them even lesser And at the top you have a very small group of people. So it's like a pyramid And in this pyramid he said and the pyramid is a hierarchy. So in this pyramid as you keep going up You can expect to be respected and as you keep coming down, you are going to be subject to humiliation and disrespect So what he wanted us to note is was it's a very profound Um, social and psychological thing. He said in this pyramidal system, please note that nobody is equal to anybody else On the other hand, neither do you have a set of people who are superior and a set of people who are inferior So what do you have then? You don't have simple equality. You have something called graded inequality We are all unequal But we are all not unequal in the same way The Dalits are kept out of the system and the most oppressed But those within the system are graded in such a way that All those who suffer at the hands of those who are at the very top Will never feel that they should get together and take on those who are at the very top Why because Amitkar said the benefit and the burden of the caste system is shared very unequally So greater inequality makes it difficult for us to unite against our oppressors And therefore what do we do? So wherever I am in this pyramid, I look up to whoever is above me and I say I want to be like that guy. I want to be like them or I resent them for being on top of myself But then when I look down, I see that there are people beneath me in this pyramid And then I say I don't want to get there. I don't want to be like them So what does that make of me as a person? I am filled with resentment and aggression At the same time I resent not being Above the level where I am I'm very aggressive towards those who are below me So I don't have a healthy sense of myself. I don't have a healthy sense of self-respect And I feel aggrieved all the time and I'm aggressive all the time So or I feel anxious all the time. So for Amitkar What this meant was that you can never really feel that others are equal to you You can never really think that you want to be responsible for others And your sense of self is extremely Unstable therefore And it's made worse by the fact that to keep this system in place What keeps it in place people might wonder after all those who are in the middle if they become rich They can push their way to the top They can push their way to the top in an economic sense maybe but are they going to be respected? Therefore socially and culturally Amitkar wasn't sure he pointed to his own example He had was one of the most highly educated men of this time But he was still viewed as an untouchability So neither education nor wealth is going to make you Socially Equal to somebody thinks he or she is your superior So Amitkar's argument was of what holds the system in place. It's not just money or power And he pointed to what he called endogony What is endogony? That is you marry within a certain social circle. So each caste in India looks for Rides and grooms within its own caste. I'm sure you've seen these matrimonial ads If not, you must just go into a site like barren matrimony.com and you'll see how People are constantly seeking rides or grooms from within their own communities. This is More than 70 percent of India lives like that. So basically it is that caste endogony the the uh, let's say the Imperative to marry within your own community that keeps the community from mixing with other communities And which is why if a person falls in love outside his or her caste Families don't like it. There's fighting people run away and sometimes there's violence They get killed or they get killed. Uh, one of them gets killed and so on and so forth So there is this very violent Holding together of a caste and here Amitkar felt the person who was more subjugated within each caste were the women Because they were given very few choices in terms of who to marry How to conduct their lives how to go about their lives and so on So therefore foreign the caste system suffered from two levels of psychosocial Uh problems one nobody felt equal to anybody else people ended up feeling a mixture of resentment aggression and anxiety two Within each caste women and men were enjoying to marry only within and this did not make for a healthy sense of Friendship with the rest of the world and besides women were rarely boxed into making choices that They may not have been comfortable with A man marrying outside his caste especially if he was from a so-called upper caste And he married someone from a so-called lower caste that might be tolerated But a man from a so-called lower caste marrying a so-called upper caste that is not tolerated A woman from a so-called upper caste marrying a man from a so-called lower caste is not tolerated So women and those who are in the lower caste and the Dalits suffer the most in this caste system So this was Amitkar's Diagnosis of the caste system and he felt if you come out of this social system If you come out of the social system, what is your mindset going to be? How are you going to look at your fellow human beings? Even if you felt Unconditional affection even if you felt like respecting them Do you have the strength and the resources to stand up against your own community? Yes, you have a law on your side. Yes, you have the constitution on your side But you also need a body of people who think like you So for him What was Important was if you had to challenge this social system this caste system You have to understand that people Are the way they are because they think this is the way to be They think this is the way religion has asked them to be this is the way Hindu philosophy Has directed their lives to be So he felt as long as people saw this as a religious duty to observe caste differences It's very unlikely. They are going to practice equality and treat their fellow citizens with responsibility, affection and respect Which is why he felt that one had to abandon Hinduism if one wanted to be human Now some people agreed with them some fellow that it's a good Sunday night. The non delits agreed many didn't agree But his diagnosis was and he gives you a lot of reasons as to why he thinks his point of view is Is right that historically Hinduism has never been interested in equality In a religious sense, it supports inequality in other religions Everybody is equal in the eyes of god only human beings oppress each other as far as a hindu religion is concerned philosophically ethically It argues that god has created people in an unequal fashion So therefore Hindus refuse to give up on the caste system This was his critique of the caste system Which is why he said that we have to abandon Hinduism. There's no hope for us in this religion And we have to have a very different set of ethical principles by which we conduct our lives And he found these principles in Buddhism to which he converted at the end of his life now I want us to sort of connect on baith curse Um understanding of ethics with what I started out with that is support of minority rights Because I think one of the things that we face in India is apart from whatever political Problems there are with minorities claiming rights with people wanting self-determination With people wanting greater power in the regions. However, we name it All those who claim those rights are not granted the validity of their claims So whether it's the nandas whether it's the kechmeris whether it's the Um people who are fighting to save their forests and land and Jaakand or chatinskar or in odisha Whether it's the farmers in panjab all of them feel that they are not validated enough by their fellow human beings And that validation is what political philosophers call recognition You have to recognize the other person's point of view and claim as valid You can quarrel with it. You can argue with it But if you don't concede that human being as a Equal to yourself That her point of view is as valid as yours if you are not willing to enter into a civil debate If you cannot sit down and actually think through these matters Then there is no possibility of dialogue or of democracy So for ambedkar this whole thing of Inequality sanctioned by religion was a real problem He felt unless you accept unconditional equality That we may be different some of us are short some of us are tall some of us are talented in music others in writing Whatever differences we have they cannot be the basis of inequality so um Unconditional equality was what would make for a genuine democracy because only that would enable us address each other as equals as citizens and make us citizens otherwise we would remain caste persons so Move to being a citizen from being a caste person one needs a different ethical outlook Now if like ambedkar we feel convince that buddhism is what would help us That's one kind of a choice or if we feel we are part of religious traditions that actually allow us to treat other human beings With respect and commit us to democracy and dialogue That's another point of view or we might think we don't need religions We are rational people. We believe in reason. That's a third point of view But I think what ambedkar is pushing us to do is to think of the conditions for democracy Especially in a country like india Which has this graded inequality built into its social structure and which has been responsible for different kinds of discrimination different kinds of prejudices For different forms of aggression And for a refusal of equality at every level So even if we are from societies where the caste system is foreign to us We still have to reckon with the kindu social order So and I think here ambedkar's understanding of the hindu social order And the claims he makes for minorities. We have to see those as linked So unless we understand Why this system is the way it is then the sort of politics that ambedkar's tried to put in place Um will not make entire sense to us now the casting I wish to say is ambedkar was a man who was constantly Thinking and revising his views. So for him, there was nothing sacrosanct Even though he was he got very hard on drafting the constitution He did not have any personal egoistic attachment to that document He was very willing to think through its basis. Should there be Rational solid ethical reasons for us to do so. He didn't think of it like a fetish that you can't do anything In fact at one point he says though. I was responsible for drafting it at times. I feel like burning it So he he was frustrated also by by not being able to Realize constitutional principles and practice And he also knew that whatever he wanted to put into the into the constitution didn't find its place there But therefore he was constantly Reflecting on on on what one can do which is why between 1947 and 51 he spent a huge amount of time Working on the constitution, but towards the end of his life. He felt constitutional morality cannot Take root in a country where we don't have an ethics of care and equality if we don't have Compassion and respect for our fellow human beings. Whatever laws you have cannot be made actionable So he wanted to strike a balance between ethics and politics between The legal constitutional systems that we have set up and the kind of moral claims that we need to make on each other So this is a sort of legacy a very rich legacy that he's left us with And wherever we are we Stand to rethink and renew that legacy in keeping with the fundamental aspects of his Of his of his ideas Um, so I leave you with these thoughts and I'm happy to take questions or clarify Matters should anyone want clarification and once again, thank you very much test of college for inviting me to deliver this lecture Thank you very much Thank you so much. Gitaji for your enlightening lecture. I mean We really, you know lost in your words and they're really thought provocative Because when you think about dr. Pierre Ambedkar, you see that he Was a multi-dimensional personality Uh, he had developed views on you know, all about all walks of life. Basically, you know So therefore it is Necessary to understand Ambedkar in reference to changing dynamics of our society social order and the aspiration of the people of india as well So I opened this forum for the questions. So I believe The students are eager to ask questions. Our faculty members are also there If you have any question dear friends, you can you can free to ask Over to you all of you Someone's raised the hand I saw Yeah, go ahead Ask the question Okay, well, let people think about and digest also what you have just discussed with us and the questions will come Uh, I have a question right not a question as such but You know, I remember that I was just surfing through YouTube and I came across an interview Delivered by dr. Ambedkar uh to a journalist And that was broadcasted by bbc I'm not sure whether you have watched that interview or not Right. So in that interview dr. Pierre Ambedkar Stated somehow that that you know, he actually Trying to see whether The democracy in india Which he was trying to establish through constitutional mandate will work or not, right? And he was not very sure about that and the answer that he gave Uh to the india's caste system So gita g uh my question to all of you my question to you is that uh in reference to the caste identity Of course caste identity is one of the political card that has been played the politics upon in india So how how important is uh india's notion of the caste caste identity? Uh, you know, uh is important in case of You know the future uh and evolution of indian politics and democracy how long Will it be like this? How long can this the tag of the caste being played? Played on as one of the important assets in the political Mileage of the politicians. What does your take on it? You know Um, very briefly. I think If you have to sort of go back to Ambedkar's own writings and speeches For him If you have as long as there's a caste system, they will be cast and they are part of the social order And if you have a system where you have constitutional safeguards for the backward classes and the Dalits and the scheduled cast Then obviously these identities are the basis on which you can make claims on the state Whether it's for uh, uh electoral purposes for budgetary purposes for scholarships for employment A number of reasons why we all um hold up these identities as central In political life, but Ambedkar also at the same time Even as he saw that the claims that you make on the state Will emerge in the context of these identities. He also constantly pushed for the um, um erosion of these identities. He said this is not where we Need to be all the time. We need to also emerge into a more equal into a more fraternal into a more sort of Common social space common social and political space. So you'll see that while he works on Whatever needs to be done in the realm of government and elections. He's also constantly pushing On the social realm. He's challenging Religions. He's challenging social practices. He's um asking People especially Dalits to educate themselves to read widely to think So you have a constant dialectic between What may be gained electorally and in political terms and what needs to be done at the social Religious and cultural level. So therefore for Ambedkar, these identities will remain as long as the caste structure is what it is But then if the caste structure is to disappear, we have to also Relate to each other differently and therefore for that you need to work in the social religious and Cultural realm and he was doing both But currently in the indian context, we have the one but not the other So you I think there's there's something that's turned also over the last few years But specifically if you look at politics and electoral democracy, obviously Identities are important your caste whether you're a backward class person whether you're a Dalit from this region and so on these things matter It matters in education. It matters in state employment. But on the other hand We don't actually quite have this broad Social space that Ambedkar wanted to build for all of us not many of us are thinking about that all the time and I think that part of Of his legacy has to be renewed as importantly as his political legacy. Some people do but not nearly So that that dialectical that balance is very important in my understanding. Oh indeed indeed. That is that is important now Gitaji we have another question Let me just interpret to you for you that it is being asked by one of our students mosa sankam And he is he is an Ambedkarite scholar As far as I know so he is asking a question What is your take on separate electoral politics or maybe he is referring to separate electorates the kind of you know the issue That was there between dr. Ambedkar and the Gandhi and now there is a political dialogue also going on in the contemporary India that you know this this debate on separate You know electorate is has not yet died You know or rather the time has come for its revival You know people want to basically because what I understand and the way I have Understood and perceive the changing political dynamics somewhere even people are also opinion that this debate should be revived Okay, and the opportunity should be given to this experiment of separate You know electorates that's what dr. Ambedkar was arguing for so this is what mosa. I believe is asking so What is your take on it? Historically, of course, Ambedkar was making a very bold and provocative claim because he was also asking questions about representation itself As you know representation is very central to democratic politics who shall represent whom So basically Ambedkar's argument was that representation is not a simple thing of I live in this part of the world And anybody who's there can represent my interest He said that cannot be the case because our interests are segmented and Dalits have a very special interest in their person Who's being confiscated so he starts sort of challenging the given premises of western notions of democracy itself So basically he's saying that the most oppressed must be given enough statutory support and protection So that they can not only represent their concerns But they can also be strong enough to get others to listen to them. See this is very important for Ambedkar Which is why he talks of adequacy of representation. He doesn't say proportional representation So it's not that it Dalits are 18 percent in the population 18 percent of seats in parliament should be allotted to them. He would want more he would want a more A graduated sense of representation. He would you would want points He would want Certain kinds of factors to be kept in mind. So rather than 18 percent He might want 24 percent or 26 percent depending on the population depending on the region and so on So his idea of separate electorates must also be linked to adequate representation So Dalits will vote Dalits into parliament or assemblies The number of seats that Dalit shall contest should not only be in proportion to their population Other minorities should also sort of have statutory protection in the assembly and in the legislature And the way these seats are allotted It should be in such a way that no one minority holds the balance But the minorities through their combination can hold the majority in check So these are very nuanced arguments he makes about electorates and representation And well, of course, all this is based on actual elections that were contested and won in British India He pointed out to the fact that in a country that is so unequal and so varied The minorities each minority is left to itself We cannot ever hope to challenge the caste Hindu majority On the other hand, no minority should sort of be in a position to hold in ransom other minorities Which is what he felt the Muslim League was doing in his own time So basically he wanted to Envisage the system of checks and balances that would allow for a very Strategic as well as ethical combination of minorities who can challenge the majority So this is how I understand the separate electorate question And in our own time, yes, the debate has been revived and some interesting Arguments are being put forth But one thing we may want to think about also is that One thing is to have representatives that represent The interests whether it's Dalit interest or Naga interest or women's interest and so on But it's another matter entirely to make them accountable And the way the Indian state system is and the electoral system is We will need a lot more electoral reform For those who elect to be accountable to those that elect them And I think that is also a very important part of The politics that Ambedkar put forth because one of his greatest criticisms was reserved for all those who joined the Indian National Congress because he felt Those Dalits have ceased to be accountable to their fellow Dalits. So the question of accountability was very important for Ambedkar also Indeed. Thank you for this elaborative reply. Mosa. I believe you got Your answer. Yes accountability electoral reforms Now I remember the quote of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar where he states that I like the religion that teaches liberty equality and fraternity now in this context I just want to ask that Dr. Ambedkar has understood The emancipation of the downtrodden communities Basically, we know that he was not just a Dalit leader. He was leader of all the oppressed communities So when we think about his view on politics political transformation Emancipation of the downtrodden people including Dalits and the woman And his conversion to Buddhism, right? So basically we see two models one is a political model and second is a religious model. Okay, this is what you know Ambedkar becomes a unique person, right if you compare him to the Marx right who completely rejected the religion So how far dr. Ambedkar's Buddhism model Has a succeed at the social level right because he has seen Buddhism as a as a kind of how to say a safe heaven a protect kind of a protection a kind of freedom where people will will have a social economic and cultural and political freedom and You know the kind of stigma which that people have carried for generation and generation the stigma of caste Would be washed away when they accept or embrace Buddhism But now what I understand is that you know the political elements have entirely corrupted The Buddhist movement that dr. Ambedkar has visualized and started So how do you see you know this this entire chaos? I mean Do you see is there any hopes for that? See I think Ambedkar was engaged not just in a you know in a struggle that Had to do with the with let's say an immediate past right So when he challenges Hinduism and he says that it is not a religion which encourages or endorses liberty equality and fraternity He's actually passing a historical judgment on a very ancient faith And he is looking at an equally ancient creed which is Buddhism and he says that Brahmanical Hinduism and Buddhism have always been locked in a historical battle and Buddhism Lost out for any number of reasons But it's important to revive that historical legacy And he was very aware that what he was doing may not lead to changes in the here and now or even for the next 50 years or 100 years because Historically the way Brahmanism had dealt with Buddhism and not disappeared because any dissent any opposition to Hinduism was constantly sort of resisted and co-opted by the hegemonic grammatical forces So therefore he was very aware that even his own conversion the conversion along with a very Thousands of delights to Buddhism was an important historical move But that historical move had to be sustained and you had to work on several other fronts not simply In conversion was not and the way I understand the method It's not a point of arrival. It's a point of departure also You're exiting Hinduism you're entering into a new way of being and has to what that will be How will you conduct yourself? How what will happen to you in this world? How will others look at you? These were these were all sort of risks that Dalits took in 1956 And I think Buddhism has has meant a phenomenal difference to those Dalits who continued to hold Ambedkar's legacy as important and who Try to work with it in creative and productive ways But the thing is also one cannot just be a Convert To Buddhism was an option that Ambedkar opened up to all of us not just to Dalits and I don't think this Is Been such a studied Ignoring of that event as we've had in India Most Indians believe that it has nothing to do with them. It has everything to do with Dalits But actually it's an indictment of Hinduism. It's an indictment of past Hindus And if I were believing into I would sit up and take notice and say why are people doing this? What's wrong with my religion? Should I think about some of these things? But instead ostrich like we've decided this has nothing to do with this Is everything to do with the Dalits and Therefore what has happened is there's been a ghettoization of the No, but this and the way caste works We all know the more you push people into a corner the more they are stuck there So within that then of course you will have more opportunism for For various kinds of you know distortions that that are bound to arise See democracy works when all of us are equally democratic If only one section wishes to be democratic that section is bound to suffer So likewise a new set of ethical principles which Ambedkar felt Buddhism offered all of us Our principles that all of us should take seriously. We may or may not accept Buddhism But if we don't take the ethics of what Buddhism represents seriously Then Dalits who have risked Conversion and left to their own They have to build on their own resources, which is what I think have done remarkably in wherever conversion has happened And continues to happen And as Ambedkar makes clear in his essays on that that should be the challenge really is to cast Hindus What are we going to do about it? Thank you. Thank you so much, ma'am. There is another question coming from Joshua our student He's asking is democracy possible where religious or ethnic conflict exists? It's a good question. Democracy requires conflict to be understood in rationally political terms But if conflict is to be addressed only through As a law and order problem or as a security problem or as a problem that can only be settled through violence Then of course democracy will suffer Throughout history, we've had people of different ethnic interests religious interests political interests trying to sort of Come together in the name of something that holds them all together Sometimes it's the nation sometimes it's geography. We all live in the same place And of course we quarrel we fight we sometimes kill each other But we're also constantly pushing to stay together as a people, right? We want to communicate be in touch and so on and so forth So, um, democracy is a is a way of life as far as Ambedkar was concerned So it was not simply a political framework, but we all must agree that we will Listen and dialogue with each other treat each other with respect and not Seek to punish each other for what we think is a wrong opinion So it's easier to say all this in words in practice. It seldom happens that way But I think what he would have insisted on was that he did insist on was Democracy must become a way of life It was informed the way we think and act and carry ourselves In fact, she said that we all must have a special school for democracy that those who aspire to be in public Life should attend because that's where you learn. What does it mean to be civil? What does it mean to engage in a dialogue to treat an opponent with fairness to listen to another point of view? So these are principles and ideals that he would have wanted us to cultivate and he wanted us to cultivate So in a general sense, it might seem democracy cannot really exist in this conflict But democracy is absolutely necessary only because we all have conflictual interests How would we then work with these interests so that all of us agree that we give up some things In in favor of some other things and so on and so forth I hope you're sure you have got your answer Now another question coming from our faculty member. Uh, madam dr. Aviv a d diary She is asking She's rather commenting. No doubt. Dr. Ambedkar has done an extraordinary job for the country Particularly for the Dalits and the constitution we have today However, don't you think he seems to have overlooked on the tribes of northeast As his work was silent on the same Though the province of asaam nefa existed since 10 Was it at that point of time The northeast region was not in the ambit of a nation or what could be the reason for his silence? Oh, yes, ma'am Yeah, um, I maybe I didn't communicate it strongly enough. He was not silent on the northeast. He was instrumental in In the shape that the sixth schedule has taken not that he endorsed Everything that was put into the sixth schedule but basically he understood the problems of the northeast to As having emerged from its own specific historical moment and the fact that Geographically it may be linked to the rest of India, but historically it is its own space and its own culture Which is why he sort of pushes the sixth schedule of the constitution as an important aspect of Um of of the quality that we wish to build in the future Having said that he also made it very clear that He knew best the problems of the Dalits. He was most sort of Well placed to address that in concrete ways As far as other issue was other issues were concerned He came to them as a democrat as a radical republican and it is from that position He spoke of what needed to be done. So it is not that the northeast was out of his program He was quite aware of what was going on in Assam and discussions to do with tribal and non-tribal rights and so on And if you read the constitution assembly debates, you see that he sets himself against a number of Prejudicial opinions about the northeast So So if you go back and read the debates on the sixth schedule, man, you'll find a lot of a lot of things that might interest you Oh, yes, indeed. I I just want to give a ready reference to dr. Aviv Uh, because I have also written Written extensively on dr. B. S. I'm a record's contribution to the northeast See basically if you refer to these these schedule, you will you will find the paragraph that dr. B. R. Ambedkar's that he has you know quoted. So I just want to read it out for you So that we all can understand the dr. Ambedkar's view So while replying to the debate on the discussion on six schedule dr B. R. Ambedkar the chairman of the drafting committee of the constitution assembly vehemently argued That tribe the court that the tribal people in the areas other than Assam are more or less Hinduized more or less assimilated with the civilization People in whose midst they live with regard to the tribals in Assam. That is not the case Their roots are still in their own civilization and their culture Their laws of inheritance their laws of marriage customs and so on are quite different from that of the hindu's I think that is the main distinction which influence us to have a different sort of scheme for Assam From the one we have provided for other territories In other words the position of the tribals of Assam Whatever they did the reason for it is somewhat analogous to the position of the red Indians in the united states As against the white immigrants there Now what did the united states do with regard to the red Indians? So far as i'm aware what they did was to create what they called reservations of boundaries within which the red Indians live They are a republic by themselves No doubt by the law of the united states They are citizens of the united states, but that is only a nominal allegiance to the constitution of the united states Factually they are separate independent people It was felt by the united states that their laws and modes of living their habits and manners of life They're so distinct that it would be dangerous to be in at one shot So to say to say within the range of the laws made by the white people for white persons and for the purpose of white civilization I agree that we have been creating regional and district council to some extent on the lines Which was adopted by the united states for the purpose of the red Indians. So this is a very seven paragraph I have found you know from the primary sources of You know the constitutional debates So there are many references and many sources Of primary nature can be found and that helps us to understand As to how dr. Ambedkar's region is actually very relevant You know, not only to the nazas but also To the geopolitical aspects and the culture of the north east india Yes, dr. Ambedkar, I hope you will refer to the references Ma'am, no, I have a question right We all have heard of this quote educate Educate and organize. Dr. Baba, your voice is not very clear Hello, can you hear me? Yeah So we have we have always heard this quote educate, educate and organize And it has been contextualized and interpreted in different different ways, right? But what I but what I understand that this quote of dr. B. R. Ambedkar Educate, educate and organize. He was used when he was delivering speech before the students You know, so what is your interpretation of this quote? Educate, educate and organize What is your quote? Historically it's a quote that It formed the motto of the Fabian Socialist Society of Great Britain as we know So yes, he drew it from educate agitate and legislate So basically it represented a way of Socialists it represented a socialist politics that didn't believe in militant violence but it believed in educating people about their rights about What they can expect to demand from the state And based on what they had learned and taught and read they were to come together and organize themselves Educate and legislate and whatever they required by way of equality or justice Should be Framed in terms of the law. So this was very much a Fabian understanding of of socialism and Ambedkar adapted it For to Indian situation to the Indian situation And he said great story by education and we all know why that is so one hand Education have been denied to almost 95 7 of the population only Brahmins could formally educate themselves in the past Any other education you had you picked up who looked at your father doing carpenter? You learn carpetry you look at your mother weaving you learn weaving So people picked up skills, but they were not allowed to educate themselves in the full sense of the word that we have today So he felt that education was very important to develop a critical temper So it was very central to his his understanding of social change and And education was also something where you learn to become a citizen So when he said that democracy is a form of life He felt one should become schooled in democracy one should learn how to be democratic We may all be born with a sense of equality less equality greater equality Or we may all be born thinking we are the best But then you have to school yourself into being democratic which meant that you had to understand Inequality was a bad thing and that equality was very important. So Education was also linked to preparing oneself for democracy Now agitate is of course to organize to work in a collective sense because no individual is Sort of going to bring about change and the Fabians felt agitation Was a form of citizenship action So it was an action that would put pressure on the state The Indian context was very important for Dalits and other minorities to organize themselves. So that that was also very important Legislate because he did set great store by the law by the rule of law By constitutional morality though. He was skeptical of whether it was possible in India yet. So this is how I understand those three terms Yes. Yeah, that is what I was also saying that there are multiple interpretations of this term Because this term educate educate and organize was a part of Dr. Ambedkar He delivered before the students, right? So when you when you trying to contextualize the political aspect of it the interpretation may differ But what I understand is that Dr. Ambedkar with this quote when he was when he delivered before the students He was also talking about, you know, the importance of the education. The second is the personal struggle You know, which he himself has undergone, right? So he was basically Trying to trying to make the students understand that to what extent the personal struggle is important And as long as you are struggling, there bound to be a light in the light Okay, and once you done with your personal struggle individual struggle Okay, then you know, there comes the organization, right? It may be Somewhat related to Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. Sangha always comes at the end You know, the organization always comes at the end. So everything starts from individual and then gradually, you know But drop by drop by drop, you know, the ocean becomes Right. So then there are different interpretations Yeah, ma'am. Okay. So is there any other query? Maybe you can you can take an opportunity and ask this question if you have And maybe one more one book I want to recommend Those who are interested in knowing about the six schedule and all it was written by Patricia Mukim and I'm sure you all are familiar with Patricia Mukim. She has written a wonderful book The Six Schedule of the Constitution at double-edged sword, right? You know, you can just check it out. I think it was a it was An article which was a part of her book, you know, and then also referred to He just writing and speeches of Dr. V. R. Ambedkar, especially You know page number 39 where the exclusively speaking about North history area of India, right? So I'm just giving you some references for more references I can I can be contacted later on ma'am Really, I mean it was a very enlightening lecture and interaction with you Specifically the contextualizing of the Ambedkar not only, you know In the context of the Dalit politics, but also in the context of How to say the universal struggle for human values, I should say Because there was a debate going on and the question was asked that What exactly the Ambedkarism is all about and the answer came that Ambedkarism is all about universalism It cannot be separated from the universalism. Ambedkarism does not adopt a very narrow approach It is very flexible. It is very open, right? And when it comes to The Indian constitution as well, which is based on justice equality liberty and fraternity and I think this is what the pillars of Ambedkarism justice equality liberty and fraternity So therefore that might be reason the black african movement found so last in Ambedkarism You know, then the Hungarian people the Roma people found so last In the Ambedkarism, you know, they have their own unique story ma'am. You must be aware of it the Roma's struggles and their You know the the influence of dr. Beyer Ambedkar's thoughts and ideas On their struggle. So basically Ambedkar is a universal has become universal symbol of not just a knowledge but the movement for self-respect survival struggle and Equality as well as equity Thank you. Thank you so much for coming because Absolutely because I think what's important is to see him as a world historical figure along with People like Martin Luther King, Franz Fanon Many others and Angela Davis many others who have actually placed Injustice in whatever form it happens in the center of deliberations about democracy and justice And I think he has contributed in a very singular way to our understanding of democracy across the world and of how to Drive to live by universal ethics of respect compassion and equality and fraternity. So thank you very much Thank you so much. And I also extend my gratitude to all the participants faculty members For their, you know valuable questions And dear friend, this is just a beginning This is just a journey that we have started and we are blessed to have this opening lecture And we learned a lot. There will be many more lectures. You know, we have scheduled In the coming days, right? One professor would be coming from Hungary and she would be dealing with the Hungarian perspective on dr. Beyer Ambedkar I have To catch up with some other professors from the Columbia and hardware as well. So let us see how far can we succeed in getting them but yes When it comes to the name of Ambedkar The another name of Ambedkarism is justice equality liberty and fraternity and if you are interested in those terms Then by default You are interested in Ambedkarism as well with these words. I I I declare that the session has been successful And thank you so much for your time and thank you my dear students for coming in We'll meet again and ma'am. You're always welcome to nagaland. Just thank you very much I would love to organize, you know a personal meeting of you with my students and the faculty members And it would be lovely exchange and collaboration I believe Yes, hopefully covid will be behind us and we can do that soon. Thank you very much Thank you