http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWaFjGilgF8...re=channel_page
But both of them, it is interesting to note, do not believe in parliamentary democracy at all. Neither of the two believes in it. It's worthwhile asking a question why two opponents, so bitterly opposed to each other, especially Ambedkar (he's so bitterly opposed to Gandhi), why is that they are so deeply united with respect to what they considered the futility of parliamentary democracy, which is merely a cloak. i'd like to make a suggestion that underlying this unity between them (apparent hostility of these two people) is a fundamental intuition of Indian society and culture, and I'd like to formulate the intuition in terms of a thought experiment. It is in all western political thinking, including those in the middle ages, the last two thousand years of western political thinking, assumes the following: namely, that is the task of the state to intervene in civil society, or in society ( if we don't want to use the word civili society). The state has to intervene in society and more groups of people, and regulate the way they live, and this regulation can take multiple forms, but that's not the issue. The point is that is the fundamental task of the state. And of course, most of the time it does so through laws, through legislations, especially after the year 1100 in the whole of western Europe, it does through legislation so that the order of the Sovereign. And especially after the emergence of Democracy, the question became 'why should citizens obey the laws of the state?' 'what is the legitimacy?' In other words, the question of legitimacy, of obeying the 'laws of the state' arises only, remember, if a society is such that an internal regulation of Society - cannot take place - cannot be undertaken by the society itself, but you need an external apparatus coming from the outside, intervening in it.
Now one of the extraordinary characteristics of Indian literature on the subject of politics has been the following: the state was denied any possibility of intervening in society. The state had no role to play in regulating civil society. Civil society regulated itself. Society regulated itself. <b> So when Society regulates itself and the State merely provides the condition for the existence of a people together in a particular territory, there the question of Democracy is utterly, utterly irrelevant.</b> There is no question of either Democracy or Dictatorship. Neither of the two come into existence because Democracy is sensible only when you ask the question what is the legitimacy for the State to interfere in the fates of the citizens. Where the State doesn't do that, there is no question of legitimacy of the state. there is no question of Democracy or Dictatorship or anything else. In other words, and that's one of the reasons why when Gandhi went further than the constituent assembly debates, especially his followers (he wanted to bring in the idea of Panchayat raj, etc), Ambedkar maneuvered it such a way that it became a maxim directed by principles, and certainly not enforceable by Law. So.. Quite simply, not because he believed in the form of state that India was going to get, that had already got, or believed in Democracy, but he certainly did not believe that there was anything of substance, in a way he was right, to Gandhi's ideas which are completely utopian. but both of them implicitly, especially in their early writings, raise the following question: namely, why Democracy at all, actually? 'why do we need State to take this form at all? and, of course, both are against injustices, but neither raises the question what kind of just society do we want and what arguments do we have against it.
But both of them, it is interesting to note, do not believe in parliamentary democracy at all. Neither of the two believes in it. It's worthwhile asking a question why two opponents, so bitterly opposed to each other, especially Ambedkar (he's so bitterly opposed to Gandhi), why is that they are so deeply united with respect to what they considered the futility of parliamentary democracy, which is merely a cloak. i'd like to make a suggestion that underlying this unity between them (apparent hostility of these two people) is a fundamental intuition of Indian society and culture, and I'd like to formulate the intuition in terms of a thought experiment. It is in all western political thinking, including those in the middle ages, the last two thousand years of western political thinking, assumes the following: namely, that is the task of the state to intervene in civil society, or in society ( if we don't want to use the word civili society). The state has to intervene in society and more groups of people, and regulate the way they live, and this regulation can take multiple forms, but that's not the issue. The point is that is the fundamental task of the state. And of course, most of the time it does so through laws, through legislations, especially after the year 1100 in the whole of western Europe, it does through legislation so that the order of the Sovereign. And especially after the emergence of Democracy, the question became 'why should citizens obey the laws of the state?' 'what is the legitimacy?' In other words, the question of legitimacy, of obeying the 'laws of the state' arises only, remember, if a society is such that an internal regulation of Society - cannot take place - cannot be undertaken by the society itself, but you need an external apparatus coming from the outside, intervening in it.
Now one of the extraordinary characteristics of Indian literature on the subject of politics has been the following: the state was denied any possibility of intervening in society. The state had no role to play in regulating civil society. Civil society regulated itself. Society regulated itself. <b> So when Society regulates itself and the State merely provides the condition for the existence of a people together in a particular territory, there the question of Democracy is utterly, utterly irrelevant.</b> There is no question of either Democracy or Dictatorship. Neither of the two come into existence because Democracy is sensible only when you ask the question what is the legitimacy for the State to interfere in the fates of the citizens. Where the State doesn't do that, there is no question of legitimacy of the state. there is no question of Democracy or Dictatorship or anything else. In other words, and that's one of the reasons why when Gandhi went further than the constituent assembly debates, especially his followers (he wanted to bring in the idea of Panchayat raj, etc), Ambedkar maneuvered it such a way that it became a maxim directed by principles, and certainly not enforceable by Law. So.. Quite simply, not because he believed in the form of state that India was going to get, that had already got, or believed in Democracy, but he certainly did not believe that there was anything of substance, in a way he was right, to Gandhi's ideas which are completely utopian. but both of them implicitly, especially in their early writings, raise the following question: namely, why Democracy at all, actually? 'why do we need State to take this form at all? and, of course, both are against injustices, but neither raises the question what kind of just society do we want and what arguments do we have against it.