{"title":"Dr Ambedkar’s Method of Social Change: Debating Means and Ends","authors":"Dinesh Kumar Ahirwar","doi":"10.1177/2455328x231198716","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ambedkar’s method of social change is about its commensurability with critical methods leads the legitimatization over radical means. The preconceived method devoid of reality was not only failed but also disastrous. The theory and practice are an integral part of the theory of social change of Ambedkar. It has laid the contrast between two methods of social change that is Marxist and Pragmatist. Ambedkar’s method of social change influenced from pragmatism. It was not only the relevance of his thought but also the legitimacy of his methods used for bringing about change in Indian society. Ambedkar’s Critical method for social change upholds the idea of democracy and justice while radical violent means which emphasized on the equality without much space for democracy and freedom of speech delegitimized the purpose of communist society. The article is divided into two major parts; first part dealt with the critical theory and its primary concern for social change. It also contrasted with Ambedkar’s method of social change. Second section focused briefly on the debate between Marxist Trotsky and pragmatist John Dewey over use of means for achieving the ends. The experiment of the Cultural Change in the case of Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution in China by Mao Zedong and the methods of the Cultural Revolution proposed by Ambedkar is also part of the discussion where two experiments for bringing about cultural changes in Chinese and Indian society. The legitimacy of the democratic means remains unbeatable in the case of Ambedkar while violent radical means lost the legitimacy in Chinese experience. The struggle of Ambedkar who secured the rights for untouchable in the Indian constitution was not less than a revolution. Banning practice of Untouchability in any form and making it the punishable offence was the victory of the democratic means.","PeriodicalId":53196,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Voice of Dalit","volume":"24 21","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Voice of Dalit","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2455328x231198716","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Ambedkar’s method of social change is about its commensurability with critical methods leads the legitimatization over radical means. The preconceived method devoid of reality was not only failed but also disastrous. The theory and practice are an integral part of the theory of social change of Ambedkar. It has laid the contrast between two methods of social change that is Marxist and Pragmatist. Ambedkar’s method of social change influenced from pragmatism. It was not only the relevance of his thought but also the legitimacy of his methods used for bringing about change in Indian society. Ambedkar’s Critical method for social change upholds the idea of democracy and justice while radical violent means which emphasized on the equality without much space for democracy and freedom of speech delegitimized the purpose of communist society. The article is divided into two major parts; first part dealt with the critical theory and its primary concern for social change. It also contrasted with Ambedkar’s method of social change. Second section focused briefly on the debate between Marxist Trotsky and pragmatist John Dewey over use of means for achieving the ends. The experiment of the Cultural Change in the case of Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution in China by Mao Zedong and the methods of the Cultural Revolution proposed by Ambedkar is also part of the discussion where two experiments for bringing about cultural changes in Chinese and Indian society. The legitimacy of the democratic means remains unbeatable in the case of Ambedkar while violent radical means lost the legitimacy in Chinese experience. The struggle of Ambedkar who secured the rights for untouchable in the Indian constitution was not less than a revolution. Banning practice of Untouchability in any form and making it the punishable offence was the victory of the democratic means.