Democratic Functioning in Democratic Functioning in an Organization an Organization
Friends,
I am very glad to share a very important document with you all.It is written by D. H. Maiske,Ex National President Bamsef.Lt.Colonel siddharth Barves posted it to me.I found it very relevant specifically in reference to post Ambedkarite movement.
Mr. Maiske initially was not in favour of making this document public as he wanted to modify it.I called him and discussed the document with him.I suggested that the document should be made public because there is no democratic functioning in any ambedkarite organisations or groups and most of the efficient talented cadres sitting idle as they find no place in ambedkarite movement whatsoever captured by individuals and used for fund raising.
This document is very important just because we stand on a critical juncture in a time of monopolistic aggression against ninety nine percent population of the country while just one percent misusing national, natural and individual resources and selling off the country.Indian constitution, law of the land and the parliamentary system have become irrelevant in economic ethnic cleansing oriented corporate hegemony Raj.We face problems at infrastructure level and we may no mobilise resistance whatsoever as we have not allowed any leadership in a decentralised organisational setup.The orgs have CECs and units at state and district levels but all functionaries are nominated and ousted at the will of dictatorial leadership.
The ambedkarites are not habitual of any interaction whatsoever.They just get orders and do follow the leadership in blind faith.The movement of equity and social changes has reduced to acute hate campaign most helpful to extortion.We avoid debates.We have no objective. No agenda to save the nation,rule of law,constitution and the people.
I insisted to publish the document and invite feedbacks so that we may interact on organisational problems and further may solve these problems to have an unified organisation which would stand rock solid with the deprived,destroyed, exploited suffering people of India under intense repression.
I thank Mr. D. H. Maiske,Ex National President Bamsef that he agreed.
Here you are.I publish the document on my blogs and invite you all to send feedback to
Mr Maiske to his mailbox:
Please note that I got the document in PDF format and the copy is being published which may not be as good.I beg your pardon.
yours only
Palash Biswas,Kolkata
Democratic Functioning in Democratic Functioning in an Organization an Organization
By D. H. Maiske,Ex National President Bamsef
Introduction
I opted to discuss the topic "Democratic Functioning in an Organization",
after my long experience in Ambedkarite movement. Since 1982, when I got
practically involved myself in the social organization, which was projecting itself of
running the Ambedkarite movement, there were certain issues which were
continuously bothering me. My involvement in the Ambedkarite organization has
always compelled me to think over the fate of Ambedkarite movement in post
Ambedkar era (i.e. after 1956). The fundamental question which haunted me was
why there had been a downfall of all the Ambedkarite organizations which had
come up in post Ambedkar era? While trying to search the answer to my anxiety I
encountered a common characteristic, practically existing amongst all the
organizations, was that the formation / emergence of organizations were purely
reaction based. There was no long term objective nor the organization was
structured on ideological foundation. It was only in the year 1978, the emergence
of BAMCEF organization claimed to have long term objective and ideological base.
In its formative years it grew to the extent of a force to reckon with, but no
sooner it could tighten its grip over the Indian social system, it suffered a setback
because of the autocratic behaviour of the leadership. In the later years this
organization further disintegrated into several group, holding the same brand
name. The disintegration phenomenon was not new to the society because by that
time it had become an established fact that such happenings is a regular event in
Ambedkarite movement in post Ambedkar era. Though, even today this
organization claims to hold the ideological base and long term objective, the
question still remains: as to what extent the cohesiveness and ideological integrity
is nurtured in the organization, what efforts are made to enrich the organizational
potential of the cadres or whether the ignorance and simplicity of the cadres are
exploited? The debate on this issue can be vast and exhaustive, but I wish to
restrict to only single aspect of the debate i.e. if the objectively motivated
ideological based organization does not adopt a particular well defined and time
tested system of functioning, then there is bound to a chaos and groupism in the
organization. The question therefore, arises as to what system of functioning
should be adopted which will strengthen the organisation, avoid fractions in the
organization, elevate the mental horizon of the cadres, create an environment of
faith and trust amongst cadres and leadership, keeps the leadership in check,
generate a feeling of accountability amongst the cadres so that in true sense the
organization emerges as an objectively motivated ideological based organization.
The answer to this question, which comes to my mind, is a Democratic System Democratic System Democratic System of
Functioning. With all constraints, attempt is made to explore the subject matter. I
feel that the discussion should prove useful to any Ambedkarite organization.
Subject Matter
The growth of any organization depends on the system of functioning it
adopts and extent to which that system suits to match the achievement of the
objective. The achievement of the objective can be assessed in terms of
compliance of the functioning methodology of the adopted system. If this equation
mismatches there is bound to be a destruction and division in the organization and
compromises with the objective. Therefore, it is a foremost requirement of any
organization to adopt a system of functioning and evolve a compliance mechanism
which will guide the organization to function in healthy manner and march
towards its objective. The journey of last four decade of BAMCEF had witnessed
several unexpected happenings and circumstances, wherein people were seen
diverting from basic objective, using organization for personal projections, not
letting create alternate leadership and making conscious efforts to prevent
developing organizational abilities amongst the cadres. This has happened
because there was no appropriate functioning system in place or formal working
methodology to be adopted. As a result it was observed that the inspirational level
amongst the cadre kept fluctuating which culminated into loosening of faith in the
objective set by the organization. The objective occupied the secondary
importance compared to the personal liabilities. It was also the case that, though
the objective was the main basis of coming together there seemed to be a lack of
complete knowledge and clarity of the objective. Hence for such workers it was
not possible to foresee the extent of good and objective can do to the larger section
of the society. Plato has remarked:
"that the organization of a society depends ultimately upon knowledge of
the end of existence. If we do not know its end, if we do not know its good,
we will be at the mercy of accident and caprice. Unless we know the good of
the end, we have no criterion for rationally deciding what the possibilities
are, which we should promote."
As per the above quote of Plato, if one analyze the developments in
BAMCEF, one has to say that the disintegration within the organization were no
less than accidents and caprice. The reason for this, as rightly pointed out by Plato,
the Cadres were neither educated about the logical end of the objective nor were
given the vision about the good of the objective. This gave a scope to a leader to
take the organization and the cadres for a ride so that the personal motives could
be achieved. Time and again, reiterating on the objective was done only to keep
the cadres emotionally attached. However, such move by the leadership was well
understood by some awakened cadres who, in the wider interest, opted to remain
silent and stay away from the organisation rather than giving a place for immature
controversies and debates. Hence for any organization it becomes necessary to
adopt a system of functioning which could check the unwarranted happenings and
prevent the disturbances in the organization. With all past experiences like
autocratic attitude, personality worship, ignorance of the workers, hidden motives
of the leader, absence of dispute solving mechanism, etc. one will have to arrive at
an opinion that Democratic System of functioning can be the best suited in any
Ambedkarite organization.
Conceptually, we therefore need to understand the democratic system,
democratic functioning and the input parameters which go into success of
democratic functioning.
Democratic System
Moment we talk of democratic system our attention is dragged towards a form of
Government and we evaluate the democratic system in terms of ruling governance.
This may perfectly be true in western countries, but in Indian context, where the
social system is full of glaring inequalities, where there is a caste based
discrimination, where the practice of social exclusion is in existence the definition
of democratic system gets slightly modified. It is not only a form or system of
governance but it is more concerned with creating the harmonious social order. It
is a matter of establishing egalitarian society. In this regard Dr. Ambedkar says:
"Democracy is quite different from Republic as well as from Parliamentary
Government. The roots of democracy lies not in the form of Government,
Parliament or otherwise. A democracy is more than a form of Government.
It is primarily a mode of associated living. The roots of democracy are to be
searched in social relationship, in terms of associated life between people
who form a society." (Speaking on topic – Prospects of Democracy in India,
Voice of America, 20th May 1956)
Since Dr. Ambedkar refers to democratic system as a "mode of associated
living", we need to understand and analyze the input which goes into defining it.
Though the defining parameters are with reference to society, same holds true for
the organization of a society. Anything which denies the ideals of homogenous
society or organization is against the democratic setup. Therefore, any efforts
which will generate the desire for the welfare of the society, loyalty to public ends,
mutual sympathy, cooperation and coordination will mean democratic system. If
the objective of the organization is social change, then what Dr. Ambedkar
interprets democratic system as, becomes a guiding principle to the leaders as well
as cadres. Social change is for the sake of creating the just social order. Certainly
this is based on harmonious social relationship. It is in this background the
democratic system is equated with associated living. To practice the democratic
system the situation of associated living has to be initiated amongst the cadres and
leaders in the organization. However, it has been a common feature, practically in
most of the organizations in post Ambedkar era, that there had been tussles,
disagreements, clash of interests, difference of opinion etc. within the organization.
This implies that there was a no proper functioning system in place. This has
driven away the organizations from the objective of social change and hence the
vision of our forefathers remained unfulfilled. Had there been an existence of
proper functioning system and the mechanism to handle all the turbulences within
the organization it would have taken care of any odd situation and we could have
marched ahead in achieving the objective of social change. As of now it is
commonly claimed that every Ambedkarite worker is working for social change,
but no organization with its past performance, is able to quantify the extent to
which they had contributed for social change.
Functioning with democratic system is not a new concept to this land.
Ancient India has executed this system. During Buddha's time Buddha's Sangha
was an adherent follower of democratic system. We are also aware of that glorious
past of Buddhist Sangha when the democratic system was adopted in true spirit.
All the decisions related to Sangha, were never taken by Buddha alone, but were
thoroughly discussed within the Sangha and consensus were evolved. At times
Buddha had set aside his personal opinion and stood firmly with the decision
arrived by the Sangha. This can very well be verified from the dialogue between
Buddha and Anand on the issue of admitting women to the Sangha and later the
issue getting decided by Sangha. How and when such system had vanished could
be a separate subject for study, but today when we are in need of a functioning
system and hence it will be worthwhile to adopt the time tested system. We will
therefore try to look into the characteristics of democratic functioning.
Democratic Functioning
Participative Approach Participative Approach Approach: For democratic system to function in an organizat ion
there has to be a requisite and appropriate participation of its members in framing
the policies and plans of the organization. When we say requisite and appropriate
participation, it does not mean the physical participation only but is an active
involvement in discussion, thinking and decision making process. Speaking at
Matang Conference in Solapur (on 4-1-1938) Dr. Ambedkar said:
"Democracy must learn that its safety lies in having more than one opinion
regarding the solution of any particular problem and in order that people
may be ready to advice with their opinion, democracy must learn to give
respectful hearing to all those who are worth listening."
What is indicated in this message is that in democratic functioning the
decisions should not be taken by a single person, but there has to be a group of
people who interacts and share their thoughts in problem solving or decision
making process. In such method of collective thinking the variety in the opinions
may add or explore various dimension of the subject matter. At times a particular
opinion may not be relevant in certain situation but for the sake of arriving at a
consensus such opinion are needed to be dissolved and every individual should get
bound to the decision of the house, which is evolved by consensus. Hence
participative method is mandatory in problem solving or decision making process.
However, care needs to be taken that in participative method the opinion
expressed should be within the domain of subject matter and should not divert the
discussion. If any individual is not able to logically participate in the discussion he
should not attempt to sentimentally drive the house on irrational mode. The
opinion expressed should be based on experience and matured thinking. Only
such opinion could be considered worthwhile. Giving a respectful hearing to the
opinion expressed is a matter of great importance for healthy proceedings. It is
generally observed that often there is a cross talk and hence the individual is not
heard properly. The matter under discussion gets diverted / diluted and finally
becomes impossible to arrive at a fruitful decision. However, at times we seems to
lack this quality, may be for the reason that we are not the trained personnel in
democratic system or our past conditioning does not allow us to do so. We
therefore need to develop all such qualities so as to match the functioning methods
of democratic system.
Consultative Approach Consultative Approach: Another aspect of democratic functioning is a consultative
method. While implementing the policies and decisions of the organization it is
possible that one may encounter a different situation in the field. Various
ideologies and mindsets operating in the field become obstacles in presenting the
objective of the organization. This problem had to be solved by consultative
method, wherein the maturity and intellect of the experienced cadres can be
consolidated to arrive at a best possible solution. During the time of Buddha when
the members of the Sangha met for monsoon retreat, they use to share all their
field difficulties in the council. After detail deliberations and to the best of their
wisdom they use to arrive at a solution which was compatible with the objective of
the Sangha. This is a great example of consultative approach. Because of such
approach only, it made the Sangha more cohesive, homogeneous and integrated.
After the monsoon retreat when the monks went to the field they were more
confident, competent and effective to spread the message of Buddha. All the
Ambedkarite organizations need to learn from all such past instances which
proved to be successful. One need to understand the behavioural quality required
to enter into consultative approach. It is a moral authority of an individual which
empowers him to be a part of consultative method. For the sake of consultation
one has to dissolve his personal ego and at the same time respect the importance
of other person. One has to accept that others can also think better and can have a
more viable approach to the issue. This is possible only if an individual has moral
character. Otherwise a person will autocratic or hypocratic.
For an organization whose geographical spread out is vast, it may happen
that the availability of the organizational manpower may not be feasible at certain
instances, in such situation the consultative process can be carried out with the
accessible and readily available organizational manpower. While doing this care
needs to be taken that consultation should be done only with such people who
matters in the affairs of the organization. But at times it is seen that we tend to
consult with likeminded people with whom we are comfortable or where we do
not anticipate opposition to our view point. Such consultation will not have a
varied opinion and hence the inferences drawn will be one sided and unbalanced.
This may generate the tendency which is harmful to the basic tenets of democratic
functioning. Facing a contrary opinion during consultation or encountering the
negation to the proposed view should be taken in right spirit so as to generate
harmonious relationship between the individuals in the organization. But it is a
matter of great concern that in post Ambedkar era the organizations which had
come up and vanished was only due to difference of opinion amongst the leaders
and workers. Difference of opinion is created only when an individual is rigid on
his own views and is not mentally prepared to respect the other viewpoint. The
difference in opinion was not made to resolve but was made a matter of ego which
went to the level of destroying the organization. In any consultative process the
opinion may differ but treating it as an obstacle indicates the mala fide intentions
and authoritative behaviour. For a democratic approach, the differences should be
dissolved to evolve the consensus or if the differences prevail for long time the
organization should have the mechanism in place to rise above the situation. It has
been observed in most of the Ambedkarite organizations that there had never been
a mechanism to tackle the issue of difference of opinion and hence with the
passage of time, the opinion became so rigid, that the things had gone to the level
of destruction in the organization. Hence it can be inferred that in post Ambedkar
era neither the system of democratic functioning nor the method of consultation
was adopted (in true spirit) by the members of the organization. In the light of this
factual background the cadres in the organization need to take care that the human
elements should not prevail over the objective and mission for which the
organization is meant. Therefore, during consultative process one should be open
minded and accept the fact that there are people in the organization who can think
in much better way and analyze the matter in right perspective. Consultation
should not be used as a tool to under estimate or quantify the level of a person.
Healthy approaches in consultation will bind the workers more firmly with the
objective of the organization, which is the requirement of democratic functioning.
Participation and consultation could be practically at all level of functioning
in the organization. May it be implementing and executing the decisions at various
levels or appointing the highest office bearers in the organization. Each action in
the organization should be oriented in a democratic manner so that every
individual feels responsible for the cause of the organization and movement. Any
decision arrived at by participative and consultative method should not be
questioned once it is arrived at. Before arriving at the decision every individual is
free to logically put forth his opinion and convince the house. The house to the
best of its wisdom will arrive at decision, which will be in the wider interest of the
organization. The success of democratic functioning therefore lies in the extent to
which an individual himself feels accountable to the democratic system.
Input Parameters to Democratic Functioning
Developing Intellectual Capabilities: Developing Intellectual Capabilities: No movement can stand on strong
footing if the members of the organization do not have intellectual capabilities to
shape the movement. One distinct feature is noticed in the society is that there are
large number of followers who simply work on the directions received from their
leader and for various reasons their capabilities are developed to that extent only.
But to give an appropriate direction to all such workers is the moral responsibility
of the leader in the organization. Every organization must have a band of
intellectually developed cadres or should have mechanism to create such cadres. If
the movement is not backed by intellectually capable cadres, there is bound to be a
downfall. Precisely this situation is been observed in post Ambedkar era, wherein
many organizations had come up and in due course either encountered splits, or
totally vanished from the scene or aligned themselves with other ideologies for the
sake of personal gains. The masses were left directionless. On the contrary we can
observe that the organizations and the movements led by counter revolutionary
forces are moving ahead with committed efforts and focused approach, without
any compromise with their ideological base. Certainly they have a set of
intellectual people whose job is to continuously do the intellectual exercise so as to
plan and execute the strategies of the organization. The intellectual level of the
workers had to be enhanced by continuous training programs and specialized
workshops. This seems to be lacking in post Ambedkar era. However, during
Babasaheb's time, Babasaheb himself was intellectually capable enough to give
right direction to the movement. With all my past experiences I strongly feel the
necessity to adopt the democratic system in Ambedkarite organizations wherein
the intellectual level regarding organizational matter can be developed amongst
the cadres.
To develop the intellectual capabilities of the cadre one need to have a
mechanism, this will educate the cadres about the functioning system. Since the
democratic system is to be adopted and the concept of democracy is an
continuously evolving phenomenon for an Ambedkarite masses, the process of
education (training) also has to be a regular and continuous activity. In absence of
such mechanism there has to be a disturbances in the organization. It has been
rightly said that "democracy without education is hypocrisy without limitation".
Two aspects which is clearly reflecting from this statement is that, firstly the
cadres has to be thoroughly educated about the process of democracy and
secondly if the cadres are not educated then the level of hypocrisy in the
organization can be of any extent. Hypocrisy can become a sole reason for any
downfall. But if the education of the cadres is done it will result into developing
the intellectual level of the cadres. Participation out of developed intellect will
only empower the cadres to understand the intricacies of the organizations, which
will keep the leadership in check and convert the organization into institution.
If we look back into ancient Indian life system we come across innumerable
instances which prove that there was intellectual freedom in this land. People
were intellectually contributing in the process. The yearly retreat of Bhikku
Sangha during rainy season was an event where each monk was participating in
the discussion with all their intellectual capabilities, it was also a platform to
develop the intellectual level of new monks and as a result they could conclude the
discussion with consensus. Thus the intellectual participation method adopted by
Bhikku Sangha had created its impact all over the world, which is still considered
as ideal organizational setup. The intellectual freedom in Sangha was due to
democratic system which was then adopted. Such intellectual freedom was not
found elsewhere during those days. Contrary to this what we see today is that the
conscious efforts are made by every leader to keep the workers and masses in
ignorance. This is against the principles of democratic system.
Let us therefore, adopt and participate in the democratic system and make
efforts to enlarge our intellect, our vision, our capacity to think and our ability to
solve the problems so as to build a strong movement and accomplish our objective.
Not a Code of Conduct
Orienting our thought process in tune with democratic functioning or
getting into habit of working within certain procedural framework does not mean
framing certain rules and getting trapped in it. Therefore, the parameters
governing the mode of democratic functioning should not be treated as a code of
conduct in the organization but should be viewed as the principles laid down for
the success of the system. Principles in itself have certain motives and purpose to
set the direction and are meant to be practised in true spirit. They should not be
considered as a set of rules or something which is thrust upon. They are not
binding but in the wider interest of smooth functioning of the system, they are laid
down. The five precepts (panchsheela) told by Buddha are principles of human
development and transformation. Those who accepted the principles and
practised it, had transformed their personality which contributed in developing an
ideal Sangha. Therefore, whatever orientation we need to adopt in our thought
process and action for the sake of running the organization smoothly, should not
be received as a code of democratic functioning, but should be looked as practising
principles to take the organization to the ideal state. Hence democratic functioning
should be accepted as a set of principles laid down as a full proof methodology of
smooth functioning of the organization.
Morality & Democratic Functioning
Moral character is a pre-requisite for democratic functioning. Morality is a
result of practice of moral principles and its level cannot be measured by external
means. Therefore, every individual is responsible for developing his own moral
character. The towering personality of Dr. Ambedkar was nothing but a symbol of
moral character. In a democratic environment where one is committed to build
the harmonious society it becomes necessary that the inter personal relationship
should be healthy and respectful. Moral character gives the inner strength to
participate in public matter more responsibly, which is reflected through his words
and deeds. Since democracy is defined as a mode of associated living, the
behavioural inputs for the mode of associated living had to be searched in moral
principles and practices. Moral character therefore builds a personality, strong
enough to overcome any difficult situation and remain committed to the cause and
objective. It broadens the vision and develops the quality to look beyond the
circumstances. The personality of Dr. Ambedkar is a glaring example to illustrate
this aspect.
Moral character is a matter of practice and is a continuous process for
strengthening it to a greater level. It is a process of transforming oneself for the
sake of associated living. While working in the organization nobody has any
authority to grade the moral character of any individual. It is also our belief that
everybody possesses the moral character. To what extent one has elevated it, is a
matter of self introspection. Hence there is no authority to measure or judge the
moral character of others. But during the time of crises or any untoward situation
in the organization, the reaction given by an individual exhibits his moral
character. At that time we are only left with the option to estimate the extent of
damage or good done to the organization by his moral/immoral character.
Therefore, it is a situation and circumstances which reveals the morality and moral
character of an individual. This aspect can very well be evaluated with references
to the divisions that had taken place in the organizations in last four decades. We
can infer from all past experiences that due to lack of moral character people had
diverted from basic objective of the movement, misused the organization for
personal projections, remained stubborn on their view point, did not allow
democratic growth of the organization, aligned themselves with different forces,
exploited the masses emotionally and fooled around with the society. Immoral
character can go to the extent of creating any havoc. Dr. Ambedkar also makes a
point that if morality and moral order is missing in the organization, the
organization is bound to collapse one day and hence it will be a downfall of
democratic values. If we wish to preserve the democratic system and its values let
us commit ourselves to create a moral order by way of practicing and
strengthening the moral principles.
Public Consensus in Democratic Functioning
It is necessary for democratic functioning that the decision reached at
should be by public consensus. At the same time it is a duty of every individual to
let public consensus evolve. We wish that the democratic system should be
adopted practically at all level in the organization. The selection of leadership at
Central, State and District level should be done by public consensus. Every
decision taken in executive body should be by consensus. Transacting the business
in General Body is a matter of discussion and public consensus. The only hurdle
which comes in the way of arriving at consensus by public discussion is an
affiliation of an individual to some personality in the organization. This tendency
to some extent is observed in the organization. Many times the entry of a person in
the organization is due to the influence or motivation embedded in him through
some experienced cadre. At times such person feels comfortable in remaining
attached to its motivating source. His affiliation turns out to be so strong that it
supersedes the attachment to the objective. Such person fails to logically
participate in public discussion, which makes the process of evolving the
consensus difficult. Hence we need to understand the drawback of such affiliation
and appreciate the importance of public consensus in democratic functioning. If
the public consensus is not evolved it will develop revolutionary mentality which
can put a democratic functioning in danger.
Scope & Limitation
Though the scope of democratic functioning gives every individual a
freedom to participate in the proceedings of the organization, it comes with a
specific expectation that we collectively work in a harmonious environment. It
does not permit us to deny and discard the opinion of any individual. The
limitation is that it does not permit creating a chaotic situation, which can harm
the interest of the organization.
Obstacles in Democratic Functioning
May it be a political institution or social institution, the biggest threat to
democratic system is posed by nepotism. In political system we had been
watching the way nepotism is propagated since independence. Today practically
all the political parties had adhered to nepotism and hence we could see the fate of
democracy. In political structure, democracy which is suppose to eliminate the
socio-economic disparity in the society is not allowed to operate, only for the
reason that it has potential to destroy nepotism. The germs of nepotism have
entered in social organizations also. Though the nepotism in the social
organizations may not be glaringly visible (because its form is not direct), but it is
been created and nurtured by the leaders in the social organization.
In political structure nepotism is clearly visible because the legacy is
directly handed over to nearest family member. Presently this is the case with all
National and Regional political parties. In social organization the leader of the
organization is bent on retaining his supremacy in the organization and hence he
creates a group of people who becomes his blind follower and worships his
personality. In this way he creates his own clan in the organization, which is
nothing but a indirect form of nepotism. This clan hardly uses its own
intellect/logic and behaves as a yes man of a leader. The leader may designate
some clan members to the post with responsibilities but such wise leader
strategically operates the functioning of the organization and makes the clan
members dance to his tune. At such juncture the clan members are not able to
understand the nexus between the intentions of the leader and fate of the
organization, because the value system in the organization is totally compromised
with. Such situation diverts the social organization from the basic objective and
subsequently the organization becomes ineffective in the society. The clan
members continue to derive satisfaction from the efforts they put in to keep the
organization alive and forget to quantify the extent to which they had diverted
from their basic objective. This not only becomes a fatal reason for debacle of the
organization but also amounts to spending the resources of the society in
unproductive activity. The behaviour of clan members is governed by the mental
slavery imbibed by the leader of the organization. This is against the democratic
system of functioning for social organization. Hence in a social organization
nepotism works in a form of clan members, which is a threat to democratic system.
Conclusion
Let us all take a note of caution given by Dr. Ambedkar:
"there lies on us a heavy duty to see that democracy does not vanish from the earth
as a governing principle of human relationship. If we believe in it, then we must
both be true and loyal to it. We must not only be staunch in our faith in democracy
but we must resolve to see that in whatever we do, we do not help the enemies of
democracy to uproot the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. If democracy
lives, we are sure to reap the fruits of it. If democracy dies, it will be our doom. On
that there is no doubt." (18th July 1942, All India Depressed Classes Conference,
Nagpur)
This is a message to all the Ambedkarite organizations that in order to
preserve democracy it is the duty of every individual to uphold the spirit of
democracy in every walk of life. When we are working in an organization, which is
primarily meant for social change, one need to understand that, our method of
functioning only will lead us to achieve the logical end of our objective. If we do
not function as per the democratic norms aren't we helping our enemies to nurture
the social disparity? Do we accept that in absence of functioning system, we
ourselves were responsible for downfall of Ambedkarite organizations in post
Ambedkar era? Should we continue to run our organizations in autocratic,
dictatorial or ad-hoc manner? Or should we adopt the democratic method of
functioning, whose foundation is liberty, equality, justice & fraternity? I feel we
have no alternative left than to adopt the democratic method of functioning in our
organizations else let's accept that we ourselves are responsible for our fate. ***
D. H. Maiske
15-08-2013
No comments:
Post a Comment