Thursday, April 14, 2011

Ambedkar, the forgotten free-market economis

Finally, my article has been out now, let’s clear all the myths about Ambedkar being portraying as against free market economics and soul believer of socialism etc.

Please find my article on Ambedkar A champion of the free market in the April 2011 Issue of Pragati The Indian National Interest Review.

I request all of you should see the PDF version of the full issue of Pragati (PDF).

I take this opportunity to thank all my friends and supporters for making my full paper presentation at the Austrian Scholars Conference 2011 organised by the Mises Institute, Auburn, USA

Particularly, I would like to thank Mr.Nitin Pai, Dr.Atanu Dey (Please do see 12, and 3), and Dr.Parth J Shah. 

1 comment:

  1. Lets just see what Dr.Ambedkar had to say on whether the word socialism should be included in the constitution, straight from the horses mouth,
    "What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organized in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether. If you state in the Constitution that the social organization of the State shall take a particular form, you are, in my judgment, taking away the liberty of the people to decide what should be the social organization in which they wish to live. It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the socialist organization of society is better than the capitalist organization of society. But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organization which might be better than the socialist organization of today or of tomorrow. I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves.”

    So far,so good but just read his arguement for not including the word socialism.
    apart from the Fundamental Rights, which we have embodied in the Constitution, we have also introduced other sections, which deal with directive principles of State policy. If my Honourable friend were to read the Articles contained in Part IV, he will find that both the Legislature as well as the Executive have been placed by this Constitution under certain definite obligations as to the form of their policy. Now, to read only Article 31, which deals with this matter: It says:
    " The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing—
    (I) That the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood;
    (ii) That the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to sub serve the common good;
    (iii) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment;
    (iv) That there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women; ............"
    There are some other items more or less in the same strain. What I would like to ask Professor Shah is this : If these directive principles to which I have drawn attention are not socialistic in their direction and in their content, I fail to understand what more socialism can he.
    Therefore my submission is that these socialist principles are already embodied in our Constitution and it is unnecessary to accept this amendment."