Democratic Functioning in Democratic Functioning in an Organization an Organization

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:

dhmaiske@gmail.com

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