Question

What is the life of contradiction referred to here?

• A. That of equality in politics but inequality in social and economic structure
• B. That of inequality in politics but equality in social and economic structure
• C. That of inequality in social structure but equality in economic structure
• D. That of equality in politics and economic structure but inequality in social structure
• A. There will be no injustic
• B. Our political democracy will be in danger
• C. Equality in social and economic life will be achieved nevertheless
• D. Our social and economic life will be in peril
• A. That the Constitution was ignored
• B. That the men called upon to work the Constitution were good
• C. That the men called upon to work the Constitution were not good
• D. That the Constitution was bad and failed the people
• A. Equality before the Law
• B. Equality of opportunities
• C. Equality in social life
• D. Equality in economic life
• A. When the people called upon to work it are good
• B. When the people called upon to work it are bad
• C. When the Constitution is amended
• D. None of the above
• A. The Constitution is workable
• B. The Constitution is flexible
• C. The Constitution is strong enough to hold the country together in peacetime only
• D. The Constitution is strong enough to hold the country together both in peacetime and in wartime

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the context of "life of contradictions":
In this passage, Dr. Ambedkar refers to the "life of contradictions" to highlight the contrast between political equality and the persistent inequality in the social and economic spheres of India. This contradiction is rooted in the gap between the political promises of equality, as enshrined in the Constitution, and the realities of social and economic inequality that continue to exist in practice.

Step 2: Analyzing the contradiction:
Dr. Ambedkar points out that while India has adopted a political system that guarantees equality (in the political sense), the same equality is not reflected in the social and economic structures of the country. This means that, although the Constitution provides for equal rights and opportunities, inequality continues to prevail in terms of wealth, status, and access to resources.

Step 3: Conclusion:
The "life of contradictions" referred to here is that of equality in politics but inequality in social and economic structure. This disparity between political equality and social-economic inequality is what Dr. Ambedkar warns could undermine the democratic structure if not addressed.

Answer 2

Step 1: Understanding Dr. Ambedkar's warning:
Dr. Ambedkar highlights the importance of ensuring equality not only in the political domain but also in the social and economic spheres. He warns that denying equality in these areas could have dire consequences for the political democracy established by the Constitution.

Step 2: Analyzing the consequences of inequality:
Dr. Ambedkar argues that if social and economic inequalities persist despite political equality, the very foundation of political democracy will be at risk. The people who suffer from such inequalities may eventually become disillusioned with the system, which could lead to a disruption or collapse of democratic structures. In his view, a lack of social and economic equality would undermine the legitimacy and stability of India's political system.

Step 3: Conclusion:
According to Dr. Ambedkar, if we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life, our political democracy will be in danger. This emphasizes the need for social and economic reforms to complement political equality and ensure the sustainability of democracy.

Answer 3

Step 1: Understanding Dr. Ambedkar's statement about the Constitution:
In this part of Dr. Ambedkar's speech, he reflects on the potential challenges that might arise under the new Constitution. He acknowledges that while the Constitution may be well-crafted, its success depends on those who implement and uphold it.

Step 2: Analyzing Dr. Ambedkar's concern:
Dr. Ambedkar suggests that if things go wrong under the new Constitution, the problem will not lie in the Constitution itself, but rather in the people who are entrusted with the responsibility of working it. He implies that if the individuals working within the framework of the Constitution are not capable, ethical, or good-hearted, then even the best Constitution could fail. The effectiveness of the Constitution depends not only on its design but on the integrity and competence of those who are responsible for executing it.

Step 3: Conclusion:
According to Dr. Ambedkar, if things go wrong under the new Constitution, it would be because the men called upon to work the Constitution were not good. This emphasizes the critical role of the individuals in power in ensuring the success of any legal system.

Answer 4

Step 1: Understanding the concept of social democracy:
In the passage, Dr. Ambedkar explains that social democracy is a foundational concept that must support political democracy. While political democracy focuses on political rights and freedoms, social democracy extends these principles into the realm of social life, ensuring equality and justice across all social structures.

Step 2: Analyzing the core idea of social democracy:
Dr. Ambedkar emphasizes that social democracy is more than just a legal framework; it is a way of life that recognizes and upholds the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity. It means that all members of society should have equal opportunities, rights, and respect, irrespective of their social, economic, or cultural backgrounds.

Step 3: Conclusion:
According to Dr. Ambedkar, social democracy means equality in social life, ensuring that every individual is treated fairly and with dignity in all aspects of society. It is not just about political rights but also about fostering a social environment of fairness and inclusion.

Answer 5

Step 1: Understanding the context of Dr. Ambedkar's statement:
Dr. Ambedkar discusses the idea that the effectiveness of a constitution is not solely dependent on its design or quality. While a good constitution provides the framework for governance, the success of the system also depends on the individuals who are tasked with implementing and working within that framework.

Step 2: Analyzing the role of the people in working the Constitution:
Dr. Ambedkar highlights that even a "bad" constitution can turn out to be good if the people who are called upon to work within it are good. This means that if the leaders, officials, and individuals responsible for enforcing and applying the law are ethical, competent, and committed to justice, they can make a flawed constitution work effectively for the betterment of society.

Step 3: Conclusion:
According to Dr. Ambedkar, a bad constitution turns out to be good when the people called upon to work it are good. This emphasizes the critical role of integrity and competence in ensuring the success of any constitutional system.

Answer 6

Step 1: Understanding Dr. Ambedkar’s view on the Constitution:
Dr. Ambedkar expressed confidence in the Constitution's ability to keep India united and functioning smoothly, even under challenging circumstances. He emphasized that the Constitution is not just a document for peacetime governance but is also strong enough to hold the country together during wartime.

Step 2: Analyzing the statement:
Dr. Ambedkar’s statement clearly indicated that the Constitution, as designed, is resilient and capable of guiding the nation through both times of peace and conflict. This shows his belief that the Constitution was flexible and robust, equipped to handle extreme situations like war without breaking down.

Step 3: Clarifying the confusion with the given answer:
The provided answer in the question suggests the opposite: "The Constitution is strong enough to hold the country together in peacetime only." This contradicts Dr. Ambedkar’s original statement, which clearly mentioned that the Constitution is intended to work during both peacetime and wartime.

Step 4: Conclusion:
Dr. Ambedkar did not just believe the Constitution would hold the country together in peacetime but also in wartime. Therefore, the correct understanding of his statement is that the Constitution is robust enough for both peacetime and wartime, making option (C) incorrect.