The recent University Grants Commission (UGC) guidelines have served as a litmus test for Indian society, exposing its deep fragility towards the constitutional principles of equality, liberty and fraternity. Seven decades after becoming a republic, it is still the customs of society and its de facto laws that continue to govern us.This episode was a classic example of state versus society, of constitutional morality versus public morality. The moment state institutions attempt even a modest correction of historical wrongs, backed by evidence of institutional atrocities against students from reserved castes in universities, the dominant sections of society responded with outrage. Dr Ambedkar writes in his phenomenal work Annihilation of Caste: “Caste has killed public spirit. Caste has destroyed the sense of public charity. Caste has made public opinion impossible. A Hindu’s public is his caste. His responsibility is only to his caste. His loyalty is restricted only to his caste. Virtue has become caste-ridden and morality has become caste-bound. There is no sympathy to the deserving. There is no appreciation of the meritorious. There is no charity to the needy. Suffering as such calls for no response. There is charity but it begins with the caste and ends with the caste. There is sympathy but not for men of other caste.” These words remain painfully relevant to a lot of our society, where caste continues to cease to produce public spirit and sympathy remains confined to one’s own caste. There isn’t an iota of sympathy among the dominant castes towards institutional caste atrocities, as the presence of caste itself prevents it.This exposes a fundamental contradiction at the heart of Indian democracy. While our political institutions speak the language of the constitution, society continues to operate through the logic of caste. The tussle between a state governed by the constitution and a society governed by the laws of Manu that is of caste has persisted since the birth of our Republic when we adopted the constitution. When many political stalwarts were celebrating the completion of the historic task of drafting the constitution, a deeply troubled Dr Ambedkar rose to warn the nation. As he said:“On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognizing the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which this Assembly has so laboriously built up.”The reaction to the UGC guidelines, even after seven decades of Dr Ambedkar’s speech back then in constitution hall, comes as a slap in the face of the belief that this contradiction had disappeared. If anything, it has become more visible.Dr Ambedkar reminded us: “The Law may guarantee various rights, but only those can be called real rights which you are permitted by the society to exercise.” The constitution of India pulls a society wretched and brutally hidebound by caste and its feudal relations into the life of a modern state. What sustains the rights in democracy?Dr Ambedkar repeatedly said that the root of democracy is to be searched in society, in the social relations between the people who form that society. He writes in The Prospects of Democracy in India:“The roots of democracy lie not in the form of Government, Parliamentary 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 the social relationship, in the terms of associated life between the people who form a society.”Adding: “What does the word ‘Society’ connote? To put it briefly when we speak of ‘Society,’ we conceive of it as one by its very nature. The qualities which accompany this unity are community of purpose and desire for welfare, loyalty to public ends and mutuality of sympathy and co-operation. Are these ideals to be found in Indian Society? The Indian Society does not consist of individuals. It consists of an innumerable collection of castes which are exclusive in their life and have no common experience to share and have no bond of sympathy.”Dr Ambedkar said that if rights are protected in a democracy, it is because fraternity exists between people. He argued that rights are not merely guaranteed by the machinery of the state but are sustained through fellow feeling among citizens. He writes in his work Philosophy of Hinduism: “Some equate Democracy with equality and liberty. Equality and liberty are no doubt the deepest concern of Democracy. But the more important question is what sustains equality and liberty? Some would say that it is the law of the state which sustains equality and liberty. This is not a true answer. What sustains equality and liberty is fellow feeling. What the French Revolutionists called fraternity. The word fraternity is not an adequate expression. The proper term is what the Buddha called Maitree. Without fraternity liberty would destroy equality and equality would destroy liberty. If in Democracy liberty does not destroy equality and equality does not destroy liberty, it is because at the basis of both there is fraternity. Fraternity is therefore the root of Democracy.”The recent UGC guidelines yet again gave us a reality check, reminding us of what Dr Ambedkar articulated decades ago that rights may exist in law, but their exercise ultimately depends on whether society permits them. Caste denies fraternity in our society. Until caste ceases to shape public spirit and sympathy extends beyond the narrow boundaries of one’s own caste, the promise of democracy in India will remain incomplete. Ritesh Jyoti is pursuing Master’s in Development from Azim Premji University, Bangalore.