What did Ambedkar mean by "one man, one value"?
He meant that a vote each is only half of democracy, and the easier half. On 26 January 1950, he told the Assembly, India would enter a life of contradictions: in politics it would have equality — one man, one vote, one vote, one value — while in social and economic life it would go on denying that same principle, letting birth and wealth decide a person's worth. Political democracy would sit on top of a society that was not democratic at all.
He did not think this could hold forever. A people kept unequal in their daily lives, he warned, would sooner or later ask why their equal vote had changed so little, and if the answer stayed "nothing," they might blow up the political structure the Assembly had so carefully built. The task, therefore, was to remove the contradiction as fast as possible — to turn the paper equality of the vote into a real equality of standing — or live in danger of losing both.
This is the distinction between political and social democracy that runs through his last speech. Political democracy is a form of government; social democracy is a way of life that recognises liberty, equality and fraternity as one, not as three things to be traded off. He thought India had built the first and would fail unless it went on to build the second.