Political thoughts of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar • For nationality of flame into nationalism two conditions must exit. First, there must arise the “will to live as a nation.” Nationalism is the dynamic expression of that desire. Secondly, there must be a territory which the nationalism could occupy and make it a state, as well as a cultural home of the nation. • Unfortunately for the minorities in India, Indian Nationalism has developed a new doctrine which may be called the Divine Right of the majority to rule over the minorities according to the wishes of the majority. Any claim for the sharing of power by the minority is called Communalism while the monopolizing of the whole power by the majority is called Nationalism. • For words such as society, nation and country are just amorphous, if not ambiguous, term. There is no gain saying that ‘Nation’ though one word means many classes. Philosophically it may be possible to consider a nation as a unit but sociologically it cannot but be regarded as consisting of many classes and the freedom of the nation if it is to be reality must vouchsafe the freedom of the different classes comprised in it, particularly those who are treated as the servile classes. • A people who, notwithstanding their differences accept a common distiny for themselves as well as for their opponents, are a community. A people who are not only different from the rest but who refuse to accept for themselves the same destiny which others do, are a nation. • In the state of Kashmir the ruler is a Hindu, but the majority of the subjects are Muslims. The Muslims fought for representative government in Kashmir, because representative government in Kashmir meant the transfer of power from a Hindu king to the Muslim masses. In other Muslims states, the ruler is a Muslim but the majority of his subjects are Hindus. In such states representative government means the transfer of power from a Muslim Ruler to the Hindu masses, and that is why the Muslim support the introduction of representative government in one case and oppose it, in the other. • If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country. No matter what the Hindus say, Hinduism is a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity. On that account it is incompatible with democracy. Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost. • There is one thing which I think is very necessary in the working of democracy and it is this that the name of democracy there must be no tyranny of the majority over the minority. The minority must always feel safe that although the majority is carrying on the government, the morality is not being hurt, or the minority is not being hit below the belt. • When I think of our foreign Policy, I am reminded of what Bismarck and Bernard Shaw have said. Bismarck has said that, “Politics is not a game of realising the ideal. Politics is a game of the possible.” Bernard Shaw, not very long ago said that, “Good ideas are good but one must not forget that it is often dangerous to be too good.” Our foreign policy is incomplete opposition to those words of wisdom uttered by two of the world’s greatest men. • In our foreign policy, we have not been able to make a distinction between Capitalism and Parliamentary Democracy. The dislike of Capitalism is understandable. But we take care that we do not weaker Parliamentary Democracy and help Dictatorship to grow. It would be like throwing the baby out of the bath but in emptying it of dirty water. • We have told that our foreign policy is a policy of peace friendship. My Hon. Friend. Diwan Chaman Lal, called it the Nehru Doctrine. If that is the object of the Nehru Doctrine, it is a welcome doctrine provided it was observed at all. Now if the object of the foreign policy of this country is to maintain friendship and peace throughout the world, I want to know who are our enemies against whom we want to maintain this huge army at a huge cost of Rs.197 crores. • The keynote of our foreign policy is to solve the problems of other countries, and not to solve the problem s of our own. We have here the problem of Kashmir. We have succeeded in solving it. Everybody seems to have forgotten that it is a problem. But I suppose some day, we may wake up and find that the ghost is there. And I find that the Prime Minister had launched upon the project of digging a tunnel connecting Kashmir to India. Sir, I think, it is one of the most dangerous thing that a Prime Minister could do… That might happen the Prime Minister in digging the tunnel, thinks that he alone would be able to use it. He does not realise that a conqueror who comes to the other side and captures Kashmir, can come away straight to Pathankot and probably come into the Prime Minister’s House I do not know. • The Prime Minister has been depending upon what may be called the Panchasheel taken by Mr. Mao and recorded in the Tibet Treaty of non-aggression. Well, I am somewhat surprised that. The Prime Minister should take Panchsheel seriously. The Panchsheel, as you sir, know it well, is the essential part of the Buddhist religion, and if Mr. Mao had any faith in the Panchsheel, he certainly would treat the Buddhists in his own country in a very different way. There is no room for Panchsheel in politics and secondly not in the politics of a Communist Country. The Communist Countries have two well known principles on which they always act. One is that morality is always in a flux. There is no morality. Today’s morality is not tomorrow’s morality. • India’s first duty should be to herself. Instead of fighting to make Communist China a permanent member of the UNO. India should fight for getting herself recognised as the permanent member of the UNO, instead of doing this India is spending herself in fighting the battle of Mao as against Chiangkai Shek. • I do not want that our loyalty as Indians should be in slightest way affected by any competitive loyalty whether that loyalty arises out of our religion, out of our culture, out of our language. I want all people to be Indian first, Indian last and nothing else. • Kashmir was not a unitary state. It was a composite state, consisting of Hindus, Buddhist and Muslims. Jammu and Ladak were non Muslim areas whereas the Kashmir valley was Muslims. If we cannot save the whole of Kashmir at least let us save our Kith and Kin. • The first thing I would like to submit is that we claim that we must be treated as distinct minority, separate from the Hindu community… as a matter of fact there is really no link between the Depressed Classes and Hindu community… Secondly, I should like submit that the Depressed Classes minority needs far greater political protection than any other minority in British India, for the simple reason that it is educationally very backward, that it is economically very poor, socially enslaved and suffers from certain grave political disabilities, from which no other community suffers. • The principle of one language one province is too large to be given effect to in practice. The number of provinces that will have to be carved out if the principle is to be carried to its logical conclusion shows in my opinion its unworkability. For I am of the opinion that the most vital need of the day is to create among the mass of the people the sense of a common nationality, the feeling not that they are Indians first and Hindus, Mohammedan or Sindhis and Kanarese afterwards, but that they are Indians first and Indians last. If that be the ideal then it follows that nothing should be done which will harden local patriotism and group consciousness. • It does not seem to be sufficiently known that India is not the only country where the Mohammedans are in a minority. There are other countries in which they occupy the same position. Albania, the Mohammedan form a very large community. In Bulgaria, Greece and Rumania they form a minority and in Yugoslavia and Russia they form a large majority. Have the Mohammedan communities there insisted upon the necessity of separate communal electorates? As all students of political history are aware, the Mohammedan in these countries have managed without the benefit of separate electorates; nay, they have managed without any definite ratio of presentation assured to them. The Mohammedan case in India, therefore, overshoots the mark in my opinion and fails to carry conviction.
Posted on: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 08:59:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015