By Zile Singh
Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar
( April 14, 1891 – December 6, 1956)
Bharat Rattan Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Chief Architect of the Indian Constitution, a Champion of Human Rights is popularly known as ‘ Babasaheb’. His 127th Birth Anniversary was celebrated on April 14 throughout India and the world.
In the present day context, his relevance is more important than it was during his lifetime. While his social, economic and political views are well known, his approach to foreign policy is unknown to many. The reason is that, first he was extremely busy in drafting the Constitution and second that he was ignored deliberately by the government with policies relating to our defence and international relations.
In his last speech, while presenting the final copy of the Constitution to the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949, Dr. Ambedkar warned about the following three things: First, he warned about the unconstitutional methods like civil disobedience, non-cooperation, and Satyagraha etc.
“When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. These violent methods are the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us”. Unfortunately, his warning has been ignored. Non-violent methods like street protests, dharnas and rioting have become the order of the day. The Second thing “we must do is to observe the caution which John Stuart Mill has given to all who are interested in the maintenance of democracy, namely, not to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to entrust him with the power which enables him to subvert their institutions. As has been well said by the Irish Patriot Daniel O’Connell, “No man can be grateful at the cost of his honour, no woman can be grateful at the cost of her chastity and no nation can be grateful at the cost of its liberty.” This is more important in case of India because here bhakti, devotion and hero-worship of politicians are unequaled in magnitude. It may be useful in religion but in politics, bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.
The Third thing “we must do is not to be content with mere political democracy. We must make our political democracy a social democracy as well. On January 26, 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. If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril.”
On Kashmir, which has become an international issue and a bone of contention between India and Pakistan, Dr. Ambedkar, a bold and honest person as he was, had no reservation in explaining why he was against Article 370 of the Constitution which gave a Special Status to Jammu and Kashmir State. This is what Dr. Ambedkar said to Sheikh Abdullah, the founder of National Conference and one of the prominent leaders of Kashmir at the time of Independence.
“You wish India should protect your borders, she should build roads in your area, she should supply you food grains and Kashmir should get equal status as India. But Government of India should have only limited powers and Indian people should have no rights in Kashmir. To give consent to this proposal, would be a treacherous thing against the interests of India and I, as the Law Minister of India, will never do it.”
Dr. Ambedkar walked out of the meeting when Article 370 was being adopted.
Dr. Ambedkar’s views on our China policy were: On April 29, 1954, Panchsheel was signed between Nehru and Zhou Enlai. India and China became inseparable brothers. On August 26, 1954, Dr. Ambedkar ruthlessly dissected the foreign policy of the Nehru Government in the Rajya Sabha. Among others, he said about China, “ … Well, I am somewhat surprised that the Prime Minister should take this 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.” Nehru got the biggest shock when China violated the principles of Panchsheel and attacked India in 1962.
Indian foreign policy’s another plank “ Asia for Asiatics” did not appeal to Dr. Ambedkar. He said, “In so far as colonialism is concerned, that principle is perfectly true. Asia is a divided house today. More than half of Asia is communist. What is the use of talking about Asia for Asiatics? Asia is already becoming the cockpit of war and strife among Asians themselves. Therefore, it is better to align ourselves with what we call free nations if we believe in freedom.”
His clear hint was to join the Capitalist Bloc.
As for the Permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council, Dr. Ambedkar commented, “ The government’s foreign policy has failed to make India stronger. Why Nehru did not try for it.” Reportedly, both the United States and the USSR (now Russia) were willing to accommodate India as a Permanent Member in 1955, perhaps in lieu of Taiwan or as a sixth member. Instead, Nehru advocated the Permanent Membership for the People’s Republic of China.
Dr. Ambedkar criticised Nehru’s foreign policy for trying to “solve the problems of other countries and not exerting to solve the problems of our own country.”
Things would have different today, had our foreign policy been in line with the vision of Dr. Ambedkar.
Mr. Zile Singh is much respected Link Columnist, writer and a Vipassana Meditator. He can be reached at [email protected] .
