Vol. 15 · pages 891–895

872 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Bill was lying in the file of the Finance Department till in 1952 my hon. Friend, probably in doing the work of the office duster, found a copy somewhere. And what did he do ? It is an interesting thing. The Select Committee said that they could by some suitable amendment get over the difficulty of the Law of Mitakshara. My hon. Friend has made some effort to get over that difficulty and he has got over that difficulty by practically destroying the Mitakshara law. Clause 7 says that if a person below 18 dies, then there will be no estate duty but if a coparcener dies in a condition in which we describe him under the Hindu Law as the sole surviving coparcener, then estate duty may be levied. Well, Sir, if my hon. Friend can in this roundabout method defeat the Mitakshara Law, could he not have the courage to say, by bringing in another Bill or by inducing his colleague the Law Minister to bring in another Bill, that the Mitakshara Law is abolished ? So, Sir, these are some of the points which I wanted to make. Mitakshara Law is notionally destroyed, because under the Mitakshara Law there is no such thing as the passing of the property, because the property is already his by birth. There is no question of the passing of property. It is a wrong notion. I do not know who has told him about it. Under the Mitakshara Law property does not pass. As soon as a child is born, the property becomes his and the father’s share is reduced. What passes therefore on the death of the father ? Nothing. As soon as a son is born, the father’s share is affected. Supposing he has a second son, as he is likely to have, and the first child happens to be so unlucky as to have a brother, then the share is still further reduced. Sir, I am told that there are some 44 countries in the world which have passed such a law, viz. Estate Duty Law. I have not got the list with me, but I am sure very few of the Southern Asiatic Countries have passed any such law. There is hardly anything remaining with them. As the report of the Committee shows, they have nothing to pass on. Our great problem is. “How shall we accumulate ?” We hate capitalists and I do too. I Have all my life lived in Parel in a chawl of the Improvement Trust, Room No. 50. If people go there, they ‘ might visit it. I paid originally Rs. 3-8-0 as rent for my room

873PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES and I have still kept it as an emergency measure in case I am asked to go back again there. So I am no great friend of the capitalists, but I think that in this country we ought to make a distinction between capital and capital. If you want the capital from them, take it from them. Adopt the Russian system and go on. My only point is that you must have some discrimination. In their enthusiasm—which is a very good thing—I am afraid they are running amuck, because some other countries have done something. Well, India is certainly not Europe. I have gone to Europe several times, and I could very easily see the difference between India and Europe, very easily. What is good for Europe certainly could not be good for India. We have certainly to reach the standard that the European people have reached viz. standard of comfort, standard of living equality of treatment, education, etc. All these things we need. For that purpose, we need money. Take the case of the English people. Take their educational progress. There compulsory elementary education came in 1860, while the Oxford University was established some time in the eleventh century or the twelfth century. So, we have to be very careful in doing what we are doing. Our enthusiasm no doubt is well merited. It is good that we should bring about the betterment of the people, but we should be careful about the means that we adopt. That is all that I want to say.

874 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (48) INTERNATIONAL SITUATION *Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay) : Mr. Chairman in this debate on foreign policy what one can do, at the most, is to discuss the principles on which the foreign policy of the Government is based. There is hardly time for doing anything more. Principles are undoubtedly very valuable, but I take it politicians have a great dislike for principles, particularly politicians who are dealing with foreign policy. They like to deal with things ad hoc, each transaction by itself, without any underlying principle. I remember, that when after the first World War, Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Clemenceau met in a hotel in Paris before the Versailles Treaty in order to settle, among themselves, where to draw the line of partition between certain territories belonging to Germany in order to hand them over to France for satisfying the strategic fears of France, they had a long map spread in a room which covered the whole of the room and Lloyd George and Mr. Clemenceau had fallen on their tummy to examine exactly; where the line should be drawn. After a long search they drew the line which was of course, most suitable to France. Afterwards Mr. Lloyd George called Mr. Nicholson, who had accompanied him as the expert from his Foreign Office and asked him to express his opinion about the line which they had drawn. Mr. Nicholson explained in horror saying, “Oh! this is too bad, too bad. Morally quite indefensible”. Both these statesmen immediately turned on their back and raised their legs in the air and said, “Well, Mr. Nicholson, can’t you give us a better reason ?” I remember also about 1924 or so. Mr. Low, the great cartoonist, having drawn a cartoon in the Evening Standard in London showing the various Foreign Ministers of * P. D., Vol. 7A (Council of States), 26th August 1954, pp. 469-83.

875PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES the different countries of Europe then searching for the settlement of European problems with their top hats, tail coats and striped trousers holding each other’s hands, dancing round and saying, “Oh ! give us peace without principles, give us peace without principles”. Of course, the world laughed at that. I am glad that that cannot be said of our Prime Minister, He has certain principles on which he is proceeding. It is for the house to decide whether the principles on which he is proceeding are principles which can furnish us a safe guide and whether they are valid principles on which the destiny of this country could be staked. That is the only question that we can discuss and it is to these principles that I am going to confine myself. The principles on which the Prime Minister is proceeding— and he has said so himself—are mainly three. One is peace : the second is co-existence between communism and free democracy; and the third is opposition to SEATO. These are the three main props on which his Foreign policy is based. Now, Sir, in order that one may be able to assess the validity and the adequacy of these principles, I think, it is necessary to have some knowledge of the background of the present day problems with which we are concerned and for which these principles are enunciated. Now, the background, to my mind is nothing else but the expansion of communism in the world. It is quite impossible to follow the principle or to understand the validity and the nature of the principle unless one bears in mind the problem that the world has to face today—that part of the world which believes in parliamentary and free democracy, viz., the expansion of communism in the world. I propose to give some figures to the House which I have collected in this matter. I am not going back into the long past but I am going to start from May 1945 when the War came to an end. By May 1945, Russia had consumed ten European States. Shri B. Gupta: It is an utter falsehood. Mr. Chairman : Mr. Gupta, you will have your chance to reply.

876 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri B. Gupta: He cannot say such things. An older man like him can not say such things. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Sundarayya, tell him that he will have an opportunity of answering and he need not get excited. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: You will have time to answer. Don’t be impatient. The person who is often uneasy is the Prime Minister but he is not today. He is quite calm. Why are you so excited ? If you want to have a look at the authority, I will give it to you—I have got it here—provided I am assured that you will return it to me. Shri B. Gupta: You have your document from McCarthy and Dulles. Dr. B, R. Ambedkar: Now, Sir, I was saying that if we take stock of the situation from May 1945, and find out what has happened, this is the situation. Russia has consumed, as I said, ten European States: one is Finland; two, Estonia; three, Latvia; four, Lithuania; five, Poland; six, Czechoslovakia, seven; Hungary; eight, Rumania; nine, Bulgaria; and ten, Albania. Shri B. Gupta: ........... and eleven is Dr. Ambedkar! Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am glad you add to my list. You are more upto-date than the book. In addition, Russia has taken possession of parts of Germany, Austria, Norway and the Danish Island of Bornholm. Of these ten European States, three have been straightway annexed by Russia and made part of her country. The rest seven are kept under Russian influence. This European conquest of Russia amounts to an absorption of a total of 85,000 square miles and 23 millions of people subjugated. In the Far East, Russia has annexed the Chinese territory of China (Tannu Tuva). Manchuria, and Korea, north of the 38th parallel, and Southern Sakhalin. This territory in the Far East represents against a total area of 20,000 square miles and 500,000 inhabitants.