Vol. 15 · pages 901–905

882 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES a double-edged weapon. The enemy, if he conquers France, can use the tunnel and rush troops into England and conquer England. That might also happen. The Prime Minister, in digging the tunnel, thinks that he alone would be able to use it. He does not realise that it can always be a two-way traffic, and that a conqueror who comes on 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. Mr. Chairman: Getting time. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Now, one or two small observations Mr. Chairman : One or two small observations to wind up. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Yes. The Prime Minister has been depending upon what may be called the Panchsheel taken by Mr. Mao and recorded in the Tibet Treaty of non-aggression. 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. 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. You can keep your word in accordance with the morality of today and you can break your word with equal justification tommorrow because tomorrow’s morality will be different. The second thing is that when the Russian Communist State is dealing with the other States, each transaction is a unit by itself. When we deal with somebody, we begin with goodwill and end with gratitude. When the Russians deal with somebody, they do not begin with goodwill, nor do they end with any gratitude. Each transaction begins and ends by itself, and this is what I am sure the Prime Minister will find at the end when the situation ripens. The Prime Minister has always been saying that there is such a thing as the principle,

883PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES “Asia for Asiatics”. Yes, in so far as colonialism is concerned, that principle is perfectly true. Asia must be for Asiatics, but we are dealing with a situation like this ? Is Asia one today ? In what sense ? Asia is divided now, it is a divided house now. More than half of Asia is communist. It has adopted a different principle of life and a different principle of Government. The rest of Asia follows a different life and a different principle of Government. What unity can there be among Asiatics ? What is the use of talking about Asia for Asiatics ? There can be no such thing at all. 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. One word about Goa. There can be no doubt that the Prime Minister in pursuing the policy of getting Goa evacuated is quite right. It is a very sound policy and everybody must lend his support to him. I do. But there is one observation that I would like to make. This question about the evacuation of Goa by the Portuguese and handing it over to India was, if I remember aright, brought to his notice very early when we got our independence. I possess with me some notes which were submitted to him by a delegation—I have forgotten their names, but I have got them with me—but the Prime Minister took no active interest in it. I am very sorry to say that, because I feel that if the Prime Minister had in the very beginning taken an active interest in the matter. I am sure about it that a small police action on the part of the Government of India would have been quite sufficient to enable us to get possession of Goa, but he has always been only shouting against them, only shouting and doing nothing. The result has been that the Portuguese have been able, so far as we know, to garrison Goa. Of course, the Prime Minister’s information must be correct and must be accepted by us that Goa is still defenseless, that there is no garrison there, no army there, brought by the Portuguese. Shri Jawaharlal Nehru: I said no such thing. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I thought he said so, but whatever it is, the point now is this : Personally I myself think that

884 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES this discussion over observers has no value and no consequence. Supposing the Portuguese give the best treatment to the Goanese, are we going to give up our claim over Goa ? May be that they give dominion status to them, so far as we know, and make them full-fledged citizens, but we are not going to give up our claim to Goa. No doubt about it. It is part of India. Therefore all this talk about observers seems to me to be beside the point. We must deal with the Portuguese people over this question. Are they prepared to surrender their sovereignty in the same way as the British did ? This is the only issue that I think need be discussed. Sir, it seems very unfortunate that some of the enlightened nations are siding with the Portuguese. I am sorry to see Mr. Churchill in a clandestine manner siding with the Portuguese saying to us. ‘Do not use force’, Why ? Are they going to go away with a kiss from the Prime Minister ? And without a shot being fired ? Similarly Brazil, and I do not know what the attitude of the U.S.A. is, which has not been publicly proclaimed. Possibly, they may also have a soft corner for Portugal. I have been wondering why all these things have happened, why England, which voluntarily surrendered sovereignty, to the people of this country, should ask another country similarly situated to act in a contrary way. It is impossible to understand it. It seems to me—the Prime minister may accept my suggestion or may not accept it but it seems to me that they are trying to teach our Prime Minister that neutrality has price. Shri P. Sundarayya : The Prime Minister must take note of it. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am going to make one suggestion to the Prime Minister. I do not think that we should have an armed conflict with the Portuguese if the Portuguese are going to be supported by other United Nations members, but less than that, there are two proposals that I wanted to make. You remember perhaps that there was the case in America which concerned the State of Louisiana, which was a French possession in the midst of American possessions and the Americans were very anxious to get rid of the French and to have Louisiana transferred to the United States. The

885PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES measure that they adopted was to get it for a price. The price given was—I have got the figures with me. Shri P. Sundarayya: A few pieces or silver. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: A very small price indeed for a huge territory. Goa is really nothing compared with it. Goa is just one of the towns of Louisiana. If the Prime Minister wishes to adopt it ............. Shri Jawaharlal Nehru: What is it ? Mr. Chairman: Purchase it from Portugal ............. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Initiate discussion on that. I am suggesting alternative methods. Mr. Chairman: That is one suggestion. What is the other ? Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: The other suggestion that I would like to put before the Prime Minister is that we can take Goa on lease. We all remember in our own country of the lease of Berar. Berar was the property of the Nizam. He had sovereignty over it, but the British Government in the year 1853 or so got Berar on a permanent lease. I do not know what amount of money they gave the Nizam. It might have been very small. Shri B. Gupta: If we do that, we will have to mortgage India’s honour. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am sorry I Can’t follow him. It is very difficult for me to follow him. Mr. Chairman: It is difficult to follow him. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: What I say is this. We are hot interested very much as to who is the nominal sovereign in this matter. What we are interested in getting possession of Goa, and in establishing our own administration there. We have here a case where in our own country a territory belonging to another sovereign was leased over, made permanently part of India with certain embellishments to indicate that there was a sovereign. I think his son was made Prince of Berar. That is another method which the Prime

886 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Minister may try. I don’t see any reason why he should not succeed with the Portuguese in persuading them to adopt either of the two methods. There is only one more observation I will make and I will sit down. I was reading the other day a volume published by the Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House, giving a survey of things that led to the Second World War, and the author, undoubtedly one of the best and most erudite, drew two conclusions as to why the war came and why it was not avoided. One was that Mr. Chamberlain, on account of the policy of disarmament which was then being agitated upon by the Labour Party could not preserve what is called the balance of power in Europe and allowed Hitler to grow and grow until, it was difficult to control him. The second thing, he said, was that Chamberlain made the greatest mistake in believing in the word of Hitler. There was no greater liar than Hitler. He was given all that he wanted when the Sudetan Germans were separated from Czechoslovakia and he said he had nothing more to ask. The whole House will remember that after that treaty was signed, the very next day he marched into Czechoslovakia. I hope our Prime Minister will not make these blunders. Sir, I have done.