Vol. 17, Part II · pages 366–370

341BOTH ARE MAKING A SERIOUS MISTAKE Parliament embodying provisions agreed upon by the important elements in the national life of British India. There is no other way. “There is a third fault in the C. R. formula. It relates to the provision for a treaty between Pakistan and Hindustan to safeguard what are called matters of common interest such as defence, foreign affairs and customs. Here again Mr. Rajagopalachari does not seem to be aware of obvious difficulties. “One does not mind very much that the talks failed. What one feels sorry for is that the talks failed without giving us a clear idea of some of the questions about which Mr. Jinnah has been observing some discreet silence in his public utterances, though he has been quite outspoken in his private talks. Questions to be clarified “These questions are :— (1) Is Pakistan to be conceded because of the resolution of the Muslim League ? (2) Are the Muslims, as distinguished from the Muslim League, to have no say in the matter ? (3) What will be the boundaries of Pakistan ? Whether the boundaries will be the present administrative boundaries of the Punjab and Bengal or whether the boundaries of Pakistan will be ethnological boundaries ? (4) What do the words subject to such territorial adjustments as may be necessary which occur in the Lahore resolution mean ? What were the territorial adjustments the League had in mind? (5) What does the word ‘finally’ which occurs in the last part of the Lahore resolution mean ? Did the league contemplate a transition period in which Pakistan will not be an independent and sovereign State ? (6) If Mr. Jinnah’s proposal is that the boundaries of eastern and western Pakistan are to be the present administrative boundaries, will he allow the Scheduled Castes, or, if I may say so, the Non-Muslims in the Punjab and Bengal to determine by a plebiscite whether they wish to be included in Mr. Jinnah’s Pakistan, and

342 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES whether Mr. Jinnah would be prepared to abide by the results of the plebiscite of the Non-Muslims elements in the Punjab and Bengal ? (7) Does Mr. Jinnah want a corridor running through the U. P. and Bihar to connect up Eastern Pakistan to Western Pakistan ? It would have been a great gain if straight questions had been put to Mr. Jinnah and unequivocal answers obtained.” After stating that the question of Pakistan was not an academic one and that discussion on it would have to be resumed. Dr. Ambedkar said : “the correspondence that passed between Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah suggests that Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah regard the Hindus and the Muslims as two necessary and proper parties to an agreement about Pakistan. It also suggests that Mr. Jinnah wants to have Pakistan with the provincial boundaries as they are and that without giving any say to the Non-Muslims in the Pakistan areas. “I am bound to state that in proceeding on these assumption both Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah are making a serious mistake. Besides the Hindus and Muslims, the Seheduled Castes are a third necessary party. They are a necessary party to the dispute. Mr. Gandhi, nor the Congress, nor the Hindu Mahasabha is entitled to speak for them. Mr. Jinnah must know that he cannot be allowed to walk away with so large a population of the Scheduled Castes without their consent. “As I am concerned in the question of Pakistan I must state my position that the Seheduled Castes could not be allowed to be included in Pakistan without their express consent either in the western zone or in the eastern zone, that consent being given expressly and in most positive terms such as a free referendum of their own.” 1 zz 1. : The Times of India : dated 5th October, 1944.

20 SAPRU IN THE WRONG New Delhi, December 31st, 1944. “Dr. B. R. Ambedkar in a statement in reply to Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru’s reference to the question of Scheduled Castes co-operation with the Conciliation Committee says:— “I cannot help being surprised that Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru seems to make a grievence of the fact that I refused to cooperate with this Committee. I should think that if anybody has a grievance, it is myself and not SirTej Bahadur Sapru. “I have no doubt that in going about his business he started at the wrong end. If he wanted the different parties to the communal dispute to agree to appear before the Committee, it was not only desirable but necessary that, before finalising the personnel of the committees, he should have, in fairness show the list of the names to the leaders of the parties concerned and invited them to say whether they had any objections to those names. Instead of doing that, he first decides the personnel at his own sweet will and present the parties with a ‘ fait accompli,’ leaving them to accept or reject it. To say the least of it, it is a very unfair, if not preposterous, way of appointing a Committee and expecting people to repose confidence in it. Names Not Submitted “When Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru approached me, he never gave me an inkling as to the sort of persons he was going to have in the Committee. We discussed only the general issue, namely, whether it was not desirable for an impartial body of people to consider the different demands put forward by different communities and to evaluate them and state which of those demands were reasonable and which were not. I certainly did expect that after that Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru would let me have the names of persons he intended to put on the Committee. He never did that. “In these circumstances, if I told Sir Tej Bahadur, I was not satisfied with the personnal of the Committee and, therefore, I could not undertake to co-operate with it. I do not think I am in the wrong.

344 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Simon Parallel “Sir Tej, at any rate, cannot say that my attitude is unresponsible. Everybody knows how in 1929 Sir Tej himself took the lead in opposing and non-co-operating with the Simon Commission on the ground that the personnel of that Commission was not in accordance with the general sentiments of the people of this country. “Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru while he mentioned the fact that I had declined to co-operate, did not mention the other portion of my letter in which I have stated that if he was prepared to reconstitute his Committee so as to give me satisfaction, I was still prepared to co-operate with him. Evidently, he thinks he can get on with the Committee by examining the literature and resolutions issued by the different communities setting out their demands and getting a miscellaneous crowd from the various communities to co-operate with him. He is, of course, welcome to do that. All I want to say is this, that he has made a grievance against me for which, I have no doubt there is no cause, and if there is a cause for it, he is solely responsible for it.”—A. P.” 1 zz 1. : The Free Press of India, dated 1st January 1945.

21 CONTROL AND UTILISE THE MAHANADI TO THE BEST ADVANTAGE LETTER BY DR. AMBEDKAR, CABINET MEMBER, LABOUR REGARDING HIRAKUND DAM Letter by Dr. Ambedkar, Department of Labour Dear Lord Wavell, Would you refer to paragraph 2 of your letter of the 20th January ? I have had this matter examined by my Department in consultation with Finance Department. Khosla has reported that the Sambalpur Dam must definitely form part of the Mahanadi Scheme, that the geological report is satisfactory but that he is not yet able to estimate the cost or the revenue accruing from either the dam or the scheme as whole. He considers, however that it is so certain that the Sambalpur Dam will form part of the Mahanadi Scheme that it is quite legitimate to lay the foundation stone in March. The Finance Member is all in favour of schemes of this sort and does not consider that the laying of the foundation stone will involve any specific commitments though he considers— as I do—that if a decision to lay a foundation stone is taken we can authorise the Governor to state that the Government are determined to control and utilise the Mahanadi to the best advantage of the country and that in this matter the Provincial Government hopes to receive all reasonable support from, the Central Government provided that the project plans now under preliminary preparation show, as is expected that it is worth while to go on with the scheme, In your letter you have said that we might perhaps aim at a decision early enough to enable Lewis to lay the foundation stone before he hands over charge. I think the only decision we can take is that we will assist Orissa in carrying forward the Mahanadi Scheme subject to the proviso indicated above. I think that this decision justifies us in going ahead with laying a foundation stone provided that with this assurance the Governor himself is prepared to do so from the Orissa angle.