Vol. 17, Part II · pages 371–375

346 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES My Department has shown this letter to Finance Department who agree with it. Yours Sincerely, B. R. Ambedkar Member Labour February 1946’’ 1 His Excellency the Right Honourable Viscount Wavell. Dr. Ambedkar’s this letter was in response to following letter by Viceroy Viscount WAVELL. The Viceroy’s House 20th January 1946 Dear Dr. Ambedkar, It is very satisfactory that Madras and Orissa have been able to come to terms about the Machkund case. I have telegraphed to both the Governors asking them to see that the agreement is confirmed as soon as possible. I understand from Menon that in the course of negotiations the desirability of making an early start with the Mahanadi scheme by the contruction of a dam at Sambalpur was mentioned. Orissa is a very poor and backward Province, and if it is technically sound to construct the Sambalpur Dam—a point on which I think we should be able to satisfy ourselves at once—I hope we shall be able, subject to Rowlands agreement, to go ahead almost immediately. You know my interest in water control and irrigation, and I should like to be kept in touch with progress. Perhaps we could aim at a decision early enough (if we decided to go ahead) to enable Lewis to lay the foundation stone before he hands over charge on the 31st March. Yours sincerely, Wavell The Hon’ble Dr. B. R. Ambedkar 1 Thorat, Pp 172-174.

22 WE MUST WORK IN INDIA FOR CREATING CO-OPERATIVE SPIRIT AMONG ALL PARTIES “London, October 22, 1946. (Reuter) In the course of an interview to Reuter’s Correspondent on the Indian constitutional situation, Dr. Ambedkar said : “It is quite definite that they are not friends, they are not even allies.” He added, “We know people who are allies though not friends, but the Muslim League and the Congress Party have gone into the Provisional Government as adversaries. What can we expect ? One can hardly call that a coalition. It is really, in a sense, Government of one country by two nations” Dr. Ambedkar said that this was not the time for party Government in India. “We are practically in the midst of a Civil war”, he asserted. “You may not like to call it a civil war, but that is the spirit behind it. At this time there should be a real coalition Government consisting of all parties at the Centre just as you in Britain had during the war. I think the coming ten years are so critical in the destiny of India that unless all parties work together we will not be able to put the country any way you like.” “We must remember that we shall have to create such a feeling in India,” continued Dr. Ambedkar. “Hereafter, there will be no such thing in India as section 93 of the Government of India Act of 1935. Section 93 was really a Constitutional brake upon anarchy, however, much it was hated by the people.” Dr. Ambedkar said and added : “There will be no British troops. It is in the light of these circumstances that we must work in India for the purpose of creating that co-operative spirit among all parties and people that alone can help us in future.” Dr. Ambedkar confessed himself unhappy both about the present and the future. “After all,” he asked, “What had we achieved and what is it that the future has in prospect?— two nations dividing the country geographically into three fragments.” “Which way does hope lie?” I asked Dr. Ambedkar.

348 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES “I have no idea,” he answered, “but if I had arranged matters I would have proposed reintroduction of the Government of India Act of 1935.” “That Act,” he said “presupposed a United India and it might have altered the communal part of the situation in a manner that would have given a greater protection to certain minorities who felt they did not have enough protection.” “Then I would have said, work for the United Constitution for ten years. At the end of ten years, have a Constituent Assembly and divide country any way you like.” “If the British had done that,” declared Dr. Ambedkar, “they could have said our greatest achievement has been the unity of India, and although we have made many mistakes and done many wrongs, the unity we have achieved has more than compensated for the wrongs and errors of 150 years and we intended to handover the inheritance intact.” “I have come over on a political mission to see Prime Minister Clement Atlee, Mr. Winston Churchill, and others,” Dr. Ambedkar said, “ I want to put my point of view with what success I cannot say, as to the injustice the Cabinet Mission and the Labour Party have done to the Scheduled Castes. I think personally the Cabinet Mission was misinformed.” Now, concluded Dr. Ambedkar, “in the reconstituted Indian Provisional Government, we have the Labour Government instead of allowing the Scheduled Castes to be nursed by their own mother that is by having two representatives in the Cabinet appointed two wet-nurses in shape of Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Gandhi.” Dr. Ambedkar is having a memorandum printed setting out the case for the Scheduled Castes and will wait until this is ready before approaching political leaders.” 1 zz 1. : The Bombay Chronicle, dated 24th October 1946.

23 UNLESS THESE POINTS WERE CLEARED NO LEAD ON PARTITION ISSUE New Delhi, April 27, 1947. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, President of the Scheduled Castes Federation, in an interview here today, said that the Federation had not come to any conclusion on the question of the partition of Bengal and the Punjab nor had it any desire to prejudge the issue. If the Hindus wanted partition, he said, they would have to satisfy the Scheduled Castes on the following points :— Firstly, what protection are the Hindus prepared to offer to the Scheduled Castes under the new Constitution as against what the Muslim League would be ready to offer? Secondly, where will the boundary line be drawn? Thirdly, will there be provision for an exchange of population? And fourthly, what provisions are the Hindus prepared to make for the economic rehabilitation of the Scheduled Castes who, as a result of division, will be left within the Muslim Zone and who will have been brought over to the Hindu Zone as a result of an exchange of population? Unless these points were cleared, Dr. Ambedkar added, it would not be possible for the Federation to give a clear lead on the issue of the partition of Bengal and the Punjab.— A. P. I.” 1 zz 1. : The Times of India, dated 28th April 1947.

24 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA WILL NOT RECOGNISE ANY PRINCELY STATE AS SOVEREIGN INDEPENDENT There was a move for declaring India as an Independent Sovereign Country and there was a question, what would be the position of the Princely States? The Princely States were of the opinion that they will also have Independent Sovereign States, as they are also under the control of British Govt. ‘Travancore’ and ‘Hyderabad’ were the main Princely States. The Cabinet Mission also upheld this view but Dr. B. R. Ambedkar opposed the view and issued a statement showing how the Cabinet Mission’s view was wrong for the nation. He further stressed that all the Princely States should be merged in India, in the interest of the sovereignty of the country. The statement read as follows: Editors. “The only way by which the Indian States can free themselves from Paramountcy is by bringing about a merger of sovereignty or suzerainty. This can happen only when the Indian States join the Indian Union as constituent units” says Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, former member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council and a leading constitutional lawyer, in a statement opposing the declaration of independence by certain States. The Indian States, Dr. Ambedkar says, will be sovereign to the extent they are, but they cannot be independent so long as they remain under the suzerainty, as they must, of the Crown, if India becomes independent. The States should realise, he adds, that their existence as Sovereign Independent States will not be worth fine years’ purchase. Dr. Ambedkar goes on, the basis of the claim made by the States for a right to declare themselves independent lies in the Statement of May 12, 1946 issued by the Cabinet Mission, in which they say that the British Government could not and will not in any circumstances transfer Paramountcy to an Indian Government which means that the rights of the States which follow from their relationship to the Crown will no longer exist, and that all the rights surrenderd by the States to the Paramount power will return to the States. Mischievous Doctrine The doctrine that Paramountcy cannot be transferred to an Indian Government, is a most mischievous doctrine, and is based