Vol. 17, Part II · pages 381–385

356 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES India. Consequently, the attempt to shift boundaries merely to include more of one’s fellow members is, I think, utterly misdirected. Defence Secondly, the problem would have been local, if Pakistan and India were not two Sovereign Independent States. The fact, however, is that they are, and each will have to defend itself against encroachment or invasion, should an occasion arise. In this view of the matter, the partition of the Punjab and Bengal is not a local problem but an all-India problem, for it involes the fixation of the frontiers of Pakistan and India and must be determined primarily by considerations of facility of defence and administration. In the light of these considerations, the Government of Pakistan and that of India would not only be the proper parties before the Boundary Commission, but they will be the necessary parties. The boundaries between Pakistan and India being the frontiers of India, it was for the Defence Department of the Government of India to have insisted that the Boundary Commission should have military officers asassessors which is always done in the settlement of frontiers between two States. Not only has the Defence Department of the Government of India failed to do so, it has not even cared to appear before the Boundary Commission to present the case from defence and administration points of view. It seems to have forgotten that the maintenance of the frontier will not be the responsibility of the East Punjab or West Bengal. From first to last, it will be the responsibility of the Government of India and it was, therefore, the primary concern of the Defence Department to have its say in the fixation of the frontiers. Natural Boundaries No one can deny that from the point of view of defence and administration, boundaries between Pakistan and India must be natural boundaries, i.e. they must run along a river or a

357BOUNDARY . . . . . . . . . GREAT JEOPARDY mountain. From the nature of contentions raised in the memoranda submitted to the Boundary Commission, it is clear that these factors will not receive the considerations they deserve. They are slurred over and not even mentioned. The danger is that the forntiers between Pakistan and India that are likely to emerge from the labours of the Boundary Commission, however, satisfactory they may be from the standpoint of the communities immediately affected, will be most unsatisfactory from the point of view of India. If my fears come true and the boundary drawn by the Commission is not a natural one, it needs no prophet to say that its maintenance will cost the Government of India very dearly and it will put the safety and security of the people of India in great jeopardy. I hope, therefore, that late as it is, the Defence Department will bestir itself and do its duty before it is too late.” —A.P.I.” 1 zz 1. : The Free Press Journal, dated 21st July 1947.

27 INDIAN CITIZENS HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS BEFORE THE LAW Dr. Ambedkar’s interview with Alan Campbell :— “Government House, New Delhi, Saturday, 24th April, 1948” “They and I dined tonight amid fairy-lights on the lawn of the Delhi Gymkhana Club. Our host was Shri Krishna (well-known Delhi political correspondent), who had collected an interesting party. The principal guest was Dr. Ambedkar, the Minister for Law, the Leader of the Untouchables, and a colourful personality in Indian politics over the past twenty years. He is now one of the principal figures associated with preparation of India’s new Constitution which finally removes the stigma of Untouchability from the Statue book. As part of his emancipation, Dr. Ambedkar, himself is Untouchable, has only recently married a lady doctor who is a Brahmin. The custom of centuries cannot be uprooted overnight, and the event has caused quite a stir. His wife was with him this evening, but, as it is the custom with so many Indian ladies on social occasion had little to say. Dr. Ambedkar himself was in expansive viewing, gave us a revealing analysis of some of the features of the new Constitution. He pointed out, instance, that the special powers reserved for the judiciary under its provisions were greater than enjoyed by the United States Supreme Court. As evidence of the enduring quality of the 1935 Act, said that some two hundred fifty of its clauses has been embodied as they stood into the new Constitution. We had a discussion on Cabinet Government, Dr. Ambedkar referred to the complaint that the present system was working too slowly in India. He thought that where the matter of policy affecting two department was involved the issue should at once be settled as between the Ministers concerned. He comments the Ceddes proposals and the system of non-departmental Cabinet chiefs with groups of departmental deputies under them. He said he was sorry. Mountbatten was leaving before the Constitution was finally

359INDIAN . . . . . . . . . THE LAW passed. The Commonwealth issue, he felt, was likely to be decided outside the Constituent Assembly.” (Mission With Mountbatten. Pp. 318-20 by Alan Campbell—Johnson). “The Indian Constitution, which was under active preparation and discussion during Lord Mountbatten’s term of office, is a synthesis of the great Western charters of liberty. The obvious hiatus between the vision of this document and the realities of Indian life does not destroy the validity of the vision. It represents a great tribute to the liberalising influence of British thought, and is a fundamental attack upon the aims and aspirations of communalism. The Indian Constitution offers fresh hope for the eighty million Untouchables, who under purely Hindu dogma were parials polluting food with their shadow, but are now Indian citizens with equal rights before the law. It is significant that one of the principal personalities in Nehru’s Government, and as such a prominent personality in the preparation and sponsorship of the Constitution, is Dr. Ambedkar, the well- known leader of the Untouchables.” 1 zz 1. : Mission with Mountbatten, Pp. 361-362, by Alan Campbell-Johnson. Reprinted : Khairmode, Vol. 10, Pp. 36-38.

28 ONE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE FOR CENTRE AND PROVINCES Bombay, October 15th, 1948. (API) Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, India’s Minister for Law, has expressed the opinion in a statement submitted to the Linguistic Provinces Commission, that the demand for the reconstitution of provinces on linguistic basis should be accepted but the Indian Union’s Constitution should provide that the official language of every Province shall be the same as the official language of the Central Government. It was only on that footing which was necessary to provide against the break-up of India’s unity that he was prepared to accept the demand for linguistic provinces, Dr. Ambedkar said. “A Linguistic Province produces what democracy needs vizsocial homogeneity.” Dr. Ambedkar said, “The reason why in a heterogeneous society democracy cannot succeed is because power, instead of being used impartially is used to the detriment of another.” Coming to the question of Maharashtra Province Dr. Ambedkar quoted figures showing its size and population, and said the figures left no doubt that Maharashtra would not merely be a viable Province, but a strong Province in point of area, population and revenue. He disapproved of the idea of sub-Provinces in Maharashtra, which would be a perpetual burden in normal times and a source of weakness in an emergency. Replying at great length to several points made in recent newspaper articles against the inclusion of Bombay in the proposed Maharashtra Province, Dr. Ambedkar argued that Maharashtra and Bombay were not merely interdependent, they were really one and integral and severance between the two would be fatal to both. “If the Commission can accept the arguments urged for the separation of Bombay from Maharashtra, it must be equally prepared to recommend the separation of Calcutta from West Bengal.” Dr. Ambedkar said, because “The Maharashtrians can at least claim that they have supplied labour if not capital for the trade and industry of Bombay; the Bengalis cannot even say this.” 1 zz 1. : The Sunday Chronicle, dated 17th October 1948.