Vol. 2 · pages 276–280

257ON PARTICIPATION IN THE WAR dominance which the Hindu exercises over me, is added the political dominance also. I will certainly not tolerate it. I repeat again that I will never allow it. We shall fight tooth and nail against politics being perverted for the purpose of establishing an oligarchy of a ruling class. I will not allow that. I repeat, I cannot allow a constitution which will mean liberty for them and empire over me. I will not allow a constitution in which I am not free and I am not an equal partner. Never will I allow that. Sir, I know these are strong words. But I want to remind the Honourable the Prime Minister that these words are not stronger than the words that were used by Ulstermen in connection with Ireland. I know that in this country when a man belonging to a minority community stands up to fight for the rights of his community, the whole crowd comes out against him, dubs him as communal, dubs him as an anti-Indian and dubs him as a tool acting in the hands of some bureaucrat working for the destruction of this country. Sir, I want to caution this crowd which is taking this attitude ; I say that the attitude that the minorities in this country are taking is far better, far nobler, than the attitude that Ulstermen took. What was the attitude of Ulstermen ? I remember reading the proceedings of a conference which was held at the instance of the late King Edward VII at Buckingham Palace in order to bring together the Southern Irish Nationalists and Ulstermen. The question was whether Ulster should be brought under the majority rule of the Southern Irishmen. What were the proposals made by the Nationalists in Southern Ireland to Ulstermen ? Many people probably might not be aware of that history. Those who are will know that Mr. John Redmond, who was the leader of the Irish Nationalist Party, did his level best in order to induce the Carsonites to come under the constitution. He said : “You can have any amount of weightage you like ; I do not mind.” Let us not live under the belief that weightage is being talked of only in India ; weightage was talked of a great deal in Ireland, and Redmond was prepared to give weightage to Ulstermen. He was prepared to give power in the constitution to some officer to prevent any kind of discrimination being made against Ulstermen. A further provision that the Irish Nationalists were prepared to make for Ulstermen was this, that if after 10 years the Ulster people found that the Southern Irishmen—who undoubtedly would be in a majority—abused their powers and maltreated and persecuted the Protestants of Ulster County, the Ulstermen had the right to go out of the constitution. Sir, they were tremendous provisions. What was the reply of the Ulstermen to this offer? The reply that the Ulstermen gave to Redmond was this : “Damn your safeguards. We do not want to be ruled by you.” Are we saying that? Would I not be entitled to say, in view of the stories that I have recounted, “Damn your safeguards. I do not want to be ruled by you ?” I am not saying that. What I am saying is this : “Give me my safeguards, which I think are necessary ;

258 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES and you can have your democracy.” I am sure that is a position which no man can quarrel with. I would say one word in the end. I know my position has not been understood properly in the country. It has often been misunderstood. Let me, therefore, take this opportunity to clarify my position. Sir, I say this, that whenever there has been a conflict between my personal interests and the interests of the country as a whole, I have always placed the claim of the country above my own personal claims. (Hear, hear). I have never pursued the path of private gain. If I had played my cards well, as other do, I might have been in some other place. I do not want to say anything about it, but I did not do it. There were colleagues with me at the Round Table Conference who, I am sure, would support what I say—that so far as the demands of the country are concerned, I have never lagged behind. Many European members who were at the Conference rather felt embarrassed that I was the enfant terrible of the Conference. But I will also leave no doubt in the minds of the people of this country that I have another loyalty to which I am bound and which I can never forsake. That loyalty is the community of untouchables, in which I am born, to which I belong, and which I hope I shall never desert. And I say this to this House as strongly as I possibly can, that whenever there is any conflict of interest between the country and the untouchables, so far as I am concerned, the untouchables’ interests will take precedence over the interests of the country. I am not going to support a tyrannising majority simply because it happens to speak in the name of the country. I am not going to support a party because it happens to speak in the name of the country. I shall not do that. Let everbody here and everywhere understand that that is my position. As between the country and myself, the country will have precedence ; as between the country and the Depressed Classes, the Depressed Classes will have precedence—the country will not have precedence. That is all that I would say with regard to these two amendments of mine. Now, with regard to the other amendments, I do not propose to detain the House at all. I was rather surprised at the remarks made by the Honourable the Prime Minister with regard to a part of the resolution which says that whatever arrangements are to be made they should be made with the consent of the Provincial Governments. I knew that he was not aware of the amendment which is being moved by my honourable friend Mr. Mukadam, because, I see, those parts are to be deleted. Therefore, I will not make any comments upon that part of the resolution, although I must say that on principle I do not agree with this part of the resolution. Now, Sir, before sitting down I would like to say one or two words with regard to the other amendments that are before the House. In doing so, I would advert first to the amendment moved by the honourable member the Leader of the Opposition. With regard to that amendment, I would

259ON PARTICIPATION IN THE WAR request the Prime Minister to note one thing which I think he has failed to note. It is true that the Leader of the Opposition in his amendment says that democracy has failed. But, Sir, the point that I wish the Prime Minister to note in making his comment upon the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition is this. We see now that he is opposed to democracy ; but, Sir, he may not be opposed to self-government. After all, democracy, autocracy, republicanism—these are all forms of government ; they all come under selfgovernment. So long as the honourable member the Leader of the Opposition does not take the view that this country is not entitled to self-government, I think too much blame ought not to be attached to the unfortunate language that has been used. After all, he is with us. And I do not understand my honourable friend the Prime Minister insisting upon democracy as the only solution. I remember reading the speeches of the leaders of the Honourable the Prime Minister at the Tripuri Congress. Unfortunately, the volume which I had with me I forgot to bring today. So much the better, because I could save time. But I think at the Tripuri Congress the friends of the Honourable the Prime Minister, Pandit Govind Vallabh Pant, Mr. Rajgopalachari, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and all of them were singing the praises of Mussolini and Hitler— The Honourable Mr. Morarji R. Desai : When ? Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I will quote chapter and verse if it is wanted. In fact I wanted to bring the book, but I forgot to bring it. The Honourable Mr. B. G. Kher : I was present there, and I heard the speeches. What the honourable member says is not correct. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I am sorry, I have not got the volume with me now. If I had it, we could have decided the issue right now. The Honourable the Speaker : There is no time for that now. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : All that I am saying is this, that so long as people in India have self-Government, whether the self-Government takes the form of democracy, whether it takes the form of autocracy, or whether it takes some other form, it is a matter of detail, about which there ought to be no quarrel. And, therefore, my submission is this : that in judging of the resolution, which, as I said, is somewhat unfortunately worded, his intention should not be misconstrued. With regard to the amendment moved by the Congress Party , join with the Prime Minister in saying that they ought to be felicitated on the amendment that they have moved, and I agree with the main basis of their resolution. There is one amendment, however, to which I cannot lend any support, and that is the one which is to the effect that the House approves of the intention of the ministry resigning—or something like that. Now, Sir, what I should like to say is this. My honourable friend the Prime Minister would agree—he is as good a politician as any politician can be— that this is really a matter for their party caucus. It is not a matter for

260 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the House to decide. Whether the ministry should go out or should not go out is entirely a matter for their party to decide. Why does he want my sanction for his going out? The Honourable Mr. B. G. Kher : I do not want it. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Why does he need it ? I put to him another conundrum. Suppose I bring an amendment to say that the ministry shall not come back unless I invite them, will he accept it ? I am sure he would not tie himself down in that manner. If you want my sanction for going out, it will be some honour to me if you will also make your re-entry dependent on my sanction. But you will not do that, and I feel bound in conscience to oppose that amendment. Sir, I thank you for the indulgence you have given me. (Applause). The Honourable the Speaker : I would repeat my appeal to curtail the time. The honourable member Dr. Ambedkar has taken an hour and a half. I hope other honourable members will now curtail their time. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I apologise, Sir. zz

47 *ON PARTICIPATION IN THE WAR : 3 The Honourable Mr. B. G. Kher : I shall try and finish as soon as you like. Sir, I will not go over the entire ground which the honourable Doctor has covered. I agree with him : I concede the correctness of what he says about the wrongs done to Harijans, because it is not necessary for my purpose to deny all those instances of wrongs which are done to the members of his community in this country. Those indeed are the wrongs which we have tried to remedy to the best of our ability for a long, long time. The honourable member did not say what the remedy was ; in that his long speech was lacking. As has been pointed out by other speakers, whether it is the judgment in the Sangamner case or the hundred and one cases which he has read out here, the only remedy is that we must have a proper form of government, and that form of government can only be democracy in this country with due safe-guards for the minorities—a point which we concede. Sir, we are thankful to the honourable member for pointing out to us that he did not say, like the Ulstermen, “Damn your safe-guards ; I do not want to be governed by you.” He was not going to say that, and I appreciate it. But I cannot appreciate the statement which he made—and which he believes in—in all sincerity. He said : “As between me and the country, the country has precedence.” I support him in this and I shall quote every word of what he has said. I have known the honourable member’s life and career intimately, and I can say that this is absolutely correct. He has always been willing to subordinate his personal advancement for the cause of the country. He goes on to say, “as between the depressed classes and the country, the depressed classes have precedence with him.” Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Certainly. The Honourable Mr. B. G. Kher : He said that ; he does not deny that. My quarrel is with that statement of his. Because the part can never be greater than the whole. The whole must contain the part. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I am not a part of the whole ; I am a part apart. zz *B.L.A. Debates, Vol. 7, p. 2130, dated 27th October 1939.