[Reader-list] What if Ambedkar had shaped India’s foreign policy?

[Navayana Publishing]

What if Ambedkar had shaped India’s foreign policy?


http://www.indianexpress.com/news/what-if-ambedkar-had-shaped-indias-foreign-policy/434288/

What if Ambedkar had shaped India’s foreign policy?
Harish Parvathaneni Posted online: Mar 14, 2009

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar remains one of modern India’s towering personalities.
While his social, economic and political views are well known, his approach
to foreign policy is more shadowy. Ambedkar’s interest in the area emerged
clearly in his resignation letter from the Cabinet in October 1951. Five
issues deserve close attention.

First, he notes that in 1946 he had prepared a report on the condition of
the scheduled castes for submission to the UN but did not do so because he
felt that “it would be better to wait until the constituent assembly and the
future Parliament was given a chance to deal with the matter”. Second, he
wrote that the foreign policy of the country has given him “cause, not
merely for dissatisfaction but for actual anxiety and even worry”. He
opined: “How dangerous it has been to us this policy of doing the impossible
and of being too good”.

Third, he expressed deep dissatisfaction with “our quarrel with Pakistan”
that he termed “a part of our foreign policy”. He wrote: “There are two
grounds which have disturbed our relations with Pakistan — one is Kashmir
and the other is the condition of our people in East Bengal. I felt that we
should be more deeply concerned with East Bengal — than with Kashmir. My
view has always been that the right solution is to partition Kashmir... Or
if you like, divide it into three parts; the cease-fire zone, the Valley and
the Jammu-Ladakh Region and have a plebiscite only in the Valley.”

Fourth, Ambedkar bemoaned the fact that he was neither a member of the
defence committee nor the foreign committee of the Cabinet and had “joint
responsibility without any opportunity of taking part in the shaping of
policy”.

Fifth, he regretted that he “had hardly any time to attend to our foreign
affairs” because he had been busy with the framing of the constitution.

Ambedkar’s criticism of Nehru’s foreign policy attracted international
attention.Time magazine noted: “Dr. Ambedkar is the first important Indian
official who has openly attacked Nehru for being too friendly to China and
not friendly enough to the US”.

Speaking to students of Lucknow University in November 1951, he said: “The
government’s foreign policy failed to make India stronger. Why should not
India get a permanent seat in the UN Security Council? Why has the prime
minister not tried for it? India must choose between parliamentary democracy
and the Communist way of dictatorship and come to a final conclusion”.

Ambedkar criticised Nehru’s foreign policy for trying to “solve the problems
of other countries and not to solve the problems of our own country”. On
China, he disagreed with the Tibet policy and felt that “there is no room
for Panchsheel in politics”. He said that “if Mr. Mao had any faith in the
Panchsheel, he certainly would treat the Buddhist in his own country in a
very different way”. He called for a more robust approach to the Goa
question, listing out annexation, purchase or lease as possible options. He
felt that a small police action by the government would enable obtaining
possession of Goa and criticised Nehru for only shouting against the
Portuguese and doing nothing.

Ambedkar’s solutions to the question of Pakistan were based on either
reaching an agreement or resorting to arbitration. His views on Kashmir and
East Bengal were significantly different from mainstream approaches on the
subject.

Ambedkar felt that close Indo-US relations premised on a natural affinity of
democracies would lead to foreign assistance to India and alleviate the
national burden. He repeatedly expressed the desirability of a league of
democracies in Asia and beyond. He challenged the government to move away
from non-alignment and come to a final decision of either aligning with
democratic governments or making friends with communist ones.

What clearly emerges is that Ambedkar had a dramatically opposite view on
foreign policy from Nehru. He espoused a pragmatic approach of trying to
achieve the possible than wait to realise the ideal. His fundamental tenet
was premised on fashioning foreign policy for solving our problems rather
than regional and global ones. He felt that foreign policy must enhance our
strategic and developmental options. He envisioned a strong India that took
its place in the global order based on developing its economic strength and
leveraging its political alliances with other democracies.

The India of the 1940s is unparallleled in the modern history of our
country. We had been blessed with many leaders of great integrity and
ability such as Ambedkar, Nehru, Gandhi, and Patel. They took on their
assigned tasks and made possible the emergence of India as it stands today.
Ambedkar’s efforts were totally consumed in the crafting of our Constitution
and with initial legislation. If his energies were directed towards crafting
the foreign policy of the new Republic, who knows what the results might
have been?

The writer is a serving IFS officer, views expressed are personal
============

S. Anand
www.navayana.org

Visit us at U450 at London Book Fair, 20-22  April 2009

Navayana
120, Ground Floor
Shahpur Jat
New Delhi 110017

Landline: +91-11-26494795
Mobile: +91-9971433117

Join Navayana Book Club and avail free books and special discounts!
http://www.navayana.org/display.php?id=5