In his important work, ‘Pakistan or Thoughts on Partition’, first published in 1940, Dr Ambedkar examined the issue of Pakistan in great detail.
As the nation celebrates the 75th anniversary of Independence, it also reminds us of the most grievous incident in the history of the nation, the Partition. The Partition—a result of the Indian Independence Act 1947—left the subcontinent partitioned into two independent nation states: Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan, causing one of the greatest migrations in human history, as millions of Muslims trekked to West and East Pakistan while millions of Hindus and Sikhs headed in the opposite direction. Whilst various prominent Indian leaders like M.K. Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Sardar Patel did not seem in favour of the Partition of India, Dr B.R. Ambedkar—popularly known for his contribution to the making of the Indian Constitution and the emancipation of the so-called untouchables—stood in support of Pakistan as a separate Muslim state. In his important work, “Pakistan or Thoughts on Partition”, first published in 1940, Ambedkar examined the issue of Pakistan in great detail, ultimately favouring the birth of Pakistan. Not only this, he further argued that populations should be transferred between Hindustan and Pakistan as a way to secure “belongingness” among Indians.
However, Dr Ambedkar’s significant work on Partition seems to have been deliberately ignored by the academia for a long time. The book displeased both Hindus and Muslims of the time, but it is quite a relevant document of political and social events of the sub-continent.
Following the entry of Mohamed Ali Jinnah into Muslim politics, the Muslim League’s Resolution on Pakistan in 1937 called forth different reactions from all sections of society and the problem of Pakistan became a headache to everyone. The question was undoubtedly controversial and distressing, especially for Hindus. Dr Ambedkar, a man of great wisdom and knowledge, examined the problem of Pakistan in such detail that both Mahatma Gandhi and M.A. Jinnah on various occasions referred to his book as an authority on the subject. In the beginning, Dr Ambedkar does not seem to have been in favour of Partitioning India and supporting the birth of Pakistan for several reasons. First, as he says, there cannot be Pakistan because of the cultural unity of India from immemorial times. Even though there have been multiple issues in Indian society, the fact is that India is a single geographical unit and its unity is as ancient as Nature. Dr Ambedkar says, “The ancient beauty of India of multiculturalism cannot be destroyed just because Muslims were dissatisfied.” Second, India is not the only country where there is communal antagonism. Therefore, it cannot be partitioned because of communal antagonism between the Hindus and the Muslims. The history of India from 1920 to 1935 was one long tale of communal conflict winked at by the British Raj in which the loss of life and loss of property had reached a shameful level. Yet, such riots did not prevent Hindus and Muslims from agreeing to live in a single country and under a single Constitution. In this regard, he referred to the examples of various foreign countries where there was communal antagonism. Dr Ambedkar says, “The French in Canada lived in political unity with the English, the English in South Africa lived in political unity with the Dutch, the French and the Italians in Switzerland lived in political unity with the Germans”. Given this, he questions why then it should be impossible for the Hindus and the Muslims to agree to live together under one Constitution in India. By using the analogy, “You don’t cut your head to cure your headache,” Dr Ambedkar rejected the idea of Partition based on communal antagonism.
He said that losing faith in a Congress majority in the legislature did not make the Pakistan case strong and justified. Further, he adds, there was so much in common between the Hindus and the Muslims that the Muslim elite (many of whom saw themselves as descendants not of the people of India but foreign countries) were afraid that unless there was Partition, what distinctive culture was left with the Muslims would eventually be affected by constant social contact with the Hindus. As such, in the end, as the Muslim League and British officialdom believed, instead of two nations—the Hindu nation and the Muslim nation—there would emerge only one nation in India. Such a coming together of the people of different faiths was anathema to the Two Nation school. In response to such a worry among the Muslim elite backed by powerful officials and politicians in Britain, Dr Ambedkar strongly argues, “If Muslim nationalism was so thin, then the motive for Partition was artificial and the case for Pakistan lost its very basis.”
Lastly, Dr Ambedkar did not find the demand for Pakistan justified just because Swaraj meant Hindu Raj to some Muslims. As he describes it, the undemocratic nature of elements of Hindu society which Muslims viewed as a ground for Partition, had been exploitative and oppressive to the millions of “untouchables” and non-Brahmins. It was however evident that the Muslim elite—the proponents of Partition because of the “undemocratic” Hindu society—never showed any interest nor took any part in the various movements for reforming Hindu society and uplifting the “untouchable” communities. At the same time, prominent Hindu leaders under the auspices of Congress showed more concern and regard for safeguarding the rights and interests of the Muslims than was their interest in addressing even the basic necessities of the most marginalised section of Hindu society—the “untouchables”. The astonishing fact claimed by one of the greatest sons of India was that Mahatma Gandhi seemed quite determined to oppose any political concession to the “untouchables”, but was very much willing to sign a “blank cheque” in favour of what he saw as Muslim causes. According to Dr Ambedkar, Muslims did not have the least reason to fret about the “undemocratic” character of Hindu society, contrary to what the Muslim elite constantly claimed.
Inspired by the two-nation theory, the Muslim elite’s objection to Hindu Raj seemed predicated on the basis that the Hindus were a majority community and the Muslims area minority and would be dominated by the former once British rule was over. Dr Ambedkar says, “India is not the only country where such a situation exists. In Canada, out of a total population of 10,376,786, only 2,927,990 are French. In South Africa, the Dutch number is 1,120,770 and the English are only 783,071. In Switzerland, out of the total population of 4,066,400, the Germans are 2,924,313, the French are 831,097 and the Italians are 242,034”. He further says, “the Muslims have been granted safeguards against the possible tyranny of the Hindu majority which is wider and better than the safeguards which have been given to the French in Canada, to the English in South Africa and to the French and the Italians in Switzerland”. To elaborate, Dr Ambedkar referred to the Government of India Act, 1935, under which out of a total of 187 seats in the Lower House of the Central Legislature, the Hindus were allotted 105 seats and the Muslims had 82 seats. As the figure demonstrates, there was no fear of Hindu Raj to Muslims, and therefore, the demand for Partition was baseless.
However, in his concluding remarks, Dr Ambedkar supported the idea of a separate nation, Pakistan. Preferring Freedom of India to the Unity of India, Dr Ambedkar agreed to the Partitioning of India into Muslim India and non-Muslim India as the surest and safest method of providing for the defence of Independent India. To him, what was important was not just the winning of independence but ensuring the means of maintaining it, which depends on a safe army—a mechanism on which the state can rely to maintain its survival in an anarchic world. As a realist, he was suspicious about the loyalty of those Muslims who were infected by communal antagonism and the two-nation theory, in the army of a Free and United India. In case of invasion by a foreign power, especially, the co-religionist to the Muslims of India, whose side would those Muslims in the army who believed in the Two Nation theory take: in defence of India or with the invaders? This was a critical question for Dr Ambedkar. To answer this, he argued that if Muslims got infused with the two-nation theory which was the foundation of Pakistan, then the army in India cannot be safe. In such circumstances, the army itself would be a potential threat to the independence of India. To that end, he claimed that Indians would be able to defend a free India when the army in India remains non-political and unaffected by the poison of the idea of Pakistan born of the notion of Two Nations. The fact of military rule in Pakistan soon after 1947 makes such a deduction prescient. The two armies have followed entirely different trajectories, in the way foreseen by Dr Ambedkar. He preferred absolute exchange of population between India and Pakistan once Partition took place.
Today, it is not just India which has been a victim of religious extremism but the entire world community appears to have witnessed it, especially, Britain, France, and Germany are the best examples to understand Islamist radicalism. The problem of Muslim exclusivity according to Dr Ambedkar was a headache for India. Many European countries such as Britain, France and Germany have faced “the problem of religious aggression”, which includes the 2006 cartoon crisis and the consequent surge of terror attacks on French territory—especially, the 14 July 2016 terrorist attack in Nice, killing almost 84 people. Similar is the rise of terrorism in Germany, particularly, the series of attacks in 2019 and 2020 that reflect radical views and anti-state orientation in a section of a particular community.
Renu Keer, PhD, is Senior Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Atma Ram Sanatan Dharma College, University of Delhi