Congress will not last till the sun and the moon: “How long is the Congress going to last? The Congress is Pandit Nehru and Pandit Nehru is Congress. But is Pandit Nehru immortal? Anyone who applies his mind to these questions will realise that the Congress will not last till the sun and the moon. It must one day come to an end.”
- Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches – Volume 1
Exploiting the caste: “Congress always wins, so it is found. But no one asks why does the Congress win? The answer is that Congress is very popular. But why is the Congress popular? The true answer is that Congress always puts up candidates which belong to castes which are in the majority in the constituencies. Caste and Congress are closely linked. It is by exploiting the caste system that the Congress wins.”
- Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches – Volume 8
Congress treatment with Muslims: “The Muslims know where they are with regard to the Hindu Mahasabha. On the other hand, with the Congress, Musalmans find themselves nowhere because the Congress has been treating the Muslims and the minority question as a game in diplomacy, if not in duplicity.”
Mopla and Congress: “The Resolution passed by the Working Committee of the Congress on the Mopla atrocities shows how careful the Congress was not to hurt the feelings of the Musalmans.”
Appeasement of Muslims: “It seems to me that the Congress has failed to realise two things. The first thing which the Congress has failed to realise is that there is a difference between appeasement and settlement, and that the difference is an essential one. Appeasement means buying off the aggressor by conniving at his acts of murder, rape, arson and loot against innocent persons who happen for the moment to be the victims of his displeasure. On the other hand, settlement means laying down the bounds which neither party to it can transgress. Appeasement sets no limits to the demands and aspirations of the aggressor. Settlement does. The second thing the Congress has failed to realise is that the policy of concession has increased Muslim aggressiveness, and what is worse, Muslims interpret these concessions as a sign of defeatism on the part of the Hindus and the absence of the will to resist. This policy of appeasement will involve the Hindus in the same fearful situation in which the Allies found themselves as a result of the policy of appeasement which they adopted towards Hitler.”
- Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches – Volume 9
Criticism of Gandhi: “Everybody was therefore [Round Table Conference] looking forward to the Congress to lead the Conference to success. Unfortunately, the Congress chose Mr. Gandhi as its representative. A worse person could not have been chosen to guide India’s destiny. As a unifying force he was a failure. Mr. Gandhi presents himself as a man full of humility. But his behaviour at the Round Table Conference showed that in the flush of victory. Mr. Gandhi can be very petty-minded. As a result of his successful compromise with the Government just before he came, Mr. Gandhi treated the whole non-Congress delegation with contempt. He insulted them whenever an occasion furnished him with an excuse by openly telling them that they were nobodies and that he alone, as the delegate of the Congress, represented the country. Instead of unifying the Indian delegation, Mr. Gandhi widened the breach. From the point of view of knowledge, Mr. Gandhi proved himself to be a very ill-equipped person. On the many constitutional and communal questions with which the Conference was confronted, Mr. Gandhi had many platitudes to utter but no views or suggestions of a constructive character to offer.”
- Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches – Volume 10
Congress buried non-violence: As I read the proceedings of the Congress during the last two or three years, the impression that has been left upon my mind is that there has been a terrible landslide in the principle of non-violence as has been proclaimed by the Congress. The non-violence has been deeply buried.”
- Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches – Volume 17
Congress is not sincere to remove untouchability: “It is true, Mahatma Ji, that you started to think about the problem of Untouchables before I was born. All old and elderly persons always like to emphasise the point of age. It is also true that because of you the Congress Party gave recognition to the problem. But let me tell you frankly that Congress did nothing beyond giving formal recognition to this problem. You say the Congress spent more than rupees twenty lakhs on the uplift of the Untouchables. I say it was all waste. With such a backing I could have effected an astounding change in the outlook and economic conditions of my people. And in that event, it would have been imperative for you to see me long before. But I tell you that the Congress is not sincere about its professions. Had it been sincere, it would have surely made the removal of Untouchability a condition, like the wearing of khaddar, for becoming a member of the Congress.”
DR. AMBEDKAR ON COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA
- Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches – Volume 3
Difference between Buddha and Karl Marx: “It is clear that the means adopted by the Buddha were to convert a man by changing his moral disposition to follow the path voluntarily. The means adopted by the Communists are equally clear, short and swift. They are (1) Violence and (2) Dictatorship of the Proletariat.”
Is human life not valuable: “Can the Communists say that in achieving their valuable end they have not destroyed other valuable ends? They have destroyed private property. Assuming that this is a valuable end can the Communists say that they have not destroyed other valuable end in the process of achieving it? How many people have they killed for achieving their end. Has human life no value? Could they not have taken property without taking the life of the owner.”
Weakness of communist political philosophy: “The Communists themselves admit that their theory of the state as a permanent dictatorship is a weakness in their political philosophy. They take shelter under the plea that the State will ultimately wither away. There are two questions which they have to answer. When will it wither away? What will take the place of the State when it withers away? To the first question they can give no definite time.”
Communist anarchy: “The Communists have given no answer. At any rate no satisfactory answer to the question what would take the place of the State when it withers away, though this question is more important than question when the State will wither away. Will it be succeeded by Anarchy? If so, the building up of the Communist State is a useless effort. If it cannot be sustained except by force and if it results in anarchy when the force holding it together is withdrawn what good is the Communist State.”
- Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches – Volume 10
Double standards of communists: “If labour leaders were to exclusively devote themselves to the labour cause and not to be instruments of political parties of other complexion or other character, but they would also be doing a great deal of service to labour itself. Unfortunately, we have not been able to get in this country labour leaders who are exclusively devoted to labour.”
- Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches – Volume 17 (part 3)
Communists exploited the labourer: As regards the labour movement carried on by the Communists, Dr. Ambedkar added that there was no possibility of his joining them. He declared that he was a confirmed enemy of the Communists, who exploited the labourers for their political ends.
“The third class of labour leaders is composed principally of the communists. They may be well meaning but I have no hesitation in saying that they are a misguided body of men and I go further and say that nobody has brought a greater ruination on the workers than these men. If today the back of workers is completely broken, if to-day the masters have the upper hand, if to-day unionism is an anathema it is entirely due to the misuse of the powers which the communists had at one time secured over the trade unions.”
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s concluding remarks in the Constituent Assembly on Constitution on 25 November 1949
“The condemnation of the Constitution largely comes from two quarters, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party. Why do they condemn the Constitution? Is it because it is really a bad Constitution? I venture to say no’. The Communist Party want a Constitution based upon the principle of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They condemn the Constitution because it is based upon parliamentary democracy. The Socialists want two things. The first thing they want is that if they come in power, the Constitution must give them the freedom to nationalize or socialize all private property without payment of compensation. The second thing that the Socialists want is that the Fundamental Rights mentioned in the Constitution must be absolute and without any limitations so that if their Party fails to come into power, they would have the unfettered freedom not merely to criticize, but also to overthrow the State.”
Comments