While the BJP government revoked parts of Article 370, there has been a lot of chatter online on Dr Ambedkar’s views on Article 370. Everyone wants to know what the legend Dr Ambedkar had said about Kashmir issue or what were Babasaheb Ambedkar’s views on Article 370. There is one quote that is attributed to Dr Ambedkar quite often by mainstream media and so-called “experts” without any evidence or proof that it is said or written by Dr Ambedkar. Here is it that statement quoted to Dr Ambedkar,

“You wish India should protect your border, she should built roads in your areas, she should supply you food, grains and Kashmir should get equal status as India. But government of India should have only limited powers and Indian people should have no right in Kashmir. To give consent in your proposal, would be treacherous thing against the interest of India and I, as a Law Minister of India, will never do.”

This is a fake quote!

इस आर्टिकल को हिंदी में पढ़े – डॉ. बाबासाहेब आंबेडकर का कश्मीर मुद्देपर क्या विचार थे? – झूठे कथन से सावधान

Nowhere in Dr Ambedkar’s writings and speeches, there is any mention of such a statement. It seems that the quote originated from RSS’s headquarter! If there is any evidence that Dr Ambedkar said the above statement, we would love to see the evidence from Dr Ambedkar’s work not from the work of anyone else. Let us know in the comments if you have any evidence. It’s almost on the same lines as BJP/RSS said oh Dr Ambedkar also wanted demonetization, which is utter lie once again. All such attempts are to appropriate great leader into RSS’s fold.

In fact, this fake quote is from Balraj Madhok, RSS member, who attributed this quote to Dr Ambedkar almost after 30 years of Dr Ambedkar’s death. There is no evidence that Dr Ambedkar ever said these words. Right-wing magazine, close to RSS, Swarajyamag accepts the same that Balraj Madhok brought to light Dr Ambedkar’s opposition to special privileges for Kashmir.

On 10th October 1951, Dr Ambedkar spoke about Kashmir issue when he was giving a statement in explanation of his resignation that one can find in BAWS, Vol. 14 (2) starting from page 1317. Here is the text from that speech –

The third matter which has given me cause, not merely for dissatisfaction but for actual anxiety and even worry, is the foreign policy of the country. Any one, who has followed the course of our foreign policy and along with it the attitude of other countries towards India, could not fail to realize the sudden change that has taken place in their attitude towards us. On 15th of August 1947 when we began our life as an independent country, there was no country which wished us ill. Every country in the world was our friend. Today, after four years, all our friends have deserted us. We have no friends left. We have alienated ourselves. We are pursuing a lonely furrow with no one even to second our resolutions in the U.N.O. When I think of our foreign policy, I am reminded of what Bismark and Bernard Shaw have said. Bismark has said that “politics is not a game of realizing the ideal. Politics is the game of the possible.” Bernard Shaw not very long ago said that good ideals are good but one must not forget that it is often dangerous to be too good. Our foreign policy is in complete opposition to these words of wisdom uttered by two of the world’s greatest men.

How dangerous it has been to us this policy of doing the impossible and of being too good is illustrated by the great drain on our resources made by our military expenditure, by the difficulty of getting food for our starving millions and by difficulty of getting aid for the industrialization of our country.

Out of 350 crores of rupees of revenue we raise annually, we spend about Rs. 180 crores of rupees on the Army. It is a colossal expenditure which has hardly any parallel. This colossal expenditure is the direct result of our foreign policy. We have to foot the whole of our Bill for our defence ourselves because we have no friends on which we can depend for help in any emergency that may arise. I have been wondering whether this is the right sort of foreign policy.

Our quarrel with Pakistan is a part of our foreign policy about which I feel deeply dissatisfied. 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 where the condition of our people seems from all the newspapers intolerable than with Kashmir. Notwithstanding this we have been staking our all on the Kashmir issue. Even then I feel that we have been fighting on an unreal issue. The issue on which we are fighting most of the time is, who is in the right and who is in the worng. The real issue to my mind is not who is in the right but what is right. Taking that to be the main question, my view has always been that the right solution is to partition Kashmir. Give the Hindu and Buddhist part to India and the Muslim part to Pakistan as we did in the case of India. We are really not concerned with the Muslim part of Kashmir. It is a matter between the Muslims of Kashmir and Pakistan. They may decide the issue as they like. Or if you like, divide it into three parts; the Cease-fire zone, the Valley and the Jammu-Ladhak Region and have a plebiscite only in the Valley. What I am afraid of is that in the proposed plebiscite, which is to be an overall plebiscite, the Hindus and Buddhists of Kashmir are likely to be dragged into Pakistan against their wishes and we may have to face the same problems as we are facing today in East Bengal.

(The following text is from BAWS Vol. 15, page 129. It is not directly related to the Kashmir issue that India is facing right now but Dr Ambedkar mentions about Kashmir’s special provisions so we are reproducing that as well here. – Velivada Editor)

Then I come to Kashmir. As the House will see, there is a special provision with regard to Kashmir and that provision differs in one important respect and that is that the Kashmir representatives will not be elected by the people. Now, the reason for making an exception in regard to Kashmir is this, namely, that Kashmir is a part of India in a very attenuated manner, so to say. The Article relating to Kashmir says that only Article 1 applies, that is to say, Kashmir is part of the territories of India. The application of the other provisions of the Constitution, that Article says, will depend upon the President, who may in consultation with the Government of Kashmir apply the rest of the Articles with such modifications and alterations as he may determine. As the honourable House may probably know, there has been already issued an order in regard to Kashmir in which the President has modified the Article providing for the representation of States in Parliament by stating that he shall nominate the represntatives of Kashmir in consultation with the Government of Kashmir. I think it was issued on the 26th January. That being so, there is really no room for this Parliament to make any provision with regard to the representation of Kashmir in Parliament in a manner different from what has been provided in the Bill. I think that nothing more is necessary for the purpose of elucidating how the First Schedule has been brought into being.

Read also – Dr Ambedkar Had Supported A Plebiscite (Vote) On Kashmir Issue, Not Military Use