Ambedkar: the Argument, Nationalism and the New Social Order

In one line

Ambedkar answers four objections in turn, from those indifferent to a Nazi victory, from pacifists, from pessimists and from nationalists, and ends by saying that without victory in the war independence would be idle twaddle.

The four objections, and his answers

He organises the middle of the speech as a series of replies. Learning the four in order is the quickest way to hold the whole broadcast.

Objection one: some do not mind a Nazi victory. His answer is short and contemptuous. Not many take this view, and those who do are not serious: "They arc embittered politicians who will not be satisfied unless they are allowed to dictate their way and whose motto is 'all or nothing'."

Objection two: the pacifists, who say all wars are wrong. He concedes the premise: it is true that wars have devastated and defaced human civilisation. Then he refuses the conclusion. Wars cannot be abolished by refusing to fight when attacked, and "Peace obtained by surrender to the forces of violence is not peace. It is an act of suicide."

And his positive account of what abolishes war. Two things only: to win the war, and to establish a just peace. He then makes an original point: the origin of war does not lie in man's thirst for blood but "in the vile peace that victors often impose upon the vanquished." Therefore the duty of a pacifist is to be active both while the war is on and while the terms of peace are being made. Pacifists, he says, are active against war when war is on and inactive when peace is being made, and so "lose both, war as well as peace."

Objection three: the pessimists, who say there is no guarantee that victory will bring a new order. He allows that there is room for the pessimism. The New Order has its roots in the French Revolution, which produced two principles: self-government, the desire of a people to rule itself rather than be ruled by others, which is called democracy; and self-determination, the desire of a people united by common ideals to decide its own political status, which is called nationalism. After nearly a hundred and forty years these principles have failed to take root, and barring a few countries there was neither self-government nor self-determination in the world.

His answer to it. That this is not an argument against labour's position but an argument for vigilance: the war must not stop with victory over the Nazis, and "there must be no peace unless there is victory over the Old Order wherever it is found."

Objection four: the nationalists. The longest and most difficult section, and it has its own heading below.