As tensions mounted between India and Pakistan following the recent Pahalgam terror attack, there was renewed talk of war, revenge, and even prophecies. Media outlets and social media influencers recycled predictions attributed to Baba Vanga, a Bulgarian mystic and Nostradamus, while strategic experts warned of nuclear escalation. In the din of rhetoric, mysticism, and populism, the voice of constitutional reason remains conspicuously absent.
It is in this fraught context that the political foresight of BR Ambedkar offers both caution and direction. Were he alive today, Ambedkar would likely reject both the fatalism of prophecy and the fury of nationalism, urging instead a rational, democratic, and socially just response to the crisis.
What BR Ambedkar really thought of Pakistan
In his seminal 1941 work Thoughts on Pakistan, Ambedkar critically examined the Muslim League's demand for a separate nation. He acknowledged the political grievances of Indian Muslims but warned that partition would not end communalism—it might, in fact, entrench it further.
Ambedkar did not approach the issue emotionally. He conducted a data-driven analysis, assessing demography, governance models, and inter-community relations. His conclusions were sobering: Partition might resolve some administrative tensions but would create new and enduring ideological divides.
Ambedkar’s deeper worry was the rise of communal nationalism—whether Hindu or Muslim. He believed theocracy and democracy were fundamentally incompatible. His warnings resonate today, as religious identity continues to dominate politics in both India and Pakistan. Had his rationalist approach been heeded, South Asia might have charted a more peaceful trajectory.
Prophecies are not policy
The resurfacing of vague predictions—such as Baba Vanga’s supposed vision of a 2025 global war or Nostradamus’s cryptic “Eastern rivers of blood”—reflects a disturbing trend. In uncertain times, people reach for certainty, even if it is irrational. But when political discourse begins to entertain mystical fatalism, it signals a deeper erosion of scientific temper and democratic reasoning.
Ambedkar had little patience for superstition. He championed scientific rationality and warned against surrendering public policy to irrational forces. He would have viewed current media coverage of “prophetic war predictions” not just as irresponsible, but as dangerous. For him, destiny was shaped by deliberation, not divination.
The rise of populist nationalism
Across South Asia, majoritarian politics has taken root. In India, Hindu nationalism has gained mainstream legitimacy. In Pakistan, religious orthodoxy continues to constrain democratic evolution. Civil liberties are under siege. Minority rights are increasingly precarious. And the judiciary, once a bulwark of constitutional values, is often too silent.
Ambedkar warned against such developments. In his final speech to the Constituent Assembly in 1949, he cautioned that “bhakti in politics is a sure road to dictatorship.” Today, this “political bhakti” manifests in the cult of strong leaders, the suppression of dissent, and the glorification of militaristic nationalism.
War becomes a spectacle—a test of loyalty, a theatre of strength. Yet the real casualty is democracy itself.
Reclaiming the constitutional compass
So what would an Ambedkarite response to Indo-Pak tensions look like?
Prioritise diplomacy over deterrence: War, Ambedkar believed, was the last resort of a failed politics. His vision of democracy demanded negotiation, even with ideological adversaries. India and Pakistan must return to structured dialogues—on Kashmir, terrorism, trade, and climate—however difficult they may be.
Reinforce constitutional values: Both nations must uphold the spirit of their constitutions. In India’s case, this means protecting minority rights, restoring civil liberties, and resisting communal polarisation. Ambedkar’s insistence on fraternity—as the emotional glue of democracy—remains deeply relevant.
Reject superstitious narratives: Governments and media must reject the legitimisation of prophecy in public affairs. Superstition, Ambedkar argued, was not harmless; it was a barrier to enlightenment. Political leaders must model reason, not magical thinking.
Expand people-to-people peacebuilding: Ambedkar believed in “conjoint communicated experience.” Cultural exchange, academic collaboration, and regional trade must be protected from political hostility. A peaceful South Asia is impossible without people’s diplomacy.
Hold media accountable: Media platforms, especially in India, must be held to ethical standards. War-mongering headlines and unverified “visions” only inflame public opinion. A free press must also be a responsible one.
Ambedkar’s legacy: More than a statue
In moments of crisis, countries turn to symbols. Ambedkar statues have proliferated across Indian towns and universities. But the mere presence of his image is not enough. To truly honour him is to adopt his method: rigorous reasoning, ethical courage, and an unwavering belief in democracy as a moral project.
At a time when nations are choosing arms over arguments, Ambedkar reminds us that peace is not cowardice. It is the highest form of political maturity. His legacy calls upon us to ask difficult questions, resist populist seductions, and build a South Asia where justice—not vengeance—is the guiding principle.
India and Pakistan are not condemned to eternal hostility. They are not puppets of prophecy, nor slaves to history. They are modern republics with vibrant civil societies, bound by shared languages, rivers, and dreams.
As the drums of war grow louder, the task of defending peace falls not only to diplomats but to ordinary citizens, scholars, journalists, and thinkers. Let us remember that Ambedkar’s greatest gift was not just a Constitution, but a compass—pointing toward reason, justice, and fraternity.
In choosing dialogue over destruction, we do not betray patriotism—we fulfil its highest purpose.
Pradeep Ramavath Jayanaik is an Associate Professor with The Centre for Livelihoods and Social Entrepreneurship (CLSE), School of Social Work (SSW), Tata Institute of Social Sciences(TISS), Guwahati, Assam.