India Elections 2009 – Ambedkar betrayed

It is fitting that as India goes to polls in 2009 Mr. L.K. Advani revisited Ambedkar’s seminal closing speech to the Constituent Assembly in defense of the Constitution to remind the Congress how it has betrayed the nation on every aspect of the Constitution. Ambedkar’s birthday has also inspired Narendra Modi to enter the blogosphere with this maiden post (link thanks to Sudhir).

That speech stands out less for its defense of the Constitution and more for its repudiation of those who wanted the Constitution to be enslaved to a specific school of economic thought.

A reality that India continues to suffer on account of the Indira Gandhi lead Congress’ ammending the Constitution to declare India as a Socialist Republic.

The speech also stands out for cautioning on every thing that went wrong with our politics in the first 5 decades after Independence and continues to be the bane of our parliamentary democracy.

Offstumped has reproduce the speech in full.

Dr. Ambedkar on 25th November 1949.

I feel, however good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot.

However had a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution can provide only the organs of State such as the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary.

The factors on which the working of those organs of the State depend are the people and the political parties they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes and their politics.

Who can say how the people of India and their purposes or will they prefer revolutionary methods of achieving them? If they adopt the revolutionary methods, however good the Constitution may be, it requires no prophet to say that it will fail.

It is, therefore, futile to pass any judgement upon the Constitution without reference to the part which the people and their parties are likely to play.

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.

  These are the main grounds on which the Constitution is being condemned. I do not say that the principle of parliamentary democracy is the only ideal form of political democracy.

I do not say that the principle of no acquisition of private property without compensation is so sacrosanct that there can be no departure from it.

I do not say that Fundamental Rights can never be absolute and the limitations set upon them can never be lifted.

What I do say is that the principles embodied in the Constitution are the views of the present generation or if you think this to be an over-statement, I say they are the views of the members of the Constituent Assembly.

Why blame the Drafting Committee for embodying them in the Constitution? I say why blame even the Members of the Constituent Assembly?

Jefferson, the great American statesman who played so great a part in the making of the American constitution, has expressed some very weighty views which makers of Constitution, can never afford to ignore. In one place he has said:-

“We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of the majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country.”

In another place, he has said :

    “The idea that institutions established for the use of the national cannot be touched or modified, even to make them answer their end, because of rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in the trust for the public, may perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch, but is most absurd against the nation itself. Yet our lawyers and priests generally inculcate this doctrine, and suppose that preceding generations held the earth more freely than we do; had a right to impose laws on us, unalterable by ourselves, and that we, in the like manner, can make laws and impose burdens on future generations, which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that the earth belongs to the dead and not the living;”

I admit that what Jefferson has said is not merely true, but is absolutely true.

There can be no question about it. Had the Constituent Assembly departed from this principle laid down by Jefferson it would certainly be liable to blame, even to condemnation.

But I ask, has it? Quite the contrary. One has only to examine the provision relating to the amendment of the Constitution.

The Assembly has not only refrained from putting a seal of finality and infallibility upon this Constitution as in Canada or by making the amendment of the Constitution subject tot he fulfilment of extraordinary terms and conditions as in America or Australia, but has provided a most facile procedure for amending the Constitution.

I challenge any of the critics of the Constitution to prove that any Constituent Assembly anywhere in the world has, in the circumstances in which this country finds itself, provided such a facile procedure for the amendment of the Constitution.

If those who are dissatisfied with the Constitution have only to obtain a 2/3 majority and if they cannot obtain even a two-thirds majority in the parliament elected on adult franchise in their favour, their dissatisfaction with the Constitution cannot be deemed to be shared by the general public.

There is only one point of constitutional import to which I propose to make a reference.

A serious complaint is made on the ground that there is too much of centralization and that the States have been reduced to Municipalities.

It is clear that this view is not only an exaggeration, but is also founded on a misunderstanding of what exactly the Constitution contrives to do.

As to the relation between the Centre and the States, it is necessary to bear in mind the fundamental principle on which it rests.

The basic principle of Federalism is that the Legislative and Executive authority is partitioned between the Centre and the States not by any law to be made by the Centre but by the Constitution itself. This is what Constitution does.

The States under our Constitution are in no way dependent upon the Centre for their legislative or executive authority. The Centre and the States are co-equal in this matter. It is difficult to see how such a Constitution can be called centralism.

It may be that the Constitution assigns to the Centre too large a field for the operation of its legislative and executive authority than is to be found in any other federal Constitution.

It may be that the residuary powers are given to the Centre and not to the States. But these features do not form the essence of federalism.

The chief mark of federalism as I said lies in the partition of the legislative and executive authority between the Centre and the Units by the Constitution.

This is the principle embodied in our constitution. There can be no mistake about it. It is, therefore, wrong to say that the States have been placed under the Centre.

Centre cannot by its own will alter the boundary of that partition. Nor can the Judiciary. For as has been well said:

    “Courts may modify, they cannot replace. They can revise earlier interpretations as new arguments, new points of view are presented, they can shift the dividing line in marginal cases, but there are barriers they cannot pass, definite assignments of power they cannot reallocate. They can give a broadening construction of existing powers, but they cannot assign to one authority powers explicitly granted to another.”

The first charge of centralization defeating federalism must therefore fall.

The second charge is that the Centre has been given the power to override the States.

This charge must be admitted. But before condemning the Constitution for containing such overriding powers, certain considerations must be borne in mind.

The first is that these overriding powers do not form the normal feature of the constitution. Their use and operation are expressly confined to emergencies only.

The second consideration is : Could we avoid giving overriding powers to the Centre when an emergency has arisen?

Those who do not admit the justification for such overriding powers to the Centre even in an emergency, do not seem to have a clear idea of the problem which lies at the root of the matter.

The problem is so clearly set out by a writer in that well-known magazine “The Round Table” in its issue of December 1935 that I offer no apology for quoting the following extract from it. Says the writer :

    “Political systems are a complex of rights and duties resting ultimately on the question, to whom, or to what authority, does the citizen owe allegiance. In normal affairs the question is not present, for the law works smoothly, and a man, goes about his business obeying one authority in this set of matters and another authority in that. But in a moment of crisis, a conflict of claims may arise, and it is then apparent that ultimate allegiance cannot be divided. The issue of allegiance cannot be determined in the last resort by a juristic interpretation of statutes. The law must conform to the facts or so much the worse for the law. When all formalism is stripped away, the bare question is, what authority commands the residual loyalty of the citizen. Is it the Centre or the Constituent State ?”

The solution of this problem depends upon one’s answer to this question which is the crux of the problem. There can be no doubt that in the opinion of the vast majority of the people, the residual loyalty of the citizen in an emergency must be to the Centre and not to the Constituent States.

For it is only the Centre which can work for a common end and for the general interests of the country as a whole.

Herein lies the justification for giving to all Centre certain overriding powers to be used in an emergency. And after all what is the obligation imposed upon the Constituent States by these emergency powers? No more than this – that in an emergency, they should take into consideration alongside their own local interests, the opinions and interests of the nation as a whole.

Only those who have not understood the problem, can complain against it.

Here I could have ended. But my mind is so full of the future of our country that I feel I ought to take this occasion to give expression to some of my reflections thereon.

On 26^th January 1950, India will be an independent country (Cheers).

What would happen to her independence?

Will she maintain her independence or will she lose it again?

This is the first thought that comes to my mind. It is not that India was never an independent country. The point is that she once lost the independence she had.

Will she lost it a second time?

It is this thought which makes me most anxious for the future.

What perturbs me greatly is the fact that not only India has once before lost her independence, but she lost it by the infidelity and treachery of some of her own people.

In the invasion of Sind by Mahommed-Bin-Kasim, the military commanders of King Dahar accepted bribes from the agents of Mahommed-Bin-Kasim and refused to fight on the side of their King. It was Jaichand who invited Mahommed Gohri to invade India and fight against Prithvi Raj and promised him the help of himself and the Solanki Kings.

When Shivaji was fighting for the liberation of Hindus, the other Maratha noblemen and the Rajput Kings were fighting the battle on the side of Moghul Emperors.

When the British were trying to destroy the Sikh Rulers, Gulab Singh, their principal commander sat silent and did not help to save the Sikh Kingdom.

In 1857, when a large part of India had declared a war of independence against the British, the Sikhs stood and watched the event as silent spectators.

Will history repeat itself? It is this thought which fills me with anxiety.

This anxiety is deepened by the realization of the fact that in addition to our old enemies in the form of castes and creeds we are going to have many political parties with diverse and opposing political creeds. Will Indian place the country above their creed or will they place creed above country? I do not know.

But this much is certain that if the parties place creed above country, our independence will be put in jeopardy a second time and probably be lost for ever. This eventuality we must all resolutely guard against. We must be determined to defend our independence with the last drop of our blood.(Cheers)

    On the 26^th of January 1950, India would be a democratic country in the sense that India from that day would have a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

The same thought comes to my mind. What would happen to her democratic Constitution? Will she be able to maintain it or will she lost it again. This is the second thought that comes to my mind and makes me as anxious as the first.

It is not that India did not know what is Democracy. There was a time when India was studded with republics, and even where there were monarchies, they were either elected or limited. They were never absolute.

It is not that India did not know Parliaments or Parliamentary Procedure. A study of the Buddhist Bhikshu Sanghas discloses that not only there were Parliaments-for the Sanghas were nothing but Parliaments – but the Sanghas knew and observed all the rules of Parliamentary Procedure known to modern times. They had rules regarding seating arrangements, rules regarding Motions, Resolutions, Quorum, Whip, Counting of Votes, Voting by Ballot, Censure Motion, Regularization, Res Judicata, etc. Although these rules of Parliamentary Procedure were applied by the Buddha to the meetings of the Sanghas, he must have borrowed them from the rules of the Political Assemblies functioning in the country in his time.

    This democratic system India lost. Will she lost it a second time? I do not know. But it is quite possible in a country like India – where democracy from its long disuse must be regarded as something quite new – there is danger of democracy giving place to dictatorship.

It is quite possible for this new born democracy to retain its form but give place to dictatorship in fact. If there is a landslide, the danger of the second possibility becoming actuality is much greater.

If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do?

The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution.

It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods.

But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.

The second thing we must do is to observe the caution which John Stuart Mill has given to all who are interested in the maintenance of democracy, namely, not “to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with power which enable him to subvert their institutions”.

There is nothing wrong in being grateful to great men who have rendered life-long services to the country. But there are limits to gratefulness. As has been well said by the Irish Patriot Daniel O’Connel, no man can be grateful at the cost of his honour, no woman can be grateful at the cost of her chastity and no nation can be grateful at the cost of its liberty.

This caution is far more necessary in the case of India than in the case of any other country.

For in India, Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul.

But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.

The third thing we must do is not to be content with mere political democracy. We must make our political democracy a social democracy as well. Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy. What does social democracy mean?

It means a way of life which recognizes liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not to be treated as separate items in a trinity. They form a union of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy.

Liberty cannot be divorced from equality, equality cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity.

Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative.

Without fraternity, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative.

Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural course of things.

It would require a constable to enforce them. We must begin by acknowledging the fact that there is complete absence of two things in Indian Society. One of these is equality.

On the social plane, we have in India a society based on the principle of graded inequality which we have a society in which there are some who have immense wealth as against many who live in abject poverty.

On the 26^th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality.

In politics we will be recognizing the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value.

How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions?

How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life?

If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril.

We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which is Assembly has to laboriously built up.

The second thing we are wanting in is recognition of the principle of fraternity. what does fraternity mean?

Fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians-if Indians being one people. It is the principle which gives unity and solidarity to social life. It is a difficult thing to achieve. How difficult it is, can be realized from the story related by James Bryce in his volume on American Commonwealth about the United States of America.

The story is- I propose to recount it in the words of Bryce himself- that-

    “Some years ago the American Protestant Episcopal Church was occupied at its triennial Convention in revising its liturgy. It was thought desirable to introduce among the short sentence prayers a prayer for the whole people, and an eminent  New England divine proposed the words `O Lord, bless our nation’. Accepted one afternoon, on the spur of the moment, the sentence was brought up next day for reconsideration, when so many objections were raised by the laity to the word nation’ as importing too definite a recognition of national unity, that it was dropped, and instead there were adopted the words `O Lord, bless these United States.”

    There was so little solidarity in the U.S.A. at the time when this incident occurred that the people of America did not think that they were a nation.

If the people of the United States could not feel that they were a nation, how difficult it is for Indians to think that they are a nation. I remember the days when politically-minded Indians, resented the expression “the people of India”. They preferred the expression “the Indian nation.”

I am of opinion that in believing that we are a nation, we are cherishing a great delusion. How can people divided into several thousands of castes be a nation? The sooner we realize that we are not as yet a nation in the social and psychological sense of the world, the better for us.

For then only we shall realize the necessity of becoming a nation and seriously think of ways and means of realizing the goal. The realization of this goal is going to be very difficult – far more difficult than it has been in the United States. The United States has no caste problem. In India there are castes. The castes are anti-national. In the first place because they bring about separation in social life. They are anti-national also because they generate jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste. But we must overcome all these difficulties if we wish to become a nation in reality. For fraternity can be a fact only when there is a nation. Without fraternity equality and liberty will be no deeper than coats of paint.

    These are my reflections about the tasks that lie ahead of us. They may not be very pleasant to some.

But there can be no gainsaying that political power in this country has too long been the monopoly of a few and the many are only beasts of burden, but also beasts of prey. This monopoly has not merely deprived them of their chance of betterment, it has sapped them of what may be called the significance of life.

These down-trodden classes are tired of being governed. They are impatient to govern themselves. This urge for self-realization in the down-trodden classes must no be allowed to devolve into a class struggle or class war.

It would lead to a division of the House. That would indeed be a day of disaster. For, as has been well said by Abraham Lincoln, a House divided against itself cannot stand very long.

Therefore the sooner room is made for the realization of their aspiration, the better for the few, the better for the country, the better for the maintenance for its independence and the better for the continuance of its democratic structure.

This can only be done by the establishment of equality and fraternity in all spheres of life. That is why I have laid so much stresses on them.

    I do not wish to weary the House any further. Independence is no doubt a matter of joy.

 But let us not forget that this independence has thrown on us great responsibilities. By independence, we have lost the excuse of blaming the British for anything going wrong. If hereafter things go wrong, we will have nobody to blame except ourselves.

There is great danger of things going wrong. Times are fast changing. People including our own are being moved by new ideologies. They are getting tired of Government by the people. They are prepared to have Governments for the people and are indifferent whether it is Government of the people and by the people.

If we wish to preserve the Constitution in which we have sought to enshrine the principle of Government of the people, for the people and by the people, let us resolve not to be tardy in the recognition of the evils that lie across our path and which induce people to prefer Government for the people to Government by the people, nor to be weak in our initiative to remove them.

That is the only way to serve the country. I know of no better.

Filed under: Chattisgarh Polls 2008, Chhattisgarh Polls 2008, Constituent Assembly, Delhi Polls 2008, Dharmayudh-2009, Gujarat Polls 2007, India Elections 2009, India Lok Sabha Elections 2009, Karnataka Polls 2008, Lok Sabha Polls 2008-2009, Madhya Pradesh Polls 2008, Madhya Pradesh Polls 2008, Rajasthan Polls 2008, betrayal of aam admi, jeetega-bharat

Ambedkar and Constitutionality

As India goes to polls in 2009 it is fitting that we should revisit Ambedkar’s seminal closing speech to the Constituent Assembly in defense of the Constitution on the occassion of his birthday.

That speech stands out less for its defense of the Constitution and more for its repudiation of those who wanted the Constitution to be enslaved to a specific school of economic thought.

A reality that India continues to suffer on account of the Indira Gandhi lead Congress’ ammending the Constitution to declare India as a Socialist Republic.

The speech also stands out for cautioning on every thing that went wrong with our politics in the first 5 decades after Independence and continues to be the bane of our parliamentary democracy.

Offstumped has reproduce the speech in full.

Dr. Ambedkar on 25th November 1949.

I feel, however good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot.

However had a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution can provide only the organs of State such as the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary.

The factors on which the working of those organs of the State depend are the people and the political parties they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes and their politics.

Who can say how the people of India and their purposes or will they prefer revolutionary methods of achieving them? If they adopt the revolutionary methods, however good the Constitution may be, it requires no prophet to say that it will fail.

It is, therefore, futile to pass any judgement upon the Constitution without reference to the part which the people and their parties are likely to play.

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.

  These are the main grounds on which the Constitution is being condemned. I do not say that the principle of parliamentary democracy is the only ideal form of political democracy.

I do not say that the principle of no acquisition of private property without compensation is so sacrosanct that there can be no departure from it.

I do not say that Fundamental Rights can never be absolute and the limitations set upon them can never be lifted.

What I do say is that the principles embodied in the Constitution are the views of the present generation or if you think this to be an over-statement, I say they are the views of the members of the Constituent Assembly.

Why blame the Drafting Committee for embodying them in the Constitution? I say why blame even the Members of the Constituent Assembly?

Jefferson, the great American statesman who played so great a part in the making of the American constitution, has expressed some very weighty views which makers of Constitution, can never afford to ignore. In one place he has said:-

“We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of the majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country.”

In another place, he has said :

    “The idea that institutions established for the use of the national cannot be touched or modified, even to make them answer their end, because of rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in the trust for the public, may perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch, but is most absurd against the nation itself. Yet our lawyers and priests generally inculcate this doctrine, and suppose that preceding generations held the earth more freely than we do; had a right to impose laws on us, unalterable by ourselves, and that we, in the like manner, can make laws and impose burdens on future generations, which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that the earth belongs to the dead and not the living;”

I admit that what Jefferson has said is not merely true, but is absolutely true.

There can be no question about it. Had the Constituent Assembly departed from this principle laid down by Jefferson it would certainly be liable to blame, even to condemnation.

But I ask, has it? Quite the contrary. One has only to examine the provision relating to the amendment of the Constitution.

The Assembly has not only refrained from putting a seal of finality and infallibility upon this Constitution as in Canada or by making the amendment of the Constitution subject tot he fulfilment of extraordinary terms and conditions as in America or Australia, but has provided a most facile procedure for amending the Constitution.

I challenge any of the critics of the Constitution to prove that any Constituent Assembly anywhere in the world has, in the circumstances in which this country finds itself, provided such a facile procedure for the amendment of the Constitution.

If those who are dissatisfied with the Constitution have only to obtain a 2/3 majority and if they cannot obtain even a two-thirds majority in the parliament elected on adult franchise in their favour, their dissatisfaction with the Constitution cannot be deemed to be shared by the general public.

There is only one point of constitutional import to which I propose to make a reference.

A serious complaint is made on the ground that there is too much of centralization and that the States have been reduced to Municipalities.

It is clear that this view is not only an exaggeration, but is also founded on a misunderstanding of what exactly the Constitution contrives to do.

As to the relation between the Centre and the States, it is necessary to bear in mind the fundamental principle on which it rests.

The basic principle of Federalism is that the Legislative and Executive authority is partitioned between the Centre and the States not by any law to be made by the Centre but by the Constitution itself. This is what Constitution does.

The States under our Constitution are in no way dependent upon the Centre for their legislative or executive authority. The Centre and the States are co-equal in this matter. It is difficult to see how such a Constitution can be called centralism.

It may be that the Constitution assigns to the Centre too large a field for the operation of its legislative and executive authority than is to be found in any other federal Constitution.

It may be that the residuary powers are given to the Centre and not to the States. But these features do not form the essence of federalism.

The chief mark of federalism as I said lies in the partition of the legislative and executive authority between the Centre and the Units by the Constitution.

This is the principle embodied in our constitution. There can be no mistake about it. It is, therefore, wrong to say that the States have been placed under the Centre.

Centre cannot by its own will alter the boundary of that partition. Nor can the Judiciary. For as has been well said:

    “Courts may modify, they cannot replace. They can revise earlier interpretations as new arguments, new points of view are presented, they can shift the dividing line in marginal cases, but there are barriers they cannot pass, definite assignments of power they cannot reallocate. They can give a broadening construction of existing powers, but they cannot assign to one authority powers explicitly granted to another.”

The first charge of centralization defeating federalism must therefore fall.

The second charge is that the Centre has been given the power to override the States.

This charge must be admitted. But before condemning the Constitution for containing such overriding powers, certain considerations must be borne in mind.

The first is that these overriding powers do not form the normal feature of the constitution. Their use and operation are expressly confined to emergencies only.

The second consideration is : Could we avoid giving overriding powers to the Centre when an emergency has arisen?

Those who do not admit the justification for such overriding powers to the Centre even in an emergency, do not seem to have a clear idea of the problem which lies at the root of the matter.

The problem is so clearly set out by a writer in that well-known magazine “The Round Table” in its issue of December 1935 that I offer no apology for quoting the following extract from it. Says the writer :

    “Political systems are a complex of rights and duties resting ultimately on the question, to whom, or to what authority, does the citizen owe allegiance. In normal affairs the question is not present, for the law works smoothly, and a man, goes about his business obeying one authority in this set of matters and another authority in that. But in a moment of crisis, a conflict of claims may arise, and it is then apparent that ultimate allegiance cannot be divided. The issue of allegiance cannot be determined in the last resort by a juristic interpretation of statutes. The law must conform to the facts or so much the worse for the law. When all formalism is stripped away, the bare question is, what authority commands the residual loyalty of the citizen. Is it the Centre or the Constituent State ?”

The solution of this problem depends upon one’s answer to this question which is the crux of the problem. There can be no doubt that in the opinion of the vast majority of the people, the residual loyalty of the citizen in an emergency must be to the Centre and not to the Constituent States.

For it is only the Centre which can work for a common end and for the general interests of the country as a whole.

Herein lies the justification for giving to all Centre certain overriding powers to be used in an emergency. And after all what is the obligation imposed upon the Constituent States by these emergency powers? No more than this – that in an emergency, they should take into consideration alongside their own local interests, the opinions and interests of the nation as a whole.

Only those who have not understood the problem, can complain against it.

Here I could have ended. But my mind is so full of the future of our country that I feel I ought to take this occasion to give expression to some of my reflections thereon.

On 26^th January 1950, India will be an independent country (Cheers).

What would happen to her independence?

Will she maintain her independence or will she lose it again?

This is the first thought that comes to my mind. It is not that India was never an independent country. The point is that she once lost the independence she had.

Will she lost it a second time?

It is this thought which makes me most anxious for the future.

What perturbs me greatly is the fact that not only India has once before lost her independence, but she lost it by the infidelity and treachery of some of her own people.

In the invasion of Sind by Mahommed-Bin-Kasim, the military commanders of King Dahar accepted bribes from the agents of Mahommed-Bin-Kasim and refused to fight on the side of their King. It was Jaichand who invited Mahommed Gohri to invade India and fight against Prithvi Raj and promised him the help of himself and the Solanki Kings.

When Shivaji was fighting for the liberation of Hindus, the other Maratha noblemen and the Rajput Kings were fighting the battle on the side of Moghul Emperors.

When the British were trying to destroy the Sikh Rulers, Gulab Singh, their principal commander sat silent and did not help to save the Sikh Kingdom.

In 1857, when a large part of India had declared a war of independence against the British, the Sikhs stood and watched the event as silent spectators.

Will history repeat itself? It is this thought which fills me with anxiety.

This anxiety is deepened by the realization of the fact that in addition to our old enemies in the form of castes and creeds we are going to have many political parties with diverse and opposing political creeds. Will Indian place the country above their creed or will they place creed above country? I do not know.

But this much is certain that if the parties place creed above country, our independence will be put in jeopardy a second time and probably be lost for ever. This eventuality we must all resolutely guard against. We must be determined to defend our independence with the last drop of our blood.(Cheers)

    On the 26^th of January 1950, India would be a democratic country in the sense that India from that day would have a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

The same thought comes to my mind. What would happen to her democratic Constitution? Will she be able to maintain it or will she lost it again. This is the second thought that comes to my mind and makes me as anxious as the first.

It is not that India did not know what is Democracy. There was a time when India was studded with republics, and even where there were monarchies, they were either elected or limited. They were never absolute.

It is not that India did not know Parliaments or Parliamentary Procedure. A study of the Buddhist Bhikshu Sanghas discloses that not only there were Parliaments-for the Sanghas were nothing but Parliaments – but the Sanghas knew and observed all the rules of Parliamentary Procedure known to modern times. They had rules regarding seating arrangements, rules regarding Motions, Resolutions, Quorum, Whip, Counting of Votes, Voting by Ballot, Censure Motion, Regularization, Res Judicata, etc. Although these rules of Parliamentary Procedure were applied by the Buddha to the meetings of the Sanghas, he must have borrowed them from the rules of the Political Assemblies functioning in the country in his time.

    This democratic system India lost. Will she lost it a second time? I do not know. But it is quite possible in a country like India – where democracy from its long disuse must be regarded as something quite new – there is danger of democracy giving place to dictatorship.

It is quite possible for this new born democracy to retain its form but give place to dictatorship in fact. If there is a landslide, the danger of the second possibility becoming actuality is much greater.

If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do?

The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution.

It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods.

But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.

The second thing we must do is to observe the caution which John Stuart Mill has given to all who are interested in the maintenance of democracy, namely, not “to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with power which enable him to subvert their institutions”.

There is nothing wrong in being grateful to great men who have rendered life-long services to the country. But there are limits to gratefulness. As has been well said by the Irish Patriot Daniel O’Connel, no man can be grateful at the cost of his honour, no woman can be grateful at the cost of her chastity and no nation can be grateful at the cost of its liberty.

This caution is far more necessary in the case of India than in the case of any other country.

For in India, Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul.

But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.

The third thing we must do is not to be content with mere political democracy. We must make our political democracy a social democracy as well. Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy. What does social democracy mean?

It means a way of life which recognizes liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not to be treated as separate items in a trinity. They form a union of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy.

Liberty cannot be divorced from equality, equality cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity.

Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative.

Without fraternity, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative.

Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural course of things.

It would require a constable to enforce them. We must begin by acknowledging the fact that there is complete absence of two things in Indian Society. One of these is equality.

On the social plane, we have in India a society based on the principle of graded inequality which we have a society in which there are some who have immense wealth as against many who live in abject poverty.

On the 26^th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality.

In politics we will be recognizing the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value.

How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions?

How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life?

If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril.

We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which is Assembly has to laboriously built up.

The second thing we are wanting in is recognition of the principle of fraternity. what does fraternity mean?

Fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians-if Indians being one people. It is the principle which gives unity and solidarity to social life. It is a difficult thing to achieve. How difficult it is, can be realized from the story related by James Bryce in his volume on American Commonwealth about the United States of America.

The story is- I propose to recount it in the words of Bryce himself- that-

    “Some years ago the American Protestant Episcopal Church was occupied at its triennial Convention in revising its liturgy. It was thought desirable to introduce among the short sentence prayers a prayer for the whole people, and an eminent  New England divine proposed the words `O Lord, bless our nation’. Accepted one afternoon, on the spur of the moment, the sentence was brought up next day for reconsideration, when so many objections were raised by the laity to the word nation’ as importing too definite a recognition of national unity, that it was dropped, and instead there were adopted the words `O Lord, bless these United States.”

    There was so little solidarity in the U.S.A. at the time when this incident occurred that the people of America did not think that they were a nation.

If the people of the United States could not feel that they were a nation, how difficult it is for Indians to think that they are a nation. I remember the days when politically-minded Indians, resented the expression “the people of India”. They preferred the expression “the Indian nation.”

I am of opinion that in believing that we are a nation, we are cherishing a great delusion. How can people divided into several thousands of castes be a nation? The sooner we realize that we are not as yet a nation in the social and psychological sense of the world, the better for us.

For then only we shall realize the necessity of becoming a nation and seriously think of ways and means of realizing the goal. The realization of this goal is going to be very difficult – far more difficult than it has been in the United States. The United States has no caste problem. In India there are castes. The castes are anti-national. In the first place because they bring about separation in social life. They are anti-national also because they generate jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste. But we must overcome all these difficulties if we wish to become a nation in reality. For fraternity can be a fact only when there is a nation. Without fraternity equality and liberty will be no deeper than coats of paint.

    These are my reflections about the tasks that lie ahead of us. They may not be very pleasant to some.

But there can be no gainsaying that political power in this country has too long been the monopoly of a few and the many are only beasts of burden, but also beasts of prey. This monopoly has not merely deprived them of their chance of betterment, it has sapped them of what may be called the significance of life.

These down-trodden classes are tired of being governed. They are impatient to govern themselves. This urge for self-realization in the down-trodden classes must no be allowed to devolve into a class struggle or class war.

It would lead to a division of the House. That would indeed be a day of disaster. For, as has been well said by Abraham Lincoln, a House divided against itself cannot stand very long.

Therefore the sooner room is made for the realization of their aspiration, the better for the few, the better for the country, the better for the maintenance for its independence and the better for the continuance of its democratic structure.

This can only be done by the establishment of equality and fraternity in all spheres of life. That is why I have laid so much stresses on them.

    I do not wish to weary the House any further. Independence is no doubt a matter of joy.

 But let us not forget that this independence has thrown on us great responsibilities. By independence, we have lost the excuse of blaming the British for anything going wrong. If hereafter things go wrong, we will have nobody to blame except ourselves.

There is great danger of things going wrong. Times are fast changing. People including our own are being moved by new ideologies. They are getting tired of Government by the people. They are prepared to have Governments for the people and are indifferent whether it is Government of the people and by the people.

If we wish to preserve the Constitution in which we have sought to enshrine the principle of Government of the people, for the people and by the people, let us resolve not to be tardy in the recognition of the evils that lie across our path and which induce people to prefer Government for the people to Government by the people, nor to be weak in our initiative to remove them.

That is the only way to serve the country. I know of no better.

Filed under: Constituent Assembly, DesiPundit, Dharmayudh-2009, India Elections 2009, Lok Sabha Polls 2008-2009, jeetega-bharat

Founding Fathers – Elect Prime Minister by Direct Adult Suffrage

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh gave us a lame excuse on Tuesday for his not contesting the Lok Sabha election.

His hypocrisy apart, this stance of his is a direct repudiation of the Founding Father’s original intent in the Constitution, evidence of which can be found in multiple instances within the Constituent Assembly Debates.

The most direct reference to this question is posed by Professor Shibban lal Saxena on 31st December 1948 when the Constituent Assembly debated Article 62 of the Draft Constitution.

I do feel that unless everybody who is a Minister has got the confidence of the electorate, he should not be appointed as one.

Every Minister who is a memberof a Cabinet must seek open election and if he is returned,only then he should be appointed a Minister

Probably, this was the purpose of my honourable Friend Dr.Ambedkar and what he meant was that if a Minister does not become a member of either House within six months, he ceasesto be a Minister. By this, he surely meant that he should beelected and I would very much welcome it from him if that is his purpose

In response Ambedkar speaking on the same day makes this point about “Ministers”

it is perfectlypossible to imagine that a person who is otherwise competent to hold the post of a Minister has been defeated in aconstituency for some reason which, although it may beperfectly good, might have annoyed the constituency and he might have incurred the displeasure of that particularconstituency.

It is not a reason why a member so competent as that should be not permitted to be appointed a member of the Cabinet on the assumption that he shall be able to get himself elected either from the same constituency or fromanother constituency.

After all the privilege that is permitted is a privilege that extends only for six months.It does not confer a right to that individual to sit in the House without being elected at all.

It is important to note however that the Indian Constitution makes a clear and unambiguous distinction between a “Minister” and the “Prime Minister”.

Ambedkar in fact had clarified this in the context of the same issue on the very previous day, 30th December 1948.

I do not understand why it is undemocratic to permit a Prime Minister, who is chosen by the people, to appoint Ministers from a House which is also chosen on adult suffrage, or by people who are chosen on the basis of adult suffrage, or by people who are chosen on thebasis of adult suffrage. I fail to understand why that system is undemocratic.

Not only is Ambedkar very clear on the original intent of the Founding Fathers that the Prime Minister must be someone who has been elected by the people, Ambedkar is also clear that “Direct Adult Suffrage” is the method by which such a Prime Minister can claim legitimacy as opposed to other “Ministers” who could be chosen by directly or indirectly.

The most unambiguous validation of this original intent comes a year later on 18th November 1949 when the Constituent Assembly was in its final phases of passing the Motion on the Draft that was to become the Constitution of India.

Gokulram Daulatram Bhatt had this to say on the method of electing the Prime Minister and President.

At one time however we had said that our President would be elected on the basis of adult franchise and we had as a matter of fact accepted in principle that proposal.

But later on we began to feel that this is not possible because on the one side Prime Minister would be elected by means of adult franchise while on the other the President would also be so elected and if any difference of opinion occurred in these two officials who had been elected by the same body of people it would be difficult to overcome those differences.

Therefore, we felt that reality and practical considerations demanded that we should give up our insistence on the direct election of the President and agreed for his being elected in some other way.

We agree to this because we felt that our representatives at the Centre and in the Provinces would be elected on the basis of adult franchise.

This should leave no one in doubt that the Founding Fathers who drafted the Indian Constitution intended the Prime Minister to have derived his legitimacy by being directly elected by the people through Adult Suffrage.

That the Founding Fathers did not choose to make this explicit in the text of the Constitution was simply because to them it was inconceivable that a perversity would be perpetrated on the Constitution where a Prime Minister would enjoy office for his entire 5 year term without getting elected directly by the people.

It is futile to expect someone like Congress President Sonia Gandhi who has never demonstrated any great understanding of the Constitution to show moral and intellectual leadership on this issue

But Dr. Manmohan Singh cannot be let off the hook on this one.

If he has any faith or conviction in the original intent of the Constitution as manifested in the remarks by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and others, he must explain why he did not contest the Lok Sabha elections for the last 5 years and why he has no intention of doing so in 2009.

To discuss this post your comments here.

Filed under: Chattisgarh Polls 2008, Chhattisgarh Polls 2008, Constituent Assembly, Delhi Polls 2008, DesiPundit, Dharmayudh-2009, Gujarat Polls 2007, India Elections 2009, Karnataka Polls 2008, Lok Sabha Polls 2008-2009, Madhya Pradesh Polls 2008, Manmohan Confidence Vote, Rajasthan Polls 2008, betrayal of aam admi, jeetega-bharat

India Elections 2009 – A speech for Mr. Advani

Friends

I am happy to address you today as we approach the first phase of elections for the Lok Sabha.

I am also happy to note that the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is hale and healthy.

I wanted to take this ocassion to define to you what this Lok Sabha election must come to mean.

Today Congress President Sonia Gandhi made a very perceptive remark, I wonder if the irony was not lost on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Smt Sonia Gandhi said that while there were many who could be Prime Minister nobody could stand in front of Dr. Manmohan Singh.

How very true, even if any of us wanted to stand in front of Dr. Singh he is either unwilling or incapable of giving us the opportunity with his reluctance to contest the Lok Sabha election.

This friends is what this election ought to be about.

This election has to be about Leadership.

On the one hand you have strong and decisive Leadership that is willing to put its claims to test in the court of public opinion by directly holding itself accountable to the people.

On the other hand you have surrogacy that is being passed of as a substitute for Leadership with this reluctance to face the people by putting the 5 year record to test directly in a Lok Sabha contest.

I dont know if it is his waning love for Assam or the sliding fortunes of the Congress Party in that state that Dr. Manmohan Singh has chosen to shy away from a real Lok Sabha contest while continuing to claim to represent it in the Rajy Sabha.

Be that as it may, this election is also about something Dr. Manmohan Singh said today in his political remarks when he asked through his party’s surrogates in the media

“What is L.K. Advani’s contribution to National Welfare ?”

I wish Dr. Manmohan Singh had the courage and conviction to ask me that question face to face in a televised debate.

But then perhaps it is too much to expect him to face the people of this nation in a debate when he is reluctant to face them on the ballot.

Well Dr. Singh, my contribution to the welfare of this nation is the freedom that you enjoy today to ask me that question without fear of political persecution.

My contribution to the nation, Dr. Singh is that very same political freedom that your Party had deprived this nation of for four whole years by imposing emergency.

My contribution to the nation, Dr. Singh was to sacrifice my personal freedom and the comforts of life to fight for the cause democracy from inside the four walls of Jail during those four years of emergency while you continued to enjoy the comforts of everday life.

My contribution to the nation Dr. Singh was to defend that very document that entitles you to the Office of Prime Ministership – the Indian Constitution, the very document that your Party on every opportune occassion has trampled and violated.

I am not Oxbridge educated nor am I an economist by training.

But I do know a thing a or two about “welfare” and I am proud to have groomed some of the finest breed of leaders who have broken new ground in delivering Welfare through their Governance in states like Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh.

Leadership Dr. Singh is not about being selected to High Office by virtue of lineage, but Leadership is about sowing the seeds of future leadership so many more can reap the harvest from their efforts.

I take pride in the fact that Team Advani has raised the bar on public welfare through Governance and Development initiatives like Jyotigram and Ladli Lakshmi Yojana.

Friends, this election is also about Leadership that has the courage and conviction to face the truth and does not shy away from making hard decisions.

Over the last five years there have been multiple terrorist attacks. I have on occassion met many victims and kith and kin of deceased in these terrorist attacks.

 On every occassion these victims of terrorism ask me

Why is that the Dr. Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi never own up to their responsibility for lapses in Terror ?

Why is it they always give us cold comfort by pointing out that there were other attacks during the previous government ?

Should we draw comfort from the fact that others too suffered our fate and go on with our lives ?

Does our loss have no meaning to Dr. Manmohan Singh and Smt Sonia Gandhi that rather than explain how they will bring the Terrorists to justice, they want to spend time talking about what happened 8 years back ?

It pains me to hear Dr. Manmohan Singh run away from his government’s failures on Terrorism by harking back on what happened in 1999, 2000 and 2001.

Yes there were lapses during the NDA regime too, yes things could have been done better, we learnt from our mistakes but we never shied away from putting our performance to the electoral test and we faced the people in 2004 and they gave their verdict.

But Dr. Manmohan Singh how does that help the victims of Delhi, Varnasi, Bangalore, Mumbai 7/11, Hyderabad, Malegaon, Samjhauta Express, Ahmedabad, Jaipur, Ajmer Sharif, Guwahati and Mumbai 26/11.

Should that widowed wife, bereaved father and orphaned son take comfort in the fact that 10 years back too someone suffered in a terrorist attack ?

Dr. Manmohan Singh wanted the nation to reflect on what makes someone fit to be Prime Minister.

He is right, and the nation ought to reflect on this criminal negligence and continued delinquency on his part.

Friends I was pleased to note that the Congress party has released its manifesto where it intends to focus on Terrorism and the Economy. It reminds me of Primary School impositions where a child is asked to write a 100 times that they will not repeat a mistake. The Congress Manifesto seems no better than that in its repetition of things it did not do during the last 5 years that it now promises to do.

The Congress Party would like this election to be about festering the wounds of the past by raking up the unfortunate demolition of the Babri Masjid and the unacceptable riots in Gujarat.

The BJP is looking ahead and not to the past.  Leadership is also about facing up to the ghosts of the past and about challenging the bigotry amongst your best friends.

In closing let me assure you that if the BJP lead NDA is voted back to power I shall personally lead the effort for a National Reconciliation on all contentious issues of the last century.

Its my assurance to the Youth of this country that bigotry of the past few decades will not be perpetuated and future governments will not have to carry the burden of the failed politics of Communal Socialism practised by the Congress Party during the first 4 decades after Independence.

Jai Hind and Vande Mataram

To post comments click here

Errata : As pointed out by Offstumped regular reader Jujung the emergency period must read two years and not four years.

Filed under: CNN-IBN Boycott, Chattisgarh Polls 2008, Chhattisgarh Polls 2008, Constituent Assembly, Delhi Polls 2008, DesiPundit, Dharmayudh-2009, Gujarat Polls 2007, India Elections 2009, Karnataka Polls 2008, Lok Sabha Polls 2008-2009, Madhya Pradesh Polls 2008, Manmohan Confidence Vote, Rajasthan Polls 2008, War on Mumbai, War on Terror, amarnath controversy, betrayal of aam admi, jeetega-bharat

India Elections 2009 – Muslim Reservations make quiet comeback

Former civil servant, Member of Parliament, member of All India Muslim Personal Law Board, AIMPLB, Syed Shahabuddin has written an extensive piece on Khabrein titled “Muslim Strategy for General Elections in 2009“.

The piece stands out for 2 reasons. It is vivid in its expose of how Muslim Appeasement practised by Communal Socialists across the board. It is also unapologetic for putting the issue of Muslim Reservations back on the table.

While there is no denying the economic backwardness of significant sections within the Muslim Community it is stunning that Mr. Shahabuddin wants other Muslims in Urban and Semi-Urban India to vote against their economic interests by joining the clamour for Reservations.

Some of the finest arguments against Muslim Reservations were made by Muslim members of the Constituent Assembly and it is worth reproducing them here as a rejoinder to Mr. Shahabuddin’s call and to also pose the question to middle class Muslims in Urban and semi-Urban India on

Why would they be so foolish to vote against their economic interests and aspirations by voting for Communal Socialists who only appease and pander ?

The Constituent Assembly debated the issue of Minority Rights during the month of August 1947 right after Independence. One of the contentious issues was having separate seats for minorities. Maulana Hasrat Mohani makes some very thought provoking remarks .

I refuse to accept Muslims to be a minority

How is it that when you talk of minorities you mean Muslims only and when you talk of reservation you refer to Muslims only ?:

The Muslims refuse to be called a minority if parties are formed on political line.

It must be noted that when the Advisory Committee on Minority Rights lead by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel made its recommendations it set a 10 year limit on all kinds of reservations for any community.

Ananthasayanam Ayyangar once again makes some thought provoking arguments.

We are going too far and are trying to placate them in every possible way. I have got here the treaty entered into by Turkey regarding the protection of its minorities on 24th July 1923 at Geneva. I ask any of the protagonists of this amendment, to show me a single. instance where in any part of the country, in any part of the world a political right has been conceded in the manner in which it has been conceded here.

It cannot be said that there is a greater nation in recent years standing for the rights of Muslims in the world than Turkey. Let us see what rights they have given no the other minorities in Turkey and what rights they have insisted upon for for their nationals in other countries.

they are entitled to stand shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the community,to stand for any seat anywhere without being trammelled, without being ineligible for any particular post or office

I am not prepared to call a single individual a minority. I do not like the word ‘minority’ at all.

The issue of Reservations for Minorities crops up again in November of 1948. By this time the draft Constitution underwent many changes with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar introducing the re-drafted Constitution Bill. Directly elected Governors were discarded and the present system of nominated Governors made its way. The issue of Reservations is once again raised by Kazi Syed Karimuddin.

Joint electorates with reservation of seats is absolutely of no consequence to the minorities. It would do them positive disservice.

If the two resolutions regarding the continuation of separate electorate or joint electorate with reservation of seats with a fixed percentage of votes of the community to which the candidate belongs which were rejected last time are not acceptable to the House,

the minorities should forego this reservation of seats under joint electorates

this is going to create permanent statutory minorities in the country

It would be to the great disadvantage and detriment of the Muslim community or any other minority community which claims reservations

reservation of seats will create more bitterness, more jealousies, more communal hatred and Muslim disintegration

We must be left to our own fate and we are quite prepared to face the future.

Once again the Kazi makes the case for a strong executive.

Without any sacrifice of the democratic principles the minorities can be protected.

The rights of the minorities can be protected in another way and that is by the establishment of a non-parliamentary executive in this country.

If you introduce non-parliamentary executive, the members of the executive would not be afraid because they are not liable to be removed by their supporters

in parliamentary executive the Government is naturally weak, and vacillating because the ministers have to depend for their continuance on communally minded supporters

A digression from the subject of reservations. The Constituent Assembly while debating Ambedkar’s Constitution Bill also took up the question of the Preamble. Ambedkar makes a strong argument against the current situation of having Socialism ingrained in the Preamble and requiring every political party to express faith in it.

What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances.

It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether. If you state in the Constitution that the social organisation of the State shall take a particular form, you are, in my judgment, taking away the liberty of the people to decide what should be the social organisation in which they wish to live.

It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the socialist organisation of society is better than the capitalist organisation of society.

But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation which might be better than the socialist organisation of today or of tomorrow.

I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves.

Filed under: Chattisgarh Polls 2008, Constituent Assembly, Delhi Polls 2008, Dharmayudh-2009, Gujarat Polls 2007, India Elections 2009, Karnataka Polls 2008, Lok Sabha Polls 2008-2009, Madhya Pradesh Polls 2008, Offstumped, Rajasthan Polls 2008, betrayal of aam admi, jeetega-bharat

India Elections 2009 – Congress has repudiated Ambedkar on Constitutionality

Earlier in the week remarks on B.R. Ambedkar by BJP  leader and the NDA’s Prime Ministerial L.K. Advani had raised a storm with these remarks from Congress spokesperson.

The reality however is that the leading lights of the Congress Party have over the decades undermined many aspects of the Constitution that Ambedkar stood for.

One of the most illiberal actions of the Congress Party has been to sully the Preamble of the Constitution with a phony commitment to Social Justice that requires every political party in India to subscribe to its version of socialism.

It is a little known or appreciated fact that Ambedkar was not just an icon of Dalit empowerment but he was also a voice of sagacity on preserving the sanctity Constitution.

Ambedkar’s sagacity on this issue is most evident in these remarks where he rejected the notion that the Constitution should dictate the form of economic systems that an India of the future should be prisoner to.

The Constituent Assembly while debating Ambedkar’s Constitution Bill, also took up the question of the Preamble for the Constitution. Ambedkar makes a strong argument against the current situation of having Socialism ingrained in the Preamble and requiring every political party to express faith in it.

What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances.

It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether. If you state in the Constitution that the social organisation of the State shall take a particular form, you are, in my judgment, taking away the liberty of the people to decide what should be the social organisation in which they wish to live.

It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the socialist organisation of society is better than the capitalist organisation of society.

But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation which might be better than the socialist organisation of today or of tomorrow.

I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves.

In a clear repudiation of Ambedkar’s Legacy the Congress Party under Indira Gandhi did exactly the opposite.

This should serve as a reminder to every Indian including those who look up to Ambedkar as a symbol of empowerment that no part of the Constitution has sanctity in the eyes of the Congress Party.

A reality that we were rudely reminded of us during the disgraceful conduct of the Sonia Gandhi, Manmohan Singh lead Congress Party on the question of Offices of Profit.

Filed under: Chattisgarh Polls 2008, Chhattisgarh Polls 2008, Constituent Assembly, Delhi Polls 2008, DesiPundit, Dharmayudh-2009, Gujarat Polls 2007, India Elections 2009, Karnataka Polls 2008, Lok Sabha Polls 2008-2009, Madhya Pradesh Polls 2008, Offstumped, Rajasthan Polls 2008, betrayal of aam admi, jeetega-bharat

India Elections 2009 – Countdown begins

The die is cast people with the election commission announcing a 5 phase poll from April 16th to May 13th and counting of votes on May 16th.

In addition to daily posts on developments in the election campaign Offstumped will have the following coverage.

#1 Track Instant Offstumped Reactions via Twitter, you can also subscribe to the Twitter XML feed. One of the features of Twitter is to distribute soundbites via SMS, consider subscribing to mobile phone updates if you can afford it. Nothing work best to spread the word around, than SMS.

#2 Today’s YouTube/Online Video Pick will highlight the most compelling election videos online. You can find them on the sidebar

#3 Today’s News/Op-ed Pick will highlight the most compelling news story or op-ed piece of the day. You can also find this on the sidebar

#4 Report Live/First Hand will be a place where Offstumped Readers in different parts of India can post first hand experiences and anecdotes from events that attend. Some of you have already done that from the recent Friends of BJP event featuring Arun Jaitley.

#5 Offstumped Current Projection will be this blogger’s take on the various projections by drive-by psephologists and will appear on the second side-bar.

#6 Offstumped on Scribd for background data from Election Commission and Press Information Bureau site for Elections 2009

An important part of the coverage will be “Rahul Gandhi Watch”.

There is a lot of debate on what this election ought to be.

Many voices of prudence believe this election was the BJP’s to lose and it didnt capitalize on the poor state of the economy and the bungling of internal seurity.

Many other voices in the Delhi based media believe this election is the Congress’ to win having pulled off a 5 year term.

This blogger has a different opinion.

Whether we like it or not we dont have a national election and we will not have one till either a single emotive issue dominates the election going-in or we opt for a second Republic to directly elect the Chief Executive.

In the absence of a single overriding national issue this will come down to a deeply personal and at some level emotional choice that every voter has to make.

This blogger has made his choice on the basic fundamental issue of values and Dharma.

We may debate endlessly on whether either of the parties has an economic model or a sound approach for security.

But there is one issue on which there is no ambiguity and the distinction is stark.

Mr. Sudheendra Kulkarni writing in his blog framed it very well saying its “Vanshbhogi versus Karma Yogi“.

The Congress has repeatedly demonstrate that it lacks basic values when it comes to ethics or Constitutionality – Pratibha Patil, Navin Chawla, Cash for Votes,  Governor’s actions in Goa, Meghalaya and Jharkhand.

It is on this fundamental distinction that the Congress must be voted out if not anything else.

Filed under: CNN-IBN Boycott, Chattisgarh Polls 2008, Chhattisgarh Polls 2008, Constituent Assembly, Delhi Polls 2008, DesiPundit, Dharmayudh-2009, Gujarat Polls 2007, India Elections 2009, Karnataka Polls 2008, Lok Sabha Polls 2008-2009, Madhya Pradesh Polls 2008, Manmohan Confidence Vote, Offstumped on Twitter, Pratibha Patil, Rajasthan Polls 2008, betrayal of aam admi, jeetega-bharat, surveys

National Interest not Human Rights first

Justice Rajinder Sachar has penned an op-ed in the Times of India titled “Human Rights first“. The below is a rejoinder from Offstumped to this op-ed.

The retired Justice of the famed report on social conditions of Muslims, makes broadly 4 points.

#1 – The BJP is trying to score a political point

#2 – TADA was bad to begin with, hence provisions similar to it in POTA are bad as well

#3 – NHRC opposed POTA

#4 – New York Times opposed the Patriot Act

#5 – SC observed that Human Rights are important

#6 – Any new legislation must be opposed

The first point needs no rejoinder, it is very clear that there is only one political formation in the nation today that has taken the War on Terror seriously and it is the BJP.

As far as his second point on TADA ?goes he goes to great lengths to quote statistics on TADA but the main point he makes is that TADA allowed for confesions to police be admissible, POTA wants the same. TADA was bad so POTA is also bad. He goes?to quote the Supreme Court on Police brutality

but offers no concrete data to make his case that the provisions within TADA on the specific aspect of confessions made to police were misused to a degree or ineffective to explain the ineffectiveness or vicissitudes of TADA.

His third point on the NHRC needs no rejoinder, Offstumped has documented on multiple occassions how ideologically biased the NHRC has been and how selective it has been in its activism. its opinion on POTA frankly is about as objective as those of the motley group of jhola bearing drifters, losers and vagabonds that abound countercurrents.org.

His fourth point on the New York Times and patriot act is laughable. The United States has not had a single terrorist attack on its soil since 9-11 while India has lost count of the number of attacks since POTA was repealed. Not to speak of the hypocrisy of this breed of psuedo intellectuals who scoff at American Imperialism but have no qualms of seeking ideological guidance from the New York Times.

His fifth point on the Supreme Court is duplicitous. He initially claims that Supreme Court upheld the supremacy of Human Rights over everything else. He then goes on to quote the Supreme Court in which the court says no such thing. It merely emphasises that Human Rights are important and that Government must not do anything to violate the Consitution.

His last point makes it clear that he has nothing constructive to offer by way of suggestions for how the War on Terror must be executed. He once again reminds us that his breed of psuedo intellectuals thrive on negativisim and have no positive agenda to offer. If he really cared for national interest he would have done better than stake out a political position on this issue to lay out atleast 2 alternatives which to him are superior legal means to deal with Terrorism.

Offstumped’s Challenge to Justice Rajinder Sachar

Sir if you claim such moral indignation on the draconian provisions of POTA and also claim such legal acumen on the effectiveness of existing laws to deal with Terrorism, pray why havent you pointed a single instance in which existing legal provisions have been effectively used to root out terror.

If Sir you cannot provide such instances, why is it that you have not offered any positive criticisms on where the existing legal provisions are failing in dealing with Terrorism and how pray they maybe fixed within the existing legal framework.

If you and your breed of intellectuals, activists whatever you call yourselves have nothing positive or constructive to offer to the victims of Terrorism or to the citizens of this nation who care about National Interest, could you please take your activism elsewhere and spare us this sanctimony.

India has always been guided by Dharma and will continue to do so as it defends its strategic interests in this asymmetric war waged on it by non-state actors.?

Filed under: Constituent Assembly, Dharma-debates, War on Terror, betrayal of aam admi

Dharma 401 – Extracts from Constituent Assembly Debates

Some extracts from the Constituent Assembly Debates on Dharma

Tuesday, the 22nd July 1947

Sir S. Radhakrishnan (United Provinces: General):

We cannot attain purity, we cannot gain our goal of truth, unless we walk in the path of virtue. The Asoka’s wheel represents to us the wheel of the Law, the wheel Dharma. Truth can be gained only by the pursuit of the path of Dharma, by the practice of virtue. Truth,-Satya, Dharma-Virtue, these ought to be the controlling principles of all those who work under this Flag. It also tells us that the Dharma is something which is perpetually moving. If this country has suffered in the recent past, it is due to our resistance to change. There are ever so many challenges hurled at us and if we have not got the courage and the strength to move along with the times, we will be left behind. There are ever so many institutions which are worked into our social fabric like caste and untouchability. Unless these things are scrapped we cannot say that we either seek truth or practise virtue. This wheel which is a rotating thing, which is a perpetually revolving thing, indicates to us that there is death in stagnation. There is life in movement. Our Dharma is Sanatana, eternal, not in the sense that it is a fixed deposit but in the sense that it is perpetually changing. Its uninterrupted continuity is its Sanatana character. So even with regard to our social conditions it is essential for us to move forward.? The red, the orange, the Bhagwa colour represents the spirit of renunciation it is said:

(Sarve tyage rajadharmesu drsta). All forms of renunciation are to be embodied in Raja Dharma. Philosophers must be Kings. Our leaders must be disinterested. They must be dedicated spirits.’ They must be people who are imbued with the spirit of renunciation which that saffron, colour has transmitted to us from the beginning of our history. That stands for the fact that the World belongs not to the wealthy, not to the prosperous but to the meek andthe humble, the dedicated and the detached.? That spirit of detachment that spirit of renunciation is represented by the orange

Friday, the 5th November 1948

Shri H. V. Kamath: I only want one or two more minutes,Sir. The Fundamental Rights could be suspended in the eventof an emergency and that means that the power of the HighCourt can be taken away. It is a dangerous provision to makein the Constitution. If I remember aright, even during thelast world war, the British Government did not suspend theright of the citizen tomove the appropriate courts to issue writs of haebeas corpusand so on. I do not know whether we should go one better,rather one worse, than the British Government ….. Now, what is a State for? The utility of a State has to be judged from its effect on the common man’s welfare. The ultimate conflict that has to be resolved is this: whetherthe individual is for the State or the State for theindividual……

India of the ages is not dead nor has she spoken herlast creative word; she lives and has still something to dofor herself and for the human family. And that which is nowawake in India is not, I hope, an Anglicized or Europeanized Oriental people, docile pupil of the West and doomed torepeat the cycle of the Occident’s success and failure, butstill the ancient invincible Shakti recovering Her deepestSelf, lifting Her head higher towards the supreme source oflight and strength, and turning to discover the completemeaning and a vaster form of Her Dharma. In that faith andfortified by that conviction, let us march forward into thefuture, and by the grace of God, victory will crown ourefforts

Thursday, the 24th November, 1949

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: …

If India is to remain loyal to her ancient traditions she must discard the basic foundations of this Constitution. Dharma was the basis of all Governments in ancient India. If the will of ignorant and hungry people were ever to become the basis of government in India, it will mean the complete liquidation of all that is good and noble in Indian life. The common man has got no will of his own. He is a bundle of instincts and a creature of environment and heredity. His will can never be the basis of modern Governments in any part of the world and especially in India where he suffers from innumerable handicaps. The concept of Dharma incorporates all that is good and noble in Parliamentarianism and rejects the evils that have crept into it. A State based on Dharma will never tolerate economic inequality or social injustice. But it will never accord recognition to popular will as the basis of Government. For the will of man is nasty, brutish and short. Dharma is in consonance with the fundamental principles of Democracy. The will to will the general will is the core of democracy.

Shri Har Govind Pant (United provinces : General):

According to the ancient order the primary aim of human life is the achievement of four Vargas. I need not say what place has been given to Dharma in our Constitution. When Dharma itself occupies a dubious place, it is all the more unnecessary to speak of Moksha. As for the remaining to Vargas, i.e. Artha and Kama, they have been properly provided for in the Constitution and everyone has been granted an equal right of their achievement. Ancient India accepted that man can achieve his good in both the worlds only through Dharma. Shri Vyas Deva says:
‘madhvarvahu viroumyevah nahi kashshat chunotimam
dharmadiyarshcha kamashcha sa dharmahkinnasevyate’
(with raised arm I declare it, but no one listen to me, that Dharma, Artha and Kama can be achieved through Dharma. Why not follow it?)

The happiness of all and the interests of society can be promoted only by following the path of Dharma. If we foresake it and go our own way, we cannot make the nation or the individual happy.

Monday, the 6th December 1948

Shri H. V. Kamath (C. P. & Berar: General):

Sir, let me not be misunderstood. When I say that a State should not identify itself with any particular religion, I do not mean to say that a State should be anti-religious or irreligious. We have certainly declared that India would bea secular State. But to my mind a secular state is neither a God-less State nor an irreligious nor an anti-religiousState.)

Now, Sir, coming to the real meaning of this word`religion’, I assert that `Dharma‘ in the most comprehensive sense should be interpreted to mean the true values of religion or of the spirit. `Dharma‘, which we have adopted in the crest or the seal of our Constituent Assembly and which you will find on the printed proceedings of our debates: (“Dharma Chakra pravartanaya”)–that spirit, Sir,to my mind, should be inclucated in the citizens of the Indian Union. If honourable Members will care to go just outside this Assembly hall and look at the dome above, they will see a sloka in Sanskrit:

“Na

sa Sabha yatra na santi vriddha

Vriddha na te ye na vadanti dharmam.”

That `Dharma‘, Sir, must be our religion. `Dharma‘ ofwhich the poet has said.

Yenedam dharyate jagat (that by which this world is supported.)

That, Sir, which is embodied which is incorporated in the great sutras, the Mahavakyas of our religions, inSanskrit, in Hinduism, the Mahavakya `Aham Brahma Asmi’,then `Anal Haq’ in Sufism and `I and my Father are one’–in the Christian religion–these doctrines, Sir, if they are inculcated and practised to-day, will lead to the cessation of strife in the world. It is these which India has got to take up and teach, not merely to her own citizens, but to the world. It is the only way out for the spiritual malaise,in which the world is caught today, because the House will agree, I am sure, with what has been said by the Maha Yogi,Sri Aurobindo, in one of his famous books, where he says:

“The master idea that has governed the life, the culture, social ideals of the Indian people has been the seeking of man for his true, spiritual self and the use of life as a frame and means for that discovery and for man’s ascent from the ignorant natural into the spiritual existence.”

I am happy, Sir, to see in this Assembly today our learned scholar and philosopher, Prof. Radhakrishnan. He has been telling the world during the last two or three years that the malaise, the sickness of this world is at bottom spiritual and therefore, our duty, our mission, India’s mission comes into play

Saturday, the 19th November 1949

Dr. Raghu Vira (C.P. & Berar: General):

Whenever any nation, such as British in India sought to consolidate their rule by striking deeper the roots of their domination into the heart of the subject nation, struck at the very cultural bonds of that nation and thereby enfeebled it altogether. They take three steps to reach this objective-an attach on the language, an attack on the religion and an attack on the historic ideals of the subject nation. This was what England also did with us. It brought our religion into contempt. But I need not go here into the question of how it was done. But it is sufficient to say that they gave no place to religion in the sphere of the State. Moreover this significant word of the Sanskrit language was equated by them-the Englishmen and their camp bearers to religion which is much narrower and restricted than the former. The fact is that Dharma never meant and can never mean religion. I think the word Panthe may properly be translated as Religion but I do not think that Religion can ever be taken to connote Dharma. But the Englishmen made a deliberate use of this for their own ulterior purposes.

??? The Englishmen imposed their language on us in place of our language. In order that our language be restored its due place and the constitution be framed in it we felt necessary that all the things which the English people had deliberately destroyed in order to consolidate their rule here should be restored, so that our country may recover its soul again. But I say with regret that the word ‘Dharma’ does not find any mention in this Constitution. When I raised this point with a friend here he replied that the Constitution was a law and it could contain only those matters which could be subjects of interpretation in law courts. But, Sir, my submission is that this country is not eager to have new laws alone, it wants earnestly to rise to higher planes than that of the laws.

??? There was a time, Sir, when our country had glorious place of its own and had a Dharma of its own. At that time Sir, we were high in the scale of nations- as a matter of fact we were the teachers of the world. But the Englishmen reduced that glory of ours to dust and ashes. The Englishmen, specially the English members of the Indian Civil Service wrote histories of India in which they shoed our countrymen to have been primitive and insignificant, to have always been victims of division and dissension and to have always been defeated in battle. It was all the more necessary, that we should have made some effort to provide avenues for the expression and development of genius in the sphere of culture. But this has not been done. I think, Sir, that it was absolutely necessary for us to have put this glorious word in our Preamble. We have the phrase the glorious triplet of words-Liberty, Equality and Fraternity from the political slogans of the French Revolution, but it is my submission, Sir, that these words have or never had a revolutionary appeal in this country, and so far as I can judge these words would not be able to promote a revolution in this country. I do not suggest that we should not take anything from other countries. We can borrow from other countries but only those things which are likely to prove of use for our country. But when we could give a place to these three words in our Constitution, could we not have given a place also to some of the ancient words of our own country. Could we not for example use the expression Ram Rajya in this Constitution-an expression which even our children in villages understand and appreciate. Again we have in our literature the expression ‘Matsya Nyaya’ which suggests that the bigger fish should not swallow a smaller fish. It was a duty laid on the King that the rich should not be permitted to exploit the poor-that is to say there should not be exploitation of the people, nor the exploitation of the poor by the rich nor even the exploitation of the weak by the strong. But this significant word Matsya Nyaya-this ancient word which has come down to us since thousand of years-which connotes all these has not found a place in our Constituion. I may refer here to a suggestion which I made during the course of my conversation with the President of the League of Nations which I visited to in the year 1931. I told him that the motto of the League of Nations should be ‘Ma Gradhat’ (do not even ‘Ma Gradhat‘ (do not covet) which is to be found in the Ishopanished and the Yajur-Veda. But such expressions and others which stand for ideals regarding the conduct and spiritual upliftment of men and which satisfy their physical and spiritual needs do not find and place in this Constitution. This country was the originator of the Republican system of government. Again it was this country which spread this system to the other parts of the world. Besides it had the biggest democratic organisation which was engaged in a system propagation of a new ideal. Its principal mottos were ‘Dharma Sharnam Gacchaimi’ (I submit to the commands of Dharma) and ‘Sangham Sharnam Gachhami’ (I surrender myself to the Samgha or Order). These in effect that I dedicate myself to my duty and that I shall not and cannot run away from it. I ask ’should not such a motto have been included in the Constitution of this country?” It is my submission that this motto is to be found in our country from the Rigvedic time down to the present age. I feel that we have suffered from the malady of division and dissensions-the malady of internecine conflicts. I think that it is regrettable that in view of this malady the ideal of San Gachaodhwam ‘Sam Baddivam San Vo Manausi Jantam’ march together bound together are consciousness of Jantam has not been placed before us here. Another ideals we find in the assertion of King Ashwapati. He said.

namaste no janpade nakadaryo namadyapah nana hitagni no vidwanah

??? (transliterated into Roman script from Devanagari)

which means that there is not thief or robber, no coward, and no drunkard nor any ignorant person in my State. But these ideals do not find any place in our Constitution. I therefore ask you, Sir, whether the mere fact that a statement is made in Hindi or in our language robes it of dignity and gravity, when we say in Hindi that two plus two are equal to four we lose their mathematical significance and we can retain the mathematical significance by expressing this idea in English. If not I fail to see why we could not have expressed in our language the ideals which we have put in this constitution in terms of English language, of an alien history and a foreign syntax.

??? There was another ideal, Sir, which was also followed in our country. It is contained in the verse which says:

??? tatra shriman bhaved dandaya sahasramiti dharana
???? (transliterated into Roman script from Devanagari)

It meant that where a common person could be fined for an offence one hundred Rupees a king or a rich person should be fined for the same offence one thousand Rupees. The offence committed by a rich man was thus decided by a fine which may be a hundred times or even one thousand times than that awarded on a common man. But I do not find any such thing in this Constitution. If the facts I place before you from the history of our country are not to your tastes you may not accept them. But I do ask that if Sir B.N. Rau our constitutional adviser could go to Ireland, Switzerland or America to find out how the people of those countries are running their governmental system, could you not find a single person in this who was well read in the political lore of this country who could have told you that this country has also something to contribute, that there was a political philosophy in this country which had permeated the entire being of the people of this country and which could be used beneficially in preparing a constitution for India. It is a matter of deep regret to me that this aspect of thought was not considered at all by us

Monday, the 20th January, 1947

Sir S. Radhakrishnan (United Provinces: General):

Much has been said about the sovereignty of the people. We have held that the ultimate sovereignty rests with the moral law, with the conscience of humanity. People as well as kings are subordinate to that. Dharma, righteousness, is the king of kings.

Dharmam Kshatrasya Kshatram.

It is the ruler of both the people and the rulers themselves. It is the sovereignty of the law which we have asserted. The Princes–I count many of them amongst my personal friends–have agreed with the Cabinet Statement and wished to take their share in the future development of this country, and I do hope that they will realise that it is their duty to take notice of the surging hopes of their peoples and make themselves responsible. If they do so, they will play a notable part in the shaping of our country. We have no -ill-will towards the Princes. The assertion of republicanism, the assertion of the sovereignty of the people, do not in any manner indicate any antagonism to the Princely rule itself. They do not refer to the present facts of past history of the Indian States but they indicate the future aspirations of the peoples of the States.

?

Filed under: Constituent Assembly, Dharma-debates

Right to Secession – Constituent Assembly Debates

Some extracts from the Constituent Assembly Debates on “right to secession”.

On Sunday, the 18th September 1949

Shri B. M. Gupte (Bombay: General) : Sir, I support the name Bharat but I want to point out certain implications of the adoption of the amendment and the anomalies arising therefrom,

In his introductory speech at the commencement of the Second Reading of the Constitution Dr. Ambedkar observed that the word ‘Union’ was advisedly used in order to negative the right of secession. My submission is that as far as I see there is no warrant for this proposition either in the dictionary meaning of the word Union or in the political science meaning of it, Therefore if it is necessary that the right of secession should be negatived that should be expressly provided for. I do not mean to say that if we do not expressly negative it there will be, the right of secession, because in regard to the provinces there is no question of secession at all. They were neverindependent and they have not come in by agreement. As far as the Indian states are concerned, those which signed the first Instrument of Accession, there is a provision in that Instrument which allows them to secede after they have seen the full picture of the Constitution. But once they accede after the commencement of the constitution they may perhaps not have the right. It is however worthwhile considering whether it is not necessary, in view of the provision in the Instrument of Accession, to expressly provide for this subject.

Shri B. M. Gupte (Bombay: General) : Sir, I support the name Bharat but I want to point out certain implications of the adoption of the amendment and the anomalies arising therefrom,

In his introductory speech at the commencement of the Second Reading of the Constitution Dr. Ambedkar observed that the word ‘Union’ was advisedly used in order to negative the right of secession. My submission is that as far as I see there is no warrant for this proposition either in the dictionary meaning of the word Union or in the political science meaning of it, Therefore if it is necessary that the right of secession should be negatived that should be expressly provided for. I do not mean to say that if we do not expressly negative it there will be, the right of secession, because in regard to the provinces there is no question of secession at all. They were neverindependent and they have not come in by agreement. As far as the Indian states are concerned, those which signed the first Instrument of Accession, there is a provision in that Instrument which allows them to secede after they have seen the full picture of the Constitution. But once they accede after the commencement of the constitution they may perhaps not have the right. It is however worthwhile considering whether it is not necessary, in view of the provision in the Instrument of Accession, to expressly provide for this subject.

Thursday, the 21st August, 1947

Mr. G. L. Mehta (Western India States Group): …..Mr. President, we seem to discuss this question of division of powers as though it were a kind of tug of war or a tussle between me authority and another. It is nothing of the kind. It is a plan whereby through mutual concessions, provincial and cultural loyalties should be preserved and promote. the political strength and solidarity of the Indian Union

…. But now that there is partition, there is no reason why the homogeneous Indian State should clot have a strong Centre. There is some fascination, Mr. President, for always referring to the Union of Socialist Republics, but if you study the constitution and development of Soviet Russia, what do you find. The right of secession and other rights which are given to the Units are o theoretical rights. The whole State is maintained through the rigid and ruthless discipline of the Communist Party. And therefore there is no point in always referring to the Union of Socialist Republics in India as though the socialist republics could be independent. As was pointed out by the previous speaker, Shri Balkrishna Sharma, even if you have socialism in this country, it is.absolutely essential that there should be a Central direction and initiative. We should not forget, Mr. President, that the Federation that we are trying to evolve is a Federation which has no precedent in the world, because till now through the British administrative machinery and through their treaties and agreements with the Indian States, we have had a powerful Centre in this country. In several other countries, where Federation has been built up, it has been built up through independent sovereign States coming together whereas here until 1935 the whole question was one of decentralisation and revolution. And secondly, the whole relationship between the Centre, which was under British Indian administration until the 15th August, and the Indian States is one which is unique. It is no use people getting impatient. and saying that there should lie complete uniformity between the Provinces and the States from the beginning. We are not writing on a clean slate, and even if the system is illogical we have to remember that logic does not always fit in with politics. We have seen, for instance, that the British who are admittedly a most illogical people, have made a remark.., able success of their constitution. We have therefore to build up the national unity of India in the best possible manner. This question of relationship between the Centre and the Provinces is considered as though it is one of mere political mechanism and separation of powers, but what will ultimately determine these relationships are economic facts and financial considerations. May I say, with all respect, that we are too apt to derive our ideas and frame the constitutional pattern on the 19th century political ideology of Britain? There is some danger in our thinking of the Federal system or some particular forms of government in the abstract as having some special merits which make them desirable in themselves. We are always fond of quoting some models, some pat, terns, and arguing that as A, B and C powers do not exist in some constitution of the world, we cannot have them in our own country. This sort of imitation of political institutions, of transplantation of politicalinstitutions from other countries has always some risks. There is said to be a tribe of monkeys in Africa which copy faithfully the houses of men and then live on the outside of them instead of inside. The transplantation of political institutions is not free from this danger of copying the obvious and leaving out the essential. We have to build up this system on the conditions of our own country, not on any abstract theories. The local needs and interests in our own country require special treatment and nobody suggests that this vast country with its size and its multiple people can be ruled on a unitary basis. “Over-centralisation”, a French political observer said, “leads to anaemia at the extremities and apoplexy at the Centre”. Undue centralisation is not a way of achieving uniformity. In fact, we do not wish to effect uniformity in this country, but unity in essential matters. But I must emphasise that we have to be on guard against fissiparous and disintegrating tendencies which are always bound to prevail and

we have to be conscious of our national unity which we have achieved and which we must maintain as one of our priceless possessions. Mr. President, it is very often argued by our British friends that one of the greatest gifts of the British Government to this country has been the administrative unity which has be-en given to it. There is no doubt some truth in it. but there is also truth in this that as the national movement grew stronger, the British Government encouraged in this country every kind of fissiparous and disintegrating tendency and the result is the partition we see before our eyes. We are unfortunately too prone to fall victims to these disintegrating and centrifugal tendencies. Paradoxical though it may seem, it is only a strong Centre which can build up adequate provincial autonomy and achieve decentralisation. Under the scheme which has been presented to you, it can be broadly stated that the power to regulate economic life is divided between the Provinces and the Centre and there is wide scope for provincial powers and responsibilities in the economic and social spheres. After all, we have to judge this problem from the angle of the needs of the ordinary citizens and see how best they could be satisfied and not lose ourselves in the politics of machinery and manoeuvre.

As a matter of fact there are only two main criteria by which we have to judge this question namely, what will secure efficient administration and what will meet the social needs of the people. These needs, material or cultural, can be satisfied if the various Provincial Governments are in a position to supply them, these needs which the citizens today demand of them.

We must also not forget, Mr. President that economic forces and strategic considerations to-day tend to invest the Centre with large powers. If we want to organise economic development and social Welfare as people organize for war, then the state of the future will have to be a ‘positive’ state, it will have to be a social service state. It will require large finances and more or less homogenous economic conditions will have to be maintained in order to achieve these purposes.

Filed under: Constituent Assembly, Uncategorized