Friday, the 5th November 1948.
The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at Ten of the Clock, Mr.President (The Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad) in the Chair.
TAKING THE PLEDGE AND SIGNING THE REGISTER
The following members took the Pledge and signed the Register:
1. Mr. Mohamed Ismail Sahib (Madras: Muslim).
2. Shri P. S. Rau (Jodhpur).
Mr. President: I have received an amendment to the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar's motion from Seth Damodar Swarup which is more or less of the same nature as that which was moved by Maulana Hasrat Mohani yesterday, but as it is slightly different I will allow him to move it. I propose that members should have limited time for speaking on this motion. I understand there are many members who desire to participate in the discussion and I therefore suggest that we might sit to-day and to-morrow for general discussion instead of to-day only, and to-morrow we will finally dispose of the motion moved by Dr. Ambedkar. Then I will give two days i.e. Sunday and Monday for amendments, and from Wednesday we will sit and take up the Articles one after another. To enable the largest number of members to participate in the discussion today I think ten minutes would be enough for each member, and if the House approves of it I should like to stick to that time limit.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari (Madras: General): Sir, in anticipation of Saturday being a holiday some of us have entered into other engagements like meetings of Select Committees on Bills.
Mr. President: I am afraid I have no information about meetings of committees, etc., and I should have been consulted about the fixation of these meetings while the Assembly was going to sit. Therefor I propose to give priority to meetings of this House.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Sir, while the fixing of a time limit is no doubt desirable, I submit that in a matter of such importance even if one deals with only one aspect of the subject it is not possible to say anything relevant or to the point in ten minutes. Therefore I humbly suggest that such a time limit should not be adhered to. Otherwise the discussion will be stifled and nobody can make any point. I have something to say myself on the financial provisions.
Mr. President: If I find that any particular member is making a useful contribution to the debate I will relax the time limit in his favour.
Pandit Lakshmi kanta Maitra (West Bengal: General):Sir, I should like to suggest that two or three more days may be given for the general discussion because in considering the Draft Constitution the general discussion will be a very important feature of the thing and members can know the feelings of people from different parts of the country on different aspects of the Constitution. That will help us greatly in drafting our amendments and deciding whether to move or not to move particular amendments. As a matter of fact even for ordinary legislation two or three days are always given. In the Finance Bill which operates only for one year five or six days are given for the general discussion. Here if you give us two or three days more the time will not be lost. That will give us an idea as to the direction in which the minds of different members are working on different aspects of the question. So I suggest that you may be pleased to give us two or three days more for the general discussion.
Shri K. Hanumanthaiya (Mysore State): Sir, in a house of three hundred members two days are hardly sufficient. It is only about ten members who can speak and it would not allow all sections to participate in the debate. Even five days would hardly be enough.
The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam (Madras: General):Sir, I suggest that a discussion of the entire Constitution will not be of much use. It will not be possible for any one to make any useful contribution in less than 45 minutes or one hour. So I suggest that as we take up each para. we may have a short general discussion on that para. and then proceed to
pass it. In that way we can have a useful general discussion than if the debate ranges over the entire constitution.
Mr. President: I think we had better not take any more time in discussing how we shall proceed. Let us proceed and we shall see.
Shri B. Das (Orissa: General): Sir, I wish to support the suggestion made by my friend Shri Santhanam. I wish to point out, however, that several documents have not been made available to members as yet. For instance, the report of the Boundary Committee we have not received so far. Then certain documents were available to the Drafting Committee which the House has a right to see. For instance, there are the opinions of the provincial Governments on the draft constitution, the views of the High Courts and the FederalCourt on the various provisions about the judiciary. There are legal aspects of many issues which we must know and the views of the High Courts and Federal Court are therefore very important; these documents should therefore be made available to us; then only we can carry on further discussion.
Mr. President: We shall try to supply members with copies of opinions of provincial Governments, High Courts and such other important bodies, say by Monday or Tuesday next.
Shree R. K. Sidhwa (C. P. and Berar: General): On a point of information, Sir. You said that you will allow SethDamodar Swarup to move the motion of which he has given notice. Yesterday, Maulana Hasrat Mohani moved a similar motion. May I know whether this motion will be taken up independently of the general discussion for which you have allowed two days?
Mr. President: I shall take votes on the adjournment motion immediately after discussion on these two propositions is over and then we shall proceed with the general discussion.
Shri H. V. Kamath (C. P. and Berar: General): I have given notice of an amendment to the original motion.
Mr. President: We will take it up when we have finished the adjournment motion.
Maulana Hasrat Mohani (United Provinces: Muslim): It has been published in the 'Statesman' of the 4th November that the Preamble will be debated and put to vote last. I understood from the observation made by you that you will adopt that course. If this is so,..........
Mr. President: I am not concerned with what the newspapers publish.
Maulana Hasrat Mohani: You stated in your observations yesterday that this matter will be decided now and that it should not be taken up again. Do you mean that the Preamble will be taken up now?
Mr. President: I never said anything about the Preamble or any part of the Constitution.
Maulana Hasrat Mohani: I want to move the amendment to the Preamble at this stage.
Mr. President: No amendment to the Preamble or any part of the Constitution can be taken up at this stage. We shall take up all amendments in due course.
Shri Damodar Swarup Seth (United Provinces: General):*[Mr. President, with your permission I want to place this amendment before the House:
"Whereas the present Constituent Assembly was not elected on the basis of adult franchise and whereas the final constitution of free India should be based on the will of the entire people of India, this Constituent Assembly resolves that while it should continue to function as Parliament of the Indian Union, necessary arrangements should be made for convening a new Constituent Assembly to be elected on the basis of adult franchise and that the Draft Constitution prepared by the Drafting Committee be placed before it for its consideration and adoption with such amendments as it may deem necessary."
Sir, before speaking on this amendment I deem it necessary to point out that I had given notice of a separate resolution to the effect that the consideration of the Draft Constitution should for the time be postponed. But unfortunately for some reason that resolution of mine hasnot been admitted. Therefore I have no option but to move an amendment for the same purpose as the resolution.
Sir, yesterday when Maulana Hasrat Mohani Sahib moved his amendment, it was with regret that
I noted that some honourable members of this House were mocking at it and were in a way playing with it.]
Shri S. Nagappa (Madras: General): Mr. President, I would like to know from the honourable member who is moving this motion whether, when he was elected to this august body, he did not recognise this as a sovereign body competent to act as the Constituent Assembly? It not why did he agree to become a member? (Laughter.)
Mr. President: That is not a point of order.
Shri S. Nagappa: I would like to know whether he is inorder in saying that this body is not a Constituent Assembly and that a new Assembly should be constituted on the basis of adult franchise.
Mr. President: He is in order in moving his motion.(Renewed laughter)
Shri Damodar Swarup Seth: *[Sir, I was saying that it is easy to ridicule a resolution or amendment or to ridicule the views of its supporters but it requires some courage to understand the reality and to appreciate it. I am afraid that this amendment of mine may displease some of my friends. But everyone has a duty to perform. It is the duty of every man unhesitatingly and fearlessly to give expression to the voice of his conscience and nature before his fellow beings regardless of the consequences that may follow or of the opinion people may form about him and this because I believe, Sir, that in the lives of nations as in the lives of individuals also there is sometimes a situation in which they have to swallow the bitterest pill. I think that the consideration of the Draft Constitution has brought such an
*  Translation of Hindustani speech.
occasion in our country and therefore we need not worry about our views being welcome or unwelcome to one person or the other. We have to perform out duty. I shall at first try to throw light on the representative character of this Constituent Assembly which is assembled here and which is going to consider the Draft Constitution and to pass it.
Sir, the first characteristic which a constitution-making body of a free country should possess is that it should be able to claim that it represents the will of the entire people of that country. Sir, with your permission I would put it to the Honourable Members present in this House whether they can sincerely claim that they represent, in this House, the entire people of India. I can emphatically say that this House cannot claim to represent the whole country. At the most it can claim to represent that fifteen per cent of the population of India who had elected the members to the provincial legislatures. The election too, by virtue of which the members of this House are here, was not a direct one, they are here by virtue of an indirect election. In these circumstances, when eighty-five percent of the people of the country are not represented in this House and when they have no voice here, it will be in my opinion a very great mistake to say that this House is competent to frame a Constitution for the whole country.Besides the representative character of the Draft Constitution that is being placed before the house, we have also to consider its nature. We see that the Constitutions of United States of America and Britain have been copied in this Constitution. Some articles have been borrowed from the Constitutions of Ireland, Australia and Canada. A paper has rightly remarked that this is a slavish imitation of the Constitutions of these countries. Sir, the conditions that prevailed in America, Britain, Canada or Australia do not obtain in our country. The conditions prevalent in our country can be compared only with those of Russia - Russia of pre-Soviet Republic days. Besides, we have seven lakh villages in our country and the village is its smallest unit. Thanks to Mahatma Gandhi, our struggle of freedom reached the villages and it was because of the villages and because of their might that India became free.
I want to ask whether there is any mention of villages and any place for them in the structure of this great Constitution. No, nowhere. The constitution of a
free country should be based on 'local self government'. We see nothing of local self-government anywhere in this Constitution. This Constitution as a whole, instead of being evolved from our life and reared from the bottom upwards is being imported from outside and built from above down-words.A constitution which is not based on units and in the making of which they have no voice, in which there is not even a mention of thousands and lakhs of villages of India and inframing which they have had no hand, - well you can give such a constitution to the country but I very much doubt whether you would be able to keep it for long.
Sir, our Indian Republic should have been a Union - a Union of small autonomous republics. All those autonomous republics by joining together would have formed the bigger Republic of India. Had there been such autonomous republics,neither the question of linguistic provinces nor of communal majorities or minorities or of backward classes would have arisen. The autonomous Units of the Union could have joined the unions of their choice according to their culture. The Union that would have been formed in our country in this way, would not have required so much emphasis on centralization as our learned Doctor Ambedkar has laid. Centralization is a good thing and is useful at times but we forget that all through his life Mahatma Gandhi emphasised the fact that too much centralization of power makes that power totalitarian and takes it towards fascist ideals. The only method of safeguarding against totalitarianism and fascism is that power should be decentralized to the greatest extent. We would have thus brought about such a centralization of power through welding of heart as could not be matched anywhere in the world. But the natural consequence of centralising power by law will be that our country which has all along opposed Fascism - even today we claim to strongly oppose it - will gradually move towards Fascism. Therefore, Sir, I want that this House should seriously consider these matters. This is not an ordinary matter. We should not treat this constitution-making as a light and playful business. On the contrary it is a step pregnant with historic consequences. Afterhundreds, nay, thousands of years I would say, and it would be no exaggeration to say so, that in the history of India it is for the first time that we have this opportunity offraming the Constitution of the whole of India. Therefore noamount of thought we can give to this Constitution can be too much. We may be told and we have been told that let this Constitution be adopted, for the assembly, elected on adultfranchise provided therein, would be quite competent to effect the necessary amendments in it.
But Sir, when the Constitution is once framed, there will be legal difficulties in amending it. Moreover it would be no matter of pride for us that a task of such importance in the history of India, which we are expected to complete, should have been left half-finished by us to be completed by others. The coming generations will only deplore such a course of action on our part. Therefore if we take into consideration the unrepresentative character of the Draft Constitution that is before us and its nature and structure, we come to the conclusion that it is not in harmony with our present conditions, our culture and our customs. Therefore it is necessary that we should postpone its consideration for the time being and should form a new Constituent Assembly on the basis of adult franchise so that it may go through this constitution, consider it and amend it where necessary. Till the formation of this new Constituent Assembly the present Constituent Assembly can function as the Parliament of India. We do not want that there should be any delay in this. No doubt we have taken two years to do this work and we might take an year or so more but one or two years are nothing in the life of a nation. So long as this Constitution is not finalised we can continue to function as we have been doing so far. As I have said we are going to frame
the Constitution of United India; it should be a new and ideal Constitution.
Today after India has attained freedom it is not necessary for me to tell you that the world is looking up to India. It expects something new from India. At such a times as the present one it was necessary that we should have placed before the world a Draft Constitution, a Constitution, which could have been taken as an ideal. Instead we have copied the constitutions of other countries and incorporated some of their parts and in this way prepared a Constitution. As I have said, from the structure of the Constitution it appears that it stands on its head and not on its legs. Thousands and lakhs of villages of India neither had any hand nor any voice in its framing. I have no hesitation in saying that if lakhs of villages of India had been given their share on the basis of adultfranchise in drafting this Constitution its shape would have been altogether different. What a havoc is poverty causing in our country! What hunger and nakedness are they not suffering from! Was it not then necessary that the right to work and right to employment were included in the Fundamental Rights declared by this Constitution and the people of this land were freed from the worry about theirdaily food and clothing? Every man shall have a right toreceive education; all these things should have been included in the Fundamental Rights. But, Sir, I need not sayanything else except point out that even Honourable Dr. Ambedkar has had to realize and has also admitted in his speech that many objections have been raised in regard to the Fundamental Rights. Not withstanding the reasoning of the learned Doctor, I find it difficult to accept that the Fundamental Rights and other rights are one and the same thing. I understand that Fundamental Rights are those rights which cannot be abrogated by anybody - nay, not even by the government. One can be deprived of these rights only as a punishment for an offence, awarded by a Court of Law. But if the Fundamental Rights were to be at the mercy of the government, they ceaseto be Fundamental Rights. Sir, what I mean by all this is that if the thousands of villages of the country, the poorclasses and the labourers of India had any hand in framing this Constitution, it would have been quite different from what it is today.
With your permission, therefore, Sir, I would appeal to the House that, treating this Constitution not as ordinary but as a historical document, they should give proper consideration to it. And I would appeal to you, sir, that consideration of the Draft Constitution be postponed for the present and the country be given an opportunity to express itself so that the Constitution that may be framed mayreally be a democratic Constitution. With these words I close my speech on the amendment.]
Mr. President: *[The motion is before you; those whodesire to speak may do so.]
Pandit Balkrishna Sharma (United Provinces: General):*[Mr. President, my friend Seth Damodar Swarup has submitteda motion before the House today that we should postpone theconsideration of the Draft Constitution placed before us. Insupport of his motion he has advanced some arguments. Beforetaking up an analysis of those arguments I would like todraw the attention of the Assembly to one or two importantmatters. The first thing that strikes me is that the motionmoved by my friend is absolutely undesirable. After all, forwhat purpose have we assembled here? We have assembled herehaving been elected to frame the Constitution. The politicalparty, to which the Honourable Member belongs, once decidedthat this Constituent Assembly is not an independentsovereign body, and so it should be boycotted. Again thatparty, under what considerations I know not, decided thatthey should seek election to it. They were elected to thisAssembly but some of their party-men did not attend theAssembly in the beginning. But later, again under aconsideration, of which I am not aware, they decided toparticipate in this Assembly. Now you can imagine whatopinion can be formed of a
group, party or an individualwhose policy changes every moment, which is satisfied at onemoment and discontented the next. I think the idea that weshould not frame the Constitution in this House struck themind of my friend Seth Damodar Swarup rather too late. In myhumble opinion, the arguments advanced by him are weak,groundless, uninteresting and senseless to such a degree ascannot be defined. His first argument is that theConstituent Assembly does not have a representativecharacter. I would like to submit that there is ridiculousaspect of democracy, and that comes to the surface when tomake democracy fully representative in character, we evolvesuch institutions as proportional representation and therebyestablish fascism amongst ourselves. In Germany, Italy andFrance, wherever attempts were made to establish this typeof Democracy, the only result was that it was soontransformed into fascism. The argument, that we are therepresentatives of 15 per cent of the population and thatthe representatives of 85 per cent of the population are notwith us and therefore we should postpone on that ground theconsideration of the Constitution, is a fallacious one - fallacious because nowhere in the world can a model assemblybe constituted. We have represented the whole of the countryin this Assembly. Sethji had been a member of the Congresstill recently; on the basis of the formation of suchassociations, could he say that the Congress was a bodyrepresenting the whole of India? While
*  Translation of HIndustani speech.
he could not say that on numerical basis, my friend Sethjihas always considered himself to be a divine lieutenant inIndia. Even though not even one poor man, not even a farmer,and a worker has elected him to represent India, yet heconsiders himself to be a representative. And why does he doso? As the saying goes in the Russian language "we are thewill of the peoples". We are the representatives of thewill, emotions and ambitions of the people, and in thiscapacity representing the whole of India we are framing ourConstitution, though our representation is not based onnumbers. Hence, I think that it is not proper to raise thisfallacious argument about percentages.
The second point which he has raised is that we haveborrowed in our Constitution many articles from theconstitutions of other countries. I think that HonourableDr. Ambedkar has very nicely answered this question in hisyesterday's speech. I would only like to say that if myfriend Seth Damodar Swarup runs so much after originalitywhich I believe he intends to do, I am afraid he would makehimself extremely ridiculous. It will be because when hetalks of originality he himself is not really original. Hiseyes are fixed on Russia and he comments that RussianConstitution has not been followed in framing thisConstitution. This means that had we followed Russia wewould have been original, but because we have followedAustralia, Canada, U.S.A. and U.K. or borrowed many articlesfrom them or received an inspiration from them, we are notoriginal. Now it is for us to choose which one to follow.Sethji and Maulana Hasrat Mohani incline towards Russia. Wefavour friendship with Russia. With great interest andsympathy we witness the great experiment Russia is making toorganise men; but it is definite that we cannot accept evenin dream its policy to subordinate or annihilate theindividual for the sake of the state in all important stagesof life. Sethji has quoted Mahatma Gandhi, who was againstover-centralisation. My friend should remember that MahatmaGandhi was essentially an anarchist. He was a philosophicalanarchist. His view was that in the ultimate analysisanarchism was beneficial, for his aim was to raise man to apedestal were he does not need external restraint. You andwe are not such great souls. It would be ridiculous for usto attempt to talk of anarchism by simply repeating thewords of Gandhiji and trying to put it into actual practice.Hence, it is useless to repeat the words of Mahatma Gandhihere. By quoting Mahatma Gandhi in support of his
argumentsSethji has not revealed any special power of reasoning. Hewants to know what position is held by villages, labourers,farmers, and local self-governments in this Constitution. Iwould like to submit humbly that if he will take the troubleof studying the whole of the Constitution carefully, hewould come to know that even today in the making of thisConstitution we are not ignoring that sacred inspiration ofMahatma Gandhi which led him to give us a message that Indiadoes not consist of cities but of the seven lakhs ofvillages. Mr. President, I, therefore, oppose the motion ofSethji and I am sure that the House will not at all hesitatein rejecting it outright.]
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena (United Provinces: General):Mr. President, Sir, Seth Damodar Swarup's amendment shouldnot be dismissed so lightly as my Honourable friend ShriBalkrishna Sharma has done. We ourselves, when the CabinetMission were in India, wanted that this Assembly should beelected on adult suffrage; but the Britishers never wantedelection on adult suffrage. They forced on us this method ofelection. If they had acceded to our demand, we would havebeen elected on adult suffrage. Seth Damodar Swarup knowsfull well that the Congress party which is in the majorityin this House, would have welcomed it. The issue which hehas raised is a fundamental one and we must all admit thatan Assembly elected on adult suffrage would be the realConstituent Assembly, though I am sure a large majority of these same members would be again returned.
But, today, the question is a practical one: can we adjournnow and wait for a year or so to have a new election for theConstituent Assembly and then frame our constitution? Ithink the present Constitution which has been framed by aforeign Parliament is not one under which I would like toremain a minute longer than I can help. I therefore thinkthat today we must go on with the consideration of thisDraft Constitution but when we come to the chapter forchanging the Constitution we must make changes in theConstitution in the first ten years much easier than it isat present in the Draft. I think we must make it possiblefor any change in the Constitution to be made by simplemajority and not by two-thirds majority.
Sethji has also raised other issues. He has said thatthis Constitution does not give any voice to the villages.He is thinking of the Soviet Constitution. Mahatma Gandhi'sown Constitution, of which an outline was given by Shri S.N. Aggarwal, was also based on village republics or villagepanchayats, and I think we shall have to discuss this pointcarefully when we come to that aspect of the Constitution. Iwas pained to hear from Dr. Ambedkar that he rather despisedthe system in which villages had a paramount voice. I thinkwe will have to amend that portion properly. This Assemblyis now entering upon its task and is fully entitled tochange the entire Constitution. Sethji has today given hisamendments and we shall be very glad to discuss them. I donot think that Sethji is alone in the views he expressed. Wemust not dismiss these things with the lightness with whichmy predecessor has dismissed them. In this Assembly we mustdiscuss every aspect of this Constitution with seriousnessand everybody must be treated with respect. Other thingswhich he has said, can also be discussed at the proper time.He has said that there is no provision in this Constitutionfor Local Self Government in units. It is an important thingwhich must be included in the Constitution and at presentthere is this omission in the present Constitution. But Idon't think that Sethji's advice that we should adjourn nowand wait for a year for the Constitution to be made by a newConstituent Assembly is proper, because the new Assemblywill have to be elected afresh and this House will have tomake some rules for electing a new Constituent Assembly andthat will take some time. Then we will have to sit now tomake some rules for election of the new Constituent Assemblyand then to have the new Constitution discussed by it. Ithink the new Houses of Parliament in this Draft
Constitution elected under adult suffrage will have fullpower to change the Constitution, and if that clause whichmakes it difficult to change the Constitution is removed,the purpose of this amendment will have been served. Itherefore suggest that when that portion comes, we willdiscuss that, but at present the adjournment will not beproper. I therefore oppose this amendment.
Shri S. Nagappa (Madras: General): Mr. President, Sir,I am sorry that I have to oppose my Honourable friend'smotion that is before the House. My friend has been sayingthat he has not been returned to this Assembly in order tomake a Constitution. I am at a loss to understand what isthe purpose for which he contested these elections. I thinkit was clear to him when he got into this Assembly that hewas coming here only in order to frame a Constitution. Buthis point is that this is not a representative body. May Iask him which sort of body will be really representative?Are these members not elected by the elected representativesof the people? No doubt I agree that there was no adultsuffrage. Whose fault is it? Is it the fault of the presentGovernment or is it the fault of the previous Government? Myfriend would have been in order if he had asked the previousGovernment and he was also aware that the previousGovernment had not enough time. They were eager to go andso, even if they wanted to prepare the electoral rolls onadult suffrage and conduct elections, they would have takentwo years. I don't know whether my friend wanted to have theforeign domination for two more years. Wehave been elected by the representatives of the people andevery member represents some thousands of people. No doubthe does not represent every one of the people that are inthat province but he represents the educated that are thecream of the people. When they have sent these members herewith the definite task that they should frame theConstitution and moreover when this was the body that hasreceived the power from the foreigner, it is more in orderand more representative than any other. Even if electionsare held on an adult suffrage, can my friend guarantee thatthere will be other than these members? I doubt it. Theseare the chosen leaders not from to-day or yesterday but forso many years and the people have confidence in them. Evenwhen the country was going through turmoil and difficultiesthe people had reposed confidence in them.
My friend was saying that there are no poor people'srepresentatives. What are we? I represent the poorest of thepoor. He was talking of the depressed classes and backwardcommunities. Are we not depressed class people? What aboutDr. Ambedkar? Whom does he represent? He represents thelowest rung of the ladder and can there be any otherrepresentative other than Dr. Ambedkar from those people? It is our fortune that the task of framing the Constitution hasbeen entrusted to the representative - the realrepresentative - of the lowest rung of the ladder and I can'tunderstand when my friend says the poor have not been givena chance to be represented here, and the worker has not beengiven a chance to be represented here. If that was the case,may I ask why there was no agitation in the country whenthis Assembly was elected? There were so many organisationsand there were so many papers who could have complained andagitated; and almost all people were eager that this bodymust come into existence as early as possible and relievethe Britisher who was anxious to leave this country. Whenthat was the case I am surprised at my friend'sobservations. If my friend does not consider this as arepresentative body, he should have refrained from cominginto this Assembly. He did not do that. He was wise enoughto get into this and continue for two years and be called aMember of this Assembly. Having done all that, now when theConstitution is ready and ripe for adoption, he calmly comesand says that this is not a representative body. I see nologic or reason in that. Can be prove that except a sectionof the country which is dissatisfied and a section whichcould not get into the
House or a section which is jealousof the present Government, there is any large body of peoplein the country who are not satisfied with the representativecharacter of this House?
My friend the Maulana talked in the same strain. I donot know whether he took his inspiration from Shri DamodarSwarup or whether the latter took his inspiration from theMaulana, or whether they conspired among themselves. Anyhowtheir view seems peculiar not only to me but to largenumbers of people. I do not know what the Maulana was tryingto impress on the House, but he seems to be more fond of theSoviet Constitution than of his own Constitution. Forgettingthat he can frame a better constitution than the Soviet orany other constitution, he told us that he was for adoptingthe Soviet Constitution. I do not know the reason why he hasbeen tempted to adopt that constitution. If his argument is that as we have borrowed from every constitution we shouldborrow from the Soviet Constitution also, I can see somereason in it. Here he says that as we have borrowed fromAmerica and England and New Zealand we should borrow alsofrom Soviet Russia: But why should he be so fond of that? Weborrow from other countries what is fit to be adopted by us,when they suit our conditions and requirements. It is notfor the sake of borrowing that we do this and ourConstitution is not a combination or mixture of all otherconstitutions. We study other constitutions and consider ourowncustoms and usages and culture, and we borrow what suits usbest. There is nothing wrong in borrowing something whichsuits us best.
Sir, I oppose the motion.
Shri Syamanandan Sahaya (Bihar: General): Sir, Ipropose a closure of the debate on the amendments and movethat the question be now put. My Honourable friend SethDamodar Swarup has done his duty by voicing the opinion of acertain political section of the country and we need nottake any more time over this. We may now proceed to discussthe Draft Constitution generally.
Mr. President: The question is:
That the question be now put.
The motion was adopted.
Mr. President: The question is:
That Maulana Hasrat Mohani's motion be adopted.
The motion was negatived.
Mr. President: The question is -
That Seth Damodar Swarup's motion be adopted.
The motion was negatived.
Mr. President: The House will now proceed to a generaldiscussion of the motion by Dr. Ambedkar. Shri H. V. Kamathhas an amendment on it.
Shri H. V. Kamath: Sir, I move:
"That in the motion the word 'Constituent' be deletedand for the words 'settled by the Drafting Committee' thewords 'prepared by the Drafting Committee' be substituted".
It is a purely verbal amendment and there is no need toenter into a discussion or controversy over it. The word"Constituent" is redundant as "Assembly" means theConstituent Assembly. As regards the other part, the copy of the Draft Constitution that we have got says, "prepared bythe Drafting Committee". I wish to bring Dr. Ambedkar'smotion into line with this even at the risk of being dubbeda stickler or purist. Sir, I move.
Mr. President: I will draw attention to Rule 38-A whichuses the words "Draft Constitution of India settled by theDrafting Committee". Dr. Ambedkar's motion takes the wordfrom that rule.
Shri H. V. Kamath: By leave of the President, I shallnow speak on the motion itself. While I support the motion Ido not accept all the observations that Dr. Ambedkar made inthe course of his learned address yesterday. As regardsthose aspects of the question which deal with the strengthof the State, which deal with the provision to convert aFederal State into a unitary one in the event of emergency,as regards the undesirability of the various component unitsof the State to maintain armies to the prejudice of thesecurity of the Union as a whole, I endorse his observationswholeheartedly. He told us with some pride - I think - thatthe Constitution is borrowed largely from the Government ofIndia Act and considerably from the constitutions of theUnited Kingdom, United States and Australia and perhapsCanada
also. I listened to his speech with considerablepleasure and not a little profit. But I expected him to tellus what, if any, had been borrowed from our political past,from the political and spiritual genius of the Indianpeople. Of that there was not a single word throughout thewhole speech. This is perhaps in tune with the times. Theother day Shrimati Vijaya lakshmi while addressing theUnited Nations General Assembly in Paris observed with pridethat we in India have borrowed from France their slogan ofliberty, equality and fraternity; we have taken this fromEngland and that from America, but she did notsay what we have borrowed from our own past, from our ownpolitical and historic past, from our long and chequeredhistory of which we are so proud.
On one thing I join issue with Dr. Ambedkar. He waspleased to refer to the villages - I am quoting from a pressreport in the absence of the official copy - as "sinks oflocalism and dens of ignorance, narrow-mindedness andcommunalism"; and he also laid at the door of a certainMetcalfe our "pathetic faith" in village communities. Sir, Imay say that it is not owing to Metcalfe but owing to a fargreater man who has liberated us in recent times, our Masterand the Father of our nation, that this love of ours for thevillages has grown, our faith in the village republics andour rural communities has grown and we have cherished itwith all our heart. It is due to Mahatma Gandhi, it is dueto you, Sir, and it is due to Sardar Patel and Pandit Nehruand Netaji Bose that we have come to love our village folk.With all deference to Dr. Ambedkar, I differ from him inthis regard. His attitude yesterday was typical of the urbanhighbrow; and if that is going to be our attitude towardsthe village folk, I can only say, "God save us." If we donot cultivate sympathy and love and affection for ourvillages and rural folk I do not see how we can uplift ourcountry. Mahatma Gandhi taught us in almost the last mantrathat he gave in the last days of his life to strive forpanchayat raj. If Dr. Ambedkar cannot see his way to acceptthis, I do not see what remedy or panacea he has got foruplifting our villages. In my own province of C.P. and Berarwe have recently launched upon a scheme of Janapadas, oflocal self-government and decentralisation; and that isentirely in consonance with the teachings of our Master. Ihope that scheme will come to fruition and be an example tothe rest of the country. Sir, it was with considerable painthat I heard Dr. Ambedkar refer to our villages in thatfashion, with dislike, if not with contempt. Perhaps thefault lies with the composition of the Drafting Committee,among the members of which no one, with the sole exceptionof Sriyut Munshi, has taken any active part in the strugglefor our country's freedom. None of them is therefore capableof entering into the spirit of our struggle, the spirit thatanimated us; they cannot comprehend with their hearts - I amnot talking of the head it is comparatively easy tounderstand with the head - the turmoiled birth of our nationafter years of travail and tribulation. That is why the toneof Dr. Ambedkar's speech yesterday with regard to ourpoorest, the lowliest and the lost was what it was. I amsorry he relied on Metcalfe only. Other historians andresearch scholars have also given us precious information inthis regard. I do not know if he has read a book called"Indian Polity" by Dr. Jayaswal; I do not know if he hasread another book by a greater man, "The Spirit and Form ofIndian Polity" by Sree Aurobindo. From these books we learnhow our polity in ancient times was securely built onvillage communities which were autonomous and self-contained; and that is why our civilisation has survivedthrough all these ages. If we lose sight of the strength ofour polity we lose sight of everything. I will read to theHouse a brief description of what our polity was and whatits strength was:
"At the height of its evolution and in the great daysof Indian civilisation we find an admirable politicalsystem, efficient in the highest degree and very
perfectlycombining village and urban self-government with stabilityand order. The State carried on its work administrative,judicial, financial and protective - without destroying orencroaching on the rights and free activities of the peopleand its constituent bodies in the same department. The royalcourts in capital and country were the supreme judicialauthority coordinating the administration of justicethroughout the kingdom."
That is so far as these village republics areconcerned. I believe the day is not far distant when notmerely India but the whole world, if it wants peace andsecurity and prosperity and happiness, will have todecentralise and establish village republics and townrepublics, and on the basis of this they will have to buildtheir State; otherwise the world is in for hard times.
Then, Sir, I find in Dr. Ambedkar's speech considerableamount of thunder and plenty of lightning. But I could notfind the light that sustains, the light that warms, thelight that gives life, the light eternal. I heard what hesaid about minorities in India. I do not know on what basishe made this remark that no minority in India had taken thisstand. After referring to the Redmond-Carson episode in thehistory of the Irish struggle, he went on to say that nominority in India has taken this stand. "Damn yoursafeguards" said Carson, "we don't want to be ruled by you."
Dr. Ambedkar said: "They have loyally accepted the ruleof the majority which is basically a communal majority andnot a political majority."
If, Sir, our minorities had really taken this stand,India's history would have been different. After what hashappened during the last two years, can we say that nominority took this stand? It is because a certain minoritytook this stand and sai, "We do not want to be ruled by themajority. Go to hell.", we had the tragedy of the lasteighteen months. If Dr. Ambedkar was referring to Indiaafter 15th August 1947, I have nothing to say; but if he wasreferring to India before 15th August 1947, I fail tounderstand him. How can he say that no minority stood forsafeguards and said, 'We do not want to be ruled by you'? It is because a certain organisation took the stand, "Nosafeguards. We do not want safeguards. We want a separateState.", that ultimately Pakistan came into being and we hadto witness the tragedy of the past eighteen months.
In 1927, I as a student attended the Madras session of the Congress. Maulana Mahomed Ali and Pandit Malaviya wereboth present there. There was a question about safeguardsand Pandit Malaviya made a moving speech that went straightto the heart. He said: "What safeguards did you ask from theSecretary of State for India or from the Government ofIndia? We are here. What better safeguards you want?" Afterthat speech, Maulana Mahomed Ali came to the rostrum,embraced Pandit Malaviya and said: "I do not want anysafeguards. We want to live as Indians, as part of theIndian body-politic. We want no safeguards from the BritishGovernment. Pandit Malaviya is our best safeguard." If thatspirit had continued to animate us, we would have remainedas united India, a single country, a single State and asingle nation. This being so, I fail to understand what Dr.Ambedkar means by saying that no minority in India has takenthis stand. The majority has always been willing to grantthem safeguards, adequate safeguards. But the minority wouldhave nothing to do with it. The minority in India took thesame stand as Carson took in Ireland. That is why, to thedetriment of the Irish body-politic division was resortedto, as was done in India, resulting in disturbance of thepeace and progress of the country.
Well, Sir, there are one or two other aspects of theConstitution I would like to touch upon. One relates toArticle 280 of the Constitution, viz., the one aboutFundamental Rights.
Mr. President: The Honourable Member has almostexhausted his time.
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.
Then we have the Ordinance-making power given inArticle 102. This should be done away with. When we werefighting the British Government, we attacked this power,this ordinance-making power of the Governor-General and theViceroy. Here we are making this provision, not for anemergency. Article 102 merely says that the President maypromulgate Ordinances whenever he is so satisfied. Thatpower should be drastically curtailed, if not entirely doneaway with.
Now I will conclude by saying that, with all its goodpoints, with all its provisions for making India a unitedand strong federal-unitary State, there are certain matterswhich could have been more happily provided for.
Now, what is a State for? The utility of a State has to be judged from its effect on the common man's welfare. Theultimate conflict that has to be resolved is this: whetherthe individual is for the State or the State for theindividual. Mahatma Gandhi tried in his lifetime to strike ahappy balance, to reconcile this drund) and arrived at theconception of the Panchayat Raj. I hope that we in Indiawill go forward and try to make the State exist for theindividual rather than the individual for the State. This iswhat we must aim at and that is what we must bring about inour own country. Because we have a great spiritual andpolitical heritage, we in India are best fitted to bringabout this consummation in our own country; and let me saythat unless in the whole world the spirit of empire givesplace to the empire of the spirit, in the way that MahatmaGandhi and all seers before him have conceived it, unlessthis consummation comes about in the world, there will be nopeace on earth. At least let us try to bring about thisempire of the spirit in our own political institutions. Ifwe do not do this, our attempt today in this Assembly wouldnot truly reflect the political genius of the Indian people.We have been so much taken in by Western glamour. Thisglamour has been too much with us. We have become theprisoners of our habit forms and thought forms. They havebecome almost like the old man in Sindbad the Sailor whom hecould not shake off. We have become unable to shake off ourold habits. But amid all the mist of confusion, there isstill the certainty of a new twilight; not the twilight of the evening, but the twilight of the morning - the YugaSandhi 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 EuropeanizedOriental 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.
Seth Govind Das (C.P. and Berar: General): *[Mr.President, I rise to support the motion moved by Dr.Ambedkar. But at the very outset I would like to make itclear that my support to his motion does not mean that Iagree to every thing he has said in his speech. On thecontrary, in my opinion his speech has not at all beenbefitting the beautiful motion moved by him. He has raisedmany controversial issues and it would have been better ifhe had not raised them at all. While supporting the motion,I would like to make it clear to you that I do not have atpresent the enthusiasm with which such a motion should besupported. The motion as also the whole Constitution havebeen presented to the House in an
alien language. There hasbeen yesterday considerable discussion on this question andI would not say much on it. But
* [Translation of Hindustani Speech,
I do feel a regret today that we did not decide the questionof national language earlier. Sir, had we taken a decisionin this respect earlier, yesterday, there would have been nonecessity for you to give an assurance that thisConstitution would be placed before this House in thelanguage which would be accepted as the national languageand that the articles which would have been passed by thetime a decision is taken in this respect would be repassedin our own language. Perhaps you remember, that you hadgiven us an assurance in this respect and that when afteryour assurance I had raised the question again you hadstated in your reply that the original draft of theConstitution would be in the national language. To adopt theConstitution in an alien language is not only a matter ofshame for us but it will create many difficulties in thefuture and will establish supremacy of English in ourcountry. Even during British regime our country producedmany learned men who did not know English.
For example, mention of late Pandit Sudhakar Dwivedimay be made. Such a person nowadays is Moulana Abdul KalamAzad who cannot be said to be a scholar of the Englishlanguage. If we frame our Constitution in a foreignlanguage, even free India, inspite of having its ownnational language, will have to depend for ever on those whohave specialised in English in so far as the constitutionalmatters would be concerned. Therefore again, I would appealto you, as I did yesterday, that the original of ourConstitution should be in Hindi.
Moreover, this Constitution is incomplete. Manyimportant matters have not been included in it. No doubtarticle 99, chapter II lays down "In Parliament Businessshall be conducted in Hindi or English", but in the whole of the Draft there is no mention about our national language.Of course, we can amend article 99, and specifically mentionthe language for transaction of business in our Assemblies.But that alone would not do unless we also specificallydeclare which language shall be our national language. Themere statement that in Parliament business shall beconducted in this or that language is not enough. We have todeclare that a particular language shall be the nationallanguage of the country. We have also to declare which shallbe the national script of the country. In so far as boththese matters are concerned the Constitution is quiteincomplete.
Perhaps you might have noticed the fact that in theIrish Constitution there is mention of their National Flag.Though we accepted by a resolution this tricolour flag asour National Flag, we have made no mention of the NationalFlag in this draft.
We would like that our Constitution should specificallyprovide that a particular flag shall be our National Flagjust as has been done in the Irish Constitution.
Besides, our Constitution is silent about our NationalAnthem. On many occasions our Prime Minister PanditJawaharlal Nehru has stated that the final decision on thequestion of National Anthem would be taken by theConstituent Assembly. But I would also like that a provisionshould be included in our Constitution which specificallyfixes our National Anthem.
I would also like to express my views on all thesematters that have not been provided for by this draft of theConstitution. In my opinion Hindi alone can be the nationallanguage of this country. I think there are only a fewmembers of this House who believe today that English can bemade the national language of this country. The Hindi-Hindustani controversy has also come to an end, simplybecause Article 99 of the Constitution refers to "Hindi orEnglish" alone in relation to the transaction of business inour Parliament. Thus the question of Hindustani also existsno more, As far as the members and residents of South Indiaare concerned, I would agree that business here may beconducted in English also for some years to come. We shouldnot impose anything on
them. But Hindi must be our nationallanguage and Devnagari our national script.
This Constitution should by a specific provisionprescribe the flag that has been accepted before in thisHouse as our National Flag and I suggest that like the UnionJack it should be given a distinctive name of its own. Iwould like to suggest to you a beautiful name for it. It maybe named "Sudarshan". The word "Sudarshan" means beautifulin appearance. While presenting the flag to the House PanditJawaharlal Nehru had described in his speech how beautifulour national flag is. I suggest, therefore, that it be named"Sudarshan". There is also a Chakra or wheel on it. Theweapon of Lord Vishnu was also known Sudarshan Chakra andhence this name would be quite suitable.
As far as the question of National Anthem is concerned,I would say that 'Vande Mataram' can be our National Anthem.The history of our struggle for independence is associatedwith Vande Mataram. if it be said that is tune is not fitfor orchestrisation I would submit that this is a difficultywhich can be overcome by experts in orchestral music.Lyrical songs of Mahakavi Soordas and Meerabai can be sungnot only in one but in many tunes. It is therefore wrong tothink that 'Vande Mataram' is not suited fororchestrisation. There is no person who has no respect inhis heart for Rabindranath Tagore - the King among poets. Theverse "Jana mana Gana" was composed on the occasion of thevisit of the late Emperor George the V to India in 1911. Thepoem offers greetings, not to Mother India, but to the lateKing Emperor. Every sentiment in it is in relation to the"Bharat Bhagia Vidhata" and who is meant is clear from theexpression "victory to the Emperor" (Jai Rajeshwar). It isevident that in a Republic we cannot in our National Anthemoffer any greetings to any 'Rajeshwar'. 'Vande Mataram'alone, therefore can be our National Anthem.
Besides its incompleteness, this Constitution alsoneeds many amendments.
For instance, our country has been named as 'India' inthis Constitution. As far as the foreign countries areconcerned this name is alright. But if a meeting is held inour country which we have to address, shall we address thegathering 'Ay Indians'? When we want to frame theConstitution of our country in our national language, whenwe want to make it a secular state, neither 'India' norHindustan are suitable names for this country. In myopinion, we should give this country the ancient name'Bharat'.
One thing more I would like to mention here. Ours is anagricultural country. It should have all that is necessaryfor agriculture. From this point of view the protection ofcows is very essential for us. The problem of cow protectionis a matter which has been associated with our civilisationfrom the time of Lord Krishna. To us it is not only areligious or economic but also a cultural problem. Just aswe have declared the practice of untouchability an offence,we can also declare that cow-slaughter in this country wouldbe an offence. We should include some provision in ourConstitution for this. We learn from our history that onlysuch regimes, whether during Hindu period or Muslim period,as had prohibited cow-slaughter had been popular andsuccessful in our country. History is a witness to the factthat cow-slaughter was abolished here during the rule ofmany Muslim Kings. It may be said that it would entail aheavy financial burden. I submit, however, that even if weimpose a tax on the people and ask them to pay it in orderto protect the cows, I am of opinion that they would pay itquite willingly. The bogey of financial difficulties used to be raised before us by the British Government. But I wouldlike that in the matter of cow-protection this bogey shouldnot be raised before us.
We have to examine the Constitution from every point ofview and seek to make it complete in all respects. Ours isnot a newly born country. It is an ancient country, it has along history, a hoary civilisation and culture. We shouldframe our Constitution keeping in view all these factsbefore us. We do not want to place any
minority, whetherMuslim or other, under any disabilities. But, certainly weare not prepared to appease those who put thetwo-nation theory before us. I want to make it clear thatfrom the cultural point of view only one culture can existin this country. The Constitution that we adopt must be inharmony with our culture and that Constitution would besuitable to us which is in our language.
It is after centuries that we have this opportunity offraming our constitution. We must use it well and frame aconstitution that is suited to the genius of our land.]
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim): Mr.President, Sir, I have a short time at my disposal to dealwith this enormous subject and I shall therefore confinemyself to one or two specific subjects and reserve mycomments on other matters for a latter stage. The firstthing to which I wish to draw the attention of the House isthe treatment of the expression "States". "States" under theDraft Constitution means almost anything. The idea was to doaway with the distinction between the Provinces, the IndianStates, the Chief Commissioners' Provinces and similar otherthings. It was feared, and very naturally feared, at onestage that the Indian States would not align themselves orcould not be made to align themselves to the new set up ofthings, but things have proceeded rapidly and the "States"have quite reasonably aligned themselves or are aligningthemselves with the Provinces. I therefore think that thisdefinition of "States" as meaning all sorts of things is nolonger necessary. I should think we should revert to thenomenclature of Provinces, Indian States and ChiefCommissioners' Provinces and the like. There is no fear ofjumbling them together and it is better to treat them asdistinct entities. It may have been thought by the eminentdraftsmen that unless they did this, there would be somecentrifugal forces working, making them drift apart. But,that fear having been allayed, it is now necessary to goback to the original state of affairs. I submit that we arenot legislating for the future; we are legislating for thepresent; though we should have an eye for the future, wemust not forget that we are legislating for the presenttime. In the Draft Constitution we have three distinctitems, namely, Provinces, Indian States and ChiefCommissioners' Provinces. We should not do away with thepresent distinctions. If at a future date, these distinctentities would combine into one, as I have no doubt theywill, and would be governed by the same or similarcharacteristics, then will be the time to amend theConstitution and treat them on the same basis.
You would be pleased to find that in Parts VI and XII,"State" means the Provinces. In Part VII, "State" meansChief Commissioners' Provinces. In Part IV "State" meansIndian States. In Part III, "State" means a wonderful seriesof things. By means of article 7, "State" means first of all, the Government of India, secondly it means theGovernment of the States, meaning all the States, Provinces,Indian States and Chief Commissioners' Provinces, and whatis very remarkable, it also means local and otherauthorities. I suppose these are the municipalities,district boards and other autonomous authorities. I thinkthe passion for a constitutional expression has gone toof ar. To call a district board, a municipality or a thing ofthat type as a "State" would be doing violence to language.If English is to remain the language in which theConstitution has to be embodied, I think we should have somerespect for the accepted meaning of the word State. A Statealways means and implies a kind of sovereignty. It may belimited or it may be unlimited. Some kind of sovereignty isimplied in the word State. But to call a district board or amunicipality a State would be a misnomer. I think thepassion for the use of the word 'State' should be checked.If it is a question of nomenclature, if we want to use thesame expression for the Government of India and the States,we should distinctly mention the word municipality ordistrict board and not allow these to be comprehended withinthe
meaning of the all-pervading word'State'. If we allow the word 'State' to be used for allsorts of purposes, the very purpose of this well-knownconstitutional expression would be lost. I should thinktherefore that Honourable Members should look into thiswhile drafting amendments. I find it to be an anomaly and itis difficult to find a substitute for this expression. I askthe co-operation of the Honourable members of this House tofind a suitable expression for this. The expression has beendefined to mean different things in different clauses. Theseare articles 1, 7, 28, 128, 212 and 247, according to whichthe word 'State' means different things. There is a dangerof using a well-known expression to mean different things indifferent parts of the same statute. This may lead toconfusion. It will be difficult for everyone who will haveto deal with the interpretation of this Constitution or tounderstand this Constitution, to keep his head quite clearas to what is the sense in which the word 'State' has beenused at a particular place. I submit, Sir, the ultimatepurpose which seems to be lying behind this draftsmanship isthe ultimate co-ordination and uniformity of all thesedifferent institutions. But at present, there is no need forthis kind of indiscriminate use of the word 'State'. Ishould therefore ask Honourable members to consider ingiving notice of amendments, whether it would be better tostick to the old and well known expressions Provinces,Indian States and Chief Commissioners' Provinces.
Then, I have one or two things to say with regard toanother subject. Coming to the directive principles of Statepolicy, articles 28 to 40, I think that these are piousexpressions. They have no binding force. These cannot beenforced in a Court of Law and really, as the Honourable theLaw Minister himself candidly admitted, they are pioussuperfluities. That is the criticism. He has given only onereply that the draft Constitution admits it to be so. Isubmit it is not a reply, but rather it is a statement of the fact of the criticism. I think every constitutionalprinciple should give a right, and every right should bejusticiable in a Court of law and in other places. If thereis a right, its violation is a wrong, giving rise, to thewell known cause of action. So, there can be no right, theviolation of which would not lead to a cause of action. I donot think that people would rush to Court for these things.But, if a constitutional right is defined with aconsiderable amount of ceremony in a considerably importantdocument like the Constitution of India, and if for theviolation of the same no legal remedy is provided, it wouldbe absolutely wrong to insert the so-called rights in thestatute. I submit, Sir, these principles are so well knownthat they do not require to be stated formally in aConstitution, at the same time taking care to see that theyare not justiciable in a Court of law. I submit, if theseprinciples of a purely directive character without a bindingforce be at all introduced in a Statute, I think there areother principles which should also be equally introduced, asfor instance, 'don't tell a lie', 'don't ill-treat yourneighbour', and so on and so forth. The Ten Commandments of the Bible and the other commandments from various religionsand from practical life should also be introduced on thesame principle. As we do not think it practicable to stateall these obvious truths, not that these truths are notadmissible or are not binding, but because they are obvious.I submit that these directive principles are too obvious torequire any mention. If there is any principle whichrequires to be mentioned, it must be justiciable; it must beenforceable in a Court of law. Otherwise, it should have noplace in a Constitution. The Honourable Law Minister himselfadmitted that there is no principle similar to this to befound in any Constitution, except in the Irish Constitution.If a principle of this broad nature has found place only inone Constitution and that Constitution not being the best, Ithink it is not a safe guide to be followed. I submit
thatthese directive principles should also receive carefulattention from the Honourable members; at the time when thisthing will conme up, these principles should require carefulattention.
As the time is very short, I do not wish to take up thetime of the House any further but I would reserve my othercomments for suitable occasions and when they arise.
Sardar Bhopinder Singh Man (East Punjab: Sikh): *[Mr.President for a country which has passed through thehistoric phase of subjugation, it is natural that whileframing its constitution, it should have a bright vision:Progress is liable to be impeded, if high ideals are notkept in view. It is an essential for progress. Differencesdo occur among the people, but on such occasions we have tosee with what speed to proceed, which would enable us toreach our destination. In political matters it is wrong toignore a reality and to take any hasty and unbalanced step,howsoever progressive the step may be. I congratulate theDrafting Committee for visualizing the conditions in theirtrue perspective and solving various problems according tothe exigencies of the time. Criticism is being levelled fromtwo points of view. A strong Centre and retention ofresiduary powers have become object of criticism by somepeople. Undoubtedly the position of the Congress also hasbeen the same. But under changed circumstances and in thelight of old experiences and partition of the country, somepeople demand a strong Centre. In opposing this the exampleof Russia is quoted. But it is forgotten that Russia hashanded over these powers to her units after a dictatorialregime of 30 years.
I think, slowly and gradually as the country advancessocially and economically, different provinces might getthis freedom in instalments. In accepting these principles,I do not think it expedient to interfere in the day-to-dayworking powers of the provinces, which have been handed overto them by the Centre. Clause 226 can be cited as anexample. This clause has been discussed in the Assemblies of the different provinces where it has been disapproved.
Another question is the problem of Minorities. Whileconsidering this question, the members of the MajorityCommunity are touched. They are influenced by the pasthappenings. But consider it minutely. Formerly, in ourcountry there used to be the third power which alwaysinduced them to become unreasonable. I regret that as aconsequent one important minority succumbed to thistemptation and adopted an unreasonable attitude and got thecountry partitioned. But, Sir, this cannot be said regardingother minorities. The minority, to which I belong, hasalways responded to the call of the country and in spite of their very small number has played a big part in everybattle of freedom for the country. Therefore, when I inviteyour attention towards me, as a member of the minoritycommunity, it is not my intention to raise communal issuenor to weaken the nation or the country: rather I say thisas a patriot, who feels that to gain the goodwill of theminorities is to add to the glory of the country and toincrease the strength of the nation. Now, when there is nothird power and the days of the unreasonable attitude of theminorities has come to an end, the responsibility of themajority has increased. The majority has to gain theconfidence of the minority. I hope with the attainment ofpower, the majority will be able to dispel the doubts andmisgivings of the minority. It will have to gain theconfidence of the minority.]
Shri R. V. Dhulekar (United Provinces: General): *[Nowthere is no minority here.]
Sardar Bhopinder Singh Man: *[Well, you have alreadyaccepted it. You have accepted it in two different clauseson the basis of religion and language.
Sir, while I say that in the Draft Constitutionproblems have been solved according to the exigencies of thetime, I shall be failing in my duty, if I did not bring toyour notice that in clause 13 relating to the fundamentalrights and more particularly the rights of citizenship, suchdifficult conditions have
*  Translation of
been laid down that all the rights have been renderednugatory. So far as finance is concerned, specialconsideration is to be given to East Punjab and West Bengalwhich have been affected very much due to partition. Alongwith it the clause relating to the citizenship rightsshould, in my opinion, be made more elastic for therefugees. It would be difficult for lakhs of refugees comingfrom far off places to appear before a District Magistratefor filing the declaration that they intent to adopt thecitizenship of India.
In many cases it is quite possible that the people willhave to come from a distance of 40 to 50 miles and they willhave to spend a lot for their journey. Therefore, it is notexpedient to force the people like this, more particularlyin the Punjab where they have no arrangement of a fixedplace of residence.
There is yet another and last point. I have observed itsince yesterday that endeavour is being made to solve thelanguage problem by giving an emotional tinge. In myopinion, there should be no display of sentiment whilesolving the language problem. At times it takes a religiousturn. In my opinion the Congress stand should be maintainedin solving the language problem and the numerous resolutionspassed by the Congress previously, regarding the languageproblem, should stand.]
Mr. Frank Anthony (C.P. and Berar: General): Mr.President, Sir, although Dr. Ambedkar is not present in theHouse I feel that, as a lawyer at least, I ought tocongratulate him for the symmetrical and lucid analysiswhich he gave us of the principles underlying our Draft Constitution. Whatever different views we may hold aboutthis Draft Constitution, I feel that this will be concededthat it is a monumental document at least from the physicalpoint of view, if from no other point of view. And I thinkit would be churlish for us not to offer a word of specialthanks, to the members of the Drafting Committee, because Iam certain that they must have put in an infinite amount oflabour and skill to be able to prepare such a vast document.
Dr. Ambedkar referred to the fact that while there wasa necessary minimum of rigidity and legalism in a federalconstitution, an attempt had been made to give it themaximum of flexibility by accommodating as much as possiblelocal needs and local circumstances. He also pointed outthat this flexibility had not been over-carried to theextent of encouraging chaos. For instance, on fundamentalmatters an essential unity and integration had been retainedby having uniform laws, by having a single and integratedjudiciary, by having a Central Administrative Service. Dr.Ambedkar also indicated that the Constitution sought tostrike a balance between giving the Centre too much or toolittle power. He felt that it is a salutary principle not toover-weigh the Centre with too much power under which itmight crash. Sir, I know that several Members in this Housewill not agree with me. I, also, regard as a salutaryprinciple the need for not giving too much power to theCentre. Constitutionally, that is an unexceptionableprinciple, but in applying it, we must adapt it to localneeds and circumstances, and, if we are frank withourselves, we must admit that in this vast country of oursthere is an inherent potential of divergence anddisintegration. Because of that I feel that the maximumpossible power that can be given to the Centre must be givento the Centre in the interests of the country, in theinterests of the integrity and cohesion of the nation. Ifeel that in three particular matters there should beCentral control. I do not know to what extent some of myfriends will agree with me here.
The first matter in which control should, I feel, be byand from the Centre is with regard to the PoliceAdministration. I feel that the Police Services throughoutthe country should be controlled from the Centre. You maynot have absolute control. You may qualify it. But thereshould be some measure of control from the Centre. We haveto remember that there was such a thingas the Indian Police Service. It was an all-India
service,the members of which filled key appointments in the PoliceAdministrations in the different provinces. In spite of thatsingle unifying link, the Police Administrations in thedifferent Provinces had varying standards. If we are frank,we will admit that in some provinces the PoliceAdministration set general standards of efficiency andintegrity. At the same time, we have also to admit that incertain provinces the standards set by the PoliceAdministrations were not far removed from chronicinefficiency and chronic corruption. While we have sought tosecure cohesion and integrity, with regard to our judiciary,with regard to the Central Administrative Service (I do notknow to what extent members of the Central AdministrativeService will be appointed to key positions in the PoliceAdministrations of the different provinces), whateverintegrity and cohesion we may secure by having a singlejudiciary, whatever integrity and cohesion we may securethrough the Central Administrative Service, I feel thatintegrity and cohesion will be largely stultified if thePolice Administrations are left at the mercy of thedifferent provincial Governments. I might add here that Ifeel this measure of cohesion by central control, to someextent at least, is vital, It goes to the roots of a healthyand stable society in our vast country.
The second matter on which I should like to see controlfrom the Centre is education. I know that I am touching on avery controversial point, that I will be criticised and mysuggestion will be completely repudiated by those who, Ifeel, think - and only think - in provincial terms. At thesame time, I feel that my proposal that education throughoutthe country should be controlled from the Centre will have,the approval and endorsement of eminent educationists ofmen, of vision and of men with statesmanship. What ishappening today? On the threshold of independence (I cannothelp saying it) certain provinces are running riot in theeducational field. Provinces are implementing not onlydivergent but often directly opposing policies. And it isaxiomatic that a uniform, synthesized, planned educationsystem is the greatest force to ensure national solidarityand national integration. Equally, divergent, fissiparous,opposing educational policies will be the greatest force fordisintegration and the disruption of this country. I regretto say, but it is true, if we will only admit it, thateducational policies conceived in narrow provincial and evenparochial terms are today menacing us with the inevitabledanger of raising cultural barriers, mental stockades, ofbuilding educational walls, over which it will becomeincreasingly impossible to look. I feel very strongly onthis subject, because I have not a little to do witheducation. I have a great deal to do with education from anall-India point of view, and I feel that if a policy oflaissez faire at this stage is conceded or accepted from theCentre, then we are trifling with a force which in itspotential for mischief, in its potential for disrupting thiscountry is much greater than any disruptive tendency we havefaced from religious communalism.
Finally, Sir, the subject which I feel should be alsocontrolled from the Centre is the not negligible subject ofhealth. Education and health are, to my mind, the twoparamount problems which this country is faced with. And wecannot begin to liquidate ill-health and malnutrition,unless we do it on a uniform scale. I do not believe that wecan begin to touch this, perhaps our greatest problem, byallowing it to rest at the mercies of the differentprovincial Governments which are, some of them, bound tohave halting policies; some of them are bound to havedisparate policies, some of them are bound to have divergentpolicies.
Lastly, I wish to endorse the sentiment expressed byDr. Ambedkar when he commended the provisions on behalf of the minorities. I know that it is an unsavoury subject(after what India has gone through) to talk of minorities orin terms of minority problems. And I do not propose to dothat I do not propose to commend these minority
provisions,because they have already been accepted by the AdvisoryCommittee; they have been acceptedby the Congress Party; they have also been accepted by theConstituent Assembly. But I feel I ought to thank and tocongratulate the Congress Party for its realistic andstatesmanlike approach to this not easy problem; and I feelwe ought particularly to thank Sardar Patel for his veryrealistic and statesmanlike approach. There is no point inblinking or in shirking the fact that minorities do exist inthis country, but if we approach this problem in the way theCongress has begun to approach it, I believe that in tenyears there will be no minority problem in this country.Believe me, Sir, when I tell you that I, at any rate, do notthink that there is a single rightminded minority that doesnot want to see this country reach, and reach in theshortest possible time, the goal of a real seculardemocratic State. We believe - we must believe - that in theachievement of that goal lies the greatest guarantee of anyminority section in this country. As Dr. Ambedkar has said ,we have struck a golden mean in this matter. The minoritiestoo have been helpful. There is no doubt that we went morethan half-way to meet the Congress Party and the CongressParty also, although it is very difficult for a member whois not a member of a minority community, to appreciate thedifficulties and anxieties of a minority, has done that andwe are deeply grateful to them for it. I believe that inthese provisions we have struck a mean - a mean by whichthrough a process of evolution, through a process of naturaland easy transition, if we all play the game (as I believewe will) this country will achieve the only goal which weall want to achieve, namely, a goal where we think ofourselves as Indians first, last and always. One of therealisations which impressed itself very strongly on my mindwhen I attended, recently, the Commonwealth ParliamentaryConference was that the eyes of the world are on India.People realise that when India comes into her own, thebalance of power, industrial, economic and even militarywill be affected throughout the world. We all believe thatIndia will come into her own. I am one of those who believethat India will attain her fullest stature in a seculardemocratic society. There may be shortcomings andimperfections in this Constitution which are inevitably theresult of necessary adaptation. But I believe that in thisConstitution which are inevitably the result of necessaryadaptation. But I believe that in this Constitution we haveboth the opportunity and the guarantee of a seculardemocratic society in this country.
Finally, Sir, I wish to say that it is not so much onthe written word of the printed Constitution that willultimately depend whether we reach that full stature, but onthe spirit in which the leaders and administrators of thecountry implement this Constitution of ours and on thespirit in which they approach the vast problems that faceus; on the way in which we discharge the spirit of thisConstitution will depend the measure of our fulfilment of the ideals which we all believe in.
Shri Krishna Chandra Sharma (United Provinces:General): I join in the pleasant task to compliment Dr.Ambedkar for the well worked out scheme he has placed beforethe House, the hard work he was put in, and his yesterday'sable and lucid speech.
Sir, ours is a Democratic Constitution. Democracyinvolves a Government Constitution is not an end in itself.A Constitution is framed for certain objectives and theseobjectives are the general good of the people, the stabilityof the State and the growth and development of theindividual. In India when we say the growth and developmentof the individual we mean his self realisation, self-development and self-fulfilment. When we say the developmentof the people we mean to say a strong and united nation.
Sir, in considering a Constitution we have to take notof the fact that the of, by, and for the people. Indemocracy, the combined wisdom of the peopleis regarded as superior to that of any single king or tyrantor indeed
to a group of men. Moreover, democracy emphasizesthe supreme good as being the welfare of the people.Political institutions are justifiable only in so far asthey lead to this result and not by any pomp and showattached to them. These being the fundamentals of democracy,we have to judge whether the Constitution placed before uswill make India a strong united nation with the possibilityof self fulfilment, self-development and self-realisation of the individual.
Sir, India needs wealth and when we say India needswealth, we mean that India is a poor country and thereforeshould be strong enough to compete with any great country inthe world and erect it on a footing of equality. Now, therewas a time when wealth was regarded to consist in gold andsilver or some other resources of the country. In the moderncontext, the wealth of a nation consists primarily in thelimbs of its young men, their character and brain and theirworking capacity. Now, in this Constitution, there is not asingle item or provision anywhere to make the people work orto make them grow. You have got directive principles. There,the State endeavours to not take the responsibility to makethe people work, on the principle that he who does not work,neither shall he eat. This is an important question. Weshould have provision for enforcement of work for able-bodies citizens. So Sir, in the directive principle which alearned friend of mine has criticised, there is no legalobligation imposed on the State to fulfil the rights givenin the Constitution. I suggest that we make a provision thatany law made in contravention of these principles shall tothat extent be void. This will not affect the presentposition. It will give jurisdiction to a court of law,though only a negative right to the people to move a courtthat any law which goes against the interests of the people,against providing primary education for the children andagainst providing work and employment to the people shouldbe declared void. The court will have jurisdiction todeclare that such and such a law is void, because itcontravenes the general principles laid down in Chapter IV.
The second thing I wish to emphasise in the directiveprinciples is that for the growth of democracy, a free andhealthy public opinion is necessary. The position is that inmediaeval times one dared not think freely but in theseenlightened times one can dare think freely, but he cannot.Look to the spectacle of the man who by black-marketing andby doing things a decent man will not do amasses fabulouswealth. He buys a dozen of educated women roams about in theworld and gets control over twenty Provincial dailies. He byunscrupulous propaganda gets hold on the mind of the peopleand passes as a benefactor of humanity. Do you think this isdemocracy? Do you think there is any possibility for thegrowth of an honest, independent citizen in a country wheresuch a thing is possible? I, Sir, with all the force at mycommand protest that such a thing should not be allowed tohappen in this great country. You should and you can make itimpossible for such things to happen by preventing the abuseof wealth or the amassing of wealth in the hands ofindividuals to that extent. You should do this control of the Press and provide for a healthy and independent press sothat effective independent opinion should be possible. Forinstance, I would refer to the provisions of Chapter II of the down that the State will compel every able-bodiedcitizen to work and further in another article it is laiddown that the Press would not be allowed to prejudice oraffect the growth of effective independent opinion. Thiseffective opinion is the backbone of democracy.
Having dealt with directive principles, I pass on to ChapterXIV relating to minorities. As I said, this great countryneeds unity. The object is a united nation. Much has beensaid about the rights of minorities. I do not think ourminorities are minorities in the real sense of the term orthe classes or groups accepted by the League of Nations. Weall belong to the same race. We have all lived in thiscountry for
centuries, for thousands of years. We haveimbibed a common culture, a common way of living, a commonway of thinking. Thus I do not understand the meaning ofgiving these special privileges in Chapter XIV. It createsstatutory minorities and to say that the thing will last forten years only is to forget the lesson of the past. Whathappened in the past? You gave certain rights and privilegesto Muslims as such and those rights and privileges, it washoped, would in the course of time automatically cease, thatthe Muslim community would realise the futility of thosespecial privileges and would associate itself with thecommon people of the land and give up those privileges. Butthe result was the partition of the country. Once you giveto a certain group of people, not on their functions, notbecause they are doing something for the country, but simplybecause they belong to a certain group or class, certainspecial privileges, you perpetuate what is generally thefault in democracy, namely, the giving rise to of groups orclasses which would do things detrimental to ends of thegroups or classes they belong to. Cliques and intrigues willdo neither any good to the groups or classes they representnor to the country, but in the name of that group or cliquethey will serve their own selfish ends. While it would standin the way of a united nation it will not do any good tothose classes or groups and would perpetuate what is, as Isaid, generally the defect in democracy. I would thereforesuggest that this Chapter better be altogether omitted andif there are any safeguards, or any encouragement, necessaryfor the backward classes or certain other classes, theremight be other means, namely, giving scholarship todeserving students, giving other financial help, openinginstitutions and other facilities which are necessary fortheir amelioration and lifting up; but to perpetuatedivision in the body politic, to perpetuate division in thenation, would be detrimental to the healthy growth of thenation and would do an incalculable harm to us and ourposterity.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari (Madras: General): Mr.President, Sir, I am one of those in the House who havelistened to Dr. Ambedkar very carefully. I am aware of theamount of work and enthusiasm that he has brought to bear onthe work of drafting this Constitution. At the same time, Ido realise that amount of attention that was necessary forthe purpose of to it by the Drafting Committee. The House isperhaps aware that of the seven members nominated by you,one had resigned from the House and was replaced. One diedand was not replaced. One was away in America and his placewas not filled up and another person was engaged in Stateaffairs, and there was a void to that extent. One or twopeople were far away from Delhi and perhaps reasons ofhealth did not permit them to attend. So it happenedultimately no doubt that we are grateful to him for havingachieved this task in a manner which is undoubtedlycommendable. But my point really is that the attention thatwas due to a matter like this has not been given to it bythe Committee as a whole. Some time in April the Secretariatof the Constituent Assembly had intimated me and othersbesides myself that you had decided that the Union PowersCommittee, the Union Constitution Committee and theProvincial Constitution Committee, at any rate the membersthereof, and a few other selected people should meet anddiscuss the various amendments that had been suggested bythe members of the House and also by the general public. Ameeting was held for two days in April last and I believe acertain amount of goodwork was done and I see that Dr. Ambedkar has chosen toaccept certain recommendations of the Committee, but nothingwas heard about this committee thereafter. I understand thatthe Drafting Committee - at any rate Dr. Ambedkar and Mr.Madhava Rau - met thereafter and scrutinised the amendmentsand they have made certain suggestions, but technicallyperhaps this was not a Drafting Committee. Though I wouldnot question your ruling on this matter, one would concedethat the moment a
Committee had reported that Committeebecame functus officio, and I do not remember your havingreconstituted the Drafting Committee. The point why Imention all these is that certain aspects of ourConstitution have not had the amount of expert attentionthat was necessary, the amount of attention that could havebeen provided to it if a person like Mr. GopalaswamiAyyangar or Mr. Munshi or certain other persons had attendedthe meetings all through.
Sir, I would draw your attention to one aspect of theDraft Constitution, viz., the financial provisions in theConstitution. You, Sir, appointed an Expert Committee. Well,to my own mind, the way in which the Committee worked wasnot altogether satisfactory, though the members of theCommittee were eminent enough. I had the opportunity ofgiving evidence before the Committee and I did come awayfrom that meeting feeling that the Committee was not seizedof the seriousness of the matter they were entrusted with,nor were they competent to advise the Drafting Committee inregard to the subjects referred to them. Sir, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I have with me a copy of thereport of the Expert Committee, and I am not satisfied withit. Circumstances happened that the House could not discussthe report of the Expert Committee and I believe that theDrafting Committee were more or less left to decide forthemselves whether those recommendations were worthy ofbeing incorporated or not.