Saturday, the 6th November 1948
The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at Ten of the Clock, Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee) in the Chair.
Shri Arun Chandra Guha (West Bengal: General): Mr.Vice-President, Sir, we are assembled here to give final touch to the first Constitution of Free India. It is a very significant moment of our life and in this moment I cannot but recollect the past, the years of trouble and struggle that we have passed through. We have lost many comrades; the whole nation has undergone many troubles and sacrifices. When we are assembled here to give shape to our future destiny and our future constitution, I must bow down to the memories of those who have left us in the course of the long years of struggle that we have passed through, - Surendranath Banerjea, Lajpat Rai, Motilal Nehru, DeshbandhuChittaranjan, and many others who have led us in the struggle and last by Mahatma Gandhi the Father of the Nation. And in our intimate circle, particularly in bengal, we have also our friends who have led us through all the struggle, less known to the public, but not less devoted to the cause, not less honest and sincere in their ardent desire for freeing the country. Coming as I do from the circle of workers who have been through the struggle for more than four decades, Sir, I cannot but recollect at least the names of some - Jatindra Nath Mookerji, Swamy PrajnanandaSaraswati, Surya Sen. Bhagat Singh and others. They havealso served the cause, though they are not so widely known - they have also contributed to the cause.
Now to the Draft Constitution. I am afraid the Drafting Committee has gone beyond the terms. I am afraid the whole constitution that has been laid before us has gone beyond the main principles laid down by the Constituent Assembly. In the whole Draft Constitution we see no trace of Congress outlook, no trace of Gandhian social and political outlook. The learned Dr. Ambedkar in his long and learned speech has found no occasion to refer to Gandhiji or to the Congress. It is not surprising, because I feel the whole Constitution lacks in Congress ideal and Congress ideology particularly. When we are going to frame a constitution, it is not only apolitical structure that we are going to frame; it is not only an administrative machinery that we are going to setup; it is a machinery for the social and economic future of the nation.
I feel, as for the economic side, the Draft Constitution is almost silent. It is rather anxious to safeguard the sanctity of property; it is rather anxious to safeguard the rights of those who have got something and it is silent about those who are dispossessed and who have got nothing. While there is much about the sanctity of property and the inviolability of property, things such as right to work, right to means of livelihood and right to leisureetc., have been left out and these things should have been effectively incorporated, in the Constitution.
As for the Fundamental Rights, Dr. Ambedkar, - he is a learned professor and I acknowledge his learning and his ability and I think the Draft Constitution is mainly his handicraft - in his introductory speech, he has entered into a sort of metaphysical debate. He has introduced a new term;I feel, Sir, there is no right in the world which is absolute. Every right carries with it some obligation; without obligation there cannot be any right. So it is nouse taking shelter behind the plea that the Fundamental Rights cannot be absolute. I know these must be relative;but that does not mean that the Fundamental Rights should benegatived by putting some provisos. All the rights that have been mentioned in the Fundamental Rights section have immediately been negatived by putting some provisos and some subsidiary clauses. It would have been better for the Drafting Committee not to have provided these provisons within the Constitution at all. Then the future Government would have been able to act freely in framing the
Fundamental Rights. But now as these have been incorporated within the Constitution it would be a question of amending the Constitution to make it broad-based. So I would ask the House either to put the Fundamental Rights rather frankly orto omit the whole chapter from the Constitution so that the future Government may frame the Fundamental Rights according to the needs of the time and not be handicapped with the task of amending the Constitution which has put some difficulties in the way.
Then, Sir, Dr. Ambedkar has passed some remarks aboutthe village units. We have been in the Congress for years.We have been taught to think of the village panchayats as the future basis of administrative machinery. The Gandhian and the Congress outlook has been that the future constitution of India would be a pyramidal structure and its basis would be the village panchayats. According to Dr.Ambedkar, the villages have been the ruination of India, the villages have been the den of ignorance. If that has been the case now, that is due to us who have been living in the towns, who have been shining under the foreign bureaucracy and foreign rule. Our villages have been starved; our villages have been strangled deliberately by the foreign Government; and the towns-people have played a willing tool in this ignoble task. Resuscitating of the villages, I think, should be the first task of the future free India. I have told you, Sir, that we have been taught according to the Gandhian outlook and the Congress outlook that the future constitution of India would be a pyramidal structure based on the village panchayats.
I admit we require a strong Centre; but that does not mean that its limbs should be weak. We cannot have a strong Centre without strong limbs. If we can build the whole structure on the village panchayats, on the willing co-operation of the people, then I feel the Centre would automatically become strong. I yet request the House that itmay incorporate some clauses so that village panchayats may be allowed to play some effective part in the future administration of the country.
Dr. Ambedkar has posed before us a question that they have tried to put the constitution on the basis of provinces, on the basis of some political units, on the basis of the individual as the basic unit. The village should be the real basis of the machinery. The individual is the soul of the whole constitution; but the village should be made the basis of the machinery of its administration.
Then, Sir, I would like to say something about the language. In the Draft Constitution it has been stated that Hindi and English should be freely used in this House, and other languages can be used only when the speaker is unable to express himself adequately in either of these languages,I feel, Sir, as in the Soviet Constitution, we should allow the eight or nine major languages of India to be freely used in this House. As in the Soviet Constitution, by sheer weight of number the Russian language has all the predominance, here also, Hindi would have all the predominance by the sheer weight of number.
There is no shred of doubt in the mind of any of us that Hindi is destined to be the national language and the language of the State in India; yet that should not mean that other languages which have mighty literature, mighty traditions behind them should not be allowed to be spoken inthis House without the speaker declaring himself to be unable to express himself in Hindi or English. I would request that other languages should be allowed to be freely used in this House.
Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee): Before I call upon the next member to address the House, I have here forty slips of members who wish to speak. The matter is so urgent and so important that I should like everybody to havean opportunity of airing his views on the Draft Constitution. May I therefore appeal to the speakers not toexceed the time limit which I have fixed as ten minutes?
Shri T. Prakasam: (Madras: General): Sir, the Draft Constitution introduced by Dr. Ambedkar, the Honourable
Member in charge, is a very big document. The trouble taken by him and those who are associated with him must have been really very great. My Honourable friend Mr. T. T.Krishnamachari when he was speaking explained the handicap under which the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar had been labouring on account of as many as five or six members of the Committee having dropped out and their places not having been filled up. I have been attending this session regularly with the hope and expectation that the Constitution that would be evolved would be one that would meet with the wishes and desires of those who had fought the battle of freedom for thirty years, and who had succeeded in securing freedom under the leadership of the departed Mahatma Gandhi.I was hoping, Sir, having seen the Preamble, that everything would follow in regular course and bring out a Constitution that will give food and cloth to the millions of our people and also give education and protection to all the people of the land. But, Sir, to the utter disappointment of myself and some of us who think with me, this Draft Constitutionhas drifted from point to point until at last it has become very difficult for us to understand where we are, where the country is, where the people are, what is it that they are going to derive out of this Constitution when it is put on the statute book. Now, Sir, when a Constitution is drafted,generally, what is expected of those who are in charge of drafting the Constitution, those who are in charge of approving the constitution as members of the ConstituentAssembly is, what are the conditions in the country, what isthe situation in the country, are we doing all that is necessary to get over the troubles in the country? With that object, I have been waiting to learn from all Members whohave been devoting their time in explaining the realposition with regard to this Constitution. I feel thankful to some of those members who have not forgotten the way in which the battle of freedom had been fought in this countryand how freedom had been secured. So far as the drafting of this Constitution is concerned, with all respect to theHonourable Dr. Ambedkar, I must say that he has not been able to put himself in the position of those who had been fighting for the freedom of this country for thirty long years. In one stroke he condemned the village panchayat system. He has referred to the remarks of one great man of those old days of the British, Mr. Metcalfe, and the description given by him that the village panchayats existed and continued, whatever may have been happening with regard to the Government at the top; whoever may have come and whoever may have gone, they did not concern themselves. It is not a matter which should have been treated by Dr.Ambedkar in that manner. That was a condition to which we had been reduced, after the village panchayats had been exhausted on account of the oppression of the various foreign rulers who had come over to this country. Still inspite of all that had been done for their suppression, they had survived. That is what Metcalfe wanted to explain to the word and to us who have been ignoring it. Therefore village panchayatis not to be condemned on that basis. I do not advocate for one moment today that village panchayat should be such as described by Metcalfe under those circumstances. Village panchayat should be one which is up-to-date, which gives real power to rule and to get money and expend it, in thehands of the villagers. I would like to know what is this Government that is being constituted under this Draft Constitution. For whose benefit is this intended? Is it for the benefit of a few people or is it for the benefit of the millions of people who pay taxes? Whether they have power or not they pay the taxes under the vicious system that hadbeen established in this country and under which we had been groaning for a hundred and fifty years and we tried our best to get rid of that system. The British built up a system in the Centre and in the provinces in such a manner that the tiller of the soil and the
labourer and other people are made to pay some tax or other to enable this Government to carry on administration from the Fort St. George or someother Fort and from this Delhi Centre or other places. What becomes of those millions who pay the taxes? The money is taken away under the British system by those people who havebeen established here step by step and the money is brought here and spent. How the money is spent the tax payer doesnot know and the tax payer has been left in the lurch. He does not know whether there is any ruler at all, even after the establishment of freedom by us, because we are perpetuating the same system and we are supposed to be governing in the name of King George. The Governor-General is appointed by the British Cabinet and our currency notes are being printed with the head of King George. To-day,after two years of establishment of freedom, we are in that condition. Therefore, it is only right and proper that this Constituent Assembly which has been sent by the people of this country should take particular care to see that this Draft Constitution of Dr. Ambedkar is so amended that it would really become a constitution for the benefit of the masses and the millions of people for whose sake the battles have been fought by that great friend who has gone away leaving us here to get along with our work. When he was alive his system and his schemes were not supported by us wholeheartedly or by the millions in the country. If that had been done, as he said, within twelve months we would have established freedom. That man of vision was with us and with all the betrayal made by us, he managed to educate us and keep us calm and fought all the battles until he succeeded and gave us a scheme for the construction of the future Government. Having been the man who roused the millions of people who had been in ignorance at the bottom when he came here and lifted them up, he made them understand that 'you are all men having soul force in the same manner in which I have got. If you educate yourself and carry on my programme, you will carry out everything and you will establish freedom.' I myself, Sir, had a talk with thegreat Lala Lajpat Rai more than forty five years ago in England. He was the earliest of the sufferers for freedom and he said: "Look at the organization and discipline and the way in which people here conduct themselves. Can we ever hope to send away these British people from our country and establish freedom?" That was my feeling when I touched that shore. Under those circumstances it was, that this man Gandhiji came as a Seer and lifted us up and I and many friends here entered into his movement and we had been struggling on all these thirty years. The real thing has not been established. The British system drowned us and suppressed the country and made the people utterly helpless. To get rid of the capitalist system he introduced what was called the constructive Programme to enable every man and woman to do his or her duty and then make themselves fit for making sacrifices and finally to send away the British. He succeeded and the people succeeded. The must be thanked for the readiness with which they flung themselves into any ordeal whether it was one of fire or fire or one of water. Instead of having a Constitution based on a socialist basis in the manner in which Gandhiji had formulated for thirty long years, he divided the whole country into linguistic areas and framed the Constitution for the Congress and worked that for thirty years and it is one account of that that we won freedom – that socialist basis has all been thrown off and a capitalist basis is being introduced. That for food and cloth and would ask Dr. Ambedkar whether this Constitution would solve any of these problems. To my mind it is not possible so long as the capitalist system of the world is kept up. You may pass so many resolutions and appoint so many committees to solve the inflation problem, but have not been able to reach that point. Therefore it is necessary that this Constitution must be amended in such a manner that the capitalist monetary system is not adopted but a more proper socialist system of our own – I don’t mean to say the Russian, we had our own system and we have had our system which had been put into force by Mahatma Gandhi and worked for thirty years successfully. This type of Draft Constitution is beyond my comprehension and I would appeal earnestly to Dr. Ambedkar – I do not blame hid alone. Dr. Ambedkar has not been in the battle-field for thirty years. He had not in any way understood the significance of this. He had been attacking the whole system and the Programme of Gandhi and the Congress all his life - time…
Mr. Vice-President: Order, order.
Shri T. Prakasam: If I should not say so much – I do not know – I will obey your order. The Draft Constitutions has gone in a wrong direction and it requires amendment very badly. I may tell the Hounourable Members of this the same capitalistic monetary system is adopted here, must remember the same capitalistic monetary system is adopted here, we must remember what happened to other countries. The monetary system adopted by the capitalist countries of the world had proved a failure not once but twice. After the first war you have all seen what was called the world’s first economic distress. Germany had become bankrupt England had become very nearly bankrupt. Her pound became equivalent only to seven shillings in the foreign market. But for the gold that was exported from here by the kind friends of our own mercantile leaders here, the capitalists, England also would have become completely bankrupt. That is the first thing. Then the second economic distress came upon the world. You will all remember what Dalton, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer said. He said that under the changed conditions the loss sustained by Britain on Account of the dollar exchange business was 13 million dollars every day. and the whole system was going to collapse. If that had not been prevented by this Marshall Aid System they would have been perhaps in a worst position. Today England is suffering this country into such an economic condition by adopting this Draft Constitution without making necessary changes when the amendment stage comes. I have been waiting to see whether any light would come – whether any day would come with regard to these things. Sometimes I put myself in communication with the Finance Minister who is not be found here, with regard to the monetary system that should be adopted. (At this stage Mr. Vice-President again rang the bell). Well, Sir, I stop.
Shri Vishwambhar Dayal Tripathi (United Provinces: General): Sir, I wish to draw your attention to one very important matter. We are discussing a very important subject and it will be very difficult for any one of us to compress our ideas in ten minutes. I would therefore request you to relax your rule and to give us time to express our ideas freely and fully. The other day when we made this request tot he Honorable President we were assured that we shall have full and ample time for discussion. I hope you will kindly accede to our request.
Mr. Vice-President: As a matter of fact yesterday every honorable member exceeded the ten minutes limit. I am in the hands of the House the House: I can give any amount of time of time you want. But after all there must be some definite rule.
Prof. N. G. Ranga (Madras: General): Sir, you have said that yesterday every Member was exceeding the minutes limit. As an experienced speaker to be reminded by you bell that his time is up. There is considerable force in what my Honourable friend has said, namely, that it is impossible for anyone to develop any point satisfactorily within the short space or ten minutes. It is necessary, the general discussion should be extended by one day more.
Mr. Vice-President: Are you prepared to give one day more to the general discussion?
Many Honourable Members: Yes.
An Hounourable Member: What about those who have already spoken and taken only ten minutes time?
Dr. Joseph Alban D’Souza (Bombay: General): Mr. Vice-President, never before in the annals of the history of this great nation, a history that goes back to thousands of ‘years has there ever been, and probably will there ever be, greater need – nay, Sir, I may even say as much need – as at this most vital and momentous juncture when this Honourable House will be considering clause by clause, article by article, the Draft Constitution for a Free, Sovereign, Democratic Indian Republic – as much need for a quiet and sincere introspection into our individual consciences for the purpose of giving unto Caesar what unto Caesar is due; as much need for a keen spirit of fraternal accommodation and co-operation whereby peace, harmony and goodwill will be the hall-marks of our varied existence individually as well as collectively; as much need for sufficient breadth of vision so that the complex and the difficult problems that we have to faced in connection with this constitutional set-up may be examined primarily from the broader angle of the prosperity and progress of the country as whole; and lastly, as much need for and adequately generous and altruistic display of that well-known maxim "Love thy neighbour as thyself", so that in the higher interest of the nation as a whole, sentimental, emotional, parochial particularisms may not be allowed unduly to influence the decisions of fundamental policy affecting the nation as a whole.
It has been admitted by several Members – practically by every member who has spoken before me- that the Draft Constitution is an excellent piece of work. May I say that it is a monumental piece of work put up by the Hounourable Dr. Ambedkar and his Drafting Committee after months of laborious work which may definitely be qualified as the works of experts, work which is comparative, selective and efficient in character right from the beginning to the end.
After these general remarks on the approach to the examination of what the Honourable Mover in his speech styled the formidable document before this House, which he has told us is the bulkiest amongst all the Constitutions in the World, containing 315 articles and as many as eight Schedules after indicating to the Honourable Members of this fundamental document, I carve your permission to refer to a few items in the context of the Constitutions. As a Member of the Advisory Committee for Minority Rights, I have been and am particularly interested in the Justiciable Fundamental Rights. I feel at this juncture that it is my bounden duty to express my gratitude in highest form possible to the Honourable Sardar Vallabhhai Patel, the Chairman of the Advisory Committee for the highly satisfactory and equitable manner in which these rights have been meted out to the minorities by the majority party. I feel sure, Sir, that it is this satisfactory and equitable deal that will make the minorities cling to the majority through thick as well as thin, Sir, it is my earnest hope that these rights as they are laid down in the Draft Constitution will not be permitted to suffer in any way whatever during their transit through this Honourable House.
Whilst I am on the subject of minority rights, there is one humble submission that I would like to place before the Hounourable Mover of this Resolution. It is in connection with Article 299 of the Draft Constitution which says:
" There shall be Special officer for minorities for the Union ……….. and a Special Officer for minorities for each State …. Who shall be appointed by the Governor of the State. "
Necessarily, Sir, the Special Officer of the Union is under the Central Legislature, but what I would submit tot he Honourable House is that some modifying measure should be introduced whereby while the appointment of the Special Officer at the Centre is by the President, in the nine States it should also be by the President. In some way of other these officers in the States should be made responsible to the Centre. If that is done, I dare say work in the States by these officers will be done without fear or favour. It is a submission that I make and I make and I do hope that if it is in any way possible a modification should be made with the object of making the Special Officer in the State responsible to the Centre.
The other submission is also on the subject of minority rights and deals with the right to constitutional remedies in Article 25. Ordinarily, as the Draft Constitution stands, only the Supreme Court will be dealing with these cases. But, Sir, I wish to point out to this Hounourable Houses that most of the cases will be concerning the poorer section and classes of our citizens, especially amongst the masses. There is a provision made in sub-clause(3) that parliament may by law empower other courts, it should be done here, and it would ease the situation of the poorer class of people particularly the masses, if by means of modification something is introduced straight-away, not waiting for parliamentary, measures of enactions later on.
Sir, the last point I wish to make naturally arises from the suggestions I have already made with reference to the Special Officer for minority rights being made responsible to the Centre. I am sure the Honourable House has already made out that I am for a very strong Centre. The Stronger the Centre the greater will be the consolidation of the State services and State work. The greater will be the consolidation of the State work. The history of India shows that for want of strength in the Centre, empires have may be considered a paramount one and this is what will have to be done if we want to maintain the freedom achieved after centuries of foreign domination. A strong Centre is absolutely necessary in order to consolidate the entire the three subjects: Union subject, Provincial subjects and the Concurrent subjects with residual powers given to the Centre as indicated in the Constitution.
Sir, I am thankful to you for giving me the opportunity of expressing my views on this Draft Constitution.
The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam (Madras General): Mr. Vice-President we have come to the last and the most difficult stage of our work. While I am anxious that we finish this work a expeditiously as possible, we may not forget that we are making the Constitution of India and that for mere speed we should not sacrifice a proper and careful consideration of the provisions which may affect the welfare of this country.
The Drafting Committee have done a good job of work, but at the same time I am afraid they cannot escape two valid criticisms. The committee, I have taken upon themselves the responsibility of changing some vital provisions adopted in the open House by this Assembly. They have also felt themselves entitled to reject the report of committees appointed by the House. (Hear, hear). I happen to be a Member of the Committee which reported on the future constitution of Delhi and the Centrally administered Provinces. It is true that the report of that Committee was not discussed in this House and no decisions were taken, but I think the recommendations of that Committee were more entitled to be embodied in this Constitution than the views of the Drafting Committee. (Hear, hear). Sir, I shall not labour the point and I leave it to the House to judge when the clauses come up which proposals the House will choose to accept. But I would confine myself today to discuss certain fundamental principles which were touched upon by the Mover of this Resolution.
Dr. Ambedkar rightly stressed those aspects of our Constitution which make for rigidity and flexibility and he claimed that the Constitution of India as drafted is more flexible than the American Constitution or other federal constitutions. But I venture to suggest that flexibility is not always a virtue. The constitution of country is like the human frame; certain parts of it have to be rigid in order that the constitution may endure; there will have to be other those parts which have to be rigid. I think it is dangerous to compromise with fundamental principles. We may think it is expedient to compromise with them for the necessities of the moment, but once we compromise on fundamental principles that compromise becomes, a canker in the Constitution and will finally destroy it.
Sir, what are the fundamental principles which are sought to be embodied in this Constitution? First of all, there is to be a single, equal and secular citizenship. Secondly, there is to be adult franchise. Thirdly, it is to be suggest that we should examine the provisions of the Constitution to see whether every one of these every one of these principles has been embodied to the fullest extent.
Take for instance the principle of single, equal and secular citizenship. These are said to be protected by the Fundamental Rights. But Dr. Ambedkar himself admitted that every one of the Fundamental Right is subject to Supreme Court has had to modify these Fundamental Rights. That is quite true. Bur even our Supreme Court will have to deal with these Fundamental Rights. While it was the function of the Supreme Court of the United States of America to restrict the scope of the Fundamental Rights. That is quite mental Rights. While it was the function of the Supreme Court of the United States of America to restrict the scope of the Fundamental Rights by considering the necessities of the State, it will be the duty of the Federal Court or the Supreme Court of India to restrict the scope of the limitation. For, if the limitation are to be interpreted broadly, the we may as well omit the Chapter on Fundamental Rights altogether.
Sir, I think we should scrutinize these provisions and see that the limitations imposed are as narrowly and a strictly defined as possible, because in these days of emergencies and emergency powers, it is essential that some at least of the Civil liberties of the people should be preserved by the Constitution. It should not be easy for the local legislatures and even the Central Legislature to take them away altogether.
Sir, there is next the question of adult franchise I wish that we could adopt it as a principle that it should be the duty of the Central Government to compile and maintain the Registers or Rolls of adult franchise throughout the who modify these rolls on linguistic and other secular considerations are not unlikely to be a little lax in the careful preparation of these Registers or Rolls by Madras to compile a register of voters. It was all done in a single day or two days and there are complaints that 50 per cent of the voters of the city administrative efficiency ad thoroughness in the compilation of these Registers was not observed. Sir, we feel we could not be too careful or too watchful in this matter. We want every citizen of India to be automatically included in the Register and his right to be in the rolls protected, by all means possible consider the desirability of placing the responsibility of preparing and maintaining this Register on the Central Government itself. Now the Central Government has the responsibility of taking the census of India at ten-yearly intervals. I think we may create a permanent machinery which will not only take the ten-yearly census, but also maintain the Registers of adult franchise throughout the country so that there could be no complaint about and no manipulations of these Registers.
Sir, Dr. Ambedkar spoke of the dual polity. Now we have got three Lists – the Federal list, the Provincial List and the Concurrent List. We have had experience of the Concurrent List. It tends to blur the distinction between the Centre and the Provinces. In the course of time it is an inevitable political the Concurrent List fades out, because when once the Central Legislature takes jurisdiction over a particular field of legislation, the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature goes out. Therefore we may take it that in then years of fifteen years’ time the entire Concurrent List would be transferred automatically to the Federal List. We must reflect whether this is what we want and whether this is desirable. If we do not want it we will have to see that the Concurrent List is either restricted to the minimum or define the scope of the Central and Provincial Jurisdiction in regard to matters mentioned in that List.
Then I come to the question of the responsible or cabinet type of executive. It is of the utmost importance in every responsible government that the frontiers of responsibility should be clear and definite. There should be no ambiguity about it. When once responsibility is blurred, the cabinet type of government is automatically annulled and we get near the presidential type of government. I do not myself object to a presidential type of government and it may quite suit the country. if necessary, the Centre and the Provinces can adopt a Presidential Chapter knowing al the implication and the consequences. In many cases I think the presidential type is superior and much better suited to India. But let us not adopt rather than flexibility is the need of the hour for India. But let us not adopt the cabinet type and then try to undermine it by all kinds of devices.
Take for instance the Instrument of Instruction to the President and to the Governors. Originally there was only an Instrument of Instruction to the Governors. Now the Drafting Committee have put in a Chapter on Instrument of Instruction to the President. What happens if the Prime Minister of India ignores these Instructions? Will the Governor-General tell him "Now according to the Constitution it is my right to insist on the Instruction ?" There is a possibility of conflict between the President of India and the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Similarly in the provinces also. These Instruments of Instruction may bring about conflict between the provincial Ministries and the Governor. I think if we are going in for responsible government, we should go in for it full and entire. Let us not compromise on fundamental principles, because compromise on fundamental principles will land us in all kinds of dilemmas and anomalies and it will not be easy to saddle the Constitutions with different methods to deal with each dilemma.
Within the time at my disposal I have tried simply to touch upon certain points of importance which will have to be discussed thoroughly when we take up the Articles of the Draft Constitution.
Sir, there are, however, one of or two vital matters which have to be considered in particular. For instance, take the provisions for changing the by a certain majority in both Houses. I think in the matter of a Constitution changes should not be allowed easily, because political parties may come into power owing to sudden changes in national feeling. The constitution should be considered as the spinal chord. If it is more flexible than necessary and if it is altered every now and then, simply because a party has got majority in the legislature, then the whole basis of democracy will go to pieces. I think therefore the provisions regarding changes in the Constitution require to be carefully thought out. Changing the Constitution should not be made easy. At least, if the changes on most important matters are vested in the Parliament, I would suggest that it should be not only by a larger majority an interval of six months or one year. We may thus ensure that the changes in the Constitution are brought about with a full realisation of the consequences. We should not change our Constitution hastily. Canada has not changed her Constitution ever since it was set up. Has she suffered for it ? The United States of America changes its constitution only very rarely.
I think a rigid Constitution is far more important for stability than flexibility and ease in changing the Constitution. The Constitution is the bone work of our freedom, and bones must be rigid rather than flexible.
Sir, I am sorry that Dr. Ambedkar went out of his way to speak about village panchayats and say that they did not provide the proper proper background for a modern constitution. To some extent I agree but I agree but at the same time I do not agree with his condemnation of the village panchayats and his statements that they were responsible for all the national disasters. I think that in spite of revolution and changes, they have preserved Indian life and but for them India will be a chaos. I wish that some statutory provision had been inserted regarding village autonomy within proper limits. Of course there are difficulties because there are villages which are very small and there are big villages, and many of them may have to be grouped for establishing panchayats, but I do think that at some stage or other when all the provinces have set up panchayats, their existence may have to be recognized in the Constitution, for in the long run local autonomy for each village must constitute the basic framework for the freedom of this country.
Sir, I am finishing in a minute. There is only one more point. I shall merely touch upon it. I agree with the mover that the artificial distinction between Provinces and States should vanish as quickly and a seedily as possible. The only impediment is that certain financial interest have developed owing to the possession of Central subject by the States, and if we can find a formula to protect the States form the financial consequences of adopting the same constitutions as the provinces, the Sates may not object to fall in line with the provinces. Therefore I suggest that we should adopt the principle that no State should suffer by falling in line with the provinces and let us give them a guarantee that they will be recouped from Central funds for any loss caused by falling in line with the provinces. I suggest that we may consider a formula for protecting them against any kind of financial suffering on account of becoming identical with provinces. I agree that we should not have the anomaly of having a class States and B class States which will only cause confusion. If possible, I would like that all these different categories of units should be abolished. There should be only one standard unit constitution with freedom for these constitutions to adjust themselves to local circumstances.
Sir, owing to the rigid time limit which I fear is not conducive to a proper discussion of the constitution, I have confined myself only to a few points I hope they will receive the consideration of this House.
Shri R. K. Sidhwa (C. P. & Berar : General ): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, as an able and competent lawyer, the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar has presented the Draft Constitution in this House in very lucid terms and he has impressed the outside world and also some of the Honourable Members here, but that is not the Criterion for judging the constitution. This is a constitution prepared for democracy in this country and Dr. Ambedkar has negative the very idea of democracy by ignoring the local authorities and villages. Sir, local authorities are the pivots of the social and economic life of the country and if there is no place for local authorities in this Constitution, let me tell you in very peculiarly miserable condition. The provinces which complain that the Centre has been made too strong and that certain powers have been taken away from them, have themselves in the intoxication of power taken away the powers of the local bodies, and in the name of mal--administration today more than 50 per cent of the local bodies have been superseded by Provincial Governments. Sir, this was the attitude in the previous British regime, and our provincial Governments are merely following that practice instead of revolutioning the entire system of local bodies. Unless a direction is given in the Constitution to Provincial Governments to make these bodies very useful organizations for the uplift of villagers, let me tell you, that this document is not worth presentation in the name of democracy. The finances of the local bodies are, in a miserable condition. The Provincial Government would not bodies are in a miserable condition. The Provincial Governments would not like to give them the electricity taxes, the entertainment taxes, etc. which are the only sources of revenue for these local bodies in Western countries. Here local bodies mere skeleton today. If this is the tendency, how can you expect the local bodies an villages to prosper? His Excellency the Governor Speech General in his recent speeches and also our Deputy Prime Minister in his speech in Bombay state that every villager must be made to understand that he is responsible man or a responsible woman and made to realize that he or she has got a share in the administration of the country. I fail to understand how this can be done if you ignore the villagers, the largest portion of the population?
Your will merely be taking power into your hands and make some improvements in the top, but the masses of people are struggling today to become happy and you will be nowhere helpful to them. on the contrary the present feeling that the masses have been neglected will pass this Constitution without really making reference to the points that I have mentioned. Dr Ambedkar, Sir, has made a confession rightly that many of the and inserted in this Constitution. I personally think that there is nothing wrong borrowing some good provisions that these provisions that may be existing in other countries. The only thing that has to be seen that these provision which may be beneficial in those countries may be equally beneficial in this country also. I, however, see from Schedule 7 – they are important list – that the Union Power List, the State List, the Provincial List, have been copied wholesale from the 1935 Act, barring a few changes here and there. I do not know whether they have taken care to enquire from various provincial governments whether they have found loop-holes. I will mention one or two items. The terminal tax, the profession tax and the levy of taxes on Government of India building, have been the bone of contention between the Provincial Governments and the Central Government, in as much as in some cases the matter had gone to the Federal Court. It seems to me that the sub-committees have merely copied all these items without giving my consideration to the hardships that have been imposed by the Provincial Governments. Be given due attention by the House. Last time when we met this list came hope very minute consideration will be given to this list which is as important as any other provision of this Constitution.
Coming to the Fundamental Rights, I do not know whether the Committee had the power to upset the unanimous decision of this House. The sub-Committee is perfectly justifies in making recommendation, I do not dispute that and these are also recommendations, I admit. But on a fundamental matter when the House after mature consideration had taken a decision on a basic principle on the Fundamental Rights, I feel that they have exceeded their rights in making even those recommendations.
I will only give one illustration. The constituent Assembly in its last session passed the Fundamental Rights:
"No person shall be deprived of life of liberty, without due process of law nor shall any person be dined the equal treatment of the laws within the territories of the Union."
The Drafting Committee have made a change in this, a revolutionary change, I should say and put before this Honourable House. I will read their recommendation:
"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty expect according to procedure established by law ……"
The remaining words have been deleted. We will take this matter up when the occasion arises. But sir, I do feel that in the Fundamental Rights that we passed last time there was already a grievance that we have not gone to the extent to which we should have na if your are going to curtail even those rights even those rights of the citizen, I do feel, Sir, that the very nomenclature of the Fundamental Rights would be ridiculed.
I was really impressed with one point that was raised in regard to the constitution of the States. I endorse what he has what he has stated in this respect. When we made this Constitution last time the States were quite different than what they are today and I fail to understand why there should be a separate constitution for each new State. There should be provision that all States should be no separate Constitution for each State. After all they have all acceded to the Indian Union and their should be the how there can be two laws functioning on one country when all States are part and parcel of our own kith and kin in this Union. I therefore, feel, Sir, that very serious consideration has to be given to this question as to whether we can allow the States people to prerpare their own constitution which may go against the very fundamentals of the main Constitution which may go against the very fundamental of the main Constitution that we are now preparing. In the Fundamentals of the main Constitution that we are now preparing. In the Fundamental Rights they may go somewhere lesser than we have decided. In many of the matters they may go against what we have finally provided for every citizen of this country.
Sir, take for instance the High Courts. Today in the High Courts of India the best men are on the benches. They are first-rate men and even their judgments are appealable to the Federal Court and to the Privy Council; but in these second-rate High Courts in the States-I do not mean any disrespect by stating second-rate, but it is a fact that they are not first-rate men-their judgments are not changeable in a Federal Court. Is that fair, I ask you that you do not give this right to the citizen of citizen of a State? I therefore feel, Sir, that this matter also will have to be very seriously considered and to made the work of the State people very easy, provincial part of this Constitution should he absolutely made applicable to them, barring a few changes.
Lastly, a reference has been made about the reservation and protection for minorities. I have remained in this Minority Committee and Sub-Committee of the Minorities and I am really thankful to the majority community for the manner in which they have dealt with the minority question and I must say that there should be no complaint from any from any quarter in this respect. As far as our community is concerned, although the offer has been made for the reservation of seats, we have refuse it with thanks. Similarly, yesterday Kazi Syed Karimuddin instead on removal of reservation of seats. This statement even at a later stage is very welcome. Just as when the majority community offered the reservation of seats to the Parsi community, we said: "No thank you, we do no want," similarly all the groups, I expect, Sir, will refuse with thanks the offer of the majority.
Maulana Hasrat Mohani (United Provinces: Muslim): Mr. Khaliquzzaman wanted reservation and not Syed Karimuddin.
Shri R. K. Sidhwa: I do not follow. I therefore appeal that this communal poison should be removed from this country and this Constitution should be made into a document about which we could feel proud and we should be able to say to the world that this is a document which the Indian people have made for other to initiate. With these words, Sir, I end. Hope that some of the points which I have mentioned will be borne in mind when the time comes. Thank you, Sir.
Shri Ram Sahai [United State of Gwalior-Indore-Indore-Malwa (Madhya Bharat)]: [Mr. Vice-President, Sir, many Members have shed light on a number of points relating to the Constitution. I shall not go over them again, I shall only speak a few words in regard to the States. I would like to made it clear tot he House that the people of the States are in favour of a strong Centre and would whole-heartedly support the establishment of a strong Centre in this way. I submit, however, that much thought does not seem to have been given to the States in the Constitution that has been placed before us. I would like to illustrate this point by one example.
In Schedule I, Part III, the States have been specified as they had in the past, although a number of States Have merged to from Union and have in a way given themselves the character of a province. Madhya Bharat signed a new Instrument of Accession on June 15, by which all the subjects mentioned in the first and third list of Seventh Schedule excluding taxes and duties, have been handed over to the Centre. This means that even the Judiciary has been subordinated to the Centre. But even then no appeal can lie to the Supreme Court from the decisions of its High Court under Sections 111 and 113 of the present Draft. When the Madhya Bharat Union has, by its new instrument of accession surrendered all its rights, transrferred all its powers to the Centre and agree to all it proposals. I cannot see why a provision has been made prohibiting appeals being to the Supreme Court against the judgments of the High Court of the Union Section 113 lays down that a reference can be made to the Supreme Court. But I fail to understand why an appeal against the High Court cannot be admitted in the Supreme Court. This is a matter which particularly affects the rights of the people. I submit that a single provision of such a type would have been sufficient for the protection of the rights of the people. Our efforts to bring the High Court of the Union, into line with the Provincial High Court would be facilitated and would be crowned with success if these High Courts are made subordinate to the sufficiently developed there but so far as far as the High courts of Gwalior and Indore are concerned I can say with some pride that they are in no way inferior to the High Courts of the provinces; nor do they have lesser standing. They too have as learned Judges as have the High Courts of the provinces.
Honourable Dr. Ambedkar wants that Constituent Assemblies may not come into being in the States. But I think that if Dr. Ambedkar had been a little in touch with the Ministry, of States regarding this matter land had placed it before that Ministry, these complication, that have been introduced now, would not arisen at all. I would place before him the matter of the Constituent Assembly of Madhya Bharat as a case in point. An interim legislature is being formed there and a Constituent. Assembly will also be formed What may possibly be the necessity of forming these two at the same time? There will be interim legislature there and after that the Constituent Assembly will be formed. No session of the interim legislature is in view as yet and it is yet to seen when the work of the Constituent this Constitution Assembly to frame the Constitution. I fail to understand Constitution here, cannot frame the Constitution there. Such complications have been brought in. I am sure that if Dr. Ambedkar had consulted Sardar Patel in this matter, many problems would have been easily solved.
No necessity now remains for the Constituent Assemblies that have been formed or are being formed in the states particularly when almost all the States have taken the shaped of provinces.
I would like to submit to the House that the third part of the First Schedule should be revised and the Unions, wherever they have been formed should be included in the first part. Such an inclusion will result in bringing the States up to the level of the provinces- the only remaining difference would be that the Governors of the Provinces would be that the governors of the Provinces would be elected for the public. While the Rajpramukhs of the States would be selected by the princes. As remarked by Messrs., Santhanam and Sidhwa, it would be very advantageous to put the provinces and the Unions on the same footing and in my opinion such a step is both necessary and essential. We should revise the parts of both these schedules, and they should be redrafted in such a way that the States which have already formed Unions be brought to the level of the provinces.
The committee of experts appointed in connection with the ‘financial provisions has decided that within then years all the States should at least be brought tot he level of the provinces. I find that there is nothing in this Constitution which would permit the report of the committee of experts being given a practicable shape. I would therefore request the drafting Committee that it should make some such provisions by which States which have merged to form Unions should be brought to the level of the provinces. And there should remain no difficulties in respect to this matter.
I would like to submit to the House one thing more, and this is that the big states like Mysore and Travancore, which claim a better position than most of the provinces, should-and I request the rulers and representatives if these states to give up their interest in this aspect-accept the same status as is enjoyed by the other provinces. All the resources, which are not essential for the State, should be handed over to the Centre. One cannot fail to understand that like other States Gwalior State could have maintained its separate existence. But ruler of that State himself realized this necessity and handed over all his powers to the Centre. Just as the constitution is meant for the people of the provinces similarly it should be for the people of the States also. Hence I would like to submit to the House and more specially the Drafting Committee that they should adopt some such device that those Unions which have assumed the form of provinces ad the big States which have not merged into any Union may be able to attain uniformity in this respect.]
Shri Jainarain Vyas (Jodhpur): *[Mr. Vice-President, Sir, Dr. Ambedkar and his colleagues as also the typist and copyists have to be thanked for the labour expended in preparing the Draft Constitution that is before us. This is a very big Draft and many things have been included in it. But as is the case with all drafts prepared by men, this Draft too "has many defects. In particular, the use of the word "State" which has not been defined at any place is, in a way, very confusing to all of us, what a State means form the territorial or place therein. From the point of view of rights of citizenship also it cannot gathered what the term "State" means. For purposes of Fundamental Rights the term "states" has been made to include Legislatures of the State of the States, Local Governments and the Government of the States. As the word "State" was generally used for Indian States, it would have been better if some other word had been substituted for it.
States too have been divided into different categories. There are Governors’ Provinces and Chief Commissioners’ Provinces and the third category would consist of what are called States that is to say, Indian States. They are specified in Schedule O, Part III. I support the view of Dr. Ambedkar, which he expressed in the course of his speech, that the States should be as big ass the provinces and they should be in line with the provinces. I fact we the people living in States cannot do justice to our economy by remaining in small territories nor can we properly carry on our administration. But at the same time we would like to tell Dr. Ambedkar and his colleagues that they should have also shown some anxiety to bring us into small units. We should have been grouped into larger units even there. States, that is to say Prices’ States have not been the right of appeal to the Federal court by the article providing for appeal for appeal to that Court. Only the provinces can avail themselves of that right of appeal. Why have we been made Harijans in the matter of appeals to the Federal Court? This policy of treating the people of States as Harijans in the matter of appeal to Federal Court reveals that even you have not cared to form big units. On the contrary I find that you are keeping some mental reservations. You say that we should form big States but then it is your duty that you should grant us our rights. Mr,. Sidhwa observed just now that we should come on a par with them? But you say that the Princes of the States and the people of the provinces can be Governors. Why do you not give this opportunity the people of the States? If you really mean that the mean that the States and Governors’ Provinces are of two different categories, you should clearly, as also that you want to keep this reservation in respect to the States-that you will keep some such matters exclude and will not give them to the people of the States. You should be quite frank in these matters. One the one hand it is said that the Starters should be brought on a par with the Governor’ Provinces and on the other that the people of the States will not be entitled for appointment as Governors though the Prices of the States may be so appointed. I do not appreciate this distinction. I think that this is a defect in this Constitution and it should be removed.
Another observation which I would like to make is in regard to the territories of the provinces. It has been provided in this Constitution that some territories of the provinces can be separated form them and joined to other territories, that two or more territories can be joined together to form a province. The condition for forming such provinces is that either the legislature of the State or its members or the majority of the member should submit to the President of he State that they want to form a separate province for them selves. But this matter too a reservation has been dept against the people of the which are specified in Schedule I, Part III. The States are not permitted to form a big unit by submitting a proposal through their legislatures or through the Members of their legislatures. For that the State" means. If the legislature of the State consents, if its members consent, it of the State is necessary. I do not understand what "consent of the State" should have been taken to be the consent of the State. But perhaps " consent of the State" means "consent of the ruler". If it is not so, will a referendum State does not mean consent of the ruler, it should be stated clearly. Therefore, I think that so far as the States are concerned, the constitution is not fully clear.
I would like to make one or two other observation about this Constitution. I admire that equal right have been given to all classes of people but I cannot say whether it is deliberately of otherwise the while the people have been given the right of entering temples. I cannot say whether the fact that while the Harijans have been the right of access to wells, Dharamshalas, etc., they have not been given the right of entering temples came under the notice of Dr. Ambedkar. I think that it is either a mistake or an omission. If it is an omission, it should be provided for.
There is no doubt that it has not been considered necessary to differentiate between the minorities and the majority and the citizens have been considered citizens in a general sense but even then it has been accepted that if some educational institutions are run by the minorities the State should be able to aid them. It means that under this Draft it should still be possible to run the existing communal schools and educational institutions. I do not think that it is right to leave scope for such a possibility when we are free and the people of the minority communities and the majority community have to live as brothers. But the system of Grants-in-aid to such institutions would produce only such a result.
I have to make only one more observation and that is about the language. A number of our brothers have spoken about it. An Honourble Member went so far as to remark that Hindi Imperialism is being established here. Another Honournble Member said that linguistic fanaticism is being fomented here. I would like to tell that no question of Hindi imperialism or linguistic fanaticism is involved, when we say that we should have a national language of our own. When we can about English I do not understand why we cannot about Hindi. If you do not want to adopt Hindi have courage and say that English is our national language. But you do not say that. When English is not our lingua franca it is not right that we should not allow another language to become the national language to become the national language. I sympathize with those who say that they cannot understand Hindi but at the same time I would say that they should now try to evolve a national language of their own. If we do not do so there is not so much the danger of the imposition of the English language s of the question of linguistic provinces taking the form of linguistic countries. We do not say that all the people should speak one language only. So long as they cannot do so they may speak English—no one will prevent them from doing so. I am speaking Hindi although my language is Rajasthani which is different from Hindi and has some peculiarities not to be found in Hindi. But at the same time I know that the largest number of people can speak Hindi and can learn Hindi. Therefore we should adopt one national language. I hope there will be no misunderstanding about those who are trying to make Hindi the national language, that they want to establish supremacy of that language. They only want one national language in the interest of our country. It does not mean that the provincial languages will be put under any ban or that English will be bereft of the position it has attained. It may be that in the long run English may no more be there.
With these words I support the Draft Constitution placed before us by Dr. Ambedkar and I hope he will try to incorporate the changes that have been suggested.
Shri B. A. Mandloi (C.P. & Berar : General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, Dr. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee, in a very lucid speech explained the salient points of the Draft Constitution. In answer to the questions which are raised, namely, what is the form of the Government and what is the constitution of the country, he has pointed out that it is a federal type of Government with a strong Centre and a parliamentary system of Government with a single judiciary and uniformity in fundamental laws. He has also said that the emphasis has been placed on responsibility rather than on stability. It is strong enough in peace time as well as in war-time. He ahs answered in his speech the various criticism leveled against the Draft Constitution and I submit that his speech is a very lucid exposition of the Draft Constitution. The Draft Constitution prepared by the Drafting Committee is based on the reports of the various committees, namely, the Union Power Committee, the Provincial Constitution Committee, the Advisory Committee and the Minority Committee. The Constituent Assembly in its very first session passed a Resolution with respect to the objective of our Constitution. That Resolution was moved by our respected leader Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, and was unanimously passed. We had to see that our Constitution is based on that fundamental Resolution—on that Objectives Resolution—in which the claims for justice , liberty, equality and fraternity had been granted. I submit that the Draft Constitution is a true reflection of the Objectives Resolution and therefore we can say that it has fulfilled our object.
Theere is another touch-stone with which to see whether the Draft Constitution answers the purpose of our country and our nation. That touch-stone is whether it would maintain our freedom, our independence and our democratic, secular Government. I am of opinion that looking from that point of view also this Draft Constitution serves our purpose.
There are, however, certain omissions and certain things which are not found in this Draft Constitution and proper emphasis has not been placed on those subjects. The omissions are with respect to our National Flag and National Anthem. In a Draft Constitution and in a Constitution which is going to govern our country, there should be a proper place for the National Anthem and for the National Flag. There is also a necessity with respect to a common language and a common script. We should be definite on this because after all our aim is to be one nation and one State. In the absence of one common language we can not claim to be one nation and one State. Taking into consideration the various languages prevailing in our country one can say without any controversy that the place of honour should go to Hindi and the script should be Devanagari script. We should bid good-bye to the English language as early as possible because it would be derogatory to our nationhood if we adopt a foreign language. The Hindi language is spoken and understood by a vast majority of the people in the country and the Devanagari script is a very scientific script and it should be adopted as the official script of our Government.
While we have attempted to make the Centre quite strong, I submit that we have not paid sufficient attention to our Provinces. The Provincial budgets are poor budgets and there is a chronic poverty prevailing in the Provinces. The responsibilities of the Provinces are great. We have to fight ignorance, disease and so many other things and we have to carry on nation-building departments and the constructive work in the provinces. The allocation from the Centre revenues to the provinces should be on an equitable basis so that the Provinces may be able to discharge their duties properly and efficiently.
In his speech Dr. Ambedkar made an appeal with respect to the States – that the States which have formed into units and acceded to the Union should also be on a par with the Provinces. We would certainly like to see that uniform laws prevail there also and the level of progress is maintained in the States in a uniform manner. I therefore would suggest that in the Draft Constitution we should not make a distinction between the units of the provinces and the units of the States. We have got representatives of the States and we can, in consultation with them, bring the States to the same level as the other Provinces shown in Part I of the Constitution.
Something has been said with respect to the minorities. The Advisory Committee on Minority has recommended certain safeguards for the minorities. Though the future relationships are going to take place on the basis of joint electorates, these safeguards have been provided. Sir, I submit that these are days of voluntary surrenders. In the year 1947 the British, after a rule of a hundred and fifty years, surrendered voluntarily though there was the fight of the Congress going on for so many years. Then we found that the Rulers of the Indian States have also surrendered. And I feel sure that if the minorities were to surrender the safeguards, they would be in a better and stronger position and they need not have any fear from the majority. If they surrender the safeguards and join the majority, coalesce with the majority and merge with the majority, we would have a stronger India and our ideal of nationhood would be realized earlier.
Sir, our Constitution is a Constitution which has been evolved by us from a comparison of the various constitutions prevailing in the civilized countries all over the world. Various good points from all the Constitutions have been taken with such modifications as are necessary in the interests of our country. If we faithfully and honestly work out the Constitution, I feel sure that our country would be prosperous, would be happy, would be strong and we would be able to maintain our independence and not only maintain our independence but would be fulfilling the great mission of our departed leader, the Father of the Nation, who said that thereafter India would be in such a position as to free the other dependent countries and bring peace and prosperity in the whole world.
With these words, Sir, I submit that the Motion moved by Dr. Ambedkar be accepted by the House.
Pandit Balkrishna Sharma ( United Provinces : General0: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, so many friends have come here and offered their congratulations to the Honorable the Law Minister who was in charge of this Draft Constitution that it will sound almost a tautology if I repeat the same sentiments again. But I think I will be failing in my duty if I do not offer my humble and respectful congratulations to the learned Law Minister for the very lucid manner in which he has presented this Draft Constitution for our consideration.
Many friends and critics have come here and leveled certain charges against our Constitution. The one charge which has been repeated by many friends is that ours is a very bulky Constitution. The Mover himself referred to the bulky nature of this document. When we really examine the clauses and articles of the various other Constitutions we come to the conclusion that ours is indeed a bulky Constitution. Sir, as you know, it contains 315 Articles, whereas the Constitution of the British North America, that is Canada, contains only 147 Articles; the Commonwealth of Australia Act contains about 128 Articles; the Union of South Africa Act contains 153 Articles; the Irish Constitution only 63 Articles; the U.S. Constitution contains 28 Articles; the U.S.S.R. Constitution 146 Articles; the Swiss Federal Constitution 123 Articles; the German Reich Constitution contains 181 Articles, and the Japanese Constitution 103 Articles. A glance at these Constitutions shows that none of them contains more than 200 Articles whereas our Constitution contains 315 Articles.