In this description of the activity during the hand-over of power,
please read the speech that Dr. Ambedkar gave. It expresses the
essential features of Dr. Ambedkars Nationalism and forms the guideline
for Ambedkarite nationalism.
Regards
Pratap
{After the end of the Second World War in 1945, the question of India's
freedom assumed priority. The British Government sent three-men
delegation to India to suggest the ways and means for the smooth
transfer of power. This delegation, called Cabinet Mission, announced
on 16 March 1946 its proposals in which, it was suggested that a
Constituent Assembly be set up to frame a Constitution for the future
governance of India.
Accordingly elections to the Constituent Assembly were held in which
members were elected by the Provincial Legislative Assemblies. Dr.
Ambedkar, having failed to get elected from Bombay due to Congress
opposition, managed to enter the Constituent Assembly through the
Bengal Assembly with the support of Jogendranath Mandal and other
Scheduled Caste members.
The Constituent Assembly started its work of framing free India's
Constitution on 9th December 1946. In all 296 members were entitled to
take part in the inaugural session. But only 207 attended, the
absentees were mainly the Muslim League members who had boycotted the
Constituent Assembly.]
The first meeting of the Constituent Assembly of India commenced in the
Constitution Hall, New Delhi on Monday, the 9th December 1946, at
Eleven of the Clock.
Acharya J. B. Kripalani requested Dr. Sachchidanand Sinha to take the
chair as temporary Chairman. The Chairman gave an inaugural address to
the House. This was followed by nomination of Shri Frank Anthony as the
Deputy Chairman.
The members then presented the credentials and signed their names in
the register. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar signed as a member from Bengal. The
Assembly passed the rules for the election of the Chairman of the
Constituent Assembly on 10th December 1946. The Assembly thereafter
elected Dr. Rajendra Prasad as permanent Chairman of the Assembly on
11th December 1946.
On 13th December 1946, the Hon'ble Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru moved the
resolution regarding Aims and Objects as under:-
(1) This Constituent Assembly declares its firm and solemn resolve to
proclaim India as an Independent Sovereign Republic and to draw
up for her future governance a Constitution :
(2) wherein the territories that now comprise British India, the
territories that now form the Indian States, and such other parts of
India as are outside British India and the States as well as such other
territories as are willing to be constituted into the Independent
Sovereign India, shall be a Union of them all ; and
(3) wherein the said territories, whether with their present boundaries
or with such others as may be determined by the Constituent Assembly
and thereafter according to the Law of the Constitution, shall possess
and retain the status of autonomous Units, together with residuary
powers, and exercise all powers and functions of government and
administration, save and except such powers and functions as are vested
in or assigned to the Union, or as are inherent or implied in the Union
or resulting therefrom : and
(4) wherein all power and authority of the Sovereign Independent India,
its constituent parts and organs of government, are derived from the
people : and
(5) wherein shall be guaranteed and secured to all the people of India
justice, social, economic and political; equality of status, of
opportunity, and before the law ; freedom of thought, expression,
belief, faith, worship, vocation, association and action, subject to
law and public morality; and
(6) wherein adequate safeguards shall be provided for minorities,
backward and tribal areas, and depressed and other backward classes:
and
(7) whereby shall be maintained the integrity of the territory of the
Republic and its sovereign rights on land, .sea, and air according to
justice and the law of civilised nations, and
(8) This ancient land attains its rightful and honoured place in the
world and make its full and willing contribution to the promotion of
world peace and the welfare of mankind. "
{This was followed by speeches by Pandit Nehru, Purushottam das Tandon
and the Chairman, Dr. RajendraPrasad. The Assembly then adjourned till
16th December 1946.--Ed.]
*****
[Dr. M. R. Jayakar, moved his amendment to the above resolution on 16th
December 1946.-Ed.]
The Right Hon'ble Dr. M. R. Jayakar (Bombay General) : Well, I will
read the amendment. I wanted to save your time by a few minutes. This
is the amendment:
" This Assembly declares its Firm and solemn resolve that the
Constitution to be prepared by this Assembly for the future governance
of India shall be for a free and democratic Sovereign State ; but with
a view to securing, in the shaping of such a constitution, the
co-operation of the Muslim League and the Indian States, and thereby
intensifying the firmness of this resolve, this Assembly postpones the
further consideration of this question to a later date, to enable the
representatives of these two bodies to participate, if they so choose,
in the deliberations of this Assembly."
In substance, my amendment means that the further consideration of this
Resolution should be postponed to a later stage,-the stage of Union
constitution-making at which, I take it, the Indian States and the
Muslim League are expected to be present.......
{Dr. M. R. Jayakar objected to the timing of the resolution. He moved
an amendment, seeking postponement of the passing of the resolution, as
he wanted the Muslim League to join the task of laying down the
fundamentals of the Constitution. This resolution created a tense
atmosphere in the House. Amidst this tense situation Dr. Ambedkar was
invited by the President Dr. Rajendra Prasad unexpectedly to have his
say on 17th December 1946. When Dr. Ambedkar started, the House was all
attention.
Dr. Dhananjay Keer writes, " Everybody thought that Dr. Ambedkar by
playing such dangerous role would go under with the mover of the
amendment to rise against the will and the objections of the Congress
bosses, who were the nation's most powerful leaders, was to meet one's
Waterloo. The Congress members were ready with their hands raised to
cripple their avowed enemy and throw him down ". This historic speech
changed the course of Dr. Ambedkar's political career. The speech drew
the longest and the most vociferous applause. As Mr. N. V. Gadgil, an
eye-witness to this event observed " His speech was so statesmanlike,
so devoid of bitterness and so earnestly challenging that the whole of
Assembly listened to it in rapt silence. The speech was greeted with
tremendous ovation and he was smothered with congratulations in the
lobby ". The speech had its ultimate effect and the Constituent
Assembly postponed the consideration of the objective resolution till
the next session. The said speech of Dr. Ambedkar is as under.-Ed.]
Mr. Chairman : Dr. Ambedkar.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : (Bengal : General) : Mr. Chairman, I am indeed
very grateful to you for having called me to speak on the Resolution. I
must however confess that your invitation has come to me as a surprise.
I thought that as there were some 20 or 22 people ' head of me, my
turn, if it did come at all, would come tomorrow.
I would have preferred that as today I have come without any
preparation whatsoever. I would have like to prepare myself as I had
intended to make a full statement on an occasion of this sort. Besides
you have fixed a time limit of 10 minutes. Placed under these
limitations, I don't know how I could do justice to the Resolution
before us. I shall however do my best to condense in as few word's as
possible what I think about the matter.
Mr. Chairman, the Resolution in the light of the discussion that has
gone on since yesterday, obviously divides itself into two parts, one
part which is controversial and another part which is no controversial.
The part which is non-controversial is the part which comprises
paragraphs (5) to (7) of this Resolution. These paragraphs set out the
objectives of the future constitution of this country. I must confess
that, coming as the Resolution does from Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru who is
reputed to be a Socialist, this Resolution, although no controversial,
is to my mind very disappointing. I should have expected him to go much
further than he has done in that part of the Resolution. As a student
of history, I should have preferred this part of the Resolution not
being embodied in it at all. When one reads that part of the
Resolution, it reminds one of the Declarations of the Rights of Man
which was pronounced by the French Constituent Assembly. I think I am
right in suggesting that, after the lapse of practically 450 years, the
Declaration of the Rights of Man and the principles which are embodied
in it has become part and parcel of our mental makeup. I say they have
become not only the part and parcel of the mental make-up of modern man
in every civilised part of the world, but also in our own country which
is so orthodox, so archaic in its thought and its social structure,
hardly anyone can be found to deny its validity. To repeat it now as
the Resolution does is, to say the least, pure pedantry. These
principles have become the silent immaculate premise of our outlook. It
is therefore unnecessary to proclaim as forming a part of our creed.
The Resolution suffers from certain other lacuna. I find that this part
of the Resolution, although it enunciates certain rights, does not
speak of remedies. All of us are aware of the fact that rights are
nothing unless remedies are provided whereby people can seek to obtain
redress when rights are invaded. I find a complete absence of remedies.
Even the usual formula that no man's life, liberty and property shall
be taken without the due process of law, finds no place in the
Resolution. These fundamental rights set out are made subject to law
and morality. Obviously what is law, what is morality will be
determined by the Executive of the day and when the Executive may take
one view another Executive may take another view and we do not know
what exactly would be the position with regard to fundamental rights,
if this matter is left to the Executive of the day. Sir, there are here
certain provisions which speak of justice, economical, social and
political. If this Resolution has a reality behind it and a sincerity,
of which I have not the least doubt, coming as it does from the Mover
of the Resolution, I should have expected some provision whereby it
would have been possible for the State to make economic, social and
political justice a reality and I should have from that point of view
expected the Resolution to state in most explicit terms that in order
that there may be social and economic justice in the country, that
there would be nationalisation of industry and nationalisation of land,
I do not understand how it could be possible for any future Government
which believes in doing justice socially, economically and politically,
unless its economy is a socialistic economy. Therefore, personally,
although I have no objection to the enunciation of these propositions,
the Resolution is, to my mind, somewhat disappointing. I am however
prepared to leave this subject where it is with the observations I have
made.
Now I come to the first part of the Resolution, which includes the
first tour paragraphs. As I said from the debate that has gone on in
the House, this has become a matter of controversy. The controversy
seems to be centered on the use of that word ' Republic '. It is
centered on the sentence occurring in paragraph 4 " the sovereignty is
derived from the people ". Thereby it arises from the point made by my
friend Dr. Jayakar yesterday that in the absence of the Muslim League
it would not be proper for this Assembly to proceed to deal with this
Resolution. Now, Sir, I have got not the slightest doubt in my mind as
to the future evolution and the ultimate shape of the social, political
and economic structure of this great country. I know to day we are
divided politically, socially and economically. We are a group of
warring camps and I may go even to the extent of confessing that I am
probably one of the leaders of such a camp. But, Sir, with all this, I
am quite convinced that given time and circumstances nothing in the
world will prevent this country from becoming one. (Applause): With all
our castes and creeds, I have not the slightest hesitation that we
shall in some form be a united people (Cheers). I have no hesitation in
saying that notwithstanding the agitation of the Muslim League for the
partition of India some day enough light would dawn upon the Muslims
themselves and they too will begin to think that a United India is
better even for them. (Loud cheers and applause).
So far as the ultimate goal is concerned, I think none of us need have
any apprehensions. None of us need have any doubt. Our difficulty is
not about the ultimate future. Our difficulty is how to make the
heterogeneous mass that we have to day take a decision in common and
march on the way which leads us to unity. Our difficulty is not with
regard to the ultimate, our difficulty is with regard to the beginning.
Mr. Chairman, therefore, I should have thought that in order to make us
willing friends, in order to induce every party, every section in this
country to take on to road it would be an act of greatest statesmanship
for the majority party even to make a concession to the prejudices of
people who are not prepared to march together and it is for that, that
I propose to make this appeal. Let us leave aside slogans, let us leave
aside words which frighten people. Let us even make a concession to the
prejudices of our opponents, bring them in, so that they may willingly
join with us on marching upon that road, which as I said, if we walk
long enough, must necessarily lead us to unity, lf l, therefore, from
this place support Dr. Jayakar's amendment, it is because I want all of
us to realise that whether we are right or wrong, whether the position
that we take is in consonance with our legal rights, whether that
agrees with the Statement of May the 16th or December 6th, leave all
that aside. This is too big a question to be treated as a matter of
legal rights. It is not a legal question at all. We should leave aside
all legal considerations and make some attempt, whereby those who are
not prepared to come, will come. Let us make it possible for them to
come, that is my appeal.
In the course of the debate that took place, there were two questions
which were raised, which struck me so well that I took the trouble of
taking them down on a piece of paper. The one question was, I think, by
my friend, the Prime Minister of Bihar who spoke yesterday in this
Assembly. He said, how can this Resolution prevent the League from
coming into the Constituent Assembly ? Today my friend. Dr. Syama
Prasad Mookherjee, asked another question. Is this Resolution
inconsistent with the Cabinet Mission's Proposal? Sir, I think they are
very important questions and they ought to be answered and answered
categorically. I do maintain that this Resolution whether it is
intended to bring about the result or not, whether it is a result of
cold calculation or whether it is a mere matter of accident is bound to
have the result of keeping the Muslim League out. In this connection I
should like to invite your attention to Paragraph 3 of the Resolution,
which I think is very significant and very important. Paragraph 3
envisages the future constitution of India. I do not know what is the
intention of the mover of the Resolution. But I take it that after this
Resolution is passed, it will act as a sort of a directive to the
Constituent Assembly to frame a constitution in terms of para. 3 of the
Resolution. What does paragraph 3 say ? Paragraph 3 says that in this
country there shall be two different sets of polity, one at the bottom,
autonomous Provinces or the States or such other areas as care to join
a United India. These autonomous units will have full power. They will
have also residuary powers. At the top, over the Provincial units,
there will be a Union Government, having certain subjects for
legislation, for execution and for administration. As I read this part
of the Resolution, I do not find any reference to the idea of grouping,
an intermediate structure between the Union on the one hand and the
provinces on the other. Reading this para, in the light of the Cabinet
Mission's Statement or reading it even in the light of the Resolution
passed by the Congress at its Wardha session, I must confess that I am
a great deal surprised at the absence of-any reference to the idea of
grouping of the provinces. So far as I am personally concerned, I do
not like the idea of grouping (hear, hear) I like a strong united
Centre, (hear, hear) much stronger than the Centre we had created under
the Government of India Act of 1935. But, Sir, these opinions, these
wishes have no bearing on the situation at all. We have travelled a
long road. The Congress Party, for reasons best known to itself
consented, if I may use that expression, to the dismantling of a strong
Centre which had been created in this country as a result of 15U years
of administration and which I must say, was to me a matter of great
admiration and respect and refuge. But having given up that position,
having said that we do not want a strong centre, and having accepted
that there must be or should be an intermediate polity, a
sub-federation between the Union Government and the Provinces I would
like to know why there is no reference in para. 3 to the idea of
grouping. I quite understand that the Congress Party, the Muslim League
and His Majesty's Government are not ad idem on the interpretation of
the clause relating to grouping. But I always thought that, -1 am
prepared to stand corrected if it is shown that I am wrong,-at least
it was agreed by the Congress Party that if the Provinces which are
placed within different groups consent to form a Union or
Sub-federation, the Congress would have no objection to that proposal.
I believe I am correct in interpreting the mind of the Congress Party.
The question I ask is this. Why did not the Mover of this Resolution
make reference to the idea of a Union of Province's or grouping of
Provinces on the terms on which he and his party was prepared to accept
it ? Why is the idea of Union completely effaced from this Resolution ?
I find no answer. None whatever. I therefore say in answer to the two
questions which have been posed here in this Assembly by the Prime
Minister of Bihar and Dr. Syama Prasad Mookherjee as to how this
Resolution is inconsistent with the Statement of May 16th or how this
Resolution is going to prevent the Muslim League from entering this
Constituent Assembly, that here is para. 3 which the Muslim League is
bound to take advantage of and justify its continued absentation. Sir,
my friend Dr. Jayakar, yesterday, in arguing his case for postponing a
decision on this issue put his case, if I may say so, without offence
to him, somewhat in a legalistic manner. The basis of his argument was,
have you the right to do so ? He read out certain portions from the
Statement of the Cabinet Mission which related to the procedural part
of the Constituent Assembly and his contention was that the procedure
that this Constituent Assembly was adopting in deciding upon this
Resolution straightaway was inconsistent with the procedure that was
laid down in that Paper. Sir, I like to put the matter in a somewhat
different way. The way I like to put it is this, I am not asking you to
consider whether you have the right to pass this Resolution
straightaway or not. It may be that you have the right to do so. The
question I am asking is this. Is it prudent for you to do so ? Is it
wise for you to do so ? Power is one thing ; wisdom is quite a
different thing and I want this House to consider this matter from the
point of view, namely, whether it would be wise, whether it would be
statesmanlike, whether it would be prudent to do so at this stage. The
answer that I give is that it would not be prudent, it would not be
wise. I suggest that another attempt may be made to bring about a
solution of the dispute between the Congress and the Muslim League.
This subject is so vital, so important that I am sure it could never be
decided on the mere basis of dignity of one party or the dignity of
another party. When deciding the destinies of nations, dignities of
people, dignities of leaders and dignities of parties ought to count
for nothing. The destiny of the country ought to count for everything.
It is because I feel that it would in the interest not only of this
Constituent Assembly so that it may function as one whole, so that it
may have the reaction of the Muslim League before it proceeds to
decision that I support Dr. Jayakar's amendment-we must also consider
what is going to happen with regard to the future, if we act
precipitately. I do not know what plans the Congress Party, which holds
this House in its possession, has in its mind ? I have no power of
divination to know what they are thinking about. What are their
tactics, what is their strategy, I do not know. But applying my mind as
an outsider to the issue that has arisen, it seems to me there are only
three ways by which the future will be decided. Either there shall have
to be surrender by the one party to the wishes of the other-that is
one way. The other way would be what I call a negotiated peace and the
third way would be open war. Sir, I have been hearing from certain
members of the Constituent Assembly that they are prepared to go to
war. I must confess that I am appalled at the idea that anybody in this
country should think of solving the political problems of this country
by the method of war. I do not know how many people in this country
support that idea. A good many perhaps do and the reason why I think
they do, is because most of them, at any rate a great many of them,
believe that the war that they are thinking of, would be a war on the
British. Well, Sir, if the war that is contemplated, that is in the
minds of people, can be localised, circumscribed, so that it will not
he more than a war on the British, I probably may not have much
objection to that sort of strategy. But will it he a war on the British
only ? I have no hesitation and I do want to place before this House in
the clearest terms possible that if war comes in this country and if
that war has any relation to the issue with which we are confronted
to-day, it will not be a war on the British. It will be a war on the
Muslims. It will be a war on the Muslims or which is probably worse, it
will be a war on a combination of the British and the Muslims. I cannot
see how this contemplated war be of the sort different from what I fear
it will be. Sir, I like to read to the House a passage from Burke's
great speech on Conciliation with America. I believe this may have some
effect upon the temper of this House. The British people as you know
were trying to conquer the rebellious colonies of the United States,
and bring them under their-.subjection contrary to their wishes. In
repelling this idea of conquering the colonies this is what Burke
said:-
" First, Sir permit me to observe, that the use of force alone is but
temporary. It may subdue fur a moment; but it does not remove the
necessity of subduing again ; and a nation is not governed which is
perpetually to be conquered.
" My next objection is its uncertainty. Terror is not always the effect
of force and an armament is not a victory. If you do not succeed, you
are without resource for, conciliation failing, force remains: but,
force failing, no further hope of reconciliation is left. Power and
authority are sometimes bought by kindness', but they can never be
begged as alms by an impoverished and defeated violence......
" A further objection to force is. that you impair the object by your
very endeavours to preserve it. The thing you fought for is not the
thing which you recover; but depreciated, sunk, wasted and consumed in
the contest".
These are weighty words which it would be perilous to ignore. If there
is anybody who has in his mind the project of solving the Hindu-Muslim
problem by force, which is another name of solving it by war, in order
that the Muslims may be subjugated and made to surrender to the
Constitution that might be prepared without their consent, this country
would be involved in perpetually conquering them. The conquest would
not be once and for ever. I do not wish to take more time than I have
taken and I will conclude by again referring to Burke. Burke has said
somewhere that it is easy to give power, it is difficult to give
wisdom. Let us prove by our conduct that if this Assembly has arrogated
to itself sovereign powers it is prepared to exercise them with wisdom.
That is the only way by which we can carry with us all sections of the
country. There is no other way that can lead us to unity. Let us have
no doubt on that point.
