Sir, a substantial contribution to the
discussion was made by my friend, Dr. Ambedkar. He said he has no
objection to the other paragraphs of the Resolution except paragraph 3 which
has left out the word 'group'. Sir, in this connection I have to make an
appeal to him. The objection to the omission of the word 'group' need not be
taken seriously, because we have stated nothing in the
Resolution against grouping. That very fact keeps the matter of grouping wide
open. At this stage, I would refer my friend, Dr. Ambedkar, to
paragraph 19 (5) of the Cabinet Mission's Scheme wherein it has been
specially stated that the Sections are to decide whether any group constitution
shall be set120 up. We know that the Working Committee
of the Indian National Congress gave an alternative proposal regarding
this. The Cabinet140 Mission criticized this proposal of
the Working Committee and their comments are in para 14(2). Under
this scheme, if the160 provinces wish to take part in any
economic and administrative planning on a large scale, they would cede to the
Centre optional subjects in addition to the compulsory ones mentioned by them.
Having stated the position taken up by the Working Committee of the Indian
National Congress, the Cabinet Mission offers its comments. The Mission says it
would be very difficult to work a central executive and legislature in
which some ministers who deal with compulsory subjects are responsible
to240 the whole of India, while other ministers who
deal with optional subjects would be responsible only to those provinces. With
this objection, the Cabinet Mission has ruled out the suggestion offered by the
Working Committee. It will be very difficult280 for small provinces to rise to their full
stature if they do not have the guidance of the Centre. In this
connection, I am not referring to Sections 'B' and 'C'. I am
referring to Section 'A' where provinces like320 Orissa, Bihar, Central Province, Madras and
the rest are concerned. The Congress acceptance of the division of India into
linguistic provinces means the creation of a number of small provinces. A
number of small provinces like Orissa, Kerala, Karnataka and360 the like will be put to the greatest handicap if
they have to make their own administrative and economic plans. Under
these circumstances, it may be that their provinces will cede all
the connected powers to the Centre. There is thereafter no reason why there
should be any objection. These and many other such considerations may
come up later on420
in
Sections. If the door is open without being shut it is for such proposals
which may be made later on. Under these circumstances, I believe my honourable friend Dr. Ambedkar
will see that it was not with any ulterior purpose that the word ‘group’
was omitted. It is done to afford opportunity to those provinces who come under
group 'A'.480 I believe this explanation will
satisfy Dr. Ambedkar and he will have no objection to the
omission of the word ‘group’. In the Resolution that has been moved,
the Hon'ble Mover has very frankly placed all his cards on
the table. There is no hide and seek. All the points are placed so
that the provinces will find it convenient to see at a glance. I see that the
Secretary of the States Negotiating Committee has made a statement560 objecting to this Resolution.
Their objections are based on two points. The first is that they
object to the term ‘independent sovereign republic’. Secondly, their objection
is centred around the fact that power derives from the people. They
would not600 admit that power is derived from the people in
the Indian States. Sir, paragraph 14 of the Cabinet Mission's
Statement lays down that after the withdrawal of Britain, paramountcy disappears.
In Great Britain, it has been recognized by statutes that
power640 emanates from the people. Parliament derives its
power from the people of Britain and the same Parliament is exercising
the power of paramountcy. That being the position, I do not see any
reason why the State rulers and their representatives should object to these
expressions. After the withdrawal of Britain, there is no reason for
anyone to think that700 India would think any other form of State than a republic. A republic does
not necessarily mean the wiping off720 the States. That apprehension is
unfounded. The Cabinet mission's Statement lays down that these are left
to negotiations. Frankly, there is no reason for any apprehensions. They
have appointed their Negotiating Committee and we have to appoint our
Committee. The whole thing is thus left to negotiation.
Having said so much
about the Resolution, I come to the question of certain statements made
in the House of Commons. Sir, you know that a discussion on India has
been thrust on the800 British Parliament by the Conservative Party. The leader of
that party and a number of other important members of the party
have contributed to the discussion, although both Labour and the
Liberals stated that a discussion at this stage840 was unfortunate. Sir,
important members of the Conservative Party have stated that this is a
Caste Hindu Constituent Assembly. I am very glad that the
representatives of the minority communities in India have already given
their reply to this unwarranted suggestion, and I hope that other
representatives of minorities will speak to give a decent burial to this
suggestion which has been manufactured for consumption at home and
for foreign consumption and propaganda. We have in this great Assembly
not only the representatives of the Hindu population of the Hindu majority
provinces but also the representatives of Hindu minorities in Muslim majority
provinces. We have also the representatives of the Scheduled Castes,
Christians, Sikhs, Parsis, Anglo-Indians, and of Tribal and960 partially-excluded
areas. We have amongst us the representatives of the great Muslim community
barring the leaders of the Muslim League. 980 Under these circumstances, it is
most unfair and unfortunate to call and to utilize the forum of the
British Parliament for foreign propaganda that this great Assembly is a
Caste Hindu institution. Much has been made in the speeches in
Parliament on the score of minorities. I should like to know a country
which has no minorities. Even England has got her own minorities. Are the Welsh
not a minority? Are the Scots not a minority? The Welsh people are of
a different race and language and are distinctly separate from Britain. Even in
the USA. and USSR, we have1080 got linguistic and racial minorities. Under these
circumstances, it is unfair for the Conservative leaders in England to carry on
propaganda against this country and the Constituent Assembly. It has been
clearly seen that Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Churchill have1120 become strange
friends. My own surprise is that a statesman like Mr. Jinnah should have fallen
into the trap of Conservatives and particularly that of Mr. Churchill. Everyone
knows and the history reveals how the Conservative Party has made use
of persons and institutions in every dependent country. That
being the position, it is easy for Mr. Jinnah to realize how
he and the League have been made use of by the British Conservatives. Therefore,
it remains for us to1200 see who utilizes whom and to what extent. Let
us hope that the Conservatives pay in the long run to find to their
surprise that they and they alone pay in the long run and Mr. Jinnah comes out
sane and sober.
Mr. Chairman, judging from
some of the speeches delivered in this House, it seems that the
amendment before1260 the House has been treated by some speakers as having
been inspired by a spirit of hostility. However, as I1280 view it, its object is not
to obstruct but to facilitate the work of this Assembly. Its purpose is to
create an atmosphere which will enable us to realize rapidly and
smoothly the great aim that we have set before ourselves. I think I
shall not be far wrong in saying that there are men in every part of
the House who sympathize with the amendment moved
by Dr. Jayakar. This very fact should suffice to convince every
unprejudiced man that the object of the amendment is not to place unnecessary
obstacles in our way but to pave the way to certain success. I go
further and say that if the newspaper reports are correct that the next session
of1400 the Assembly will
take place towards the end of January, it shows that the House
feels that it ought to postpone the decision of important questions for a while
on psychological grounds. The object of such a move can only be1440 to assure all those
whose interests are affected by any decisions that we may take that they
will have an opportunity of expressing their views before those decisions
are taken. I congratulate all those who are responsible for this
decision. It is wise on our part to make every section of the
people in India realize that we do not want to impose our will on any
party or community, but that such decisions as we may arrive
at will be the result of joint discussion carried on with the sole
object of enabling India to achieve her independence and protecting the just
rights of the minorities and the backward classes. This amendment seeks
to do nothing more than those who are responsible for the decision that
I have already referred to. It only pleads for that comprehension for
which Sir Radhakrishnan pleaded so eloquently in his
stirring address.1590
