Mr. President, Sir, I have come forward to support the
Resolution and I would add that I have come forward to urge with all the
strength in my power that this Resolution be pushed to its
conclusion at these sittings. I have considered with very great care all
that my colleagues have said in support of this amendment proposing an
adjournment of this discussion until the representatives of the Muslim
League and the representatives of the Indian states have joined us. There
is only one compliment I have to make against this motion for adjournment. I
think that it lacks imagination. I say so without disrespect to
my friends. I say it lacks imagination because it forgets that we
have just120 launched ourselves on a very big task and it
is necessary that we should impress our country and the world140 that we mean business. Now, Sir, look at
this Resolution. It is a Resolution which sets out the objectives that160 we have to place before ourselves in framing
our constitution. Is such Resolution to be postponed till we reach the last
stage of our work in this Assembly? Is it not a Resolution which
must preface everything that we propose to do in this Assembly? I think
that is a complete answer to this motion for adjournment. The Mover and
supporters of the amendment have urged reasons for postponing the consideration
of this Resolution, but in doing so, they have240 themselves admitted that there is nothing
in this Resolution to which either of them is prepared to take
exception. I appeal to them that if they believe in this Resolution, they
must pass it at this series of sittings and280 before we commence real business, and not
postpone it till we have practically completed all our business. My
honourable friend, towards the close of his speech, suggested that the
consideration of this Resolution might be postponed only for about a320 month or so by the end of which he hoped that
the representatives of the Muslim League would have joined us. But what about
the representatives of the Indian States? For no fault of this Constituent
Assembly, the representatives of360 the Indian States have not come into this
Assembly at the start, as I consider it is their right to do. But the procedure
has been so regulated that they come in only at the final sitting of this
Constituent Assembly. Are we to wait for them? After all, the most vocal
objection to this Resolution that has come from420 outside this House has come from people who
represent the Indian States. Now, taking the representatives of the Muslim
League themselves, are we doing any injustice to them in proceeding with
this Resolution? Their main objection to what we are doing today is the
different interpretation they have put upon the clause relating to grouping. We
are not discussing grouping. 480 We are discussing this Resolution which
lays down the objectives of our work--a matter in respect of which
they have a perfect right to come and participate in this debate. What
prevents them from coming and taking their seats here and debating with us here
the other questions that we are taking up as a preliminary to the more
important work that will follow? Their main objection will arise only when
this Assembly, towards the end of the560 first session, proposes to split into
Sections, and as I shall show in a minute, Sir, it is quite possible
for them to arise all the issues that they want to raise at that stage.
Sir, the question as regards grouping600 has entered a new phase with the Statement
made by His Majesty's Government on the 6th of this month, but I
would not go into the merits of what they have said in that
Statement. The only thing I would640 say is that it is a most astonishing
Statement to be made by so august a body as His Majesty's
Government at this stage of the controversy. Be that as it may, I do not
intend to go into its merits. Of course, it is not within the
jurisdiction of His Majesty's Government to say whether they would
accept700 the Federal Court's view or whether
they would not, because it is entirely out of their hands.
The Constituent Assembly makes720 the reference to the Federal Court and it is for the Constituent
Assembly to say before it makes the reference that it will abide by the
decision of the Federal Court. What will happen then? Assuming that the Federal
Court's decision is in favour of the view taken by His
Majesty's Government, what will be the position of those who have taken
a contrary view? The only thing they can do in view of all the commitments they
have made800 to individual provinces and communities,
is to move this Assembly for a modification of paragraph 19, which would
more clearly express their view. The main difficulty is the method of voting in
the Sections as the Secretary of States said840 in the House of Lords. If you leave
paragraph 19 as it is, it is certainly an arguable point that in
the absence of any modification of the wording of that clause the voting
must be by individuals and a simple majority would decide the question. It is
certainly an arguable point. If we want that voting should be by
provinces, it is necessary that we should propose a modification of that
clause, and that modification can be done by this Assembly on a motion
properly made. Now, are we going to do that? I suggest that, in view of what
has come from His Majesty's Government both in the Statement of December
the 6th and in the speeches made960 in the two Houses of Parliament, the
wiser thing to do is not to send a reference to the980 Federal Court but to take the other
course which I have indicated, that is, you bring up a resolution in
this Constituent Assembly proposing a modification of clause 19 which
will provide that the method of voting should be by provinces, in the
Sections so far as the grouping matter is concerned.
The Resolution I am suggesting is to be
moved in this Assembly and we are to take a decision on it. It is
quite possible and I think it would be an arguable position for
the Muslim League representatives to come here and raise the question that
such1080 a modification involves a major communal
issue. If you decide that it is a major communal issue, or, if after
obtaining the advice of the Federal Court, you decide that it involves a major
communal issue, it will be1120 open to the Muslim League to contend that
you cannot carry out that modification without a majority of each of the
major communities. Why should we not take that step? We shall take
that resolution into consideration at an adjourned sitting of this Assembly.
That must be a sufficient indication to the members of the Muslim League
to come and occupy their places in this Assembly and defeat what they consider
to be an unconscionable suggestion from the other side. 1200 That is one point I wish to suggest to those
who may have to take a decision in this matter. Going to the Federal
Court is absolutely useless, and so far as I can see, it will solve none
of our troubles. Then, on this main issue of adjournment, I do not propose to
deal with the point of1260 law that my honourable friend, Dr. Jayakar, has
taken. I should like only to refer to some of the other1280 criticisms that have been received.
Before proceeding to that, I should like to suggest that, in considering
points of interpretation of the document, namely, the Statement of May 16,
let us not forget that we are not working under a provincial
enactment or as members of a provincial legislature, or the Central Legislature
working under a statute of Parliament. We are in a Constituent Assembly, and whatever
is not said in the document under which we have gathered here,
is not prohibited to us. We have the residuary powers in full for
accomplishing the task which we have undertaken. That being so, what I
would suggest is that we should not rivet our eyes to particular
clauses in this document.140 I think whatever is not said but is
necessary for the accomplishment of our task, is within our powers to
regulate. I will leave the rest of the objections to the consideration of this
Resolution on the point of law1440 to people who can deal with legal matters more efficiently than
I can. I desire in the few minutes that still remain to me to deal only with
the objections that have been raised on behalf of the States. The
Cabinet Mission stated that, on the conclusion of the labours of the
Constituents Assembly and on the framing of a constitution for India, His
Majesty's Government will recommend to Parliament, such action as may be
necessary for the cession of sovereignty to the Indian people. Even under
existing conditions, the provinces of British India and Indian States have a
common Centre which administers such subjects as must stand ceded to the
Centre under any unitary or federal constitution for India as a whole. Broadly
speaking, sovereign powers over India as a whole now vest in His
Majesty subject to the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935.1590
