Sir,
the debate on the motion that has been going on for the last two
or three days reveals that there are two definite points of view
presented by the Members of this House. There is one point of view
which holds that the action taken by the Government by arresting the
members of the Congress and in suppressing the violent movement that has sprung
up was not justified. There is one section of the House which holds that
the action taken by the Government is perfectly justified. In a situation like
this, it might be well for the Government to say that it is
unnecessary for them to intervene in this debate for the simple
reason that one side120
of the House cancels the other, but it seems to me that it would not be
proper for Government Members140
and, particularly, the Indian Members of the Executive Council to allow this
matter to rest there. Rather than let the160
burden remain on the shoulders of one section of the House, I think it is
very necessary that the Members should take the burden upon themselves,
and I, therefore, propose to deal with some of the points that have
been made by that section of the House which thinks that the action
was not justified.
The
points that have been raised evidently fall into two categories; some
points are particular in their significance and in their nature; some points
are240 of general importance
and although it might be desirable for some of us not only to deal with the
particular points but also with the general points. I am afraid time is so
short that one has to make his280
selection in meeting some of the charges that have been levelled. I, therefore,
propose to offer my remarks only on two charges which have been levelled
by the party opposed against the Government. Sir, the critics of the Government
have320 said that the
Government were not justified in arresting the members of the Congress. If I
understand the argument correctly, the argument seems to be that the Congress
is a body which believes in non-violence and that if the Congress360 had been allowed to be free, they
certainly would have controlled the situation in such a manner that they
would have prevented violence from emerging. It seems to me that the
Members who take that line have not correctly read what has happened to the
Congress and the members of the Working Committee during the last two years
with regard420 to
the principle of non-violence. Sir, as I read the proceedings of the
Congress during the last two or three years, the impression that has been
left upon my mind is that there has been a terrible landslide in the
principle of non-violence as has been proclaimed by the Congress. The
non-violence has been deeply buried. I have no hesitation480 on that point at all.
There
is another point which the honourable Members are not aware of and about which
I would like to make some reference. It is not only a fact that almost
all members of the Congress Working Committee had ceased to have any faith in
non-violence and a great many of them had become indifferent to the principle,
but there is enough body of evidence to indicate that inside the Congress there
was an attempt being560 made
for a planned campaign of violence. It has been said by the Members of the
Opposition that, although repression may be justifiable by the circumstances of
the moment, it should not be the duty of the Government merely to600 stop with repression but that Government
must take some constructive step. When one begins to examine the constructive
steps to which reference has been made from different sections of the
House, one cannot but be surprised at the bewildering medley640 of suggestions that have been made. I,
therefore, pick upon only one which appears to me something definite and
something which you can put your teeth in and examine. The suggestion has been
made that the Government of the day should be recast, refashioned, and should
work as a national Government. Now, in order that I may be able to700 present to the House the point of
view which I am urging with regard to this suggestion, it would be720 better if I begin by stating what the
present Government is, what its nature is. As honourable Members are aware,
section 33 of the Government of India Act says that the superintendence,
direction and control of the civil and military government of India is vested
in the Governor General in Council. I am a bit of a constitutional lawyer. I do
not claim to be an expert, but I do claim to be a student. I have examined this
section800 33 and compared it
with the constitutions that exist elsewhere. When I take as a measure the
wishes of the Indian people as to the nature of the Government they want, I
have no hesitation in saying that this section840 33 provides a Government which has two
characteristics which are of infinite importance. The one characteristic which
this Government has got is that it excludes autocracy completely.
The
second characteristic which this Government has got is that it imposes
collective responsibility, a matter which is so much after the heart of the
Indian people. The position is that every Member of the Executive Council is a
colleague of the Governor General. That fact can never be forgotten and ought
never to be forgotten. If Indians are wanting a Government which is democratic,
which excludes autocracy, and which by law imposes upon those who are in
charge of the administration a collective responsibility, then my
submission to the House is that960
you cannot devise a better form of Government than the one we have. I know it
has been said against980
this Government that although that may be so, this Government is subject
to the veto of the Viceroy and of the Secretary of State. I call it veto; you
can call it orders. I would like to use a constitutional phrase as I am a
constitutional man. What I said is that this Government is not a free Government;
it is a Government that is subject to the veto of the Viceroy, it is also
subject to the veto of the Secretary of State. With regard to the veto
of the Viceroy, I would like to point out that the1080 veto is confined to matters which
relate to the safety and tranquillity of India. It is not a general
veto. It is not a veto which applies to the day-to-day administration of the
country. I am perfectly prepared to admit1120 that there is a veto and that
the veto exists. My question to the honourable Members who are so much
disturbed by the veto is what the significance of the veto is. What does the
veto mean? Let me state it in the most categorical terms, because
I find there is a lot of confusion in the minds of many honourable
Members who wish to talk about the constitutional question. What is
the difference between an autocratic Government and a1200 responsible Government? What is the
difference that exists in Germany under Hitler and the Government that exists
in Great Britain? The answer is simply this and I want to put it in the most
categorical form, that the difference between autocracy and responsible Government
lies in the fact that in autocracy there is no veto, whereas in responsible Government
there is1260 a veto. That is
the simple fact about it. Let all those who want to understand the
constitution and who1280 want
to frame constitutions bear that fact in mind. Sir, the only question, the only
quarrel that can arise is where should the veto lie. Should it lie with the
Secretary of State, should it lie with the Viceroy, or should it lie at any
other place or in some other organisation? That can be the only point of
quarrel.
As
to the existence of the veto, I submit that there can be no quarrel
among those who believe in responsibility, among those who believe in
democratic Government. The question, therefore, that arises is this. If we
are not to have the veto with the Secretary of State, where are we
to have it? It seems to me that if1400
you want to transfer the veto from the Secretary of State, the only
place where it can be rightly placed is the Legislature. There is no
other place for the veto. The question, therefore, is whether we can transfer
the1440 veto to the Legislature
as it exists today. I cannot teach you constitutional law. I am afraid I
shall have to open a class. I spent five years in the Law College teaching
constitutional law. The question to my mind is whether we can transfer
this veto to the Legislature. I must consider the question from the
standpoint of the present Legislature because the demand is that the British
Government should abdicate at once. The question is whether this
Legislature is suited as a receptacle in which we can place this
veto? What is the composition, what is the character of this Legislature?
Now, Sir, it is quite true and I do not think I am saying
anything derogatory to this House, that, having regard to the
efflux of time, this House is almost in a deceased state. 1578
