The
Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Sir, looking back on the work of the Constituent
Assembly it will now be two years, eleven months and seventeen days since it
first met on the 9th of December 1946. During this period the Constituent
Assembly has altogether held eleven sessions. Out of these eleven sessions the
first six were spent in passing the ejectives Resolution and the consideration
of the Reports of Committees on Fundamental Rights, on Union Constitution, on
Union Powers, on Provincial Constitution, on Minorities and on the Scheduled
Areas and Scheduled Tribes. The seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth and the eleventh
sessions were devoted to the consideration of the Draft Constitution. These
eleven sessions of the Constituent Assembly have consumed 165 days. Out of
these, the Assembly spent 114 days for the consideration of the Draft
Constitution.
Coming
to the Drafting Committee, it was elected by the Constituent Assembly on 29th
August 1947. It held its first meeting on 30th August. Since August 30th it sat
for 141 days during which it was engaged in the preparation of the Draft
Constitution. The Draft Constitution as prepared by the Constitutional Adviser
as a text for the Draft Committee to work upon consisted of 243 articles and 13
Schedules. The first Draft Constitution as presented by the Drafting Committee
to the Constituent Assembly contained 315 articles and 8 Schedules. At the end
of the consideration stage, the number of articles in the Draft Constitution
increased to 386. In its final form, the Draft Constitution contains 395
articles and 8 Schedules. The total number of amendments to the Draft
Constitution tabled was approximately 7,635. Of them, the total number of
amendments actually moved in the House was 2,473.
I
mention these facts because at one stage it was being said that the Assembly
had taken too long a time to finish its work, that it was going on leisurely
and wasting the public money. It was said to be a case of Nero fiddling while
Rome was burning. Is there any justification for this complaint? Let us note
the time the consumed by Constituent Assemblies in other countries appointed
for framing their Constitutions. To take a few illustrations, the American
Convention met on May 25th 1787 and completed its work on September 17, 1787
i.e., within four months. The Constitutional Convention of Canada met on the
10th October 1864 and the Constitution was passed into law in March 1867
involving a period of two years and five months. The Australian Constitutional
Convention assembled in March 1891 and the Constitution became law on the 9th
July 1900, consuming a period of nine years. The South African Convention met
in October, 1908 and the Constitution became law on the 20th September 1909
involving one year's labour. It is true that we have taken more time than what
the American or South African Conventions did. But we have not taken more time
than the Canadian Convention and much less than the Australian Convention. In
making comparisons on the basis of time consumed, two things must be
remembered. One is that the Constitutions of America, Canada, South Africa and
Australia are much smaller than ours. Our Constitution as I said contains 395
articles while the American has just seven articles, the first four of which
are divided into sections which total up to 21, the Canadian has 147,
Australian 128 and South African 153 sections. The second thing to be
remembered is that the makers of the Constitutions of America, Canada,
Australia and South Africa did not have to face the problem of amendments. They
were passed as moved. On the other hand, this Constituent Assembly had to deal
with as many as 2.473 amendments. Having regard to these facts the charge of
dilatoriness seems to me quite unfounded and this Assembly may well
congratulate itself for having accomplished so formidable a task in so short a
time.
Turning
to the quality of the work done by the Drafting Committee, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed
felt it his duty to condemn it outright. In his opinion, the work done by the
Drafting Committee is not only not worthy of commendation, but is positively
below par. Everybody has a right to have his opinion about the work done by the
Drafting Committee and Mr. Naziruddin is welcome to have his own. Mr. Naziruddin
Ahmed thinks he is a man of greater talents than any member of the Drafting
Committee. The drafting Committee does not wish to challenge his claim, on the
other hand. The Drafting Committee would have welcomed him in their midst if
the Assembly had thought him worthy of being appointed to it. If he had no place in the making of the Constitution it is
certainly not the fault of the Drafting Committee.
Mr.
Naziruddin Ahmed has coined a new name for the Drafting Committee evidently to
show his contempt for it. He calls it a Drifting committee. Mr. Naziruddin must
no doubt be pleased with his hit. But he evidently does not know that there is
a difference between drift without mastery and drift with mastery. If the
Drafting Committee was drifting, it was' never without mastery over the
situation. It was not merely angling with the off chance of catching a fish. It
was searching in known waters to find the fish it was after. To be in search of
something better is not the same as drifting. Although Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed did
not mean it as a compliment to the Drafting committee, I take it as a
compliment to the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee would have been
guilty of gross dereliction of duty and of a false sense of dignity if it had not
shown the honesty and the courage to withdraw the amendments which it thought
faulty and substitute what it thought was better. If it is a mistake, I am glad
that the Drafting Committee did not fight shy of admitting such mistakes and
coming forward to correct them.
I
am glad to find that with the exception of a solitary member, there is a
general consensus of appreciation from the members of the Constituent Assembly
of the work done by the Drafting Committee. I am sure the Drafting Committee
feels happy to find this spontaneous recognition of its labours expressed in
such generous terms. As to the compliments that have been showered upon me both
by the members of the Assembly as well as by my colleagues of the Drafting
Committee I feel so overwhelmed that I cannot find adequate words to express
fully my gratitude to them. I came into the Constituent Assembly with no
greater aspiration than to safeguard the interests of he Scheduled Castes. I
had not the remotest idea that I would be called upon to undertake more
responsible functions. I was therefore greatly surprised when the Assembly
elected me to the Drafting Committee. I was more than surprised when the
Drafting Committee elected me to be its Chairman. There were in the Drafting
Committee men bigger, better and more competent than myself such as my friend
Sir Alladi KrishnasWami Ayyar. I am grateful to the Constituent Assembly and
the Drafting Committee for reposing in me so much trust and confidence and to have
chosen me as their instrument and given me this opportunity of serving the
country. (Cheers.)
The
credit that is given to me does not really belong to me. It belongs partly to
Sir B.N. Rau, the Constitutional Adviser to the Constituent Assembly who
prepared a rough draft of the Constitution for the consideration of the
Drafting Committee. A part of the credit must go to the members of the Drafting
Committee who, as I have said, have sat for 141 days and without whose
ingenuity of devise new formulae and capacity to tolerate and to accommodate
different points of view, the task of framing the Constitution could not have
come to so successful a conclusion. Much greater, share of the credit must go
to Mr. S.N. Mukherjee, the Chief Draftsman of the constitution. His ability to
put the most intricate proposals in the simplest and clearest legal form can
rarely be equalled, nor his capacity for hard work. "He has been as
acquisition to the Assembly. Without his help, this Assembly would have taken
many more years to finalise the Constitution. I must not omit to mention the
members of the staff working under Mr. Mukherjee. For, I know how hard they
have worked and how long they have toiled sometimes even beyond midnight. I
want to thank them all for their effort and their co- operation. (Cheers.)
The
task of the Drafting Committee would have been a very difficult one if this
Constituent Assembly has been merely a motely crowd, a tessellated pavement
without cement, a black stone here and a white stone there is which each member
or each group was a law unto itself. There would have been nothing but chaos.
This possibility of chaos was reduced to nil by the existence of the Congress
Party inside the Assembly which brought into its proceedings a sense of order
and discipline. It is because of the discipline of the Congress Party that the
Drafting Committee was able to pilot the Constitution in the Assembly with the
sure knowledge as to the fate of each article and each amendment. The Congress
Party is, therefore, entitled to all the credit for the smooth sailing of the
Draft Constitution in the Assembly.
The
proceedings of this Constituent Assembly would have been very dull if all
members had yielded to the rule of party discipline. Party discipline, in all
its rigidity, would have converted this Assembly into a gathering of yes' men.
Fortunately, there were rebels. They were Mr. Kamath, Dr. PS. Deshmukh, Mr.
Sidhva, Prof. Saxena & Pandit Thakur, Das Bhargava alongwith they I must
mention Prof. K.T Shah and Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru. The points they raised
were mostly ideological. That I was not prepared to accept their suggestions
does not diminish the value of their suggestions nor lessen the service they
have rendered to the Assembly in enlivening its proceedings. I am grateful to
them. But for them, I would not have had the opportunity which I got for
expounding the principles underlying the Constitution which was more important
than the mere mechanical work of passing the Constitution.
Finally,
I must thank you Mr. President for the way in which you have conducted the
proceedings of this Assembly. The courtesy and the consideration which you have
shown to the Members of the Assembly can never be forgotten by those who have
taken part in the proceedings of this Assembly. There were occasions when the
amendments of the Drafting Committee were sought to be barred on grounds purely
technical in their nature. Those were very anxious moments for me. I am,
therefore, especially grateful to you for not permitting legalism to defeat the
work of Constitution-making.
As
much defence as could be offered to the constitution has been offered by my
friends Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar and Mr. TT Krishnamachari. I shall not
therefore enter into the merits of the Constitution. Because I feel, however
good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are
called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However bad a Constitution may be,
it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a
good lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature
of the Constitution. The Constitution can provide only the organs of State such
as the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The factors on which the
working of those organs of the State depends are the people and the political
parties they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes and
their politics. Who can say how the people of India and their purposes or will
they prefer revolutionary methods of achieving them? If they adopt the revolutionary
methods, however good the Constitution may be, it requires no prophet to say
that it will fail. It is, therefore, futile to pass any judgement upon the
Constitution without reference to the part which the people and their parties
are likely to play.
The
condemnation of the Constitution largely comes from two quarters, the Communist
Party and the Socialist Party. Why do they condemn the Constitution? Is it
because it is really a bad Constitution? I venture to say no'. The Communist
Party want a Constitution based upon the principle of the Dictatorship of the
Proletariat. They condemn the Constitution because it is based upon
parliamentary democracy. The Socialists want two things. The first thing they
want is that if they come in power, the Constitution must give them the freedom
to nationalize or socialize all private property without payment of
compensation. The second thing that the Socialists want is that the Fundamental
Rights mentioned in the Constitution must be absolute and without any limitations
so that if their Party fails to come into power, they would have the unfettered
freedom not merely to criticize, but also to overthrow the State.
These
are the main grounds on which the Constitution is being condemned. I do not say
that the principle of parliamentary democracy is the only ideal form of
political democracy. I do not say that the principle of no acquisition of
private property without' compensation is so sacrosanct that there can be no
departure from it. I do not say that Fundamental Rights can never be absolute
and the limitations set upon them can never be lifted. What I do say is that
the principles embodied in the Constitution are the views of the present
generation or if you think this to be an over- statement, I say they are the
views of the members of the Constituent Assembly. Why blame the Drafting
Committee for embodying them in the Constitution? I say why blame even the
Members of the Constituent Assembly? Jefferson, the great American statesman
who played so great a part in the making of the American constitution, has
expressed some very weighty views which makers of Constitution, can never
afford to ignore. In one place he has said:-
“We
may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of
the majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation,
more than the inhabitants of another country”.
In
another place, he has said:
“The
idea that institutions established for the use of the national cannot be
touched or modified, even to make them answer their end, because of rights
gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in the trust for the
public, may perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch,
but is most absurd against the nation itself Yet our lawyers and priests
generally inculcate this doctrine, and suppose that preceding generations held
the earth more freely than we do; had a right to impose laws on us, unalterable
by ourselves, and that we, in the like manner, can make laws and impose burdens
on future generations, which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that
the earth belongs to the dead and not the living”.
I
admit that what .Jefferson has said is not merely true, but is absolutely true.
There can tie no question about it. Had' the Constituent Assembly departed from
this principle laid down by Jefferson it would certainly be liable to blame,
even to condemnation. But I ask, has it? Quite the contrary. One has only to
examine the provision relating to the amendment of the Constitution. The
Assembly has not only refrained from putting a seal of finality and
infallibility upon this Constitution as in Canada or by making the amendment of
the Constitution subject to the fulfilment of extraordinary terms and conditions
as in America or Australia, but has provided a most facile procedure for
amending the Constitution. I challenge any of the critics of the Constitution
to prove that any Constituent Assembly anywhere in the world has, in the
circumstances in which this country finds itself, provided such a facile
procedure for the amendment of the Constitution. If those who are dissatisfied
with the Constitution have only to obtain a 2/3 majority and if they .cannot
obtain even a two-thirds majority in the parliament elected on adult franchise
in their favour, their dissatisfaction with the Constitution cannot be deemed
to be shared by the general public.
There
is only one point of constitutional import to which I propose to make a
reference. A serious complaint is made on the ground that there is too much of
centralization and that the States have been reduced to Municipalities. It is
clear that this view is not only an exaggeration, but is also founded on a
misunderstanding of what exactly the Constitution contrives to do. As to the
relation between the Centre and the States, it is necessary to bear in mind the
fundamental principle on which it rests. The basic principle of Federalism is
that the Legislative and Executive authority is partitioned between-the Centre
and the States not by any law to be made by the Centre but by the Constitution
itself. This is what Constitution does. The States under our Constitution are
in no way dependent upon the Centre for their legislative or executive
authority. The Centre and the States are co equal in this matter. It is
difficult to see how such a Constitution-can be called centralism. It may be
that the Constitution assigns to the Centre too large a field for the operation
of its legislative and executive authority than is to be found in any other
federal Constitution. It may be that the residuary powers are given to the
Centre and not to the States. But these features do not form the essence of
federalism. The chief mark of federalism as I said lies in the partition of the
legislative and executive authority between the Centre and the Units by the
Constitution. This is the principle embodied in our constitution. There can be
no mistake about it. It is, therefore, wrong to say that the States have been
placed under the Centre. Centre cannot by its own will alter the boundary of
that partition. Nor can the Judiciary. For as has been well said:
“Courts
may modify, they cannot replace. They can revise earlier interpretations as new
arguments, new points of view are presented, they can shift the dividing line
in marginal cases, but there are barriers they cannot pass, definite
assignments of power they cannot reallocate. They can give a broadening
construction of existing powers, but they cannot assign to one authority powers
explicitly granted to another”
The
first charge of centralization defeating federalism must therefore fall.
The
second charge is that the Centre has been given the power to override the
States. This charge must be admitted. But before condemning the Constitution for
containing such overriding powers, certain considerations must be borne in
mind. The first is that these overriding powers do not form the normal feature
of the constitution. Their use and operation are expressly confined to
emergencies only. The second consideration is: Could we avoid giving overriding
powers to the Centre when an emergency has arisen? Those who do not admit the
justification for such overriding powers to the Centre even in an emergency, do
not seem to have a clear idea of the problem which lies at the root of the
matter. The problem is so clearly set out by a writer in that well-known
magazine "The Round Table" in its issue of December 1935 that I offer
no apology for quoting the following extract from it. Says the writer:
“Political
systems are a complex of rights and duties resting ultimately on the question,
to whom, or to what authority. Does the citizen owe allegiance? In normal
affairs the question is not present, for the law works smoothly, and a man,
goes about his business obeying one authority in this set of matters and
another authority in that. But in a moment of crisis, a conflict of claims may
arise, and it is then apparent that ultimate allegiance cannot be divided. The
issue of allegiance cannot be determined in the last resort by a juristic
interpretation of statutes. The law must conform to the facts or so much the
worse for the law. When all formalism is stripped away, the bare question is
what authority commands the residual loyalty of the citizen. Is it the Centre or
the Constituent State?”
The
solution of this problem depends upon one's answer to this question which is
the crux of the problem. There can be no doubt that in the opinion of the vast
majority of the people, the residual loyalty of the citizen in an emergency
must be to the Centre and not to the Constituent States. For it is only the
Centre which can work for a common end and for the general interests of the
country as a whole. Herein lies the justification for giving to all Centre
certain overriding powers to be used in an emergency. And after all what is'
the obligation imposed upon the Constituent States by these emergency powers?
No more than this - that in an emergency, they should take into consideration
alongside their own local interests, the opinions and interests of the nation
as a whole. Only those who have, but understood the problem, can complain
against it.
Here
I could have ended. But my mind is so full of the future of our country that I
feel I ought to take this occasion to give expression to some of my reflections
thereon. On her January 1950, India will be an independent country (Cheers).
What would happen to his independence? Will she maintain her independence or
will she lose it again? This is the first thought that comes to my mind. It is
not that India was never an independent country. The point is that she once
lost the independence she had. Will she lose it a second time? It is this
thought which makes me most anxious for the future. What perturbs me greatly is
the fact -that not only India has once before lost her independence, but -she
lost it by the infidelity and treachery of some of her own people. In the
invasion of Sind by Mahommed-Bin-Kasim, the military commanders of King Dahar
accepted bribes from the agents of Mahommed-Bin-Kasim and refused to fight on
the side of their King. It was Jaichand who invited Mahommed Gohri to invade
'India and fight against Prithvi Raj and promised him the help of himself and
the Solanki Kings. When Shivaji was fighting for the liberation of Hindus, the
other Maratha noblemen and the Rajput Kings were fighting the battle on the
side of Moghul Emperors. When the British were trying to destroy the Sikh
Rulers, Gulab Singh, their principal commander sat silent and did not help to
save the Sikh Kingdom. In 1857, when a large part of India had declared a war
of independence against the British, the Sikhs stood and watched the event as
silent spectators.
Will
history repeat itself? It is this thought which fills me with anxiety. This
anxiety is deepened by the realization of the fact that in addition to our old
enemies in the form of castes and creeds . we are going to have many political
parties with diverse and opposing political creeds. Will Indian place the
country above their creed or will they place creed above country? I do not
know. But this much is certain that if the parties place creed above country,
our independence will be put in jeopardy a second time and probably be lost for
ever. This eventuality we must all resolutely guard against. We must be
determined to defend our independence with the last drop of our blood.(Cheers.)
On
the 26th of January 1950, India would be a democratic country in the sense that
India from that day would have a government of the people, by the people and
for the people. The same thought comes to my mind. What would happen to her
democratic Constitution? Will she be able to maintain it or will she lost it
again this is the second thought that comes to my mind and makes me as anxious
as the first.
It
is not that India did not know what Democracy is. There was a time when India
was studded with republics, and even where there were monarchies, they were
either elected or limited. They were never absolute. It is not that India did
not know Parliaments or Parliamentary Procedure. A study of the Buddhist
Bhikshu Sanghas discloses that not only there were Parliaments-for the Sanghas
were nothing but Parliaments - but the Sanghas knew and observed all the rules
of Parliamentary Procedure known to modern times. They had rules regarding
seating arrangements, rules regarding Motions, Resolutions, Quorum, Whip,
Counting of Votes, Voting by Ballot, Censure Motion, Regularization, Res
Judicata, etc. Although these rules of Parliamentary Procedure were applied by
the Buddha to the meetings of the Sang has, he must have borrowed them from the
rules of the Political Assemblies functioning in the country in his time.
This
democratic system India lost. Will she lose it a second time? I do not know.
But-it is quite possible in a country like India - where democracy from its
long disuse must be regarded as something quite new - there is danger of
democracy giving place to dictatorship. It is quite possible for this new born
democracy to retain its form but give place to dictatorship in fact. If there
is a landslide, the danger of the second possibility becoming· actuality is
much greater.
If
we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must
we do? The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to
constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It
means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must
abandon the method of civil disobedience, non cooperation and satyagraha. When
there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and
social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional
methods. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no
justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but
the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.
The
second thing we must do is to observe the caution which John Stuart Mill has
given to all who are interested in the maintenance of democracy, namely, not
“to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with
power which enable him to subvert their institutions.” There is nothing wrong
in being grateful to great men who have rendered life-long services to the
country. But there are limits to gratefulness, As has been well said by the
Irish Patriot Daniel O’Connell, no man can be grateful at the cost of his
honour, no woman can be grateful at the cost of her chastity and no nation can
be grateful at the cost of its liberty. This caution is far more necessary in
the case of India than in the case of any other country. For in India, Bhakti
or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its
politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any
other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation
of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero- worship is a sure road to
degradation and to eventual dictatorship.
The
third thing we must do is not to be content with mere political democracy. We
must make our political democracy a social democracy as well. Political
democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy.
What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life which recognizes
liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of
liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of
liberty, equality and fraternity are not to be treated as separate items in a
trinity. They form a union of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the
other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy. Liberty cannot be divorced
from equality, equality cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and
equality be divorced from fraternity. Without equality, liberty would produce
the supremacy of the few over the many. [Equality
without liberty would kill individual initiative.] Without fraternity,
liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. [Equality without liberty would kill
individual initiative.] Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not
become a natural course of things. It would require a constable to enforce
them. We must begin by acknowledging the fact that there is complete absence of
two things in Indian Society. One of these is equality. On the social plane, we
have in India a society based on the principle of graded inequality which we
have a society in which there are some who have immense wealth as against many
who live in abject poverty. On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter
into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social
and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognizing
the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and
economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure,
continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall we continue
to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny
equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long,
we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove
this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer
from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which is
Assembly has to laboriously built up.
The
second thing we are wanting in is recognition of the principle of fraternity.
What does fraternity mean? Fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood of
all Indians-if Indians being one people. It is the principle which gives unity
and solidarity to social life. It is a difficult thing to achieve. How
difficult it is, can be realized 'from the story related by James Bryce in his
volume on American Commonwealth about the United States of America.
The
story is- I propose to recount it in the words of Bryce himself that-
“Some
years ago the American Protestant Episcopal Church was occupied at its
triennial Convention in revising its liturgy. It was thought desirable to
introduce among the short sentence prayers a prayer for the whole people, and
an eminent New England divine proposed the words ‘O’ Lord, bless our nation'.
Accepted one afternoon, on the spur of the moment, the sentence was brought up
next day for reconsideration, when so many objections were raised by the laity
to the word nation' as importing too definite a recognition of national unity,
that it was dropped, and instead there were adopted the words' 0 Lord, bless
these United States.”
There
was so little solidarity in the U.S.A. at the time when this incident occurred
that the people of America did not think that they were a nation. If the people
of the United States could not feel that they were a nation, how difficult it
is for Indians to think that they are a nation. I remember the days when
politically- minded Indians, resented the expression "the people of
India." They preferred the expression the Indian nation." I am of
opinion that in believing that we are a nation, we are cherishing a great
delusion. How can people divided into several thousands of castes be a nation?
The sooner we realize that we are not as yet a nation in the social and
psychological sense of the world, the better for us. For then only we shall
realize the necessity of becoming a nation and seriously think of ways and
means of realising the goal. The realization of this goal is going to be very
difficult - far more difficult than it has been in the United States. The
United States has no caste problem. In India there are castes. The castes are
anti-national. In the first place because they bring about separation in social
life. They are anti-national also because they generate jealousy and antipathy
between caste and caste. But we must overcome all these difficulties if we wish
to become a nation in reality. For fraternity can be a fact only when there is
a nation. Without fraternity equality and liberty will be no deeper than coats
of paint.
These
are my reflections about the tasks that lie ahead of us. They may not be very
pleasant to some. But there can be no gainsaying that political power in this
country has too long been the monopoly of a few and the many are only beasts of
burden, but also beasts of prey. This monopoly has not merely deprived them of
their chance of betterment; it has sapped them of what may be called the
significance of life. These down-trodden classes are tired of being governed.
They are impatient to govern themselves. This urge for self-realization in the
down-trodden classes must no be allowed to devolve into a class struggle or
class war. It would lead to a division of the House. That would indeed be a day
of disaster. For, as has been well said by Abraham Lincoln, a House divided
against itself cannot stand very long. Therefore the sooner room is made for
the realization of their aspiration, the better for the few, the better for the
country, the better for the maintenance for its independence and the better for
the continuance of its democratic structure. This can only be done by the establishment
of equality and fraternity in all spheres of life. That is why I have laid so
much Stresses on them.
I
do not wish to weary the House any further. Independence is no doubt a matter
of joy. But let us not forget that this independence has thrown on us great
responsibilities. By independence, we have lost the excuse of blaming the
British for anything going wrong. If hereafter’ things go wrong, we will have
nobody to blame. Except ourselves. There is great danger of things going wrong.
Times are fast changing. People including our own are being moved by new
ideologies. They are getting tired of Government by the people. They are
prepared to have Governments for the people and are indifferent whether it is
Government of the people and by the people. If we wish to preserve the
Constitution in which we have sought to enshrine the principle of Government of
the people, for the people and by the people, let us resolve not to be tardy in
the recognition of the evils that lie across our path and which induce people
to prefer Government for the people to Government by the people, nor to be weak
in our initiative to remove them. That is the only way to serve the country. I
know of no better,
No comments:
Post a Comment