Shri R. V.

Dhulekar: *[Sir, I submit that the period of two hours that will be given to us tomorrow for general dis ussion is too short. It is a different matter that hundreds of amendments will be re eived. !hen ever" membergets an opportunit" of e#pressing his views, the amendmentsthat are tabled after a dis ussion of a few da"s, arealtered. $he amendments are not referred to in thedis ussion. $herefore I re%uest that if we are given threeor four da"s& time for dis ussion and ever" 'ember is askedto observe the rule that he should not speak for more thanfifteen minutes, ever" 'ember then will have thesatisfa tion that he has made his ontribution in the (ousein the framing of the onstitution. I submit that one da"means onl" five hours time. If Dr. )mbedkar takes it up atfour toda" and takes half the time tomorrow, there willhardl" be left an" time for us. $herefore I humbl" re%uestthat we ma" be given an opportunit" of speaking on thishighl" important onstitution. $he opportunit" of framingthe onstitution does not ome over and over again andever"one desires to speak out whatever he has to sa" for his ountr" and nation. I want to submit also that whatever wespeak here is not meant for this (ouse onl" or for thepresent time onl". !hatever is spoken here will be read evenafter hundred or two hundred or four hundred "ears and thepeople will ome to know of the views of their an estors ona parti ular point. $he" will interpret it a ordingl".$herefore, Sir, I think we the 'embers in this (ouse will behighl" obliged if at least four da"s are granted to us.*ver"one of us wants onl" fifteen minutes and I want to tell"ou on behalf of other 'embers also that if this opportunit"is given to us, we shall sit together and ome to a de isionregarding the hundreds of amendments that ma" be broughtforward and the 'embers of this (ouse will help "ou infinalising the onstitution as %ui kl" as possible.+ 'r. ,resident: *[!e shall onsider this later on. $hetime now being spent on the preliminar" dis ussion redu esthe time available for detailed dis ussion. $herefore, Iwould ask that "ou allow the real work to start.+ ----------------------------* [+ $ranslation of (industani spee h. ,andit $hakur Dass .hargava /*ast ,un0ab: 1eneral2:*['r. ,resident, at the ver" outset I would like to en%uirewhether the (onourable Dr. )mbedkar has given an" noti e ofhis intention to introdu e the Draft 3onstitution asre%uired b" the Rule 45-6 or not. I am asking for thisinformation, be ause if no su h noti e has been given, I amafraid he an not move for onsideration. ) ording to therules five da"s& noti e is ne essar".+ 'r. ,resident: *[7es8 It has been in luded there. Ithas been in luded in the )genda. It being a re-draft all theamendments will be up again.+

,andit $hakur Dass .hargava: *[)nother point whi h Iwanted to bring to "our noti e falls under Rules 45-'. $he op" of the draft onstitution, whi h is a redraft, hasbeen given to us 0ust toda" at the time when "ou weread0ourning the (ouse for lun h, whereas it should haverea hed us mu h earlier. I think all the 'embers have notre eived a op" ea h so far. ) ording to Rule 45-'. su h opies should rea h the 'embers at least three da"s before,more parti ularl" for the reason that it ontains variousreports on new matters. 9nless it has been thoroughl" readand studied, how an amendments be sent:+ 'r. ,resident: *[!hi h op" are "ou referring to: $heDraft 3onstitution pla ed before "ou b" Dr. )mbedkar of ;<st=ebruar", the opies of whi h were distributed, will bemoved b" him and the amendments on it will be proposed asamendments and the" will be moved on behalf of the Drafting 3ommittee .+ ,andit $hakur Dass .hargava: *[$he third point forsubmission on whi h I respe tfull" want to la" more emphasisis regarding the interpretation of Rule 45->. In m" opinionthe view that the words ?two lear da"s before the @da"& onwhi h the onstitution is to be onsidered? in Rule 45-> isthat all the amendments should rea h the offi e b" Sunda"before A ,.'., is not orre t for the reason that the onstitution shall not be taken up for onsideration on theBth Covember onl"D rather, its onsideration will ontinuefrom da" to da" when the lauses will be dis ussed. $herewill be other dates further on after whi h it would bestated that the 3onstitution will be onsidered on thoseparti ular dates. $hat being the ase, 'embers have theright to send in their amendments, two da"s before the datewhen the parti ular amendments shall be dis ussed.+ 'r. ,resident: *[6et us not take a de ision on thispoint at this stage.+ ,andit $hakur Dass .hargava: *[I am aware that "ou wantto give full opportunit" to the 'embers for dis ussion andthat their right of giving noti e of amendments shouldremain inta t. *ver" 'ember has onfiden e in the matter of the e#er ise of "our dis retion. .ut in m" humble opinion,the %uestion of dis retion does not arise here, be ausea ording to m" interpretation, ever" 'ember an send inamendments as a matter or right. $his is also the intentionof Rules 45-, and 45E. 7our order that 'embers should sendtheir amendments b" A o& lo k on Sunda" goes in a wa", primafa ie, against the 'embers, whi h is not in order and shouldbe reviewed. 7ou ma" not de ide it now, if "ou do not wantto, though in identall" and in a wa", the de ision is there.In m" humble opinion, if without reviewing the order, "oue#tend the date, instead of Fth, to <Gth and de ide the%uestion, when o asion arises, then nobod" will have an"grievan e.+ Shri $. 3hanniah /'"sore State2: >n a point of order,'r. ,resident, Sir, most of the honourable 'embers who spokepreviousl" know the *nglish language ver" well. !e are ver"sorr" to bring it to "our noti e that most of the

'embers,espe iall" 'embers oming from 'adras, from .engal, .omba",)ssam and man" other pla es annot understand (indi or(industani. !e have ----------------------* [+ $ranslation of (industani spee h. to sit almost like dumb people. 'r. ,resident, Sir, "ou arehere to prote t the interests of all the 'embers. I would,therefore, re%uest "ou to see that all those members whoknow *nglish and who are able to speak in *nglish are madeto speak in *nglish. '>$I>C re DR)=$ 3>CS$I$9$I>C 'r. ,resident: I think we shall now pro eed with thedis ussion. I all upon the (onourable Dr. )mbedkar to movehis motion. $he (onourable Dr. .. R. )mbedkar /.omba": 1eneral2:'r. ,resident, Sir, I introdu e the Draft 3onstitution assettled b" the Drafting 3ommittee and move that it be takeninto onsideration. $he Drafting 3ommittee was appointed b" a Resolutionpassed b" the 3onstituent )ssembl" on )ugust ;B, <BHF. $he Drafting 3ommittee was in effe t harged with thedut" of preparing a 3onstitution in a ordan e with thede isions of the 3onstituent )ssembl" on the reports made b"the various 3ommittees appointed b" it su h as the 9nion,owers 3ommittee, the 9nion 3onstitution 3ommittee, the,rovin ial 3onstitution 3ommittee and the )dvisor" 3ommitteeon =undamental Rights, 'inorities, $ribal )reas, et . $he3onstituent )ssembl" had also dire ted that in ertainmatters the provisions ontained in the 1overnment of India) t, <B4A, should be followed. *# ept on points whi h arereferred to in m" letter of the ;<st =ebruar" <BH5 in whi hI have referred to the departures made and alternativessuggested b" the Drafting 3ommittee, I hope the Drafting 3ommittee will be found to have faithfull" arried out thedire tions given to it. $he Draft 3onstitution as it has emerged from theDrafting 3ommittee is a formidable do ument. It ontains 4<A)rti les and 5 S hedules. It must be admitted that the3onstitution of no ountr" ould be found to be so bulk" asthe Draft 3onstitution. It would be diffi ult for those whohave not been through it to realiIe its salient and spe ialfeatures.

$he Draft 3onstitution has been before the publi foreight months. During this long time friends, riti s andadversaries have had more than suffi ient time to e#presstheir rea tions to the provisions ontained in it. I daresa" some of them are based on misunderstanding andinade%uate understanding of the )rti les. .ut there the riti isms are and the" have to be answered. =or both these reasons it is ne essar" that on a motionfor onsideration I should draw "our attention to thespe ial features of the 3onstitution and also meet the riti ism that has been levelled against it. .efore I pro eed to do so I would like to pla e on thetable of the (ouse Reports of three 3ommittees appointed b"the 3onstituent )ssembl" */<2 Report of the 3ommittee on3hief 3ommissioners& ,rovin es /:2/;2 Report of the *#pert3ommittee on =inan ial Relations between the 9nion and theStates, and /::2/42 Report of the )dvisor" 3ommittee on$ribal )reas, whi h ame too late to be onsidered b" that)ssembl" though opies of them have been ir ulated to'embers of the )ssembl". )s these reports and there ommendations made therein have been onsidered b" theDrafting 3ommittee it is onl" proper that the (ouse shouldformall" be pla ed in possession of them. $urning to the main %uestion. ) student of3onstitutional 6aw if a op" of a 3onstitution is pla ed inhis hands is sure to ask two %uestions. =irstl" what is theform of 1overnment that is envisaged in the 3onstitutionDand ---------------------* )ppendi# ). /:2 )ppendi# .. /::2 )ppendi# 3 /< to 42. se ondl" what is the form of the 3onstitution: =or these arethe two ru ial matters whi h ever" 3onstitution has to dealwith. I will begin with the first of the two %uestions. In the Draft 3onstitution there is pla ed at the headof the Indian 9nion a fun tionar" who is alled the,resident of the 9nion. $he title of this fun tionar"reminds one of the ,resident of the 9nited States. .utbe"ond identit" of names there is nothing in ommon betweenthe form of 1overnment prevalent in )meri a and the form of1overnment proposed under the Draft 3onstitution. $he)meri an form of 1overnment is alled the ,residentials"stem of 1overnment. !hat the Draft 3onstitution proposesis the ,arliamentar" s"stem. $he two are fundamentall"different. 9nder the ,residential s"stem of )meri a, the ,residentis the 3hief head of the *#e utive. $he administration isvested in him. 9nder the Draft 3onstitution the ,residento upies the same position as the Jing under the *nglish3onstitution. (e is the head of the State but not of the*#e utive. (e represents the Cation but does

not rule theCation. (e is the s"mbol of the nation. (is pla e in theadministration is that of a eremonial devi e on a seal b"whi h the nation&s de isions are made known. 9nder the)meri an 3onstitution the ,resident has under himSe retaries in harge of different Departments. In likemanner the ,resident of the Indian 9nion will have under him'inisters in harge of different Departments of administration. (ere again there is a fundamental differen ebetween the two. $he ,resident of the 9nited States is notbound to a ept an" advi e tendered to him b" an" of hisSe retaries. $he ,resident of the Indian 9nion will begenerall" bound b" the advi e of his 'inisters. (e an donothing ontrar" to their advi e nor an he do an" thingwithout their advi e. $he ,resident of the 9nited States andismiss an" Se retar" at an" time. $he ,resident of theIndian 9nion has no power to do so long as his 'inisters ommand a ma0orit" in ,arliament. $he ,residential s"stem of )meri a is based upon theseparation of the *#e utive and the 6egislature. So that the,resident and his Se retaries annot be members of the3ongress. $he Draft 3onstitution does not re ognise thisdo trine. $he 'inisters under the Indian 9nion are membersof ,arliament. >nl" members of ,arliament an be ome'inisters. 'inisters have the same rights as other membersof ,arliament, namel", that the" an sit in ,arliament, takepart in debates and vote in its pro eedings. .oth s"stems of1overnment are of ourse demo rati and the hoi e betweenthe two is not ver" eas". ) demo rati e#e utive mustsatisf" two onditions - /<2 It must be a stable e#e utiveand /;2 it must be a responsible e#e utive. 9nfortunatel" ithas not been possible so far to devise a s"stem whi h anensure both in e%ual degree. 7ou an have a s"stem whi h angive "ou more stabilit" but less responsibilit" or "ou anhave a s"stem whi h gives "ou more responsibilit" but lessstabilit". $he )meri an and the Swiss s"stems give morestabilit" but less responsibilit". $he .ritish s"stem on theother hand gives "ou more responsibilit" but less stabilit".$he reason for this is obvious. $he )meri an *#e utive is anon-,arliamentar" *#e utive whi h means that it is notdependent for its e#isten e upon a ma0orit" in the 3ongress,while the .ritish s"stem is a ,arliamentar" *#e utive whi hmeans that it is not dependent for its e#isten e upon ama0orit" in the 3ongress, while the .ritish s"stem is a,arliamentar" *#e utive whi h means that it is dependentupon a ma0orit" in ,arliament. .eing a non,arliamentar"*#e utive, the 3ongress of the 9nited States annot dismissthe *#e utive. ) ,arliamentar" 1overnment must resign themoment it loses the onfiden e of a ma0orit" of the membersof ,arliament. 6ooking at it from the point of view ofresponsibilit", a non-,arliamentar" *#e utive beingindependent of parliament tends to be less responsible tothe 6egislature, while a ,arliamentar" *#e utive being moredependent upon a ma0orit" in ,arliament be ome moreresponsible. $he,arliamentar" s"stem differs from a non-,arliamentar" s"stemin as mu h as the former is more responsible than the latterbut the" also differ as to the time and agen " forassessment of their responsibilit". 9nder the non-,arliamentar" s"stem, su h as the one that e#ists in the9.S.)., the assessment of the responsibilit" of the*#e utive is periodi . It is done b" the *le torate.

In*ngland, where the ,arliamentar" s"stem prevails, theassessment of responsibilit" of the *#e utive is both dail"and periodi . $he dail" assessment is done b" members of,arliament, through %uestions, Resolutions, Coonfiden emotions, )d0ournment motions and Debates on )ddresses.,eriodi assessment is done b" the *le torate at the time of the ele tion whi h ma" take pla e ever" five "ears orearlier. $he Dail" assessment of responsibilit" whi h is notavailable under the )meri an s"stem is it is felt far moreeffe tive than the periodi assessment and far morene essar" in a ountr" like India. $he Draft 3onstitution inre ommending the ,arliamentar" s"stem of *#e utive haspreferred more responsibilit" to more stabilit". So far I have e#plained the form of 1overnment underthe Draft 3onstitution. I will now turn to the other%uestion, namel", the form of the 3onstitution. $wo prin ipal forms of the 3onstitution are known tohistor" - one is alled 9nitar" and the other =ederal. $hetwo essential hara teristi s of a 9nitar" 3onstitution are:/<2 the suprema " of the 3entral ,olit" and /;2 the absen eof subsidiar" Sovereign polities. 3ontrariwise, a =ederal3onstitution is marked: /<2 b" the e#isten e of a 3entralpolit" and subsidiar" polities side b" side, and /;2 b" ea hbeing sovereign in the field assigned to it. In other words.=ederation means the establishment of a Dual ,olit". $heDraft 3onstitution is, =ederal 3onstitution inasmu h as itestablishes what ma" be alled a Dual ,olit". $his Dual,olit" under the proposed 3onstitution will onsist of the9nion at the 3entre and the States at the peripher" ea hendowed with sovereign powers to be e#er ised in the fieldassigned to them respe tivel" b" the 3onstitution. $his dualpolit" resembles the )meri an 3onstitution. $he )meri anpolit" is also a dual polit", one of it is known as the=ederal 1overnment and the other States whi h orrespondrespe tivel" to the 9nion 1overnment and the States1overnment of the Draft 3onstitution. 9nder the )meri an3onstitution the =ederal 1overnment is not a mere league of the States nor are the States administrative units oragen ies of the =ederal 1overnment. In the same wa" theIndian 3onstitution proposed in the Draft 3onstitution isnot a league of States nor are the States administrativeunits or agen ies of the 9nion 1overnment. (ere, however,the similarities between the Indian and the )meri an3onstitution ome to an end. $he differen es thatdistinguish them are more fundamental and glaring than thesimilarities between the two. $he points of differen e between the )meri an=ederation and the Indian =ederation are mainl" two. In the9.S.). this dual polit" is followed b" a dual itiIenship.In the 9.S.). there is a itiIenship of the 9.S.). .ut thereis also a itiIenship of the State. Co doubt the rigours ofthis double itiIenship are mu h assuaged b" the fourteenthamendment to the 3onstitution of the 9nited States whi hprohibits the States from taking awa" the rights, privilegesand immunities of the itiIen of the 9nited States. )t thesame time, as pointed out b" 'r. !illiam

)nderson, in ertain politi al matters, in luding the right to vote andto hold publi offi e, States ma" and do dis riminate infavour of their own itiIens. $his favoritism goes evenfarther in man" ases. $hus to obtain emplo"ment in theservi e of a State or lo al 1overnment one is in most pla esre%uired to the be a lo al resident or itiIen. Similarl" inthe li ensing of persons for the pra ti e of su h publi professions as law and medi ine, residen e or itiIenship inthe State is fre%uentl" re%uiredD and in business wherepubli regulation must ne essaril" bestri t, as in the sale of li%uor, and of sto ks and bonds,similar re%uirements have been upheld. *a h State has also ertain rights in its own domainthat it holds for the spe ial advantage of its own itiIens.$hus wild game and fish in a sense belong to the State. It is ustomar" for the States to harge higher hunting andfishing li ense fees to non-residents than to its own itiIens. $he States also harge non-residents highertuition in State 3olleges and 9niversities, and permit onl"residents to be admitted to their hospitals and as"lumse# ept in emergen ies. In short, there are a number of rights that a State angrant to its own itiIens or residents that it ma" and doeslegall" den" to non-residents, or grant to nonresidentsonl" on more diffi ult terms than those imposed onresidents. $hese advantages, given to the itiIen in his ownState, onstitute the spe ial rights of State itiIenship.$aken all together, the" amount to a onsiderable differen ein rights between itiIens and non- itiIens of the State.$he transient and the temporar" so0ourner is ever"whereunder some spe ial handi aps. $he proposed Indian 3onstitution is a dual polit" witha single itiIenship. $here is onl" one itiIenship for thewhole of India. It is Indian itiIenship. $here is no State itiIenship. *ver" Indian has the same rights of itiIenship, no matter in what State he resides. $he dual polit" of the proposed Indian 3onstitutiondiffers from the dual polit" of the 9.S.). in anotherrespe t. In the 9.S.). the 3onstitutions of the =ederal andthe States 1overnments are loosel" onne ted. In des ribingthe relationship between the =ederal and State 1overnment inthe 9.S.)., .r" e has said: ?$he 3entral or national 1overnment and the State1overnments ma" be ompared to a large building and a set ofsmaller buildings standing on the same ground, "et distin tfrom ea h other.? Distin t the" are, but how distin t are the State1overnments in the 9.S.). from the =ederal 1overnment: Someidea of this distin tness ma" be obtained from the followingfa ts:

<. Sub0e t to the maintenan e of the republi an form of1overnment, ea h State in )meri a is free to make its own3onstitution. ;. $he people of a State retain for ever in theirhands, altogether independent of the Cational 1overnment,the power of altering their 3onstitution. $o put it again in the words of .r" e: ?) State /in )meri a2 e#ists as a ommonwealth b"virtue of its own 3onstitution, and all State )uthorities,legislative, e#e utive and 0udi ial are the reatures of,and sub0e t to the 3onstitution.? $his is not true of the proposed Indian 3onstitution. CoStates /at an" rate those in ,art I2 have a right to frameits own 3onstitution. $he 3onstitution of the 9nion and of the States is a single frame from whi h neither an get outand within whi h the" must work. So far I have drawn attention to the differen e betweenthe )meri an =ederation and the proposed Indian =ederation..ut there are some other spe ial features of the proposedIndian =ederation whi h mark it off not onl" from the)meri an =ederation but from all other =ederations. )llfederal s"stems in luding the )meri an are pla ed in a tightmould of federalism. Co matter what the ir umstan es, it annot hange its form and shape. It an never be unitar".>n the other hand the Draft 3onstitution an be both unitar"as well as federal a ording to the re%uirements of time and ir umstan es. In normal times, it is framed to work as afederal s"stem. .ut in times of warit is so designed as to make it work as though it was aunitar" s"stem. >n e the ,resident issues a ,ro lamationwhi h he is authorised to do under the ,rovisions of )rti le;FA, the whole s ene an be ome transformed and the Statebe omes a unitar" state. $he 9nion under the ,ro lamation an laim if it wants /<2 the power to legislate upon an"sub0e t even though it ma" be in the State list, /;2 thepower to give dire tions to the States as to how the" shoulde#er ise their e#e utive authorit" in matters whi h arewithin their harge, /42 the power to vest authorit" for an"purpose in an" offi er, and /H2 the power to suspend thefinan ial provisions of the 3onstitution. Su h a power of onverting itself into a unitar" State no federationpossesses. $his is one point of differen e between the=ederation proposed in the Draft 3onstitution, and all other=ederations we know of. $his is not the onl" differen e between the proposedIndian =ederation and other federations. =ederalism isdes ribed as a weak if not an effete form of 1overnment.$here are two weaknesses from whi h =ederation is alleged tosuffer. >ne is rigidit" and the other is legalism. $hatthese faults are inherent in =ederalism, there an be nodispute. ) =ederal 3onstitution annot but be a written3onstitution and a written 3onstitution must ne essaril" bea rigid 3onstitution. ) =ederal 3onstitution means divisionof Sovereignt" b" no less a

san tion than that of the law of the 3onstitution between the =ederal 1overnment and theStates, with two ne essar" onse%uen es /<2 that an"invasion b" the =ederal 1overnment in the field assigned tothe States and vi e versa is a brea h of the 3onstitutionand /;2 su h brea h is a 0usti iable matter to be determinedb" the Kudi iar" onl". $his being the nature of federalism,a federal 3onstitution have been found in a pronoun ed formin the 3onstitution of the 9nited States of )meri a. 3ountries whi h have adopted =ederalism at a later datehave attempted to redu e the disadvantages following fromthe rigidit" and legalism whi h are inherent therein. $hee#ample of )ustralia ma" well be referred to in this matter.$he )ustralian 3onstitution has adopted the following meansto make its federation less rigid: /<2 ." onferring upon the ,arliament of the 3ommonwealth large powers of on urrent 6egislation and few powers of e# lusive 6egislation. /;2 ." making some of the )rti les of the 3onstitution of a temporar" duration to remain in for e onl" ?until ,arliament otherwise provides.? It is obvious that under the )ustralian 3onstitution,the )ustralian ,arliament an do man" things, whi h are notwithin the ompeten e of the )meri an 3ongress and for doingwhi h the )meri an 1overnment will have to resort to theSupreme 3ourt and depend upon its abilit", ingenuit" andwillingness to invent a do trine to 0ustif" it the e#er iseof authorit". In assuaging the rigour of rigidit" and legalism theDraft 3onstitution follows the )ustralian plan on a far moree#tensive s ale than has been done in )ustralia. 6ike the)ustralian 3onstitution, it has a long list of sub0e ts for on urrent powers of legislation. 9nder the )ustralian3onstitution, on urrent sub0e ts are 4B. 9nder the Draft 3onstitution the" are 4F. =ollowing the )ustralian3onstitution there are as man" as si# )rti les in the Draft 3onstitution, where the provisions are of a temporar"duration and whi h ould be repla ed b" ,arliament at an"time b" provisions suitable for the o asion. $he biggestadvan e made b" the Draft 3onstitution over the )ustralian3onstitution is inthe matter of e# lusive powers of legislation vested in,arliament. !hile the e# lusive authorit" of the )ustralian,arliament to legislate e#tends onl" to about 4 matters, theauthorit" of the Indian ,arliament as proposed in the Draft 3onstitution will e#tend to B< matters. In this wa" theDraft 3onstitution has se ured the greatest possibleelasti it" in its federalism whi h is supposed to be rigidb" nature. It is not enough to sa" that the Draft 3onstitutionfollows the )ustralian 3onstitution or follows it on a moree#tensive s ale. !hat is to be noted is that it has addednew wa"s of over oming the rigidit" and legalism inherent infederalism whi h are spe ial to it and whi h are not to befound elsewhere.

=irst is the power given to ,arliament to legislate one# lusivel" provin ial sub0e ts in normal times. I refer to)rti les ;;L, ;;F and ;;B. 9nder )rti le ;;L ,arliament anlegislate when a sub0e t be omes a matter of national on ern as distinguished from purel" ,rovin ial on ern,though the sub0e t is in the State list, provided aresolution is passed b" the 9pper 3hamber b" ;M4rd ma0orit"in favour of su h e#er ise of the power b" the 3entre.)rti le ;;F gives the similar power to ,arliament in anational emergen ". 9nder )rti le ;;B ,arliament ane#er ise the same power if ,rovin es onsent to su he#er ise. $hough the last provision also e#ists in the)ustralian 3onstitution the first two are a spe ial featureof the Draft 3onstitution. $he se ond means adopted to avoid rigidit" and legalismis the provision for fa ilit" with whi h the 3onstitution ould be amended. $he provisions of the 3onstitutionrelating to the amendment of the 3onstitution divide the)rti les of the 3onstitution into two groups. In the onegroup are pla ed )rti les relating to /a2 the distributionof legislative powers between the 3entre and the States, /b2the representation of the States in ,arliament, and / 2 thepowers of the 3ourts. )ll other )rti les are pla ed inanother group. )rti les pla ed in the se ond group over aver" large part of the 3onstitution and an be amended b",arliament b" a double ma0orit", namel", a ma0orit" of notless than two thirds of the members of ea h (ouse presentand voting and b" a ma0orit" of the total membership of ea h(ouse. $he amendment of these )rti les does not re%uireratifi ation b" the States. It is onl" in those )rti leswhi h are pla ed in group one that an additional safeguardof ratifi ation b" the States is introdu ed. >ne an therefore safel" sa" that the Indian =ederationwill not suffer from the faults of rigidit" or legalism. Itsdistinguishing feature is that it is a fle#ible federation. $here is another spe ial feature of the proposed Indian=ederation whi h distinguishes it from other federations. )=ederation being a dual polit" based on divided authorit"with separate legislative, e#e utive and 0udi ial powers forea h of the two polities is bound to produ e diversit" inlaws, in administration and in 0udi ial prote tion. 9pto a ertain point this diversit" does not matter. It ma" bewel omed as being an attempt to a ommodate the powers of1overnment to lo al needs and lo al ir umstan es. .ut thisver" diversit" when it goes be"ond a ertain point is apable of produ ing haos and has produ ed haos in man"federal States. >ne has onl" to imagine twent" differentlaws-if we have twent" States in the 9nion-of marriage, ofdivor e, of inheritan e of propert", famil" relations, ontra ts, torts, rimes, weights and measures, of bills and he%ues, banking and ommer e, of pro edures for obtaining0usti e and in the standards and methods of administration.Su h a state of affairs not onl" weakens the State butbe omes intolerant to the itiIen who moves from State toState onl" to find that what is lawful in one State is notlawful in another. $he Draft 3onstitution has

sought toforge means and methods whereb" India will have =ederationand at the same timewill have uniformit" in all basi matters whi h areessential to maintain the unit" of the ountr". $he meansadopted b" the Draft 3onstitution are three /<2 a single 0udi iar", /;2 uniformit"-in fundamental laws, ivil and riminal, and /42 a ommon )ll-India 3ivil Servi e to man important posts. ) dual 0udi iar", a dualit" of legal odes and adualit" of ivil servi es, as I said, are the logi al onse%uen es of a dual polit" whi h is inherent in afederation. In the 9. S. ). the =ederal Kudi iar" and theState Kudi iar" are separate and independent of ea h other.$he Indian =ederation though a Dual ,olit" has no DualKudi iar" at all. $he (igh 3ourts and the Supreme 3ourt formone single integrated Kudi iar" having 0urisdi tion andproviding remedies in all ases arising under the onstitutional law, the ivil law or the riminal law. $hisis done to eliminate all diversit" in all remedialpro edure. 3anada is the onl" ountr" whi h furnishes a lose parallel. $he )ustralian s"stem is onl" anappro#imation. 3are is taken to eliminate all diversit" from lawswhi h are at the basis of ivi and orporate life. $hegreat 3odes of 3ivil N 3riminal 6aws, su h as the 3ivil,ro edure 3ode, ,enal 3ode, the 3riminal ,ro edure 3ode, the*viden e ) t, $ransfer of ,ropert" ) t, 6aws of 'arriageDivor e, and Inheritan e, are either pla ed in the3on urrent 6ist so that the ne essar" uniformit" an alwa"sbe preserved without impairing the federal s"stem. $he dual polit" whi h is inherent in a federal s"stemas I said is followed in all federations b" a dual servi e.In all =ederations there is a =ederal 3ivil Servi e and aState 3ivil Servi e. $he Indian =ederation though a Dual,olit" will have a Dual Servi e but with one e# eption. It is re ogniIed that in ever" ountr" there are ertain postsin its administrative set up whi h might be alled strategi from the point of view of maintaining the standard of administration. It ma" not be eas" to spot su h posts in alarge and ompli ated ma hiner" of administration. .ut there an be no doubt that the standard of administration dependsupon the alibre of the 3ivil Servants who are appointed tothese strategi posts. =ortunatel" for us we have inheritedfrom the past s"stem of administration whi h is ommon tothe whole of the ountr" and we know what are thesestrategi posts. $he 3onstitution provides that withoutdepriving the States of their right to form their own 3ivilServi es there shall be an )ll India servi e re ruited on an)ll India basis with ommon %ualifi ations, with uniforms ale of pa" and the members of whi h alone ould beappointed to these strategi posts throughout the 9nion. Su h are the spe ial

features of the proposed=ederation. I will now turn to what the riti s have had tosa" about it. It is said that there is nothing new in the Draft 3onstitution, that about half of it has been opied from the1overnment of India ) t of <B4A and that the rest of it hasbeen borrowed from the 3onstitutions of other ountries.Ver" little of it an laim originalit". >ne likes to ask whether there an be an"thing new in a3onstitution framed at this hour in the histor" of theworld. 'ore than hundred "ears have rolled over when thefirst written 3onstitution was drafted. It has been followedb" man" ountries redu ing their 3onstitutions to writing.!hat the s ope of a 3onstitution should be has long beensettled. Similarl" what are the fundamentals of a3onstitution are re ogniIed all over the world. 1iven thesefa ts, all 3onstitutions in their main provisions must looksimilar. $he onl" new things, if there an be an", in a3onstitution framed so late in the da" are the variationsmade to remove the faults and to a ommodate it to the needsof the ountr". $he harge of produ ing a blind op" of the3onstitutions of other ountries is based, I am sure, on aninade%uate stud"of the 3onstitution. I have shown what is new in the Draft 3onstitution and I am sure that those who have studied other3onstitutions and who are prepared to onsider the matterdispassionatel" will agree that the Drafting 3ommittee inperforming its dut" has not been guilt" of su h blind andslavish imitation as it is represented to be. )s to the a usation that the Draft 3onstitution hasprodu ed a good part of the provisions of the 1overnment ofIndia ) t, <B4A, I make no apologies. $here is nothing to beashamed of in borrowing. It involves no plagiarism. Cobod"holds an" patent rights in the fundamental ideas of a3onstitution. !hat I am sorr" about is that the provisionstaken from the 1overnment of India ) t, <B4A, relate mostl"to the details of administration. I agree thatadministrative details should have no pla e in the3onstitution. I wish ver" mu h that the Drafting 3ommittee ould see its wa" to avoid their in lusion in the3onstitution. .ut this is to be said on the ne essit" whi h0ustifies their in lusion. 1rote, the historian of 1ree e,has said that: ?$he diffusion of onstitutional moralit", not merel" among the ma0orit" of an" ommunit" but throughout the whole, is the indispensable ondition of a government at on e free and pea eableD sin e even an" powerful and obstinate minorit" ma" render the working of a free institution impra ti able, without being strong enough to on%uer as enden " for themselves.? ." onstitutional moralit" 1rote meant ?a paramountreveren e for the forms of the 3onstitution, enfor ingobedien e to authorit" a ting under and within these forms"et ombined with the habit of open spee h, of a tionsub0e t onl" to definite legal ontrol, and unrestrained ensure of those ver" authorities as to all their publi a ts ombined too with a perfe t onfiden e in the bosom ofever" itiIen

amidst the bitterness of part" ontest thatthe forms of the 3onstitution will not be less sa red in thee"es of his opponents than in his own.? /(ear, hear.2 !hile ever"bod" re ogniIes the ne essit" of thediffusion of 3onstitutional moralit" for the pea efulworking of a demo rati 3onstitution, there are two thingsinter onne ted with it whi h are not, unfortunatel",generall" re ogniIed. >ne is that the form of administrationhas a lose onne tion with the form of the 3onstitution.$he form of the administration must be appropriate to and inthe same sense as the form of the 3onstitution. $he other isthat it is perfe tl" possible to pervert the 3onstitution,without hanging its form b" merel" hanging the form of theadministration and to make it in onsistent and opposed tothe spirit of the 3onstitution. It follows that it is onl"where people are saturated with 3onstitutional moralit" su has the one des ribed b" 1rote the historian that one antake the risk of omitting from the 3onstitution details of administration and leaving it for the 6egislature topres ribe them. $he %uestion is, an we presume su h adiffusion of 3onstitutional moralit": 3onstitutionalmoralit" is not a natural sentiment. It has to be ultivated. !e must realiIe that our people have "et tolearn it. Demo ra " in India is onl" a top-dressing on anIndian soil, whi h is essentiall" undemo rati . In these ir umstan es it is wiser not to trust the6egislature to pres ribe forms of administration. $his isthe 0ustifi ation for in orporating them in the3onstitution. )nother riti ism against the Draft 3onstitution isthat no part of it represents the an ient polit" of India.It is said that the new 3onstitution should have beendrafted on the an ient (indu model of a State and thatinstead of in orporating !estern theories the new3onstitution should have been raised and built upon village,an ha"ats and Distri t ,an ha"ats. $here are otherswho have taken a more e#treme view. $he" do not want an"3entral or ,rovin ial 1overnments. $he" 0ust want India to ontain so man" village 1overnments. $he love of theintelle tual Indians for the village ommunit" is of ourseinfinite if not patheti /laughter2. It is largel" due tothe fulsome praise bestowed upon it b" 'et alfe whodes ribed them as little republi s having nearl" ever"thingthat the" want within themselves, and almost independent of an" foreign relations. $he e#isten e of these village ommunities ea h one forming a separate little State initself has a ording to 'et alfe ontributed more than an"other ause to the preservation of the people of India,through all the revolutions and hanges whi h the" havesuffered, and is in a high degree ondu ive to theirhappiness and to the en0o"ment of a great portion of thefreedom and independen e. Co doubt the village ommunitieshave lasted where nothing else lasts. .ut those who takepride in the village ommunities do not are to onsiderwhat little part the" have pla"ed in the affairs and thedestin" of the ountr"D and wh": $heir part in the destin"of the ountr" has been well des ribed b" 'et alfe himselfwho sa"s:

?D"nast" after d"nast" tumbles down. Revolutionsu eeds to revolution. (indoo, ,athan, 'ogul, 'aharatha,Sikh, *nglish are all masters in turn but the village ommunities remain the same. In times of trouble the" armand fortif" themselves. ) hostile arm" passes through the ountr". $he village ommunities olle t their little attlewithin their walls, and let the enem" pass unprovoked.? Su h is the part the village ommunities have pla"ed inthe histor" of their ountr". Jnowing this, what pride anone feel in them: $hat the" have survived through allvi issitudes ma" be a fa t. .ut mere survival has no value.$he %uestion is on what plane the" have survived. Surel" ona low, on a selfish level. I hold that these villagerepubli s have been the ruination of India. I am thereforesurprised that those who ondemn ,rovin ialism and ommunalism should ome forward as hampions of the village.!hat is the village but a sink of lo alism, a den ofignoran e, narrowmindedness and ommunalism: I am glad thatthe Draft 3onstitution has dis arded the village and adoptedthe individual as its unit. $he Draft 3onstitution is also riti ised be ause of the safeguards it provides for minorities. In this, theDrafting 3ommittee has no responsibilit". It follows thede isions of the 3onstituent )ssembl". Speaking for m"self,I have no doubt that the 3onstituent )ssembl" has donewisel" in providing su h safeguards for minorities as it hasdone. In this ountr" both the minorities and the ma0oritieshave followed a wrong path. It is wrong for the ma0orit" toden" the e#isten e of minorities. It is e%uall" wrong forthe minorities to perpetuate themselves. ) solution must befound whi h will serve a double purpose. It must re ogniIethe e#isten e of the minorities to start with. It must alsobe su h that it will enable ma0orities and minorities tomerge someda" into one. $he solution proposed b" the3onstituent )ssembl" is to be wel omed be ause it is asolution whi h serves this twofold purpose. $o diehards whohave developed a kind of fanati ism against minorit"prote tion I would like to sa" two things. >ne is thatminorities are an e#plosive for e whi h, if it erupts, anblow up the whole fabri of the State. $he histor" of *uropebears ample and appalling testimon" to this fa t. $he otheris that the minorities in India have agreed to pla e theire#isten e in the hands of the ma0orit". In the histor" ofnegotiations for preventing the partition of Ireland,Redmond said to 3arson ?ask for an" safeguard "ou like forthe ,rotestant minorit" but let us have a 9nited Ireland.?3arson&s repl" was ?Damn "our safeguards, we don&t want to be ruled b" "ou.? Co minorit" in India has taken this stand.$he" have lo"all" a epted the rule of the ma0orit" whi h isbasi all" a ommunal ma0orit" and not a politi al ma0orit".It is for the ma0orit" to realiIe its dut" not todis riminate against minorities. !hether the minorities will ontinue or will vanish must depend upon this habit of thema0orit". $he moment the ma0orit" loses the habit ofdis riminating against the minorit", the minorities an haveno ground to e#ist. $he" will vanish.

$he most riti iIed part of the Draft 3onstitution isthat whi h relates to =undamental Rights. It is said that)rti le <4 whi h defines fundamental rights is riddled withso man" e# eptions that the e# eptions have eaten up therights altogether. It is ondemned as a kind of de eption.In the opinion of the riti s fundamental rights are notfundamental rights unless the" are also absolute rights. $he riti s rel" on the 3onstitution of the 9nited States and tothe .ill of Rights embodied in the first ten )mendments tothat 3onstitution in support of their ontention. It is saidthat the fundamental rights in the )meri an .ill of Rightsare real be ause the" are not sub0e ted to limitations ore# eptions. I am sorr" to sa" that the whole of the riti ism aboutfundamental rights is based upon a mis on eption. In thefirst pla e, the riti ism in so far as it seeks todistinguish fundamental rights from non-fundamental rightsis not sound. It is in orre t to sa" that fundamental rightsare absolute while non-fundamental rights are not absolute.$he real distin tion between the two is that non-fundamentalrights are reated b" agreement between parties whilefundamental rights are the gift of the law. .e ausefundamental rights are the gift of the State it does notfollow that the State annot %ualif" them. In the se ond pla e, it is wrong to sa" thatfundamental rights in )meri a are absolute. $he differen ebetween the position under the )meri an 3onstitution and theDraft 3onstitution is one of form and not of substan e. $hatthe fundamental rights in )meri a are not absolute rights isbe"ond dispute. In support of ever" e# eption to thefundamental rights set out in the Draft 3onstitution one anrefer to at least one 0udgment of the 9nited States Supreme3ourt. It would be suffi ient to %uote one su h 0udgment of the Supreme 3ourt in 0ustifi ation of the limitation on theright of free spee h ontained in )rti le <4 of the Draft 3onstitution. In 1itlow Vs. Cew 7ork in whi h the issue wasthe onstitutionalit" of a Cew 7ork ? riminal anar h"? lawwhi h purported to punish utteran es al ulated to bringabout violent hange, the Supreme 3ourt said: ?It is a fundamental prin iple, long established, thatthe freedom of spee h and of the press, whi h is se ured b"the 3onstitution, does not onfer an absolute right to speakor publish, without responsibilit", whatever one ma" hoose,or an unrestri ted and unbridled li ense that gives immunit"for ever" possible use of language and prevents thepunishment of those who abuse this freedom.? It is therefore wrong to sa" that the fundamentalrights in )meri a are absolute, while those in the Draft 3onstitution are not. It is argued that if an" fundamental rights re%uire%ualifi ation, it is for the 3onstitution itself to %ualif"them as is done in the 3onstitution of the 9nited States andwhere it does not do so it should be left to be determinedb" the Kudi iar" upon a onsideration of all the relevant onsiderations. )ll

this, I am sorr" to sa", is a ompletemisrepresentation if not a misunderstanding of the )meri an3onstitution. $he )meri an 3onstitution does nothing of thekind. *# ept in one matter, namel", the right of assembl",the )meri an 3onstitution does not itself impose an"limitations upon the fundamental rights guaranteed to the)meri an itiIens. Cor is it orre t to sa" that the)meri an 3onstitution leaves it to the 0udi iar" to imposelimitations on fundamental rights. $he right to imposelimitations belongs to the 3ongress. $he real position isdifferent from what is assumed b" the riti s. In )meri a,the fundamental rights as ena ted b" the 3onstitution wereno doubt absolute. 3ongress, however, soon found that it wasabsolutel" essential to %ualif" these fundamental rights b"limitations. !hen the %uestion arose as to the onstitutionalit" of these limitations before the Supreme3ourt, it was ontended that the 3onstitution gave no powerto the 9nited States 3ongress to impose su h limitation, theSupreme 3ourt invented the do trine of poli e power andrefuted the advo ates of absolutefundamental rights b" the argument that ever" state hasinherent in it poli e power whi h is not re%uired to be onferred on it e#pressl" b" the 3onstitution. $o use thelanguage of the Supreme 3ourt in the ase I have alread"referred to, it said: ?$hat a State in e#er ise of its poli e power ma"punish those who abuse this freedom b" utteran es inimi alto the publi welfare, tending to orrupt publi morals,in ite to rime or disturb the publi pea e, is not open to%uestion. . . . . ? /!hat the Draft 3onstitution has done is that insteadof formulating fundamental rights in absolute terms anddepending upon our Supreme 3ourt to ome to the res ue of,arliament b" inventing the do trine of poli e power, itpermits the State dire tl" to impose limitations upon thefundamental rights. $here is reall" no differen e in theresult. !hat one does dire tl" the other does indire tl". Inboth ases, the fundamental rights are not absolute.2 In the Draft 3onstitution the =undamental Rights arefollowed b" what are alled ?Dire tive ,rin iples?. It is anovel feature in a 3onstitution framed for ,arliamentar"Demo ra ". $he onl" other onstitution framed for,arliamentar" Demo ra " whi h embodies su h prin iples isthat of the Irish =ree State. $hese Dire tive ,rin ipleshave also ome up for riti ism. It is said that the" areonl" pious de larations. $he" have no binding for e. $his riti ism is of ourse superfluous. $he 3onstitution itselfsa"s so in so man" words. If it is said that the Dire tive ,rin iple have nolegal for e behind them, I am prepared to admit it. .ut I amnot prepared to admit that the" have no sort of bindingfor e at all. Cor am I prepared to on ede that the" areuseless be ause the" have no binding for e in law. $he Dire tive ,rin iples are like the Instrument ofInstru tions whi h were issued to the 1overnor-1eneral andto the 1overnors of the 3olonies and to those of India b"the .ritish 1overnment under the <B4A ) t. 9nder the Draft 3onstitution it is

proposed to issue su h instruments to the,resident and to the 1overnors. $he te#ts of theseInstruments of Instru tions will be found in S hedule IV of the 3onstitution. !hat are alled Dire tive ,rin iples ismerel" another name for Instrument of Instru tions. $he onl"differen e is that the" are instru tions to the 6egislatureand the *#e utive. Su h a thing is to m" mind to bewel omed. !herever there is a grant of power in generalterms for pea e, order and good government, it is ne essar"that it should be a ompanied b" instru tions regulating itse#er ise. $he in lusion of su h instru tions in a 3onstitutionsu h as is proposed in the Draft be omes 0ustifiable foranother reason. $he Draft 3onstitution as framed onl"provides a ma hiner" for the government of the ountr". It is not a ontrivan e to install an" parti ular part" inpower as has been done in some ountries. !ho should be inpower is left to be determined b" the people, as it must be,if the s"stem is to satisf" the tests of demo ra ". .utwhoever aptures power will not be free to do what he likeswith it. In the e#er ise of it, he will have to respe tthese instruments of instru tions whi h are alled Dire tive,rin iples. (e annot ignore them. (e ma" not have to answerfor their brea h in a 3ourt of 6aw. .ut he will ertainl"have to answer for them before the ele torate at ele tiontime. !hat great value these dire tive prin iples possesswill be realiIed better when the for es of right ontrive to apture power. $hat it has no binding for e is no argument againsttheir in lusion in the 3onstitution. $here ma" be adifferen e of opinion as to the e#a t pla e the" should begiven in the 3onstitution. I agree that it is somewhat oddthat provisions whi h do not arr" positive obligationsshould be pla ed in the midst of provisions whi h do arr"positive obligations. In m" 0udgement their proper pla e isin S hedules III ) N IV whi h ontain Instrument ofInstru tions tothe ,resident and the 1overnors. =or, as I have said, the"are reall" Instruments of Instru tions to the *#e utive andthe 6egislatures as to how the" should e#er ise theirpowers. .ut that is onl" a matter of arrangement. Some riti s have said that the 3entre is too strong.>thers have said that it must be made stronger. $he Draft 3onstitution has stru k a balan e. (owever mu h "ou ma" den"powers to the 3entre, it is diffi ult to prevent the 3entrefrom be oming strong. 3onditions in modern world are su hthat entraliIation of powers is inevitable. >ne has onl"to onsider the growth of the =ederal 1overnment in the9.S.). whi h, notwithstanding the ver" limited powers givento it b" the 3onstitution, has out-grown its former self andhas overshadowed and e lipsed the State 1overnments. $his isdue to modern onditions. $he same onditions are sure tooperate on the 1overnment of India and nothing that one ando will help to prevent it from being strong. >n the otherhand, we must resist the tenden " to make it stronger. It annot hew more than it an digest. Its strength must

be ommensurate with its weight. It would be a foll" to make itso strong that it ma" fall b" its own weight. $he Draft 3onstitution is riti iIed for having onesort of onstitutional relations between the 3entre and the,rovin es and another sort of onstitutional relationsbetween the 3entre and the Indian States. $he Indian Statesare not bound to a ept the whole list of sub0e ts in ludedin the 9nion 6ist but onl" those whi h ome under Defen e,=oreign )ffairs and 3ommuni ations. $he" are not bound toa ept sub0e ts in luded in the 3on urrent 6ist. $he" arenot bound to a ept the State 6ist ontained in the Draft 3onstitution. $he" are free to reate their own 3onstituent)ssemblies and to frame their own onstitutions. )ll this,of ourse, is ver" unfortunate and, I submit %uiteindefensible. $his disparit" ma" even prove dangerous to theeffi ien " of the State. So long as the disparit" e#ists,the 3entre&s authorit" over all-India matters ma" lose itseffi a ". =or, power is no power if it annot be e#er isedin all ases and in all pla es. In a situation su h as ma"be reated b" war, su h limitations on the e#er ise of vitalpowers in some areas ma" bring the whole life of the Statein omplete 0eopard". !hat is worse is that the IndianStates under the Draft 3onstitution are permitted tomaintain their own armies. I regard this as a mostretrograde and harmful provision whi h ma" lead to thebreak-up of the unit" of India and the overthrow of the3entral 1overnment. $he Drafting 3ommittee, if I am notmisrepresenting its mind, was not at all happ" over thismatter. $he" wished ver" mu h that there was uniformit"between the ,rovin es and the Indian States in their onstitutional relationship with the 3entre. 9nfortunatel",the" ould do nothing to improve matters. $he" were bound b"the de isions of the 3onstituent )ssembl", and the3onstituent )ssembl" in its turn was bound b" the agreementarrived at between the two negotiating 3ommittees. .ut we ma" take ourage from what happened in 1erman".$he 1erman *mpire as founded b" .ismark in <5FG was a omposite State, onsisting of ;A units. >f these ;A units,;; were monar hi al States and 4 were republi an it"States. $his distin tion, as we all know, disappeared in the ourse of time and 1erman" be ame one land with one peopleliving under one 3onstitution. $he pro ess of theamalgamation of the Indian States is going to be mu h%ui ker than it has been in 1erman". >n the <Ath )ugust <BHFwe had LGG Indian States in e#isten e. $oda" b" theintegration of the Indian States with Indian ,rovin es ormerger among themselves or b" the 3entre having taken themas 3entrall" )dministered )reas there have remained some;GM4G States as viable States. $his is a ver" rapid pro essand progress. I appeal to those States that remain to fallin line with the Indian ,rovin es and to be ome full unitsof the Indian 9nion on the same terms as the Indian,rovin es. $he"will thereb" give the Indian 9nion the strength it needs.$he" will save themselves the bother of starting their own3onstituent )ssemblies and drafting their own separate3onstitution and the" will lose nothing that is of value tothem. I feel hopeful that m" appeal will not

go in vain andthat before the 3onstitution is passed, we will be able towipe off the differen es between the ,rovin es and theIndian States. Some riti s have taken ob0e tion to the des ription ofIndia in )rti le < of the Draft 3onstitution as a 9nion ofStates. It is said that the orre t phraseolog" should be a=ederation of States. It is true that South )fri a whi h isa unitar" State is des ribed as a 9nion. .ut 3anada whi h isa =ederation is also alled a 9nion. $hus the des ription ofIndia as a 9nion, though its onstitution is =ederal, doesno violen e to usage. .ut what is important is that the useof the word 9nion is deliberate. I do not know wh" the word&9nion& was used in the 3anadian 3onstitution. .ut I antell "ou wh" the Drafting 3ommittee has used it. $heDrafting 3ommittee wanted to make it lear that though Indiawas to be a federation, the =ederation was not the result of an agreement b" the States to 0oin in a =ederation and thatthe =ederation not being the result of an agreement no Statehas the right to se ede from it. $he =ederation is a 9nionbe ause it is indestru tible. $hough the ountr" and thepeople ma" be divided into different States for onvenien eof administration the ountr" is one integral whole, itspeople a single people living under a single imperiumderived from a single sour e. $he )meri ans had to wage a ivil war to establish that the States have no right ofse ession and that their =ederation was indestru tible. $heDrafting 3ommittee thought that it was better to make it lear at the outset rather than to leave it to spe ulationor to dispute. $he provisions relating to amendment of the3onstitution have ome in for a virulent atta k at the handsof the riti s of the Draft 3onstitution. It is said thatthe provisions ontained in the Draft make amendmentdiffi ult. It is proposed that the 3onstitution should beamendable b" a simple ma0orit" at least for some "ears. $heargument is subtle and ingenious. It is said that this3onstituent )ssembl" is not ele ted on adult suffrage whilethe future ,arliament will be ele ted on adult suffrage and"et the former has been given the right to pass the3onstitution b" a simple ma0orit" while the latter has beendenied the same right. It is paraded as one of theabsurdities of the Draft 3onstitution. I must repudiate the harge be ause it is without foundation. /$o know how simpleare the provisions of the Draft 3onstitution in respe t of amending the 3onstitution one has onl" to stud" theprovisions for amendment ontained in the )meri an and)ustralian 3onstitutions. 3ompared to them those ontainedin the Draft 3onstitution will be found to be the simplest.$he Draft 3onstitution has eliminated the elaborate anddiffi ult pro edures su h as a de ision b" a onvention or areferendum. $he ,owers of amendment are left with the6egislature 3entral and ,rovin ial. It is onl" foramendments of spe ifi matters - and the" are onl" few - thatthe ratifi ation of the State legislatures is re%uired. )llother )rti les of the 3onstitution are left to be amended b",arliament. $he onl" limitation is that it shall be done b"a ma0orit" of not less than two-thirds of the members ofea h

(ouse present and voting and a ma0orit" of the totalmembership of ea h (ouse. It is diffi ult to on eive asimpler method of amending the 3onstitution.2 !hat is said to be the absurdit" of the amendingprovisions is founded upon a mis on eption of the positionof the 3onstituent )ssembl" and of the future ,arliamentele ted under the 3onstitution. $he 3onstituent )ssembl" inmaking a 3onstitution has no partisan motive. .e"ondse uring a good and workable onstitution it has no a#e togrind. In onsidering the )rti les of the 3onstitution ithas no e"e on getting through a parti ular measure. $hefuture ,arliament if it met as a 3onstituent )ssembl", itsmembers will be a ting as partisans seeking to arr"amendments to the 3onstitution to fa ilitate the passing ofpart" measures whi h the" have failed to get through,arliament b" reason of some)rti le of the 3onstitution whi h has a ted as an obsta lein their wa" ,arliament will have an a#e to grind while the3onstituent )ssembl" has none. $hat is the differen ebetween the 3onstituent )ssembl" and the future ,arliament.$hat e#plains wh" the 3onstituent )ssembl" though ele ted onlimited fran hise an be trusted to pass the 3onstitution b"simple ma0orit" and wh" the ,arliament though ele ted onadult suffrage annot be trusted with the same power toamend it. I believe I have dealt with all the adverse riti ismsthat have been levelled against the Draft 3onstitution assettled b" the Drafting 3ommittee. I don&t think that I haveleft out an" important omment or riti ism that has beenmade during the last eight months during whi h the3onstitution has been before the publi . It is for the3onstituent )ssembl" to de ide whether the" will a ept the onstitution as settled b" the Drafting 3ommittee or whetherthe" shall alter it before passing it. .ut this I would like to sa". $he 3onstitution has beendis ussed in some of the ,rovin ial )ssemblies of India. Itwas dis ussed in .omba", 3.,., !est .engal, .ihar, 'adrasand *ast ,un0ab. It is true that in some ,rovin ial)ssemblies serious ob0e tions were taken to the finan ialprovisions of the onstitution and in 'adras to )rti le ;;L..ut e# epting this, in no ,rovin ial )ssembl" was an"serious ob0e tion taken to the )rti les of the 3onstitution.Co 3onstitution is perfe t and the Drafting 3ommittee itselfis suggesting ertain amendments to improve the Draft 3onstitution. .ut the debates in the ,rovin ial )ssembliesgive me ourage to sa" that the 3onstitution as settled b"the Drafting 3ommittee is good enough to make in this ountr" a start with. I feel that it is workable, it isfle#ible and it is strong enough to hold the ountr"together both in pea e time and in war time. Indeed, if Ima" sa" so, if things go wrong under the new 3onstitution,the reason will not be that we had a bad 3onstitution. !hatwe will have to sa" is, that 'an was vile. Sir, I move. 'r. ,resident: 'aulana (asrat 'ohani has given noti eof an amendment. It was given at half-past *leven thismorning. I will allow him to move it, parti ularl" be auseit will have the effe t, if it is lost, of blo king anothermotion of whi h I have got noti e. 'aulana Saheb, will "oukindl" move "our amendment:

'aulana (asrat 'ohani: *[Sir, the amendment, of whi h Ihave given noti e, is to the effe t that the present3onstitution )ssembl" is not ompetent and there are threereasons wh" I do not regard it as ompetent. $he first andthe most important reason is . . . . . . . . . .+ Shri .. Das />rissa: 1eneral2: 'r. ,resident, Sir, will'aulana Sahib please read out the amendment first: 'r. ,resident: I will read out the amendment. $heamendment is this: ?$hat the 3onsideration of the Draft 3onstitution ofIndia be postponed till the ele tion of a fresh and ompetent 3onstituent )ssembl" on the basis of 0ointele torate and the formation of politi al rather than ommunal parties in India.? $hat is the amendment. Shri .. Das: 'a" I rise on a point of order, Sir: '"point of order, is that 'aulana Sahib annot move hisnegative amendment after ........... 'r. ,resident: !on&t "ou allow him to move it: -------------------* [+ $ranslation of (industani spee h. CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME VII Thursday, the 4th Nove !er "#4$ Shri .. Das: (e has 0ust spoken in (industani, thepurport of whi h is that he has moved his amendment. $his is ontrar" to the pra ti e of this (ouse. I think it is out oforder and it should not be allowed. 'r. ,resident: I think I had better allow the 'aulanaSaheb to move the amendment. $hen, "ou ma" take the point oforder. 'aulana (asrat 'ohani: *[I was telling the reason wh" Ido not regard this 3onstituent )ssembl" as a ompetent bod".=irstl", be ause all over the world wherever a 3onstituent)ssembl" has been set up, it has been done as an out ome ofrevolution. Revolution does not ne essaril" mean an armedrevolution. It onl" means that, when the prevailing s"stemof 1overnment has ome to an end and another is intended to be set up in its pla e, a 3onstituent )ssembl" has beeninvariabl" alled to frame and pass a onstitution in thelight of new onditions. If the previous form of 1overnmentwere to ontinue then there was no

need of a 3onstituent)ssembl". 6ook at our new onstitution drafted b" Dr.)mbedkar. $here is nothing new in it. (e has mostl" opiedout either the 1overnment of India ) t of <B4A or, asadmitted b" himself, has drawn from the onstitutions ofother ountries. ) bit from here and a bit from there-it isa ,andora&s .o#. $his is what has been produ ed b" ourfriend Dr. )mbedkar8 '" biggest omplaint on this a ount isthat if for the purpose of drafting a onstitution he had to op" out the onstitutions of other ountries, then wh" didhe not embod" the latest and the best onstitution: (ow wasit that he looked up to the onstitutions of )ustralia,3anada, )meri a, and *ngland, but the onstitution of theSoviet 9nion did not at h his e"e: I have 0otted down allthe points he has made in his spee h. $his is not the timeto repl" them in detail, but this mu h I an sa" that he hasretained all the bad points that he ould la" his handsupon. (e has observed that there should be no rigidit" andlegalism, but has he at an" pla e said that a 9nitar" S"stemof 1overnment should be established: )t one pla e hementioned that he ould not provide for the village,an ha"ats. If he had kept the Soviet 3onstitution in view,there would have been no diffi ult" in his wa". I laim itand I hallenge him on that point. =or e#ample, he has saidthat unless there is a unitar" t"pe of 1overnment and apowerful 3entre, nothing an be done. Su h talk is besidethe point. (e does not know that it is so in the Soviet3onstitution. !hat he has done is to allo ate some sub0e tsto ,rovin es, some to the 3entre and some have been put inthe on urrent list. In the Soviet 3onstitution ever" onstituent state has been made a permanent republi D and towin its onfiden e ever" omponent unit has been given ontrol over the defen e, foreign relations and ommuni ations. !hat has been the result: (e sa"s that itwould be detrimental, but there the Soviet 1overnment havegained the onfiden e of their omponent states. $he resulthas been that all parts of the Soviet 9nion - onsidered fromthe point of view of population the" are all 'uslimrepubli s - have helped their utmost in the last war. ,eopleof 3au asia and of ever" war-ravaged region have stoodwholeheartedl" b" the Soviet 9nion. 3ossa ks and others whorendered help all belonged to the 9nion. $hus hisobservation is un0ustified. (e is not taking the people intohis onfiden e, and sa"s that all should merge.+ ,andit .alkrishna Sharma: 'a" I rise to a point oforder: $he revered 'aulana Sahib is dis ussing the merits of the 3onstitution whereas the proposal that is put forwardbefore us is that we must not onsider this 3onstitution.$he dis ussion of the merits of the 3onstitution annot bebrought before the (ouse when we are to onsider onl" the%uestion of postponement of the dis ussion. -------------------* [+ $ranslation of (industani spee h. 'r. ,resident: I thought it would save time if "ou lefthim alone.

'aulana (asrat 'ohani: *[I repeat what I have alread"said, that the reason wh" this (ouse is not ompetent, isthat "ou have onsulted all the onstitutions of the worldDbut "ou have not ared to see the latest and the best onstitutions. $he se ond point arises, what was the basisof the ele tion of our 3onstituent )ssembl": It was on ommunal basis. 'uslims had ele ted 'uslims and (indus hadvoted for the (indus, but the States were not represented.!hat was the position at the time of the first meeting of the 3onstituent )ssembl": >n "our own admission there werethree parties, namel", the 3ongress, the 'uslim 6eague andthe StatesD but up to that time the States had not ome in.Co member of the 'uslim 6eague had taken an" part. $heresult has been that the onstitution that has been framedhas been forged b" one part" alone. (ow an "ou enfor e iton others: I mean to sa" that no relian e an be pla ed b"us as the 3onstitution has been framed b" one part" alone.In the situation that has how arisen we also find the same,namel" that there is onl" one part". It is like this: the'uslim 6eague is finished, it has dissolved itself and allthe States have merged themselves in the Indian 9nion andnow onl" the Indian 1overnment, namel" one part", hasremained in the field. $hat is wh" we have to form politi alparties so that "our diffi ulties ma" ome to an end.+ Shri Sat"anara"an Sinha /.ihar: 1eneral2: *[Did "oufind out an" better solution:+ 'aulana (asrat 'ohani: *[I am oming to that. Dr.)mbedkar has 0ust said that the ma0orit" part" should be onsiderate towards the 'inorit" part". I sa": we do notwant them. 7ou have provided in the onstitution that <H per ent of the seats should be reserved for the 'uslims. 7oustill onsider "ourself 5L per ent and 'uslims to be <H per ent. So long as "ou have this ommunalism, nothing an bedone. !h" do "ou sa" that 'uslims are in a 'inorit". So longas "ou depi t them in ommunal olours 'uslims shall remaina 'inorit". !hen we ome as members of a politi al part" oras members of the Independent 3ommunist part" or asSo ialists and then form a oalition part", then as a wholethe" will be arra"ed against the rest. 7ou sa" that a long time has elapsed that man" thingshave happened and that "ou have worked so hard. 'r.,resident, I would re all that when ,andit Kawahar 6al Cehruhad presented the Draft 3onstitution, I had then raised anob0e tion and he had advised me to leave alone a primar"matter. I had thereupon pointed out to him that it would beabsurd to leave aside a point whi h is to be settled first.I had also pointed out that b" doing so he would not betaking an" strong and firm stand but would be stuffingirrelevant matter in all dire tions. I had also en%uiredwhat he would do if %uestions were raised on these issues,if without taking an" de ision, he started framing the onstitution. It is a futilit"D we should see what t"pe of3onstitution is re%uired. !e want to make a pi ture, but ifthat pi ture is not painted orre tl", then it annot betermed a pi ture. 7ou will sa" that "ou have

worked hard andthat %uite a long time has elapsed. '" answer would be thatthere is no diffi ult" about it, neither was there an" risk.I had protested at that time and I was glad that the(onourable ,resident had stated that the point would be onsidered and it was on that understanding that we haddis ussed the resolution. 7ou know that the same thing hashappened in ,akistan as well. 'r. Kinnah had said that solong as the 3onstituent )ssembl" was not ele ted, the onstitution ould not be passed. $his is the reason wh" Iam telling "ou that so long as the 3onstituent )ssembl" isnot ele ted on non- ommunal basis, "ou have no right to geta onstitution passed b" this 3onstituent )ssembl". Comatter re eives an" onsideration from "ou, be ause "ou areinflated with the idea that "ou are in a ma0orit" and thatwhatever "ou like will be passed. Do not -------------------* [+ $ranslation of (industani spee h. imagine that no blame will ome upon "ou. I am alone and Iam sa"ing all I an sa". 7ou ma" not agree. In realit" "ouare doing all that the .ritish 1overnment had been doing.)fter sometime the" used to give us pensions and used to askus to sta" at home. .ut wh" should we do so: I would like to ask "ou what "ou are doing in("derabad. 7ou sa" that a 3onstituent )ssembl" will be setup whi h would frame a onstitution. 7ou have a epted thisprin iple for ("derabad. !h" don&t "ou do it here: >bviousl"all this is being done on ommunal lines in whi h truth and0usti e have no pla e. If he sa"s that he annot do that, he has no power toele t a new 3onstituent )ssembl" on the basis of 0ointele torate and that would be done after the onstitution hasbeen framed, then I repeat what "ou have said, that@legalism& and @rigidit"& should be ast aside. I ask himwhether he an set up a 3onstituent )ssembl" in ("derabadwithout the CiIam&s fireman. .ut here we set up anele torate for the 3onstituent )ssembl" as we felt the needfor itD so it is in orre t to sa" that we an not do it.?!here there is a will, there is a wa".? If "ou are inearnest to be 0ust to the ountr" and if "ou want to treatever" one e%uall", then I give "ou a warning that "ourendeavour to assimilate all into one whole, to build aparamount Indian power, will bring disaster. $he lateste#ample is that of )urangaIeb the *mperor. )fter on%ueringthe whole of India he anne#ed the two Southern States of.i0apur and 1ol anda with the intention of founding aunitar" 'oghul *mpire. !hat was the result: $he" sa")urangaIeb lost his kingdom be ause of his bigotr" but I sa"it was lost be ause of his imperialisti ideas. If he hadnot done that, he would not have lost a kingdom. Do notthink it is eas" to form a single unitar" 1overnment b" oer ing ea h and all into "our fold. $hat an not last. 7oushould hold fresh ele tions on non- ommunal basis, on thebasis of 0oint

ele torates, and then whatever onstitution"ou frame will be a eptable to us. !e regard the onstitution framed b" "ou worth" of being onsigned to thewaste paper basket.+ Shri .. Das: I wish to point out that under Rule 4<sub- lause /;2 the motion for ad0ournment on the motionmoved b" the (onourable Dr. .. R. )mbedkar for the onsideration of Draft 3onstitution of India should not havebeen allowed b" the 3hair. 'r. ,resident: I have taken this under Rule ;A, 3lause/A2, sub- lause /b2 as a motion for ad0ournment of onsideration of a motion whi h is under dis ussion. Shri .. Das: .ut he is wanting a fresh ele tion to takepla e first in the ountr". $hat is a negation of the wholeidea. 'r. ,resident: I have liberall" onstrued the rule forthe (onourable 'ember and I have taken it, as I have said,under Rule ;A, 3lause /A2, sub- lause /b2. .egum )iIaI Rasul /9nited ,rovin es: 'uslim2: Sir,before we ad0ourn for the da", ma" I know how man" da"s the3hair proposes to allow for the general dis ussion on Dr.)mbedkar&s motion: 'r. ,resident: )s at present advised, it is hoped to on lude the dis ussion tomorrow. I will limit the time ofea h speaker and if I find that there is a onsiderableopinion in favour of further dis ussion, more time ma" begiven. $he 3onstituent )ssembl" then ad0ourned till $en of the3lo k on =rida" the Ath Covember <BH5. -------------------* [+ $ranslation of (industani spee h.