(Gist)
5 May 1945 (IISCF National Convention)
The growth of the Federation within so short a time
will not be fully appreciated unless the tremendous difficulties in the way of
our organization have been fully appreciated. There are agents of other
political organizations which decoy our people by false blandishments, by false
promises and by false propaganda. There is the ignorance of our own people, who
do not know the critical nature of the times we are living in and who do not
know the value of organization for achieving our political objects. There is a
lamentable lack of resources at our command.
Mr. Ganpat Mahadev Jadhav, the President of the
Bombay City Scheduled Castes Federation.
First of these considerations is that Law and Order
is the medicine of the body politic, and when the First of these considerations
is that Law and Order is the medicine of the body politic, and when the body
politic goes sick this medicine must be administered. Indeed, so important is
this consideration that failure to administer it must be deemed to be a crime
against society and civilization.ody politic goes sick this medicine must be
administered. Indeed, so important is this consideration that failure to
administer it must be deemed to be a crime against society and civilization.
The second consideration is that though it is true
that no government has a vested right to govern, it is equally true that there
must always be a government to govern—which I mean maintain Law and Order—until
it is displaced by a better government.
It is useless for the British to frame a
Constitution for India which they will not remain to enforce. The same result
will ensue if the Constitution is imposed by one powerful section or a
combination of such sections on other sections.
I am, therefore, firmly of opinion that if Indians
want Dominion Status, they cannot escape the responsibility of framing their
own Constitution. The position is thus inescapable.
I must state that I am wholly opposed to the
proposals of a Constituent Assembly. It is absolutely superfluous. I regard it
as a most dangerous project, which may involve this country in a Civil War. In
the first place, I do not see why a Constituent Assembly is at all necessary.
Having regard to this I cannot see why a Constituent
Assembly is necessary to incubate a constitution. So much of the Constitution
of India has already been written out in the Government of India Act, 1935,
that it seems to be an act of supererogation to appoint a Constituent Assembly
to do the thing ever again. All that is necessary is to delete those sections
of the Government of India Act, 1935, which are inconsistent with Dominion
Status.
The chances of corruption and bribery being used in
the Indian Constituent Assembly to buy over members to support decisions
desired by interested groups are very real. Their effects, I am sure, cannot be
overlooked. If this happens, it will not only make mockery of the Constituent
Assembly but I feel quite certain that any attempt made to enforce its
decisions will result in a civil war. It is my considered opinion that the
proposal of Constituent Assembly is more dangerous than profitable and should
not be entertained.
All that is necessary is to convert administrative
practice into statutory obligation. This can be done by adding a Schedule to
the Government of India Act, which will include the provisions contained in
these Resolutions and similar provisions for the different provinces and make the
Schedule a part of the Law of the Constitution.
The majority in India is a communal majority and not
a political majority.
If I may say so, the representation is a balanced
representation. No one community is placed in a position to dominate others by
reason of its numbers. The Muslim objection to the Hindu majority and the Hindu
and Sikh objections to the Muslim majority are completely eliminated, both in
the Central as well as in the Provinces.
My proposals are for an United India. They are made
in the hope that the Muslims will accept them in preference to Pakistan as
providing better security than Pakistan does. I am not against Pakistan, I
believe it is founded on principle of self-determination, which it is now too
late to question. I am prepared to give them the benefit of the principle, on
condition that the Muslims do not deny the benefit of the principles to the
Non-Muslim residents of the Area. But I believe, I am entitled to draw the
attention of the Muslims to another and a better plan of security. I claim that
my plan is better than the plan of Pakistan.
(i) Under my proposal the danger of a communal
majority, which is the basis of Pakistan is removed,
(ii) Under my proposal the weightage at present
enjoyed by the Muslims is not disturbed.
(iii) The position of Muslims in the Non-Pakistan
Provinces is greatly strengthened by an increase in their representation, which
they may not get if Pakistan comes and which will leave them in a more helpless
condition than they are in at present.
The majority rule is not accepted as a principle but
is tolerated as a rule. I might also state why it is tolerated. It is tolerated
for two reasons; (1) because the majority is always a political majority and
(2) because the decision of a political majority accepts and absorbs so much of
the point of view of the minority that the minority does not care to rebel
against the decision.
In India, the majority is not a political majority.
In India the majority is born ; it is not made. That is the difference between
a communal majority and a political majority. A political majority is not a
fixed or a permanent majority. It is a majority which is always made, unmade
and remade. A communal majority is a permanent majority fixed in its attitude.
One can destroy it, but one cannot transform it. If there is so much objection
to a political majority, how very fatal must be the objection to a communal
majority ?
My proposals do not ask the Hindus to abandon the
principle of majority rule. All I am asking them is to be satisfied with a
relative majority. Is it too much for them to concede this ?
It may well be contrasted with what happened in
Ireland. Mr. Redmond, the leader of the Irish Nationalists once told Carson,
the leader of Ulster; “Consent to United Ireland, Ask for any safeguard and
they shall be granted to you”. He is reported to have turned round and said :
“Damn your safeguards ; we don’t want to be ruled by you”. The minorities in
India have not said that. They are ready to be satisfied with safeguards. I ask
the Hindus Is this not worth a mass ? I am sure it is.
The first opportunity came in 1927, when Lord
Birkenhead gave a challenge to Indians asking them to produce a constitution
for India. That challenge was taken up. A committee was formed to frame a
constitution. A constitution was produced and was ‘The Nehru Constitution’.
known as It was, however, not accepted by Indians and was buried without
remorse.
Indians in 1930, when they assembled at the Round
Table Conference. There again, Indians failed to play their part and write out
their own A third attempt is the one recently made by the Sapru Committee. The
proposals of this committee too have fallen flat.
No comments:
Post a Comment