Debates on the Resolution to proclaim Independence of India
As about 40 amendments were received by the Chairman of the Constituent Assembly, and morning session time was over on Friday 13.12.1946, in long speeches of Nehru and Tondon, the debates over the resolution and proposed amendments was not completed on that day. After giving reasonable time of Saturday, Sunday and Monday morning, session again started at 3:00 pm on 16.12.1946. Then Dr. Rajendra Prasad asked Dr. M R Jayakar, who was staunch Hindu leader at that time to move his amendment.
Amendment by Dr. M R Jayakar
Many of the members accused Dr. Jayakar, that he was appeasing the League. Some of the members also criticized Dr. Jayakar by saying that he was supporting Churchill. On occasion of Round Table Conference Committee, he cross examined and exposed Churchill. Mr. Jayakar said, “Because I support Hindu interests it does not mean that I should trample on what I consider the just rights of another community.”
The intention of the resolution was to lay down the fundamentals of the Constitution. It speaks of a Republic; of a Union; it talks of present boundaries, and the status of Provincial Authorities; Residuary powers, all powers being derived from the people, minorities Rights, fundamental rights-all these can be accurately described as fundamentals of the Constitution.
As per the Cabinet Mission’s Statement Dt. 16.5.1946, the preliminary meeting, Constituent Assembly could not lay down fundamentals of the Constitution. This is how British rulers were trying to control the making of our Constitution. As representatives of some Indian States and Muslim League, he again opposed the preparation or acceptance of the fundamentals of the Constitution, as he considered absence as no agreement. He also pointed out the limitations imposed by referring the Cabinet Missions Plan, accepted by the Congress in its full entirety.
Kiran Sankar Roy of Bengal interrupted Dr. Jayakar. Further, Dr. B Pattabhi Sitaramayya of Madras interpreted the amendment of Dr. Jayakar as motion for adjournment of the said important resolution. Mohan Lal Saksena of United Provinces reminded that under Assembly rules, mover had to move his amendment before his speech, and Dr. Jayakar must be asked to move his amendment.
Then Dr. Jayakar read his amendment, “This Assembly declares its firm and solemn resolve that the Constitution to be prepared by this Assembly for the future governance of India shall be for a free and democratic Sovereign State; but with a view to securing, in the shaping of such a constitution, the co-operation of the Muslim League and the Indian States, and thereby intensifying the firmness of this resolve, this Assembly postpones the further consideration of this question to a later date, to enable the representatives of these two bodies to participate, if they so choose, in the deliberations of this Assembly.” He completely gave new resolution which was asking to wait for Muslim League.
Although Dr. Jayakar was staunch Hindu, and he was pivotal in denying the demands of Muslim League in All Parties Conference held in 1928, he proposed to wait for Muslim League, for sake of legal difficulties. His argument on the legal points was correct. If Dr. Jayakars argument was correct, then Nehru’s resolution was out of order. This conflict was the main reason of the day long debate. According to the State Paper of the Cabinet Mission, in first meeting, the fundamentals of the Constitution could not be prepared or accepted, this should be done in Second session of the Constituent Assembly. Here again he mentioned his hopes that in Second Session, Muslim League would join the hands.
The wording of the Cabinet Mission empowered each section to prepare their own Constitution at first, and then it was the stage for Constituent Assembly to frame fundamentals of the Constitution. If this was the procedure, then there was no occasion to meet the Constituent Assembly even in December 1946, when its first session was going on, because it was nowhere discussed that which Indian State, Part B or Part C state had started to work on drafting the Constitution for their territory. Also there is no discussion in Constituent Assembly, even on sixth day of the session, on which kind of committee should be appointed for this purpose of framing individual Constitutions for each individual unit?
Many Indian States had formed their negotiating committees, but Constituent Assembly had not formed its negotiating committee to bring the Indian States on the side of India. Hence the question of their absence was not of great importance during the first session. It was the absence of Muslim League, which was bothering Dr. Jayakar.
Although Congress accepted paper of State Dt. 16.5.1946, Muslim league was trying to amend it for its benefit. Two concession which the League got was concession in voting and other was about grouping. These concessions were challenged in the federal Court. Third concession was that the provision that if a large section of people was not represented at the constitution-making, His Majesty’s Government would not be willing to force such a constitution upon unwilling parts of the country. British rulers gave these concessions to Muslim League, which was required in the House for discussing about the matters of communal nature. In response to this Sardar Patel clarified that, the Assembly would not accept any change or amendment in the rules after accepting the Cabinet Mission’s State Paper of 16th May 1946.
He further mentioned the interpretation of Stafford Cripps. According to Cripps, the words ‘unwilling parts of the country’ means any part of India where the Muslims were in majority. Thus the constitution made in absence of Muslim representation would not be forced, if they were unwilling. He again pointed out that they were not represented as they were absent. As per this position, if anything was done to frame the Constitution for whole India in absence of the League, all the efforts would not be binding on them, and thus they could make all the efforts futile and fruitless. This was the game of the British rule to delay the making of the Constitution by giving more and more concessions to Muslims. This is how the partition was led by the British rulers. Hindus at present shall learn from this incidence of very recent past.
Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerjee of Bengal raised few questions to Dr. Jayakar, “If the Muslims do not come at all, how long are we to wait? How long are we to sit quiet?” These questions were in minds of all at that time including members of the House. He again claimed that if Muslim League did not come, the States would not join the Assembly. Why this was the stand of a staunch Hindu leader, to wait for Muslim League, even after horror of Direct Action Day? Why was he claiming views of the States were to be in favour of the League?
He finally ended his speech and said, “My duty is to tell you that the course you propose to adopt is wrong, it is illegal, it is premature, it is disastrous, it is dangerous. It will lead you into trouble. As I am elected on your ticket, I am bound to tell you frankly that there is danger ahead, danger of frustration, danger of discord and division, which it is our duty to avoid, Sir, I have done.”
Amendment of Dr. Hari Singh Gour
Dr. Hari Singh Gour of C P and Berar put an amendment notice to the resolution. According to Dr. Rajendra Prasad, said amendment of Dr. Gour was out of order, hence he asked to Dr. Gour to point out how that was in order. This was the amendment to Dr. Jayakar’s amendment. He proposed his amendment in these words, “This Assembly declares its firm and solemn resolve that the Constitution to be prepared by this Assembly for the future governance of India, shall be for a free and democratic Sovereign State; but with a view to securing in shaping such a constitution, the co-operation of the Muslim League and the Indian States and thereby intensifying the firmness of this resolve, this Assembly is of opinion that the demand made by the Muslim League is suicidal in view of the history of Pakistan elsewhere and that it is in the interests of the Muslims and other communities to constitute a joint electorate reserving to the Minority communities a particular quota of seats for the next five years, providing a further safeguard that no member of one community shall be deemed to have been duly elected unless he polled a certain percentage of the votes of the other community.”
Note: This article is completely based on Constituent Assembly Debates and only for knowledge purpose.
Read Previous Parts
CAD: Resolution to Proclaim Independence of India: Part 1
CAD: Resolution to Proclaim Independence of India: Part 2
CAD: Resolution to Proclaim Independence of India: Part 3
Bookmark this site for more such informative articles related to law and legal history. Share it on your social circles and don’t forget to comment your opinion to shape the ongoing law making process.
Read your own Dhrama Granthas.
