Speech of Dr. Syama Prasad Mookherjee
In his speech Dr. Syama Prasad Mookherjee of Bengal, pointed out that framing the Constitution was the great responsibility. He was not supporting the amendment of Dr. Jayakar, because said amendment would abstain the Assembly to pass any resolution of such importance and description until Indian States and League were enabled to meet and make their recommendations. He raised a doubt, “what guarantee is there that, if this Resolution is postponed till the 20th January next, as Dr. Jayakar suggests, the Muslim League will come and attend the session?”
He further pointed out that if the Resolution moved by Jawaharlal Nehru was inconsistent in any way with the Cabinet Mission’s Scheme, then the Assembly was prejudging the matters, in which the House had no right to do anything at that stage. But the Resolution included fundamental things which were within the framework of the Scheme. Only the matter of Residuary powers was the matter which the Cabinet Mission’s Scheme included in the contemplated framework for which Congress and League had expressed their opinion. At that stage the Assembly was not framing the Constitution, but passing an important resolution, which was outlining the future Constitution. Hence the resolution should be passed. Then he said, “Our sanction is not the British Parliament; our sanction is not the British Government; our sanction is the people of India.”
Then he pointed out, what had Dr. Jayakar claiming was the trap of Muslim League and strengthening the hands of reactionaries in Great Britain. The fact was that the Governor General of India called the said session Dr. 9.12.1946, of the Constituent Assembly and invited all the elected members of British India comprising of Part A states, and asked them to conduct the business of the Assembly in absence of Muslim League. Mr. Churchill said that the absence of the Muslim League in the Constituent Assembly was something like the absence of the bride in the Church when the marriage was going to take place. Dr. Syama Prasad Mookherjee further criticized Churchill for not asking Jinnah and his League to join the Constituent Assembly. No one from India abstained Muslim League to join the Assembly. Then he raised question, “But why is the Muslim League-being prevented from coming? My charge is that the Muslim League is not coming because of the encouragement it receives from British attitude.”
British attitude was encouraging the League no to attend the Assembly business, so that it might be able to veto the final decision. The power of veto in some form or another had passed into the hands of the Muslim League, which was the danger to the activities of the Assembly. Such veto power was not given in the Statement of Dt. 16.5.1946. It was given by British Parliament after various fateful incidences, which was not accepted by the Indian National Congress. Then Dr. Mookherjee again gave strong message, “The Muslim League may come or may not come if it comes, well and good; and even if it does not come, it cannot retard India’s freedom and we must claim to proceed with our business.”
He mentioned the victory of Vijayalakshmi Pandit. But criticized Hid Majesty’s Government in Great Britain for not supporting the freedom of India in the International Conference held at America. The Indian Delegation won before the bar of world opinion. He again claimed that the people of India had sanction on the Assembly hence they had to make the ultimate appeal to the people of the nation. Dr. Mookhejee then pointed out that not only Muslims were minority at that time. In Bengal, and other three provinces, Hindus were minority. Hence rights of Hindus should be protected. Many false statements about the Assembly were given in Britain, based on the caste and Hindu identity of the members of the Assembly, although members of Muslim, Scheduled Castes, Tribal areas, Sikhs, Anglo Indians, Parsis were present in the Assembly. He further said, “Now, is it suggested that if one section of the Indian people chooses to be absent from the Constituent Assembly, India should continue to remain a slave country?”
“It is not the business of the British Government to interfere so far as the domestic problems of India are concerned. Every country will have its own domestic problems and unfortunately India has her domestic problems too, and those domestic problems must ultimately be settled by the people of this country.” By saying this Dr. Mookherjee urged the Assembly to give a strong message to the British people who were trying to interfere in the domestic matter of India at that time, by giving irrelevant statements in media regarding the Constituent Assembly of India.
Speech of Dr. B R Ambedkar:
Dr. B R Ambedkar who was from Bengal province, also gave his speech regarding the Resolution moved by Jawaharlal Nehru and amendment proposed by Dr. Jayakar. The Resolution had two parts – one controversial and other non-controversial. Non-controversial part was made of Para (5) to (7), which set out the objectives of the future Constitution. The said resolution disappointed him. The non-controversial part of the Resolution was similar to the Declaration of the Rights of Man pronounced by the French Constituent Assembly before 450 years. He again said that there was hardly any person in India who could deny the validity of Rights of Man, although the country was orthodox and archaic and these principles were the immaculate premise of Indian outlook. Para (5) to (7) did not provided for remedies. In absence of remedies, the fundamental set out were made subject to law and moralist. Law and morality would be determined by the Executive of the day and it would change from executive to executive. For social and economic justice, the economy should be made socialist economy having nationalized industry and land.
Then he discussed about Para (1) to (4). The controversy was revolving around the use of word “Republic” and the sentence of Para (4), “the sovereignty is derived from the people”. Dr. Ambedkar said, “In the absence of the Muslim League it would not be proper for this Assembly to proceed to deal with this Resolution.” He expected that someday Muslims would realize that a United India would be better for them also. He supported Dr. Jayakar’s amendment which was asking to wait for Muslim League to join.
He then pointed out that, as per Para 3 there would be two types of polity in India. One at bottom level comprising of autonomous Provinces or the States or such other areas, which would have full power and residuary powers. At the top, over the provincial units, there would be a union government having power to legislate in certain subjects. He did not find any idea of grouping, intermediate structure between the Union on the one hand and provinces on the other. Although he did not like idea of grouping, still he was asking for structure of grouping in the Resolution. He always supported strong united Centre. By pointing out these issues, he was actually criticizing intentions of Congress Party. Although it was a mere pledge and Assembly was not framing Constitution at that time, he raised many concerns which should be provided in detail under the Constitution. It must be noted that according to Dr. Ambedkar, Congress was hard core Upper Caste Hindu party, which was thinking of welfare of upper caste Hindus only.
Then he said, “But applying my mind as an outsider to the issue that has arisen;, it seems to me there are only three ways by which the future will be decided. Either there shall have to be surrender by the one party to the wishes of the other-that is one way. The other way would be what I call a negotiated peace and the third way would be open war.” While explaining the way of war, he said that the war would be wither against Muslims or against combined Muslims and British.
Note: This article is completely based on Constituent Assembly Debates and only for knowledge purpose.
Read Previous Parts
CAD: Pledge to Proclaim Independence of India: Part 4
CAD: Pledge to Proclaim Independence of India: Part 5
CAD: Pledge to Proclaim Independence of India: Part 6
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.
