Continued part of Speech of N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar
The Resolution under consideration, moved by Nehru, put the Indian States on the same level in regard to the subjects not ceded by them to the Union Centre as the Provinces. The resolution asserted that all the power and authority of Indian States as constituent parts of the sovereign independent India are derived as such from the people of the States as similar power and authority were in provinces derived from the people of the provinces. Then he said, “The constitution of a State settled by the people of the State in association with the ruler; might make provision for hereditary succession to the headship of the State in the dynasty which is in possession now of the State, and the Union Constitution might contain a provision that, if the State’s Constitution does say so, it will not be interfered with, though a stipulation would be necessary that, in the overhaul of an existing written constitution or in the framing of a new one in any particular State, the hereditary head of it should be, or in the quickest, possible time in the future, should become, a constitutional monarch presiding over at executive responsible to a legislature, the members of which are democratically elected.”
The existing written constitutions of individual States at that time, almost invariably contained a section that all rig authority and jurisdiction that appertain or were incidental to the government of the territories included in the States were vested in and exercisable by the ruler, subject to the provisions of the constitution which was granted by the fiat of the Ruler himself. To emphasise the unlimited nature of the sovereign powers claimed by the rulers, such constitutions contained another provision which enacted that, ‘notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution Act or in any other Act, all powers, legislative, executive and judicial, are, and have always been, inherent and possessed and retained by the Ruler and that nothing contained in any such Act shall affect or be deemed to affect the right and prerogative of the ruler to make laws and issue proclamations, orders and ordinances by virtue of his inherent authority.’ Such provisions deserved to be swept away and replaced by provision which declares that all powers of Government, legislative, executive and judicial should be deemed to be derived from the people and exercised by such organs of State including the hereditary ruler as might be designated in the written constitution and to the extent authorised by that constitution. Thus inclusion of States in Clause 4 should remain.
As it was already quarter past one, the House was adjourned till 11:00 am of 19.12.1946. It was fourth day on which a discussion was going onto whether wait for Muslim League or to continue the work for people of India, but no conclusion was reached. All were assembled to make the nation free from British rule, but still a single resolution, in the form of a pledge was attracting so many discussions, due to amendment moved by Dr. Jayakar and supported by Dr. Ambedkar.
Some observations and lessons from speeches of the day
Right of grouping was mainly given to the League as per the statements of British Parliament persons, after the delegation of Cabinet Mission was returned to Britain. Why Dr. Jayakar and Dr. Ambedkar and their supporters to adjourn the discussion on resolutions were not taking into cognizance the game of British rulers and Muslim League at the time of first session? Everyone was hoping that the League should come and participate in framing of Constitution of United India, but they were absent as they wanted more voting powers and veto powers, in case of grouping of States, which was cunning. Imagine the condition of places like Assam and Orissa, if Assembly had accepted the more voting power and veto power of Muslim League.
As we can see from speeches of various people, even in the British era also there was a narrative that self-government in India would not allow propagation of certain faiths. This narrative is still prevailing in market and defaming our nation and also causing enmity between the people of different faiths. At that time people of India felled a prey to this narrative, but now in modern times where all information is radially available we should save ourselves. Government of India is secular in its true sense, it is media which is creating false narrative by finding castes and religions of culprits and victims. So do not believe on media houses earning in crores by defaming whole Indian society, on the basis of caste or religious identity of people, use your own instinct and beware of all the propaganda. They specifically demean Hindus and therein Upper Caste Hindus. Only Hindutva is the religion on this earth which is not providing for hatred for anyone. There is right to propagate the religion in this country, but there is no right to defame, demean any other faith and specifically Hindu faith.
As British people did not want to free India, they played mischievously from behind Muslim League. Majority of Muslims who supported Pakistan were given extra veto and voting and grouping powers. These were not accepted by various representatives across the present India, and even from some parts of present Pakistan and Bangladesh. The same game is being played with us by the politicians at present. Hence it is necessary to keep in mind only about your rights and act accordingly. Do not believe in the false narratives about Hindus spread over the centuries by these western people.
At that time of British rule, it was Conservative Party of Britain that was spreading propaganda against India, regarding safeguards of minorities, specifically Muslims. The party was not uttering a single word regarding minorities in other countries and only spending their whole energy in spreading propaganda against India. This trend initiated by British rulers is still in market, but the difference is that people of era of freedom struggle strongly opposed that propaganda and in present all are falling into the trap of these western people.
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 9
CAD: Pledge to Proclaim Independence of India: Part 10
CAD: Pledge to Proclaim Independence of India: Part 11
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.
