Debates on 19th December, 1946
The resolution moved by Nehru was a kind of Pledge to Proclaim Independence of India. As it was presented in absence of Muslim League, Dr. Jayakar moved an amendment in the form of adjournment of the resolution to wait for Muslim League. Dr. Ambedkar and some other members supported the Amendment moved by Dr. Jayakar. The members who were supporting the said amendment were also having an issue regarding the use of word “Republic” in the said resolution. The Chamber of Princes was having objection on the use of words “Independent Sovereign Republic” and “powers derived from people”. These objections were raised by the Chamber of Princes to create confusion in the minds of Indian States and the League. League was not present as on 9th December they were invited to attend a meeting at England, and they were given extra voting, veto and grouping power, after 16.5.1946, which was not accepted by Congress. Congress had accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan Statement of Dt. 16.5.1946 and not accepted any change in that plan.
Speech of Somnath Lahiri
Somnath Lahiri of Bengal gave his speech. Dr. Jayakar was worrying about the limitations of the Cabinet Mission Plan. But there was no need to be frightened by them. Then he claimed that Dr. Jayakar wanted to wait for the Princes to come and distort our future freedom. Assembly did not want the autocratic Princes to do so. Lahiri was not at all sorry for absence of Muslim League, but he was sorry for Congress as Congress did not gone out of the British Plan and left that. The British imperialist made that plan, and if anyone thought that it would not be possible to frame a Constitution by waiting for League or by Congress remaining at House and League remaining outside. British wanted to parties fight against each other and that had happened, so they were giving support to one party against the other and hence they became more firmly entrenched.
The Interim Government had not brought peace and freedom to India. Although if League and Congress sat together and worked the British Plans, there should also be no peace and quarrels would happen, and they were happening on ground level. Hence Lahiri was not happy that Congress had not boycotted the British Plan and still they were working on that. He congratulated Nehru for roaring that no imposition from the British would be accepted by the Indian people.
British Plan had not created any Constitution. Assembly would frame one. Lahiri argued that even if a resolution was developed, it remained entirely dependent on a treaty that satisfied British interests. This situation suggested that every minor disagreement would force Indian leaders to seek mediation from the Federal Court, the British government in England, or Prime Minister Attlee. He asserted that the Constituent Assembly operated under the shadow of British military, economic, and financial control, which meant that final authority stayed in British hands and the question of true power remained undecided. This was not at all freedom.
Statements British officials had made it clear that the British would use the threat of total division if necessary. Consequently, there was no genuine freedom in the country. He echoed Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s observation that the only liberty Indians possessed was the freedom to fight one another. He even pointed out that Pandit Nehru lacked the freedom to drop formal titles imposed by the British system. The speaker believed that true independence could never emerge from the limitations of the British plan, which included both the Interim Government and the constitution-making process.
He noted that British insolence was growing because the major political parties, Congress and League, continued to seek British assistance to validate their respective claims against each other. This reliance led to fratricidal conflicts that decimated their collective strength while the British maintained their special powers and authority. Therefore, it was suggested that instead of working within the British framework, the assembly should have declared immediate independence. He called for the Interim Government and the people to stop internal warfare and unite against British Imperialism. He concluded that throughout the history of their struggle, disagreements were typically resolved when the people faced their common enemy together, offering a clear way out of the violent impasse. Further he put an allegation that Dr. Jayakar had placed before Nehru and House the only alternatives that wither they had to work through limitations of British Plan or they had to go forward to the seizure of power. Dr. Jayakar was playing upon the fear. British were trying to sink the nation into the morass of fratricidal warfare. Hence everyone should go forward to drive out the British, their Viceroy, their troops etc.
As Lahiri had not clearly stated his support to wither resolution or to amendment, other members started interrupting him. He was leader of Communist Party of India – the third largest political party of India at that time. His opinion were somewhere going to be revolutionary. Then he continued with Para 3 and asked how the unity would be achieved by force or by compulsion. He was from Bengal and he claimed that Bengal had overwhelming majority of Muslims and they are ground down under the double slavery of British Imperialism and the Hindu Upper Class. He then pointed out that Bengali Muslim wanted neither British Rule nor Hindu Upper Class exploit him, he just want his land i.e. the Bengali speaking territory, should be free and sovereign and free from control if any other part of India. For this demand of Bengali Muslim based on the religious separatism, he held Congress responsible, because Congress never recognized the right of separation of nationalities on national-linguistic basis. By the Resolution Congress had said that no territorial unit of India would be compelled against its wish to come into the Indian Union, and it was mistake of Congress. According to Lahiri, this was not the way to win wish of Muslims. According to Lahiri, no one can unite India by a Unitary Constitution and then he explained example of Yugoslavia in Czechoslvakia. According to him Congress was trying to bargain with Muslims on account of rights.
He further admitted that Para 4, 5 and 6, providing for rights, fundamental principles were written with good intention, but path to hell was often paved with good intentions. Then he gave examples of some laws which were made by Britishers and at that time Congress members were in those ministries. He created a doubt that Congress would not protect rights of people and classes. As he continued to put allegations on Congress, some of members again interrupted him as he had taken too much time.
He further continued, that proportional representation with adult suffrage and joint electorates should have been implemented in all future elections to ensure every party received representation based on its total share of votes. He argued that this system would have satisfied communal parties like the Muslim League and the Scheduled Castes Federation while simultaneously encouraging the growth of healthy political competition over religious separatism. However, he noted that these points had not been made clear and urged that they be solidified during the drafting of the constitution’s fundamentals. Finally, he warned that the people would judge the leadership by their recent actions, which he felt had not yet lived up to the high standards of their own political programs. One more member interrupted him and he said that he had every right to develop his argument.
According to him whole resolution was a resolution of pressure. One part of pressure on British and other part of pressure on Muslim League. He was asking not to increase pressure against Muslims.
Lahiri was taking the discussion in other direction. He was criticizing Dr. Jayakar and Dr. Ambedkar on one hand and raising other points which were not having priority at that time. Even the points he raised and suggestions for those points were not at all good in the sense as they were seem to be modified copies of British laws. Well giving a strong message by presenting the said resolution was standing for India by Assembly against the vicious game they were playing to make India unstable. Muslim League became puppet of British rulers with its own will, no one forced. But some members like Lahiri did not even taken consideration of the vicious plot of these duos. Nehru’s resolution was providing for will of the States, but Britishers and League were actually pressuring Congress and Assembly to accept extra powers given to League in veto, voting and grouping.
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 10
CAD: Pledge to Proclaim Independence of India: Part 11
CAD: Pledge to Proclaim Independence of India: Part 12
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.
