રાજકારણમાં ભક્તિ તાનાશાહીનો નિશ્ચિત માર્ગ છે: ડૉ. આંબેડકર
The
Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Sir, looking back on the work of the Constituent
Assembly it will now be two years, eleven months and seventeen days since it
first met on the 9th of December 1946. During this period the Constituent
Assembly has altogether held eleven sessions. Out of these eleven sessions the
first six were spent in passing the Objectives Resolution and the consideration
of the Reports of Committees on Fundamental Rights, on Union Constitution, on
Union Powers, on Provincial Constitution, on Minorities and on the Scheduled
Areas and Scheduled Tribes. The seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth and the eleventh
sessions were devoted to the consideration of the Draft Constitution. These
eleven sessions of the Constituent Assembly have consumed 165 days. Out of
these, the Assembly spent 114 days for the consideration of the Draft
Constitution.
Coming to the Drafting
Committee, it was elected by the Constituent Assembly on 29th August 1947. It
held its first meeting on 30th August. Since August 30th it sat for 141 days
during which it was engaged in the preparation of the Draft Constitution. The
Draft Constitution as prepared by the Constitutional Adviser as a text for the
Draft Committee to work upon, consisted of 243 articles and 13 Schedules. The
first Draft Constitution as presented by the Drafting Committee to the
Constituent Assembly contained 315 articles and 8 Schedules. At the end of the
consideration stage, the number of articles in the Draft Constitution increased
to 386. In its final form, the Draft Constitution contains 395 articles and 8
Schedules. The total number of amendments to the Draft Constitution tabled was
approximately 7,635. Of them, the total number of amendments actually moved in
the House were 2,473.
I mention these facts
because at one stage it was being said that the Assembly had taken too long a
time to finish its work, that it was going on leisurely and wasting public
money. It was said to be a case of Nero fiddling while Rome was burning. Is
there any justification for this complaint? Let us note the time consumed by
Constituent Assemblies in other countries appointed for framing their
Constitutions. To take a few illustrations, the American Convention met on May
25th, 1787 and completed its work on September 17, 1787 i.e., within four
months. The Constitutional Convention of Canada met on the 10th October 1864
and the Constitution was passed into law in March 1867 involving a period of
two years and five months. The Australian Constitutional Convention assembled
in March 1891 and the Constitution became law on the 9th July 1900, consuming a
period of nine years. The South African Convention met in October, 1908 and the
Constitution became law on the 20th September 1909 involving one year's labour.
It is true that we have taken more time than what the American or South African
Conventions did. But we have not taken more time than the Canadian Convention
and much less than the Australian Convention. In making comparisons on the
basis of time consumed, two things must be remembered. One is that the
Constitutions of America, Canada, South Africa and Australia are much smaller
than ours. Our Constitution as I said contains 395 articles while the American
has just seven articles, the first four of which are divided into sections
which total up to 21, the Canadian has 147, Australian 128 and South African
153 sections. The second thing to be remembered is that the makers of the
Constitutions of America, Canada, Australia and South Africa did not have to
face the problem of amendments. They were passed as moved. On the other hand,
this Constituent Assembly had to deal with as many as 2,473 amendments. Having
regard to these facts the charge of dilatoriness seems to me quite unfounded
and this Assembly may well congratulate itself for having accomplished so
formidable a task in so short a time.
Turning to the quality
of the work done by the Drafting Committee, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed felt it his
duty to condemn it outright. In his opinion, the work done by the Drafting
Committee is not only not worthy of commendation, but is positively below par.
Everybody has a right to have his opinion about the work done by the Drafting
Committee and Mr. Naziruddin is welcome to have his own. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed
thinks he is a man of greater talents than any member of the Drafting
Committee. The Drafting Committee would have welcomed him in their midst if the
Assembly had thought him worthy of being appointed to it. If he had no place in
the making of the Constitution it is certainly not the fault of the Drafting
Committee.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed
has coined a new name for the Drafting Committee evidently to show his contempt
for it. He calls it a Drafting committee. Mr. Naziruddin must no doubt be
pleased with his hit. But he evidently does not know that there is a difference
between drift without mastery and drift with mastery. If the Drafting Committee
was drifting, it was never without mastery over the situation. It was not
merely angling with the off chance of catching a fish. It was searching in
known waters to find the fish it was after. To be in search of something better
is not the same as drifting. Although Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed did not mean it as a
compliment to the Drafting committee. I take it as a compliment to the Drafting
Committee. The Drafting Committee would have been guilty of gross dereliction
of duty and of a false sense of dignity if it had not shown the honesty and the
courage to withdraw the amendments which it thought faulty and substitute what
it thought was better. If it is a mistake, I am glad the Drafting Committee did
not fight shy of admitting such mistakes and coming forward to correct them.
I am glad to find that
with the exception of a solitary member, there is a general consensus of
appreciation from the members of the Constituent Assembly of the work done by
the Drafting Committee. I am sure the Drafting Committee feels happy to find
this spontaneous recognition of its labours expressed in such generous terms.
As to the compliments that have been showered upon me both by the members of
the Assembly as well as by my colleagues of the Drafting Committee I feel so
overwhelmed that I cannot find adequate words to express fully my gratitude to them.
I came into the Constituent Assembly with no greater aspiration than to
safeguard the interests of he Scheduled Castes. I had not the remotest idea
that I would be called upon to undertake more responsible functions. I was
therefore greatly surprised when the Assembly elected me to the Drafting
Committee. I was more than surprised when the Drafting Committee elected me to
be its Chairman. There were in the Drafting Committee men bigger, better and
more competent than myself such as my friend Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar. I
am grateful to the Constituent Assembly and the Drafting Committee for reposing
in me so much trust and confidence and to have chosen me as their instrument
and given me this opportunity of serving the country. (Cheers)
The credit that is given to me does not really belong to me. It belongs partly
to Sir B.N. Rau, the Constitutional Adviser to the Constituent Assembly who
prepared a rough draft of the Constitution for the consideration of the
Drafting Committee. A part of the credit must go to the members of the Drafting
Committee who, as I have said, have sat for 141 days and without whose
ingenuity of devise new formulae and capacity to tolerate and to accommodate
different points of view, the task of framing the Constitution could not have
come to so successful a conclusion. Much greater, share of the credit must go
to Mr. S.N. Mukherjee, the Chief Draftsman of the Constitution. His ability to
put the most intricate proposals in the simplest and clearest legal form can
rarely be equalled, nor his capacity for hard work. He has been as acquisition
tot he Assembly. Without his help, this Assembly would have taken many more
years to finalise the Constitution. I must not omit to mention the members of
the staff working under Mr. Mukherjee. For, I know how hard they have worked
and how long they have toiled sometimes even beyond midnight. I want to thank
them all for their effort and their co-operation.(Cheers)
The task of the Drafting Committee would have been a very difficult one if this
Constituent Assembly has been merely a motley crowd, a tasseleted pavement
without cement, a black stone here and a white stone there is which each member
or each group was a law unto itself. There would have been nothing but chaos.
This possibility of chaos was reduced to nil by the existence of the Congress
Party inside the Assembly which brought into its proceedings a sense of order
and discipline. It is because of the discipline of the Congress Party that the
Drafting Committee was able to pilot the Constitution in the Assembly with the
sure knowledge as to the fate of each article and each amendment. The Congress
Party is, therefore, entitled to all the credit for the smooth sailing of the
Draft Constitution in the Assembly.
The proceedings of this
Constituent Assembly would have been very dull if all members had yielded to
the rule of party discipline. Party discipline, in all its rigidity, would have
converted this Assembly into a gathering of yes' men. Fortunately, there were
rebels. They were Mr. Kamath, Dr. P.S. Deshmukh, Mr. Sidhva, Prof. K.T. Shah
and Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru. The points they raised were mostly ideological.
That I was not prepared to accept their suggestions, does not diminish the
value of their suggestions nor lessen the service they have rendered to the
Assembly in enlivening its proceedings. I am grateful to them. But for them, I
would not have had the opportunity which I got for expounding the principles
underlying the Constitution which was more important than the mere mechanical
work of passing the Constitution.
Finally, I must thank
you Mr. President for the way in which you have conducted the proceedings of
this Assembly. The courtesy and the consideration which you have shown to the
Members of the Assembly can never be forgotten by those who have taken part in
the proceedings of this Assembly. There were occasions when the amendments of
the Drafting Committee were sought to be barred on grounds purely technical in
their nature. Those were very anxious moments for me. I am, therefore,
specially grateful to you for not permitting legalism to defeat the work of
Constitution-making.
As much defence as
could be offered to the constitution has been offered by my friends Sir Alladi
Krishnaswami Ayyar and Mr.. T.T. Krishnamachari. I shall not therefore enter
into the merits of the Constitution. Because I feel, however good a
Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to
work it, happen to be a bad lot. However had a Constitution may be, it may turn
out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot. The
working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the
Constitution. The Constitution can provide only the organs of State such as the
Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The factors on which the working
of those organs of the State depend are the people and the political parties
they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes and their
politics. Who can say how the people of India and their purposes or will they
prefer revolutionary methods of achieving them? If they adopt the revolutionary
methods, however good the Constitution may be, it requires no prophet to say
that it will fail. It is, therefore, futile to pass any judgement upon the
Constitution without reference to the part which the people and their parties
are likely to play.
The condemnation of the
Constitution largely comes from two quarters, the Communist Party and the
Socialist Party. Why do they condemn the Constitution? Is it because it is
really a bad Constitution? I venture to say no'. The Communist Party want a
Constitution based upon the principle of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
They condemn the Constitution because it is based upon parliamentary democracy.
The Socialists want two things. The first thing they want is that if they come
in power, the Constitution must give them the freedom to nationalize or
socialize all private property without payment of compensation. The second
thing that the Socialists want is that the Fundamental Rights mentioned in the
Constitution must be absolute and without any limitations so that if their
Party fails to come into power, they would have the unfettered freedom not
merely to criticize, but also to overthrow the State.
These are the main
grounds on which the Constitution is being condemned. I do not say that the
principle of parliamentary democracy is the only ideal form of political
democracy. I do not say that the principle of no acquisition of private
property without compensation is so sacrosanct that there can be no departure
from it. I do not say that Fundamental Rights can never be absolute and the
limitations set upon them can never be lifted. What I do say is that the
principles embodied in the Constitution are the views of the present generation
or if you think this to be an over-statement, I say they are the views of the
members of the Constituent Assembly. Why blame the Drafting Committee for
embodying them in the Constitution? I say why blame even the Members of the
Constituent Assembly? Jefferson, the great American statesman who played so
great a part in the making of the American constitution, has expressed some
very weighty views which makers of Constitution, can never afford to ignore. In
one place he has said:-
"We may consider
each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of the
majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more
than the inhabitants of another country."
In another place, he
has said :
"The idea that
institutions established for the use of the national cannot be touched or
modified, even to make them answer their end, because of rights gratuitously
supposed in those employed to manage them in the trust for the public, may
perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch, but is most
absurd against the nation itself. Yet our lawyers and priests generally
inculcate this doctrine, and suppose that preceding generations held the earth
more freely than we do; had a right to impose laws on us, unalterable by
ourselves, and that we, in the like manner, can make laws and impose burdens on
future generations, which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that the
earth belongs to the dead and not the living;"
I admit that what
Jefferson has said is not merely true, but is absolutely true. There can be no
question about it. Had the Constituent Assembly departed from this principle
laid down by Jefferson it would certainly be liable to blame, even to condemnation.
But I ask, has it? Quite the contrary. One has only to examine the provision
relating to the amendment of the Constitution. The Assembly has not only
refrained from putting a seal of finality and infallibility upon this
Constitution as in Canada or by making the amendment of the Constitution
subject tot he fulfilment of extraordinary terms and conditions as in America
or Australia, but has provided a most facile procedure for amending the
Constitution. I challenge any of the critics of the Constitution to prove that
any Constituent Assembly anywhere in the world has, in the circumstances in
which this country finds itself, provided such a facile procedure for the
amendment of the Constitution. If those who are dissatisfied with the
Constitution have only to obtain a 2/3 majority and if they cannot obtain even
a two-thirds majority in the parliament elected on adult franchise in their
favour, their dissatisfaction with the Constitution cannot be deemed to be
shared by the general public.
There is only one point
of constitutional import to which I propose to make a reference. A serious
complaint is made on the ground that there is too much of centralization and
that the States have been reduced to Municipalities. It is clear that this view
is not only an exaggeration, but is also founded on a misunderstanding of what
exactly the Constitution contrives to do. As to the relation between the Centre
and the States, it is necessary to bear in mind the fundamental principle on
which it rests. The basic principle of Federalism is that the Legislative and
Executive authority is partitioned between the Centre and the States not by any
law to be made by the Centre but by the Constitution itself. This is what
Constitution does. The States under our Constitution are in no way dependent
upon the Centre for their legislative or executive authority. The Centre and
the States are co-equal in this matter. It is difficult to see how such a
Constitution can be called centralism. It may be that the Constitution assigns
to the Centre too large a field for the operation of its legislative and
executive authority than is to be found in any other federal Constitution. It
may be that the residuary powers are given to the Centre and not to the States.
But these features do not form the essence of federalism. The chief mark of
federalism as I said lies in the partition of the legislative and executive
authority between the Centre and the Units by the Constitution. This is the
principle embodied in our constitution. There can be no mistake about it. It
is, therefore, wrong to say that the States have been placed under the Centre.
Centre cannot by its own will alter the boundary of that partition. Nor can the
Judiciary. For as has been well said:
"Courts may
modify, they cannot replace.
They can revise earlier interpretations as
new arguments, new points of view are presented, they can shift the dividing
line in marginal cases, but there are barriers they cannot pass, definite
assignments of power they cannot reallocate. They can give a broadening
construction of existing powers, but they cannot assign to one authority powers
explicitly granted to another."
The first charge of centralization
defeating federalism must therefore fall.
The second charge is
that the Centre has been given the power to override the States. This charge
must be admitted. But before condemning the Constitution for containing such
overriding powers, certain considerations must be borne in mind. The first is
that these overriding powers do not form the normal feature of the
constitution. Their use and operation are expressly confined to emergencies
only. The second consideration is : Could we avoid giving overriding powers to
the Centre when an emergency has arisen? Those who do not admit the justification
for such overriding powers to the Centre even in an emergency, do not seem to
have a clear idea of the problem which lies at the root of the matter. The
problem is so clearly set out by a writer in that well-known magazine "The
Round Table" in its issue of December 1935 that I offer no apology for
quoting the following extract from it. Says the writer :
"Political systems
are a complex of rights and duties resting ultimately on the question, to whom,
or to what authority, does the citizen owe allegiance. In normal affairs the
question is not present, for the law works smoothly, and a man, goes about his
business obeying one authority in this set of matters and another authority in
that. But in a moment of crisis, a conflict of claims may arise, and it is then
apparent that ultimate allegiance cannot be divided. The issue of allegiance
cannot be determined in the last resort by a juristic interpretation of
statutes. The law must conform to the facts or so much the worse for the law.
When all formalism is stripped away, the bare question is, what authority
commands the residual loyalty of the citizen. Is it the Centre or the
Constituent State ?"
The solution of this
problem depends upon one's answer to this question which is the crux of the
problem. There can be no doubt that in the opinion of the vast majority of the
people, the residual loyalty of the citizen in an emergency must be to the
Centre and not to the Constituent States. For it is only the Centre which can
work for a common end and for the general interests of the country as a whole.
Herein lies the justification for giving to all Centre certain overriding
powers to be used in an emergency. And after all what is the obligation imposed
upon the Constituent States by these emergency powers? No more than this that
in an emergency, they should take into consideration alongside their own local
interests, the opinions and interests of the nation as a whole. Only those who
have not understood the problem, can complain against it.
Here I could have
ended. But my mind is so full of the future of our country that I feel I ought
to take this occasion to give expression to some of my reflections thereon. On
26th January 1950, India will be an independent country (Cheers). What would
happen to her independence? Will she maintain her independence or will she lose
it again? This is the first thought that comes to my mind. It is not that India
was never an independent country. The point is that she once lost the
independence she had. Will she lost it a second time? It is this thought which
makes me most anxious for the future. What perturbs me greatly is the fact that
not only India has once before lost her independence, but she lost it by the
infidelity and treachery of some of her own people. In the invasion of Sind by
Mahommed-Bin-Kasim, the military commanders of King Dahar accepted bribes from
the agents of Mahommed-Bin-Kasim and refused to fight on the side of their
King. It was Jaichand who invited Mahommed Gohri to invade India and fight
against Prithvi Raj and promised him the help of himself and the Solanki Kings.
When Shivaji was fighting for the liberation of Hindus, the other Maratha
noblemen and the Rajput Kings were fighting the battle on the side of Moghul
Emperors. When the British were trying to destroy the Sikh Rulers, Gulab Singh,
their principal commander sat silent and did not help to save the Sikh Kingdom.
In 1857, when a large part of India had declared a war of independence against
the British, the Sikhs stood and watched the event as silent spectators.
Will history repeat
itself? It is this thought which fills me with anxiety. This anxiety is
deepened by the realization of the fact that in addition to our old enemies in
the form of castes and creeds we are going to have many political parties with
diverse and opposing political creeds. Will Indian place the country above
their creed or will they place creed above country? I do not know. But this
much is certain that if the parties place creed above country, our independence
will be put in jeopardy a second time and probably be lost for ever. This
eventuality we must all resolutely guard against. We must be determined to
defend our independence with the last drop of our blood.(Cheers)
On the 26th of January 1950, India would be a democratic
country in the sense that India from that day would have a government of the
people, by the people and for the people. The same thought comes to my mind.
What would happen to her democratic Constitution? Will she be able to maintain
it or will she lost it again. This is the second thought that comes to my mind
and makes me as anxious as the first.
It is not that India
did not know what is Democracy.
There was a time when India was studded
with republics, and even where there were monarchies, they were either elected
or limited. They were never absolute. It is not that India did not know
Parliaments or Parliamentary Procedure. A study of the Buddhist Bhikshu Sanghas
discloses that not only there were Parliaments-for the Sanghas were nothing but
Parliaments but the Sanghas knew and observed all the rules of Parliamentary
Procedure known to modern times. They had rules regarding seating arrangements,
rules regarding Motions, Resolutions, Quorum, Whip, Counting of Votes, Voting
by Ballot, Censure Motion, Regularization, Res Judicata, etc. Although these
rules of Parliamentary Procedure were applied by the Buddha to the meetings of
the Sanghas, he must have borrowed them from the rules of the Political
Assemblies functioning in the country in his time.
This democratic system
India lost. Will she lost it a second time? I do not know. But it is quite
possible in a country like India where democracy from its long disuse must be
regarded as something quite new there is danger of democracy giving place to
dictatorship. It is quite possible for this new born democracy to retain its
form but give place to dictatorship in fact. If there is a landslide, the
danger of the second possibility becoming actuality is much greater.
If we wish to maintain
democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do? The first
thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of
achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the
bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil
disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When there was no way left for
constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was
a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where
constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these
unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy
and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.
The second thing we
must do is to observe the caution which John Stuart Mill has given to all who
are interested in the maintenance of democracy, namely, not "to lay their
liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with power which
enable him to subvert their institutions". There is nothing wrong in being
grateful to great men who have rendered life-long services to the country. But
there are limits to gratefulness. As has been well said by the Irish Patriot
Daniel O'Connel, no man can be grateful at the cost of his honour, no woman can
be grateful at the cost of her chastity and no nation can be grateful at the
cost of its liberty. This caution is far more necessary in the case of India
than in the case of any other country. For in India, Bhakti or what may be
called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics
unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other
country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the
soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and
to eventual dictatorship.
The third thing we must
do is not to be content with mere political democracy. We must make our
political democracy a social democracy as well. Political democracy cannot last
unless there lies at the base of it social democracy. What does social
democracy mean? It means a way of life which recognizes liberty, equality and
fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of liberty, equality and
fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of liberty, equality and
fraternity are not to be treated as separate items in a trinity. They form a
union of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat
the very purpose of democracy. Liberty cannot be divorced from equality,
equality cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be
divorced from fraternity. Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy
of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual
initiative. Without fraternity, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few
over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative.
Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural course of
things. It would require a constable to enforce them. We must begin by
acknowledging the fact that there is complete absence of two things in Indian
Society. One of these is equality. On the social plane, we have in India a
society based on the principle of graded inequality which we have a society in
which there are some who have immense wealth as against many who live in abject
poverty. On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of
contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic
life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognizing the principle
of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we
shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the
principle of one man one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of
contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and
economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by
putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at
the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow
up the structure of political democracy which is Assembly has to laboriously
built up.
The second thing we are
wanting in is recognition of the principle of fraternity. what does fraternity
mean? Fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians-if Indians
being one people. It is the principle which gives unity and solidarity to
social life. It is a difficult thing to achieve. How difficult it is, can be
realized from the story related by James Bryce in his volume on American
Commonwealth about the United States of America.
The story is- I propose
to recount it in the words of Bryce himself- that-
"Some years ago
the American Protestant Episcopal Church was occupied at its triennial
Convention in revising its liturgy. It was thought desirable to introduce among
the short sentence prayers a prayer for the whole people, and an eminent
New England divine proposed the words `O Lord, bless our nation'. Accepted one
afternoon, on the spur of the moment, the sentence was brought up next day for
reconsideration, when so many objections were raised by the laity to the word
nation' as importing too definite a recognition of national unity, that it was
dropped, and instead there were adopted the words `O Lord, bless these United
States."
There was so little
solidarity in the U.S.A. at the time when this incident occurred that the
people of America did not think that they were a nation. If the people of the
United States could not feel that they were a nation, how difficult it is for
Indians to think that they are a nation. I remember the days when
politically-minded Indians, resented the expression "the people of
India". They preferred the expression "the Indian nation." I am
of opinion that in believing that we are a nation, we are cherishing a great
delusion. How can people divided into several thousands of castes be a nation?
The sooner we realize that we are not as yet a nation in the social and psychological
sense of the world, the better for us. For then only we shall realize the
necessity of becoming a nation and seriously think of ways and means of
realizing the goal. The realization of this goal is going to be very difficult
far more difficult than it has been in the United States. The United States has
no caste problem. In India there are castes. The castes are anti-national. In
the first place because they bring about separation in social life. They are
anti-national also because they generate jealousy and antipathy between caste
and caste. But we must overcome all these difficulties if we wish to become a
nation in reality. For fraternity can be a fact only when there is a nation.
Without fraternity equality and liberty will be no deeper than coats of paint.
These are my
reflections about the tasks that lie ahead of us. They may not be very pleasant
to some. But there can be no gainsaying that political power in this country
has too long been the monopoly of a few and the many are only beasts of burden,
but also beasts of prey. This monopoly has not merely deprived them of their
chance of betterment, it has sapped them of what may be called the significance
of life. These down-trodden classes are tired of being governed. They are
impatient to govern themselves. This urge for self-realization in the
down-trodden classes must no be allowed to devolve into a class struggle or
class war. It would lead to a division of the House. That would indeed be a day
of disaster. For, as has been well said by Abraham Lincoln, a House divided
against itself cannot stand very long. Therefore the sooner room is made for
the realization of their aspiration, the better for the few, the better for the
country, the better for the maintenance for its independence and the better for
the continuance of its democratic structure. This can only be done by the
establishment of equality and fraternity in all spheres of life. That is why I
have laid so much stresses on them.
I do not wish to weary
the House any further. Independence is no doubt a matter of joy. But let us not
forget that this independence has thrown on us great responsibilities. By
independence, we have lost the excuse of blaming the British for anything going
wrong. If hereafter things go wrong, we will have nobody to blame except
ourselves. There is great danger of things going wrong. Times are fast
changing. People including our own are being moved by new ideologies. They are
getting tired of Government by the people. They are prepared to have Governments
for the people and are indifferent whether it is Government of the people and
by the people. If we wish to preserve the Constitution in which we have sought
to enshrine the principle of Government of the people, for the people and by
the people, let us resolve not to be tardy in the recognition of the evils that
lie across our path and which induce people to prefer Government for the people
to Government by the people, nor to be weak in our initiative to remove them.
That is the only way to serve the country. I know of no better.
No comments:
Post a Comment