Now, I come to the first part of the Resolution, which includes the first four paragraphs. As I said, from the debate that has gone on in the House, this has become a matter of controversy. The controversy seems to be centred on the use of that word ‘Republic’. It is centred on the sentence occurring in paragraph 4 — “the sovereignty is derived from the people”. Thereby it arises from the point made by my friend Dr [Mukund Ramrao] Jayakar yesterday that in the absence of the Muslim League, it would not be proper for this Assembly to proceed to deal with this Resolution.
Now, Sir, I have got not the slightest doubt in my mind as to the future evolution and the ultimate shape of the social, political and economic structure of this great country. I know today we are divided politically, socially and economically. We are a group of warring camps and I may go even to the extent of confessing that I am probably one of the leaders of such a camp.
But, Sir, with all this, I am quite convinced that given time and circumstances nothing in the world will prevent this country from becoming one. (Applause). With all our castes and creeds, I have not the slightest hesitation that we shall in some form be a united people. (Cheers). I have no hesitation in saying that notwithstanding the agitation of the Muslim League for the partition of India someday enough light would dawn upon the Muslims themselves and they too will begin to think that a United India is better even for them. (Loud cheers and applause).
So far as the ultimate goal is concerned, I think none of us need have any apprehensions, none of us need have any doubt. But my fear, which I must express clearly, is this: Our difficulty, as I said, is not about the ultimate future. Our difficulty is, how to make the heterogeneous mass that we have today take a decision in common and march in a cooperative way on that road which is bound to lead us to unity. Our difficulty is not with regard to the ultimate. Our difficulty is with regard to the beginning.
Mr Chairman, therefore, I should have thought that in order to make a start, in order to induce every party, every section in this country, it would be the act of greatest statesmanship for the majority party, even to make a concession to the prejudices of people who are not prepared to march together.
And it is for that, that I propose to make this appeal. Let us leave aside slogans. Let us leave aside words which frighten people. Let us even make concession to the prejudices of our opponents. Bring them in so that they may willingly join with us on marching upon that road which, as I said, if we walk long enough, must necessarily lead us to unity.
Also read: India lost independence once. Can Constitution prevent another loss, Ambedkar asked
And if I, therefore, from this place support Dr Jayakar’s amendment, it is because I want all of us to realise that whether we are right or wrong, whether the position that we take is in consonance with our legal rights, whether that accords with the statement of May 16th or December 16th, leave all that aside. This is too big a question to be reduced to the position of mere legality. It is not a legal question.
I say leave aside all these considerations and make some attempt whereby those who are not prepared to come will come. Let us make it possible for them to come. That is my appeal.
In the course of the debate that took place, there were two questions which were raised, which struck me so well that I took the trouble of taking them down on a notepaper. The one question was, it was asked, I think, by my friend, the Prime Minister of Bihar, who spoke yesterday in this Assembly. He said, how can this [Objectives] Resolution prevent the [Muslim] League from coming into the Constituent Assembly?
Today, my friend, Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee, asked another question. Is this Resolution inconsistent with the Cabinet Mission’s proposal? Now, sir, I think they were very important questions. And they, I think, ought to be answered, and answered categorically. I do maintain that this Resolution, whether it is intended to bring about the result or not, whether it is the result of cold calculation, or whether it is a mere matter of accident, is bound to have the result of keeping the Muslim League out.
And I will substantiate what I said. Sir, I invite your attention to paragraph 3 in the Resolution, which I think is very significant and very important. Paragraph 3 envisages the future constitution of India.
I do not know what is the intention of the mover of the Resolution. But I take it that it is a sort of, after this Resolution is passed, it will act as a sort of a directive to the Constituent Assembly to frame the constitution in terms of paragraph 3 of the Resolution.
What does paragraph 3 speak of? Paragraph 3 says that in this country, there shall be two different sets of polity. One at the bottom, the autonomous provinces or the states, or such other areas as care to join a united India. These autonomous units will have full powers. They will have also residual powers.
At the top and over the provincial units, there will be a Union government having certain subjects for legislation, for execution and for administration. Sir, as I read this part of the Resolution, I do not find any reference to the idea of grouping an intermediary structure between the Union on the one hand and the provinces on the other. Now, reading this paragraph in the light of the Cabinet Mission’s statement or reading it even in the light of the Resolution passed by the Congress at its Wardha session, I must confess that I am a great deal surprised at the absence of any reference to the idea of the grouping of the provinces.
So far as I am personally concerned, I do not like the idea of grouping. I like a strong united Centre. Much stronger than the Centre we had created under the Government of India Act of 1935.
But, sir, these opinions, these wishes have no bearing on the situation at all. We have travelled a long road. The Congress Party, for the reasons best known to itself, consented, if I may use the expression, to the dismantling of a strong Centre, which had grown into this country as a result of 150 years of administration and which, I must say, was to me a matter of great admiration and respect.
But having given up that position, having said that we do not want a strong Centre, and having accepted that there must be or should be an intermediate polity, a sub-federation between the Union government and the provinces, I like to know why there is no reference in paragraph 3 to the idea of grouping.
I quite understand that the Congress Party, the Muslim League, and His Majesty’s government is not ad idem on the interpretation of that particular idea about grouping. But I always thought, and I will be prepared to stand corrected if it is shown that I am wrong, that at least it was agreed by the Congress Party that if the provinces, who are to be within the different groups, consent to form a Union or a sub-federation, the Congress would have no objection to that proposal. I believe I am correct in interpreting the mind of the Congress Party.
So the question that I ask is this. Why did not the mover of this Resolution make reference to the idea of having a Union of the provinces or grouping of provinces on the terms on which he and his party was prepared to accept? Why is the idea of Union completely effaced from this Resolution? I find no answer.
I therefore say in answer to the two questions which have been posed here in this Assembly by the Prime Minister of Bihar and Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee as to how this Resolution is inconsistent with the statement of May 16th or how this Resolution is going to prevent the Muslim League from entering this Constituent Assembly, that here is paragraph 3 which the Muslim League is bound to take advantage of and justify its continued absentation.
Sir, my friend Dr Jayakar, yesterday, in arguing his case for postponing a decision on this issue put his case, if I may say so, without offence to him, somewhat in a legalistic manner. The basis of his argument was, have you the right to do so? He read out certain portions from the statement of the Cabinet Mission, which related to the procedural part of the Constituent Assembly, and his contention was that the procedure that this Constituent Assembly was adopting in deciding upon this Resolution straightaway was inconsistent with the procedure that was laid down in that paper.
Sir, I like to put the matter in a somewhat different way. The way I like to put it is this. I am not asking you to consider whether you have the right to pass this Resolution straightaway or not. It may be that you have the right to do so. The question I am asking is this. Is it prudent for you to do so? Is it wise for you to do so? Power is one thing; wisdom is quite a different thing and I want this House to consider this matter from the point of view, not of what authority is vested in this Constituent Assembly, I want this House to consider the matter from another point of view, namely, whether it would be wise, whether it would be statesmanlike, whether it would be prudent to do so at this stage.
The answer that I give is that it would not be prudent, it would not be wise. I think another attempt may be made to bring about a solution of the dispute between the Congress and the Muslim League. This subject is so vital, so important that I am sure it could never be decided on the mere basis of dignity of one party or of the dignity of another party. When deciding the destinies of nations, dignities of people, dignities of leaders and dignities of parties ought to count for nothing. The destiny of the country ought to count for everything. It is because I feel that it would in the interest not only of this Constituent Assembly so that it may function as one whole, so that it may have the reaction of the Muslim League before it proceeds to decision, that I support Dr Jayakar’s amendment.
We must also consider what is going to happen with regard to the future, if we act precipitately. I do not know, what plans the Congress Party, which holds this House in its possession, has in its mind? I have no power of divination to know what they are thinking about. What are their tactics, what is their strategy, I do not know. 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.
Sir, I have been hearing from certain members of the Constituent Assembly that they are prepared to go to war. I must confess that I am appalled at the idea that anybody in this country should think of solving the political problems of this country by the method of war. I do not know how many people in this country support that idea. A good many perhaps do and the reason why I think they do, is because most of them, at any rate a great many of them, believe that the war that they are thinking of, would be a war on the British.
Well, Sir, if the war that is contemplated that is in the mind of people can be localised, circumscribed, so that it will not be more than a war on the British, I probably may not have much objection to that sort of strategy. But will it be a war on the British only? I have no hesitation and I do want to place before this House in the clearest terms possible that if war comes in this country and if that war has any relation to the issue with which we are confronted today, it will not be a war on the British. It will be a war on the Muslims. It will be a war on the Muslims or, which is probably worse, it will be a war on a combination of the British and the Muslims. I cannot see how this contemplated war be of the sort different from what I fear it will be.
Sir, I like to read to the House a passage from Burke’s great speech on Conciliation with America. I believe this may have some effect upon the temper of this House. The British people, as you know, were trying to conquer the rebellious colonies of the United States, and bring them under their subjection contrary to their wishes. In repelling this idea of conquering the colonies, this is what Burke said:
“First, Sir, permit me to observe, that the use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again; and a nation is not governed, which is perpetually to be conquered.
“My next objection is its uncertainty. Terror is not always the effect of force an amendment is not a victory. If you do not succeed, you are without resource for, conciliation failing, force remains; but, force failing, no further hope of reconciliation is left. Power and authority are sometimes bought by kindness; but they can never be begged as alms by an impoverished and defeated violence….
“A further objection to force is, that you impair the object by your very endeavours to preserve it. The thing you fought for is not the thing which you recover; but depreciated, sunk, wasted and consumed in the contest.”
These are weighty words which it would be perilous to ignore if there is anybody who has in his mind the project of solving the Hindu-Muslim problem by force, which is another name of solving it by war, in order that the Muslims may be subjugated and made to surrender to the Constitution that might be prepared without their consent. This country would be involved in perpetually conquering them. The conquest would not be once and for ever.
I do not wish to take more time than I have taken and I will conclude by again referring to Burke. Burke has said somewhere that it is easy to give power, it is difficult to give wisdom. Let us prove by our conduct that if this Assembly has arrogated to itself sovereign powers it is prepared to exercise them with wisdom. That is the only way by which we which we can carry with us all sections of the country. There is no other way that can lead us to unity. Let us not have no doubt on that point.
This is part of ThePrint’s Great Speeches series. It features speeches and debates that shaped modern India.