Constitution Day of India, November 26
November 26 is observed
as Constitution Day of India. The Constitution of India was finally enacted and
adopted and given to ourselves on November 26, 1949. Government of India under
the leadership of PM Narendra Modi thoughtfully declared the day as Constitution
Day of India, rightly so, in November, 2015. Before the constitution was
finally passed by the Constituent Assembly, Chief Architect of the Constitution
as Chairman of the Drafting Committee, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar made a thought provoking
speech in the Constituent Assembly on November, 25. That speech is as relevant
today as it was before. I thought of sharing the speech with the discerning
readers of the Ambedkar Times to observe the Constitution Day. The text of the
speech is available in my recently released book: Some Random Thoughts on
Babasaheb Ambedkar and His Legacy – The Bits and Pieces which is available
online with Amazon and Flipkart.
Text of Babasaheb B.R. Ambedkar’;s speech in the Constituent Assembly delivered on November 25, 1949 before the Constitution was finally passed
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 was 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 Drifting
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 the 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 Drafts man of the Constitution. His ability to
put the most intricate proposals in the simplest and clearest legal form can
rarely be equaled, nor his capacity for hard work. He has been an acquisition
to the 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
tessellated 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, especially grateful to you for not
permitting legalism to defeat the work of Constitution-making.
As much defense 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 bad 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
depends 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 judgment 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 nation 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 to the fulfillment 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 lose 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
Indians 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 forever. 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 lose 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 lose 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 judgment 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’Connell, 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 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 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 this Assembly has so 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 not 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.
