|
CHAIRMAN'S INAUGURAL ADDRESS
HON'BLE MEMBERS OF THE FIRST INDIAN
CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY:
I am deeply beholden to you for your having agreed to accept me as the first President
of your Constituent Assembly, which will enable me to assist you in
transacting the preliminary business before the House--such as the election
of a permanent President, the framing of the Rules of Business, the
appointment of various Committees, and settling the question of giving
Publicity to, or keeping confidential, your proceedings-which will ultimately
lead you to crown your labours by formulating a
suitable and stable constitution for an Independent India. In expressing my
sense of appreciation of your great kindness, I cannot conceal from myself
that I feel comparing small things with great-that I am, on the present
occasion in the position in which Lord Palmerston
found himself when Queen Victoria offered him the
highest Order of Chivalry, namely, the Knighthood of the Garter. In accepting
the Queen's offer, Lord Palmerston wrote to a
friend as follows:-
"I have gratefully accepted Her Majesty's gracious offer as, thank God,
there is no question of any damned merit about the honour
conferred on me."
I say I find myself more or less in the same position, for you have agreed to
accept me as your President on the sole ground that I am in age, the
senior-most member of this Assembly. Whatever the ground however, on which
you have chosen to have me as your first President, I am nonetheless
profoundly grateful to you. I have had, in my fairly long life, several honours conferred on me in recognition of my services as
a humble worker in public interest, but I assure you that I regard your mark
of favour as a signal honour,
which I shall cherish throughout the rest of my life.
On this historic and memorable occasion, you will not grudge, I am sure, if I
venture to address to You some observations on certain aspects of what is
called a Constituent Assembly. This political method of devising a
constitution for a country has not been known to our fellow-subjects in
Britain, for the simple reason, that under the British Constitution, there is
no such thing as a constituent law, it being a cherished privilege of the
British Parliament, as the sole sovereign authority, to make and unmake all
laws, including the constitutional law of the country. As such, we have to
look to countries other than Britain to be able to form a correct estimate of
the position of a Constituent Assembly. In Europe, the oldest Republic, that of Switzerland, has not had a Constituent
Law, in the ordinary sense of that term, for it came into existence, on a
much smaller scale than it now exists, due to historic causes and accidents,
several centuries back. Nevertheless, the present constitutional system of
Switzerland has several notable and instructive features, which have strongly
been recommended by qualified authorities to Indian constitution-makers, and
I have no doubt that this great Assembly will study carefully the Swiss
Constitution, and try to utilise it to the best
advantage in the interest of preparing a suitable constitution for a free and
independent India.
The only other State in Europe, to the constitution of which we could turn
with some advantage, is that of France, the first Constituent Assembly of
which (called "The French National Assembly") was convoked in 1789,
after the French Revolution had succeeded in overthrowing the French monarchy.
But the French Republican system of Government had been changed since then,
from time to time, and is even now, more or less, in the melting pot. Though,
therefore, you may not be able to derive as much advantage from a study of
the French system of constituent law as that of the Swiss,
that is no reason why you should not seek to derive what advantage you
can in the preparation of the task before you, by a study of it.
As a matter of fact, the French constitution-makers, who met in 1789 at the
first Constituent Assembly of their country, were themselves largely
influenced by the work done but a couple of years earlier in 1787, by the
historic Constitutional Convention held at Philadelphia by the American
constitution-makers, for their country. Having thrown off their allegiance to
the British King in Parliament, they met and drew up what had been regarded,
and justly so, as the soundest, and most practical and workable republican
constitution in existence. It is this great constitution, which had been
naturally taken as the model for all subsequent constitutions not only of
France, but also of the self-governing Dominions of the British Commonwealth,
like Canada, Australia, and South Africa; and I have no doubt that you will
also, in the nature of things, pay in the course of your work, greater
attention to the provisions of the American Constitution than to those of any
other.
I have referred above to the self-governing constitutions of the great
Dominions of the British Commonwealth being based on, to a large extent, if
not actually derived, from, the American constitutional system. The first to
benefit by the American system was Canada, the historic Convention of which
country, for drawing up a self-governing constitution, met in 1864, at
Quebec. This Convention drew up the Canadian Constitution, which was
subsequently embodied in what is still on the Statute Book as the British
North American Act, passed by the British Parliament in 1867. You may be
interested to hear that the Quebec Convention consisted of only 33 delegates
from all the provinces of Canada, and that Convention of 33 representatives
issued as many as 74 resolutions, which were afterwards duly incorporated in
toto in the British North American Act, under the provisions of which the
first self-governing Dominion of the British Commonwealth of Canada, came
into existence, in 1867. The British Parliament accepted tile Canadian
Convention's scheme in its entirety, except for making only one drafting
amendment. I hope and pray, Hon'ble Members, that
your labours may be crowned with a similar success.
The American constitutional system was more or less adopted in the schemes
prepared for framing the Constitutions of Australia and South Africa, which
shows that the results achieved by the American Convention held at
Philadelphia in 1787, had been accepted by the world as a model for framing
independent federal constitutions for various countries. It is for these
reasons that I have felt justified in inviting your attention to the American
system of constituent and constitutional law as one-which should be carefully
studied by you-not necessarily for wholesale adoption, but for the judicious
adaptation of its provisions to the necessities and requirements of your own
country, with such modifications as may be necessary or essential owing to
the peculiar conditions of our social, economic and political life. I have
done so as according to Munro--a standard authority on the subject-the
American Constitution is based on "a series of agreements as well as a
series of compromises". I may venture to add, as a result of my long
experience of public life for now nearly half a century,
that reasonable agreements and judicious compromises are nowhere more
called for than in framing a constitution for a country like India.
In commending to you for your careful consideration and acceptance, with
reasonable agreements and judicious compromises, the fundamental principles
of the American system, I cannot do better than quote the striking
observations on the subject of the greatest British authority namely Viscount
Bryce, who in his monumental work, called "The American
Commonwealth", writes as follows, putting in a very few lines the
substance of the fundamental principles of the American Constitution:-
"Its central or national- is not a mere league. for
it does not wholly depend on the component communities which we call the
States. It is itself a Commonwealth, as well as a union of Commonwealths,
because it claims directly the obedience of every citizen, and acts
immediately upon him through its courts and executive officers. Still less
are the minor communities, the States, mere sub-divisions of the Union, mere
creatures of the National Government, like the counties of England, or the
Departments of France. They have over their citizens an authority which is
their own, and not delegated by the Central Government."
It may possibly be that in some such scheme, skillfully adapted to our own
requirements, a satisfactory solution may be found for a constitution for an
Independent India, which may satisfy the reasonable expectations and
legitimate aspirations of almost all the leading political parties in the
country. Having quoted the greatest British authority on the great, inherent,
merits of the American Constitution, you will, I hope, bear with me a fairly
long quotation from the greatest American Jurist, Joseph Story. In concluding
his celebrated book, called "Commentaries on the Constitution of the
United States", he made certain striking and inspiring observations
which I present to you as worthy of your attention. Said Story:--
"Let the American youth never forget, that they possess (in their
Constitution) a noble inheritance, bought by the toils, and sufferings, and
blood of their ancestors; and capable, if wisely improved, and
faithfully-guarded, of transmitting to their latest posterity all the
substantial blessings of life, the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, property,
religion, and independence. The structure has been erected by architects of
consummate skill and fidelity; its foundations are solid; its compartments
are beautiful, as well as useful its arrangements are full of wisdom and
order; and its defences are impregnable from
without. It has been reared for immortality if the work of man may justly
aspire to such a title. It may, nevertheless, parish in an hour by the folly,
or corruption, or negligence of its only keepers, THE PEOPLE. Republics are'
created-these are the words which I commend to you for your consideration-by
the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when
the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be
honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in
order to betray them."
To quote yet one more leading authority on the almost ideal Constitution of
America, James (at one time Solicitor-General of the United States) says in
his highly instructive book, called, "The Constitution of the United
States-Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow"--
"Constitutions, as a governmental panacea, have come and gone; but it
can be said of the American Constitution, paraphrasing the noble tribute of
Dr. Johnson to the immortal fame of Shakespeare, that the stream of time
which has washed away the dissoluble fabric of many other paper
constitutions, has left almost untouched its adamantine strength. Excepting
the first ten amendments, which were virtually a part of the original
charter, only nine others have been adopted in more than one hundred and
thirty years. What other form of government has better stood the test of
time?"
Hon'ble Members, my prayer is that the Constitution
that you are going to plan may similarly be reared for 'Immortality', if the
work of man may justly aspire to such a title, and it may be a structure of
'adamantine strength, which will outlast and overcome all present and future
destructive forces.
Having invited your attention to some aspects of the question of
constitution-making in Europe and America, I may now profitably turn to some
aspects of the question in our own country. The first definite reference to a
Constituent Assembly (though not under those words or under that particular
name) I have found in a statement of Mahatma Gandhi, made so far back as
1922. Mahatmaji wrote:-
"Swaraj will not be a free gift of the British
Parliament. It will be a declaration of India's full self-expression,
expressed through an Act of Parliament. But it will be merely a courteous
ratification of the declared wish of the people of India. The ratification
will be a treaty to which Britain will be a party. The British Parliament. when the settlement comes, will ratify the wishes of the
people of India as expressed through the freely chosen representatives."
The demand made by Mahatma Gandhi for a Constituent Assembly, composed of the
"freely chosen representatives" of the people of India, was
affirmed, from time to time, by various public bodies and political leaders,
but it was not till May, 1934, that the Swaraj
Party, which was then formed at Ranchi (in Bihar), formulated a scheme in
which the following resolution was included:-
"This Conference claims for India the right of self-determination, and
the only method of applying that principle is to convene a Constituent
Assembly, representative of all sections of the Indian people, to frame an
acceptable constitution."
The policy embodied in this resolution was approved by the All-India Congress
Committee, which met at Patna-the capital of Bihar-a few days later, in May,
1934; and it was thus that the scheme of a Constituent Assembly for framing
the Indian Constitution was officially adopted by the Indian National
Congress.
The above resolution was confirmed at the session of the Congress held at Faizpur in December 1936. The confirming resolution
declared that--
"The Congress stands for a genuine democratic State in India where
political power has been transferred to the people, as a whole, and the
Government is under their effective control. Such a State can only come into
existence through. a Constituent Assembly having the
power to determine finally the constitution of the country."
In November, 1939, the Congress Working Committee adopted a resolution which
declared that-
"Recognition of India's independence and the right of her people to
frame their constitution through a Constituent Assembly is essential."
I may add that in the resolutions from which I have quoted above (those
adopted at the Congress Working Committee of November 1939, and at the Faizpur session of the Congress of 1936) it was declared
that the Constituent Assembly should be elected on the basis of adult
suffrage. Since the Congress gave a lead on the subject in 1934, the idea of
a Constituent Assembly had come to prevail largely as an article of faith in
almost all the politically-minded classes in the country.
But until the adoption of the resolution on Pakistan, in March 1940, by the
Muslim League, that political organization had not favoured
the idea of a Constituent Assembly as a proper and suitable method for
framing a constitution for this country. After the adoption of that
resolution, however, the attitude of the Muslim League seems to have
undergone a change in favour of the idea of a
Constituent Assembly-one for the areas claimed by the League for a separate
Muslim State, and the other for the rest of India. Thus it may be stated that
the idea of a Constituent Assembly, as the only direct means for the framing
of a constitution in this country, came to be entertained and accepted by the
two major political parties in 1940, with this difference that while the
Congress desired one Constituent Assembly for India, as a whole, the Muslim
League wanted two Constituent Assemblies, in accordance with its demand for
two separate States in the country. Any way,
whether one or two, the idea of a Constituent Assembly being the proper
method for the framing of a constitution had clearly dawned by that time on
public consciousness in the country, and it was with reference to that great
mental upheaval that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
declared that "it means a nation on the move, fashioning for itself a
new Government of its own making, through their elected
representatives".
It remains to add that the conception of a Constituent Assembly as the most
appropriate method for framing the constitution of India had also found favour with the members of the Sapru
Committee in the report of which, issued last year (1945), is formulated a
definite scheme for the composition of a Constituent Assembly. We are
meeting, however in this Assembly today, under the scheme propounded by the
British Cabinet Mission, which, though differing from the suggestions made on
the subject by the Congress, the League, and other political organizations,
had devised a scheme which, though not by all, had been accepted by many
political parties, and also by large sections of the politically-minded
classes in the country, but also by those not belonging to any political
partly, as one well worth giving a trial, with a view to end the political
deadlock, which had obtained for now many years past, and frustrated our aims
and aspirations. I have no desire to go further into the merits of the
British Cabinet Mission's scheme as that might lead me to trespass on controversial
ground, which I have no, desire to traverse on the present occasion. I am
aware that some parts of the scheme, propounded by the British Cabinet
Mission, have been the subject of acute controversies between some of the
political parties amongst us, and I do not want, there-fore, to rush in where
even political angles might well fear to tread.
Hon'ble Members, I fear I have trespassed long on
your patience, and should now bring my remarks to a close. My only
justification for having detained you so long is the uniqueness of this great
and memorable occasion in the history of India, the enthusiasm with which
this Constituent Assembly had been welcomed by large classes of people in
this country, the keen interest which matters relating to it had evoked
amongst various communities, and the prospect which it holds out for the
final settlement of the problem of all problems, and the issue of all issues,
namely, the political independence of India, and her economic freedom. I wish
your labours success, and invoke Divine blessings
that your proceedings may be marked not only by good sense, public spirit,
and genuine patriotism, but also by wisdom, toleration, justice, and fairness
to all; and above all with a vision which may restore India to her pristine glory,
and give her a place of honour and equality amongst
the great nations of the world. Let us not forget to justify the pride of the
great Indian poet, Iqbal, and his faith in the
immortality of the destiny of our great, historic, and ancient country, when
he summed
up in these beautiful lines:
Yunan-o-Misr-o-Roma sabmit gaye jahan se,
Baqi abhi talak hai
nam-o-nishan hamara.
Kuch bat hai ke hasti
mit-ti nahin hamari,
Sadion raha hai dushman
daur-e-zaman hamara.
It means: "Greece, Egypt, and Rome, have all disappeared from the
surface of the Earth; but the name and fame of India, our country, has
survived the ravages of Time and the cataclysms of ages. Surely, surely,
there is an eternal element in us which had frustrated all attempts at our
obliteration, in spite of the fact that the heavens themselves had rolled and
revolved for centuries, and centuries, in a spirit of hostility and enmity
towards us." I particularly ask of you to bring to your task a broad and
catholic vision, for as the Bible justly teaches us--
"Where there is no vision the people perish." (Applause).
---------------------------------
|