Vol. 1 · pages 326–330

311 FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM made to define the status of a person in a Federal State, therefore, not one question, but several must be answered : What is the relation of this person to the Federal State, as against any and all foreign States ? What is the relation of this person to the State in which he resides ? Further is it possible to be a citizen of one State and not a citizen of Federal State ? Such questions did not arise in Canada and Australia when they became federations. The reason was that persons residing in their respective units were natural born British subjects—a status which remained with them when the Federation came. After the Federation the powers of naturalization was given to the Federation and consequently every one who is naturalized by the Federation is a citizen of the Federation and therefore of every unit in it. Such questions however did arise in the U.S.A., Switzerland and Germany, because before the Federation their units were all foreign States and their subjects were foreign subjects. But it is noteworthy that in all these cases a common citizenship was established as a part of the federation. A rule was established whereby it was accepted that a citizenship of one unit carried with it a citizenship of the Federation. The case of the Indian Federation is similar to that of the U.S.A., Germany and Switzerland. The subject of an Indian State is a foreigner in British India as well as in another Indian State. The subject of a British Indian Province is a foreigner in every Indian State. What does the Indian Federation do with regard to this matter ? Does it forge a common Citizenship for all Units which become members of the Federation ? The answer is no. A British Indian will continue to be a foreigner in every Indian State even though it is a Federal State after the Federation, as he was before the Federation. Similarly a subject of a Federated Indian State will be a foreigner in every British Indian Province after the Federation as he was before Federation. There is no common nationality. The whole principle of the Federation is that the ruler of a Federated State shall remain the ruler of the State and his subjects shall remain his subjects and the Crown as the ruler of the Federated Provinces shall remain the ruler of the Provinces and his subjects shall remain his subjects. This difference in citizenship manifests itself in two specific ways. Firstly, it manifests itself in the matter of right to serve. Federation being established under the Crown, only persons who are subjects of the Crown are entitled to serve under it. This is recognized by Section 262. This of course is an injustice to the subjects of the States. To prevent this injustice which of course is a logical consequence of difference of citizenship, power is given to the Secretary of State to declare the subjects of the Indian States eligible for service under the Federation. This is an anomalous state of affairs and although the injustice to Indian State subjects is mitigated, the injustice

312 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES against British Indians in the matter of right to employment in Indian States continues. For, Indian States are not required to declare that British Indians shall be deemed to be eligible for service under them. That notwithstanding Federation such an anomaly should exist shows that this Federation is a freak. Secondly, this difference in citizenship shows itself in the terms of the oath prescribed for members of the Legislature by Schedule IV. In the case of a member who is a British subject the form of the oath is as under : “I, A.B., having been elected (or nominated or appointed) a member of this Council (or Assembly), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty the King, Emperor of India, His heirs and successors, and that I will faithfully discharge the duty upon which I am about to enter.” In the case of a person who is a subject of a Ruler of an Indian State the form of the oath is as follows : “I, A.B., having been elected (or nominated or appointed) a member of this Council (or Assembly), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that saving the faith and allegiance which I owe to C.D., his heirs and successors, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance in any capacity as Member of this Council (or Assembly) to His Majesty the King, Emperor of India, His heirs and successors, and that I will faithfully discharge the duty upon which I am about to enter.” The subject of an Indian State, it is obvious from the terms of the oath, owes a double allegiance. He owes allegiance to the ruler of his State and also to the King. Superficially the position seems not very different from what one find in the United States. In the United States the individual is a citizen of the Union as well as of the State and owes allegiance to both powers. Each power has a right to Command his obedience. But ask the question, to which, in case of conflict, is obedience due and you will see the difference between the two. On this question this is what Bryce has to say : “The right of the State to obedience is wider in the area of matters which it covers. Prima facie every State-law, every order of a competent State authority binds the citizen, whereas the National government has but a limited power; it can legislate or command only for certain purposes or on certain subjects. But within the limits of its power, its authority is higher than that of the State, must be obeyed even at the risk of disobeying the State. “Any act of a State Legislature or a State Executive conflicting with the Constitution, or with an act of the National Government, done under the Constitution, is really an act not of the State Government, which

313 FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM cannot legally act against the Constitution, but of persons falsely assuming to act as such government, and is therefore ipso jure void. Those who disobey Federal authority on the ground of the commands of a State authority are therefore insurgents against the Union who must be coerced by its power. The coercion of such insurgents is directed not against the State but against them as individuals though combined wrongdoers. A State cannot secede and cannot rebel. Similarly, it cannot be coerced.”. Can the Federal Government in India take the stand which the Union Government can when there is a conflict of allegiance ? There can be no doubt that it cannot, for the simple reason that the allegiance to the King saves the allegiance to the Ruler. This is a very unhappy if not a dangerous situation. (5) Strength of the Federal Frame The existence in the country of one Government which can speak and act in the name of and with the unified will of the whole nation is no doubt the strongest Government that can be had and only a strong Government can be depended upon to act in an emergency. The efficiency of a Governmental system must be very weak where there exists within a country a number of Governments which are distinct centres of force, which constitute separately organized political bodies into which different parts of the nation’s strength flows and whose resistance to the will of the Central Government is likely to be more effective than could be the resistance of individuals, because such bodies are each of them endowed with a government, a revenue, a militia, a local patriotism to unite them. The former is the case where the unitary system of Government prevails. The latter is the case where the Federal form of Government prevails. The Indian Federation by reason of the fact that it is a Federation has all the weaknesses of a Federal form of Government. But the Indian Federation has its own added weaknesses which are not to be found in other Federations and which are likely to devitalize it altogether. Compare the Indian Federation with the Federation of the United States. As Bryce says, “the authority of the national Government over the citizens of every State is direct and immediate, not exerted through the State organization, and not requiring the co-operation of the State Government. For most purposes the National Government ignores the States, and it treats the citizens equally bound by its laws. The Federal Courts, Revenue Officers and Post Office draw no help from any State Officials, but depend directly on Washington ……………….. There is no local self-Government in Federal Matters ……………….. the Federal authority, be it executive or judicial, acts upon the citizens of a State directly by means of its own officers who are quite distinct from and independent of State Officials. Federal indirect taxes, for instance, are levied all along the coast and over the country by Federal custom-house collectors and excisemen acting under the orders

314 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES of the treasury department at Washington. The judgments of Federal Courts are carried out by U.S. Marshals, likewise dispersed over the country and supplied with a staff of assistants. This is a provision of the utmost importance, for it enables the central, national Government to keep its fingers upon the people everywhere, and make its laws and the commands of its duly constituted authorities respected whether the State within whose territory it acts be heartily loyal or not, and whether the law which is being enforced be popular or abnoxious. The machinery of the national Government ramifies over the whole union as the nerves do over the whole body, placing every point in direct connection with the Central executive.”. Not one of these things can be predicated of the Indian Federation. It is a dependent Government and its relation with the people is not direct. In the United States, the States as States have no place in the Central Government and although the States elect representatives to the Federal Legislature, political action at the centre does not run in State channels. There is no combination of States into groups and it is not the fashion for States to combine in an official way through their State organizations. How different is the Indian Federation! States, as such, have been given de jure recognition, they have been given de jure exemptions, and immunities from law. There are great possibilities of combined action and counteraction by States and Provinces over these exemptions and immunities. This is another reason which leads to the feeling that the Indian Federation will have very little vitality. VI BENEFITS OF THE FEDERAL SCHEME The protagonists of the Federal Scheme have urged three grounds in favour of the acceptance of the Scheme. The first ground is that it helps to unite India. The second ground is that it enables British India to influence Indian India and to gradually transform the autocracy that is prevalent in Indian India into the democracy that exists in British India. The third ground is that the Federal Scheme is a scheme which embodies what is called Responsible Government. These three arguments in favour of the Federal Scheme are urged in such seriousness and the authority of those who urge them is so high that it becomes necessary to examine the substance that underlies them. 1. Federation and the Unity of India The advantages of common system of Government are indeed very real. To have a common system of law, a common system of administration and a feeling of oneness are some of the essentials of good life. But they are all the results which follow from a common life led under a common system of Government. Other things being equal, a federation as a common system of Government for the whole of India should be welcome. But does this Federation unite under one governmental system the whole territory called India in the Government of India Act, 1935 ? Is this an All India Federation ?

315 FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM That this fededation includes British India is of course true; when Provinces are declared to be the units of the Federation it means that British India is included in the Federation. Because the Provinces which are declared to be the units of the Federation compromise what is called Indian India. Indian India is no small tract. The following figures of area and population will give a comparative idea of the extent of British India and this Indian India: Area in square miles (1931) Population (1931) British India excluding Burma and Aden. 8,62,630 2,56,859,787 Indian States … … 7,12,508 81,310,845 It will be seen that Indian India comprises 39 per cent of the population and 31 per cent of India as a whole. How much of this Indian India is going to be brought under this Federation? Many will be inclined to say that as this is spoken of as an All India Federation every inch of this area will be included in the Federation and will be subject to the authority of the Federal Government Such an impression is no doubt created by the wording of Section 6( 1) which relates to the accession of the states. This section speaks of a Ruler declaring his desire to join the Federation and thereby suggesting that every State is entitled to join the Federation. If this is true, then no doubt the Federation can in course of time be an All India Federation. But this impression is wrong. Such an impression cannot arise if Section 6( 1) is read with Schedule I of the Act Schedule I is merely thought of as a schedule which contains a Table of Seats for the Rulers. This is a very incomplete reading of the Schedule. The Schedule does more than that. It not only gives a table of seats, but also enumerates the States which are entitled to join the Federation and thereby fixes the maximum number of States which can come within the Federation if they wish to do so. In other words it is not open to every State to join the Federation. Only those enumerated can join. This is the significance of the Table of Seats given in Schedule I. What is the total number of the states which can join the Federation ? Schedule I limits the number to 147. A number of questions crop up by reason of this limit fixed by the Schedule. According to official figures there are in all 627 States in India. That means 480 States will remain outside the Federation and can never become part of the Federation. Can this be called an All India Federation? If it is to be an All India Federation, why are these States excluded? What is the position of these excluded