Vol. 1 · pages 331–335

316 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES States ? If they are not States with sovereignty why are they allowed to join the federation ? If they are not States with sovereignty and if the sovereignty is with the Crown, why has the Crown not transferred its sovereignty to the Federation in respect of these territories ? What will be the ultimate destiny of such excluded States? Will these be merged in some Indian States or will these be merged in some Indian Provinces? I mention all this, firstly because I want to show that this Federation is not an All India Federation and secondly because I want to draw attention to the move of some Indian States to get these excluded States to merge into them. A second question may be raised. Will this Federation help to unite the people of British India and the Indian States into one nation ? A Federation is necessarily a composite body. Within it are units which are smaller political communities. Above the units is a larger political community called the Federation. Whether these different political communities will remain merely political associations or whether they will develop a common social fabric leading ultimately to the formation of a nation will depend upon what form their association takes. As Bryce points out— “When within a large political community smaller communities are found existing, the relation of the smaller to the larger usually appears in one or other of the two following forms. One form is that of the League, in which a number of political bodies, be they monarchies or republics are bound together so as to constitute for certain purposes, and especially for the purpose of common defence, a single body. The members of such a composite body or league are not individual men but communities. It exists only as an aggregate of communities, and will therefore vanish so soon as the communities which compose it separate themselves from one another. Moreover it deals with and acts upon these communities only. With the individual citizen it has nothing to do, no right of taxing him, or judging him, or making laws for him, for in all these matters it is to his own community that his allegiance is due. “In the second form, the smaller communities are mere sub-divisions of that greater one which we call a nation. They have been created, or at any rate they exist, for administrative purposes only. Such powers as they possess are powers delegated by the nation, and can be overridden by its will. The nation acts directly by its own officers, not merely on the communities, but upon every single citizen and the nation, because it is independent of these communities, would continue to exist were they all to disappear ………….”. The former is the case where the form of Government is a confederation. The latter is the case where there exists a unitary form of Government. A Federal Government is between the two. It must not however be assumed that nationalism is compatible only with a Unitary Government and

317 FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM incompatible with a Federal form of Government. It must be borne in mind that as a nation may be found in being, so also a nation, may be brought into being. In a Federal Government there may be at the start no nation, it may be a collection of heterogeneous communities. But it is possible to have in the end a nation even under a Federal Government. The most striking case is that of the United States of America. Mr. Bryce relates a story which is both interesting as well as instructive. This is the story and I give it in his own words. “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 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.’ Notwithstanding this prayer to the Lord, notwithstanding the reluctance to encourage the idea of a nation over against the idea of the states and notwithstanding the federal form oi Government the United States is a nation. That it is a nation in the social sense of the word is incontrovertible.” How has this happened in the United States ? Can we hope to see this happen in India under the Federal Scheme ? Bryce explains how this happened in America. He points out that in America “The Central or National Government 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”. It can tax him, make law for him and judge him. In short it is the process of Government which is responsible largely if not wholly for moulding the Americans into a nation and that this was possible because in the Federal Form of Government of the United States there is a direct contact between the National Government and the individual. Is this possible under the Indian Federal Scheme ? My answer is that such a thing is not possible. The people in the Indian States remain the subjects of the States. The Federal Government cannot deal with them directly. Everything has to be done through the State. There is no contact between the two, not even for purposes of taxation. How can a feeling that they belong to the national Government grow in the subject of the Indian States if they are excluded from any and every influence and are not even made to feel the existence of the National Government ? I am afraid this United States of India will not be more than a mere body

318 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES of United States. It has no potentiality of forging a nation out of these States and probably the framers of the Scheme have had no such intention at all. 2. Democratization of Autocracies The other advantage of the Federal Scheme which is claimed by its protagonists is that it brings beneath the dome of a single political edifice the new democracies of British India and the ancient autocracies of the Indian States and that by bringing the two under one edifice it provides contact between democracy and autocracy and thus enables the democracy in British India to democratize the autocracies in the Indian States. To examine this argument and to see how much force there is behind it, it is well to note that the Indian States and the British Indian Provinces are geographically contiguous. There is regular intercourse between them. The people of British India and those of the Indian States racially, linguistically and culturally form parts of one whole. With all these contacts and with all the unity of race, religion, language and culture British India has not been able to influence at all the forms of government which are prevalent in the Indian States. On the contrary while British India has advanced from autocracy to democracy, the Indian States have remained what they were with their fixed form of government. Unless therefore there is something special in the Act itself which enables British India to exercise its influence on the Indian States through the legislature and through the executive, this argument can have no substance at all. Is there anything in the Act which gives British India power to influence the States ? In this connection reference may be made to section 34(1) which deals with the procedure in the legislature with respect to the discussion and voting of the Budget estimates. From an examination of this Section it will be clear that the estimates relating to para ( a) and para (f) of sub-section ( 3) of section 33 cannot even be discussed by the Federal legislature. Para ( a) of sub-section ( 3) refers to the salary and allowances of the Governor-General and other expenditure relating to his office for which estimate is required to be made by Orders in Council, and para ( f) relates to the sums payable to His Majesty under this Act out of the revenue of the Federation in respect of the expenses incurred in discharging the functions of the Crown in its relations with the Indian States. Another section which has a bearing upon this point is Section 38. Section 33 is a section which deals with the making of the rules by the Federal legislature for regulating its procedure in the conduct of its business. While this section permits the Federal legislature to make its own rules it allows the Governor-General to make rules — ( c) or prohibiting the discussion of, or the asking of questions on, any matter connected with any Indian State, other than a matter with

319 FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM respect to which the Federal legislature has power to make laws for the State, unless the Governor-General in his discretion is satisfied that the matter affects Federal interest or affects a British subject and has given his consent to the matter being discussed or the question being asked ; ( d) For prohibiting — ( i) the discussion of, or the asking of questions on, any matter connected with relations between His Majesty or the GovernorGeneral and any foreign State or Prince ; or ( ii) the discussion, except in relation to estimates of expenditure of, or the asking of questions on, any matter connected with the tribal area or the administration of any excluded area; or (iii) the discussion of, or the asking of questions on, the personal conduct of the ruler of any Indian State, or of a member of the ruling family thereof; and the section further provides that if and so far as any rule so made by the Governor-General is inconsistent with any rules made by the Chamber, the rules made by the Governor-General shall prevail. Another section having a bearing on this point is section 40. It says: “No discussion shall take place in the Federal legislature with respect to the conduct of any judge of the Federal Court or a High Court in the discharge of his duties and provides that in this sub-section the reference to a High Court shall be construed as including a reference to any court in a Federated State which is a High Court for any of the purposes of Part 9 of this Act.” Similar provisions are contained in that part of the Act which relates to the constitution of the provincial legislatures. Section 84 is a counterpart of section 38 and prevents any member of a Provincial legislature from asking any question with regard to the personal conduct of the ruler of any Indian State or the affairs of a State. Section 86 is a counterpart of section 40. Now it is obvious that the two most important ways open to a Legislature for influencing the conduct of the administration is by discussion of the Budget and by asking questions. The discussions on the budget had its origin in the theory which postulates that there can be no supply given to the executive unless the grievances of the people were redressed. The slogan of democracy has been : Redress of grievances before supplies of moneys. The discussion on the budget is the one opportunity of placing the grievances of a people before the executive. It is therefore a very valid privilege, as will be seen from section 34, the legislature is prevented but from placing the grievances of the subjects of the States before the executive on the floor of the House. Similarly, the right to interrogate and ask questions

320 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES is also valid privilege, but that also is denied. The right to criticise on a proper motion the conduct of the judiciary is always open to the legislature, but that also has been excluded. It is difficult to see exactly in what way the Federal legislature could influence the internal administration of the Indian States. Not only the representatives of British India are prevented from asking any question or moving any resolution with regard to the internal administration of the States, but the same disability is imposed upon the representatives of the States themselves who are the victims of this maladministration. Compare with this the influence which the Federated States are in a position to exercise over British India. In the first place there is no restriction on the representatives of the Federated States in the matter of asking any question or raising any matter in the Federal Legislature. The fact that the question or matter touches British India and relates to internal administration of British India is not a bar against the representatives of the Federated States from raising such an issue. Secondly, there is no restraint upon the representatives of the Federated States in the matter of discussing and voting upon the financial proposals of the Federal Government. The fact that any such proposal affects British India only and does not affect the States can cause no legal impediment in their way. Thirdly, in the matter of Legislation the Representatives of the Federated States are free to vote upon any measure brought before the Federal Legislature. There are two lists over which the legislative authority of the Federation extends—The Federal list and the Concurrent list. The provinces are wholly bound by the Federal List. A Federated State is not wholly bound by it. The provinces are wholly bound by the concurrent list. A Federated State may not be bound at all. Yet the State represenatives have a right to vote upon any measure falling under either of the two lists. In other words the Federal Scheme gives the States the right to legislate for British India, while British India gets no such right to legislate for the States except to the extent to which the States choose to subject themselves to these two legislative lists. The scope of this Legislative influence by the States over British India is by no means small nor is it inconsequential. To Confine to the Concurrent list only, it includes 36 subjects. Among the 36 are such subjects as, Criminal Law, Criminal and Civil Procedure, Professions, Newspapers, Books and Printing Press etc. It is clear that these subjects are vital subjects. They affect the liberties of the people in the Provinces. Now as the States have a right to participate and vote upon all legislation within the Concurrent list, the Indian States will have the right and the authority to pass legislation affecting the rights, privileges and liberties of British Indians in the Provinces.