Vol. 1 · pages 376–380

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT 361 bothering about Indeed, the provision contained in the present Government of India Act could be adopted as the best compromise. Having regard to this I cannot see why a Constituent Assembly is necessary to incubate a constitution. So much of the Constitution of India has already been written out in the Government of India Act, 1935, that it seems to be an act of supererogation to appoint a Constituent Assembly to do the thing ever again. All that is necessary is to delete those sections of the Government of India Act, 1935, which are inconsistent with Dominion Status. The only function which could be left to a Constituent Assembly is to find a solution of the Communal Problem. I am quite positive that whatever be the terms of reference of the Constituent Assembly, the Communal Question should not form a part of them. Consider the composition of the Constituent Assembly as suggested by the Sapru Committee. The total membership is fixed at 160. The election is by joint electorates by members of the Provincial Legislative Assemblies under a system of proportional representation and the decision is to be by three-fourths of the members present and voting. Can a minority accept this Constituent Assembly as a safe body, in the impartiality of which it can place implicit confidence ? The answer to this question must depend upon what answers one can give to two other questions : Does it guarantee that the representatives of a minority elected to the Assembly will be its true representatives ? Secondly, does it guarantee that the decision of the Assembly with regard to the claims of any particular minority will not in fact be an imposition on the minority ? On neither of these two questions can I confidently say that a minority need have no cause for fear. Before taking up these questions, let me point out what differences there are between the Cripps Constituent Assembly and the Sapru Constituent Assembly. They may be stated as follows : (i) The total number for the Constituent Assembly fixed by the Sapru Committee is 160. Sir Stafford Cripps had not fixed any number. But the provision contained in his proposal that the Constituent Assembly shall consist of ten per cent of the total number of members of the Provincial Legislatures virtually fixed the number to about 158—a difference of only 2. (ii) The method of election to the Constituent Assembly by the Sapru Committee is by joint electorate under the system of proportional representation. In this there is no difference between the Cripps plan and the Sapru plan for the composition of the Constituent Assembly. (iii) Under the Cripps plan, there was no communal reservation. The Sapru plan departs from the Cripps plan in this respect, in as much as it reserves seats for particular communities in prescribed

362 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES proportions. This difference is only normal. For, though the Cripps plan did not in terms fix the number, the scheme of proportional representation would have in fact resulted in such reservation. The difference in the quota of representation under the two schemes will be seen from the following table : Communities and Interests Quota of seats in the Constituent Assembly Under Cripps’ Under Sapru’s Hindus .. .. .. 77 51 Muslims .. .. .. 50 51 Scheduled Castes .. .. 15 20 Sikhs .. .. .. 3 8 Indian Christians .. .. 2 7 Anglo-Indians .. .. 1 2 Europeans .. .. .. 6 1 Aboriginal Tribes .. .. 2 3 Special Interests .. .. .... 16 Others .. .. .. 2 1 158 160 The Sapru Committee has not only fixed the numbers for each Community in the composition of the Constituent Assembly but it has offered the Muslims equality with the Hindus. For this departure the Committee’s plea is that in consideration for this offer it has demanded joint electorate as a basis for election to the Constituent Assembly. In this, the Committee must be said to have entirely misunderstood the Cripps proposals. Joint-Electorates were already provided for in the Cripps proposals one clause of which reads—“The members of the Lower Houses of the Provincial Legislatures are to form a single Electoral College”. This is simply another way of saying that the election shall be by joint-electorate. It has given something for nothing to one element and thereby put the other Communities in a hazard. (iv) Under the Cripps proposal the decision of the Assembly was to be by majority of those present and voting, Under the Sapru proposal the decision is to be by a majority of 3/4th of those present and voting. Now to revert to the two questions. How does the position stands with regard to the first question ? To give one’s opinion on it, it is first necessary

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT 363 to know the communal distribution of the membership of the Provincial Legislative Assemblies. The following table sums up the position : Distribution of Seats by Communities in the Provincial Legislative Assemblies* Communities General Women University Trade Unions Commerce Land lords Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 1. Hindus .. 651 26 7 33 31 22 770 2. Muslims .. 482 10 1 5 6 13 517 3. Scheduled Castes. 151 .. .. .. .. .. 151 4. Indian Christians. 20 1 .. .. .. .. 21 5. Anglo-Indians .. 11 1 .. .. .. .. 12 6. Sikhs .. 34 1 .. .. .. 1 36 7. Europeans .. 26 .. .. .. 19 1 46 8. Aboriginals .. 24 .. .. .. .. .. 24 Total .. 1,399 39 8 38 56 37 1,577 Has the communal reservation made by the Sapru proposal, and which is not to be found in the Cripps proposal, any value ? That depends upon how far one community will be able to influence the election of the members of the other communities ? What are the prospects in this regard ? Let me give another table : Voting strength in relation to seats Communities Voters for Constituent Assembly Quota of seats in the Constituent Assembly Number of votes required for electing the quota (+)Excess of voters over (–)Deficiency of voters below requirement 1. Hindus .. 778 51 561 + 217 2. Muslims .. 561 51 517 + 44 3. Scheduled Castes .. 151 20 220 – 69 4. Indian Christians .. 21 7 77 – 56 5. Sikhs .. 36 8 88 – 52 6. Europeans .. 46 1 11 + 35 From this table the following conclusions emerge : (i) Taking the total votes to be 1577 and the total number to be elected 160, the quota under the proportional system of representation would roughly come to 10 + 1 = 11. *The distribution of seats for (1) Universities; (2) Trade Unions, (3) Commerce and (4) Landlords among the communities does not stand for an exact figure. It is based on guess as to how they may be divided among the communities having regard to the relative position.

364 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (ii) Taking 11 as the quota, the Hindus will have 217, the Muslims 44 and the Europeans 35 votes to spare, while the Scheduled Castes will be short by 69, the Indian Christians by 56 and the Sikhs by 52 votes. To put the same thing in a different way : (i) The Hindus with their excess of 217 votes can elect 20 non-Hindus, who would be dependent upon them ; the Muslims with their excess of 44 votes can elect 4 non-Muslims, who would be dependent upon them and the Europeans with their excess of 35 votes would be able to elect 3 non-Europeans, who would be dependent upon them. (ii) The Scheduled Castes with a shortage of 69 votes will be able to elect only 13 members on the stock of their own votes and for 7 seats they will have to depend upon Hindu, Muslim or European voters. The Indian Christians with a shortage of 56 votes will be able to elect only 2 seats on the stock of their own voters. For the rest of the 5 seats they will have to depend upon Hindu, Muslim or European voters. Similarly the Sikhs with a shortage of 52 will be able to elect only 3 seats on the stock of their own voters. For the rest of the 5 seats they will have to depend upon Hindu, Muslim or European voters Such is the position. It is evident that the excess representation granted to the smaller minorities is only an eye-wash. Their representation is made so dependent that in no sense can it be called a real representation. Let me now take the second question. Is the rule of decision adopted by the Sapru Committee for the Constituent Assembly a safe rule ? The Cripps proposal had adopted the rule of bare majority. This was an absurd proposition which no sensible man could have proposed. I know of no case where questions relating to the constitution were left to be decided by a simple majority. The Cripps proposals sought to excuse the adoption of the majority rule on the ground that there was to be a further provision for safeguarding the interest of the minorities. The provision was to take the form of a Treaty between the British Crown and the Indian Constituent Assembly, before Parliament was to relinquish its sovereignty and make India free. The proposal of a Treaty would have had some sense, if the Treaty was to override the constitution. But the proposal was impossible as under the Cripps scheme India was free to become a Dominion or an Independent country as she pleased. For once India became a Dominion it would ipso facto acquire all the legal power necessary to pass an enactment declaring that the Treaty shall not override the constitution. In that case the Treaty would have been no better than a calendar which members of the minorities might, if they wished, hang on the walls of their houses. This

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT 365 was exactly what happened to the Irish Treaty. The Irish Treaty continued to override the Irish Constitution so long as Ireland was not a Dominion. But the moment Ireland became a Dominion the over riding power of the Treaty was taken away by a short and simple enactment of the Parliament of the Irish Free State and the British Parliament did nothing, for it knew that Ireland was a Dominion and therefore it could do nothing. How so absurd a provision came to be put forth by so eminent a person to assure the minorities, I am unable to understand. The provisions contained in the Sapru proposals appear to be an improvement. But are they really an improvement ? I am sure they are not. A three-fourths majority of 160 means that a view to prevail must have the support of 120 members. Before accepting this as an improvement, one has to have some idea as to how this group of 120 is likely to be formed. If the Hindus and the Muslims combine they will together make up 102 and will need only 18 more to make up 120. Most of the special seats and a few more from others may easily fall into the hands of this combine. If this happens the decision of the Assembly will obviously be an imposition upon the Scheduled Castes, the Sikhs, the Indian Christians etc. Similarly, if the Muslims are isolated the decision will not be a joint decision but an imposition upon the Muslims by non-Muslims. These possibilities of permutation and combination for the purpose of check-mating or out-manouvering of some communities by others, I am sorry to say, have not been taken into consideration by the Sapru Committee. There would have been some safety, if the Sapru Committee had provided that the three-fourths majority shall at least include 50 per cent of each element. Following upon the procedure adopted in the making of the constitution of the United States, the Sapru Committee could have added a further provision for the ratification at any rate of the communal part of the decision of the Assembly by the representatives of the minorities outside the Assembly. None of these provisions finds a place in the plan of the Constituent Assembly as designed by the Sapru Committee. Consequently the Constituent Assembly has become a snare. There are many other arguments against the plan of a Constituent Assembly. I may mention one, which I confess has influenced me greatly. When I read the history of the Union between Scotland and England, I was shocked at the corruption and bribery that was practised to win the consent of the Scottish Parliament. The whole of the Scottish Parliament was bought. The chances of corruption and bribery being used in the Indian Constituent Assembly to buy over members to support decisions desired by interested groups are very real. Their effects, I am sure, cannot be overlooked. If this happens, it will not only make mockery of the Constituent Assembly but I feel quite certain that any attempt made to enforce its decisions will result in a civil war. It is my considered opinion that the proposal of Constituent Assembly is more dangerous than profitable and should not be entertained.