Vol. 13 · pages 46–50

13RESOLUTION REGARDING AIMS AND OBJECTS I support Dr. Jayakar’s amendment—we must also consider what is going to happen with regard to the future, if we act precipitately. I do not know what plans the Congress Party, which holds this House in its possession, has in its mind ? I have no power of divination to know what they are thinking about. What are their tactics, what is their strategy, I do not know. But applying my mind as an outsider to the issue that has arisen, it seems to me there are only three ways by which the future will be decided. Either there shall have to be surrender by the one party to the wishes of the other—that is one way. The other way would be what I call a negotiated peace and the third way would be open war. Sir, I have been hearing from certain members of the Constituent Assembly that they are prepared to go to war. I must confess that I am appalled at the idea that anybody in this country should think of solving the political problems of this country by the method of war. I do not know how many people in this country support that idea. A good many perhaps do and the reason why I think they do, is because most of them, at any rate a great many of them, believe that the war that they are thinking of, would be a war on the British. Well, Sir, if the war that is contemplated, that is in the minds of people, can be localised, circumscribed, so that it will not be more than a war on the British, I probably may not have much objection to that sort of strategy. But will it be a war on the British only ? I have no hesitation and I do want to place before this House in the clearest terms possible that if war comes in this country and if that war has any relation to the issue with which we are confronted to-day, it will not be a war on the British. It will be a war on the Muslims. It will be a war on the Muslims or which is probably worse, it will be a war on a combination of the British and the Muslims. I cannot see how this contemplated war be of the sort different from what I fear it will be. Sir, I like to read to the House a passage from Burke’s great speech on Conciliation with America. I believe this may have some effect upon the temper of this House. The British people as you know were trying to conquer the rebellious colonies of the United States, and bring them under their subjection contrary to their wishes. In repelling this idea of conquering the colonies this is what Burke said:— “First, Sir permit me to observe, that the use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again ; and a nation is not governed which is perpetually to be conquered. “My next objection is its uncertainty. Terror is not always the effect of force and an armament is not a victory. If you do not succeed, you are without resource for, conciliation failing, force remains ; but, force failing, no further

14 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES hope of reconciliation is left. Power and authority are sometimes bought by kindness; but they can never be begged as alms by an impoverished and defeated violence…… “A further objection to force is, that you impair the object by your very endeavours to preserve it. The thing you fought for is not the thing which you recover ; but depreciated, sunk, wasted and consumed in the contest”. These are weighty words which it would be perilous to ignore. If there is anybody who has in his mind the project of solving the Hindu-Muslim problem by force, which is another name of solving it by war, in order that the Muslims may be subjugated and made to surrender to the Constitution that might be prepared without their consent, this country would be involved in perpetually conquering them. The conquest would not be once and for ever. I do not wish to take more time than I have taken and I will conclude by again referring to Burke. Burke has said somewhere that it is easy to give power, it is difficult to give wisdom. Let us prove by our conduct that if this Assembly has arrogated to itself sovereign powers it is prepared to exercise them with wisdom. That is the only way by which we can carry with us all sections of the country. There is no other way that can lead us to unity. Let us have no doubt on that point. ***** Interim Report on Fundamental Rights *The Hon’ble Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru : ... That Government is faced with an extraordinary difficult problem and clause 8( e) shows a strange disregard of the existing state of things there. I think, Sir, that this right can be conferred only under certain conditions which have to be clearly defined. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bengal : General): I do not wish to interrupt the speaker; but in dealing with clause 8( e)†, he is rather giving a wrong impression of the whole clause. Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya (Madras : General): Instead of giving illustrations to make his points clear, he is going into a discussion of the merits. The Hon’ble Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru : As a parliamentarian, Sir, you understand what I am doing. As regards Dr. Ambedkar’s objection, I may say—and I am sure you will bear me out,—I read out the entire clause including the proviso. Mr. President : I would request the Member to confine himself to the point which he wants to illustrate and not go into the merits of the proposal. *CAD, Vol. Ill, 29th April 1947, p. 402. † Clause (e) read as under ;—“ Provision may be made by law to impose such reasonable restrictions as may be necessary in the public interest including the protection of minority groups and tribes.”. —Ed.

15INTERIM REPORT ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ***** CLAUSE 11.—RIGHTS OF FREEDOM *The Hon’ble Sardar Vallabbhhai Patel : Clause 11 is as regards forced labour and it reads : “11. (a) Traffic in human beings, and ( b) Forced labour in any form including begar and involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, are hereby prohibited and any contravention of this prohibition shall be an offence.” Explanation — “Nothing in this sub-clause shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes without any discrimination on the ground of race, religion, caste or class. Now we have to try to discuss this and abridge it and put it in a comprehensive form instead of separate clauses and put it in one clause “traffic in human beings”. ***** † Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bengal : General) : The point that I want to make is this, that, while I have no objection to the redrafting of subclause (a) and (b) in order that they may run in a compact manner, I have certain amount of doubt as to whether the dropping of the Explanation is in consonance with the desire of the majority of the members of the Advisory Committee that the State should not have power in any way for introducing compulsory service. Mr. Munshi suggests that, if the clause stands as redrafted and if the Explanation is omitted, none-the-less, the State will have the right to introduce compulsory military service. I have not had sufficient time to apply my mind to the consequences of the proposed change, i.e., the dropping of the Explanation but I fear that the dropping of the Explanation and retaining the clause in the form in which it is stated may have opposite and serious consequences. Because ‘begar’ is also something which is imposed by the State. So far as I know, in Bombay, ‘begar ’ is demanded by the State for certain public purpose, and if the State is prohibited from having ‘begar’ it is perfectly possible for anybody to argue that even compulsory military service is begar. I am, therefore, not quite satisfied that the dropping of the Explanation is something which is advisable at this stage. I am not in a position to suggest any definite course of action in this matter, but I think I shall be sufficiently discharging my duties if I draw the attention of the House to the doubt which I have in mind about the effect which the dropping of the Explanation may have on the right of the State in regard to compulsory *CAD, Vol. III, 1st May 1947, p. 478 †Ibid., Vol. III, 1st May 1947, p. 480.

16 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES service either for military purposes or for social purposes for the State. My suggestion would be that at this stage we should not drop the Explanation, but leave it as it is and have the whole matter reconsidered when the Provincial Constitution and the Federal Constitution are drafted in their final form. ***** *Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : May I make a suggestion ? We have heard the arguments of Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar who has said that according to his reading of the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States, even if the Explanation was not there, the State would be permitted to have compulsory military service. Fortunately, for me I also happened to look into the very same cases which I am sure Sir Alladi has in mind. I think he will agree with me, if he looks at the reasoning of the judgment given by the Supreme Court, he will find that they proceeded on the hypothesis that in a political organisation the free citizen has a duty to support the Government and as every citizen has a duty to support the Government therefore compulsory military law was doing nothing more than calling upon the citizen to do the duty which he already owes to the State. I submit that that is a very precarious foundation for so important a subject as the necessity of compulsory military service for the defence of the State. I submit that we ought not to rest content with that kind of reasoning which the Supreme Court in India may adopt or may not adopt. Therefore, my suggestion is this, that, just as in the case of the other clause dealing with citizenship you were good enough to remit the matter to a small Committee to have it further examined, it will be desirable that this question as to whether the Explanation should be retained or not may also be remitted to a small committee which should report to this House. It will then be possible for the House to take a correct decision in the matter. Mr. President : I think it is not necessary to have any further discussion if the suggestion which has been made by Dr. Ambedkar is acceptable to the House. Mr. R. K. Sidhwa (C.P. and Berar : General) : The question regarding compulsory military service may be discussed here. Mr. President: We are not deciding here whether we ought to have conscription or not. The question is whether under fundamental rights conscription is prohibited. I think it is best to refer it to the same committee to which the other clause has been remitted. *CAD, Vol. III. 1st May 1947, pp. 483-84.

17INTERIM REPORT ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS An Hon’ble Member : The whole clause 11. Mr. President : Yes, the whole clause 11. The clause was remitted. ***** CLAUSE 17 *The Hon’ble Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel : Sir, I move Clause 17. “Conversion from one religion to another brought about by coercion or undue influence shall not be recognised by law.” Mr. K. M. Munshi : Sir, I beg to move the following amendment: “That for clause 17 substitute the following clause: Any conversion from one religion to another of any person brought about by fraud, coercion or undue influence or of a minor under the age of 18 shall not be recognised by law’ ” ***** †Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. President, Sir, I am sorry to say that I do not find myself in agreement with the amendment which had been moved by Mr. Munshi relating to the question of the conversion of minor children. The clause, as it stands, probably gives the impression to the House that this question relating to the conversion of minors was not considered by the Fundamental Rights Committee or by the Minorities Sub-Committee or by the Advisory Committee. I should like to assure the House that a good deal of consideration was bestowed on this question and every aspect was examined. It was, after examining the whole question in all its aspects, and seeing the difficulties which came up, that the Advisory Committee came to the conclusion that they should adhere to the clause as it now stands. Sir, the difficulty is so clear to my mind that I find no other course but to request Mr. Munshi to drop his amendment. With regard to children, there are three possible cases which can be visualised. First of all, there is the case of children with parents and guardians. There is the case of children who are orphans, who have no parents and no guardians in the legal sense of the word. Supposing you have this clause prohibiting the conversion of children below 18, what is going to be the position of children who are orphans ? Are they not going to have any kind of religion ? Are they not to have any religious instruction given to them by some one who happens to take a kindly interest in them ? It seems to me that, if the clause as *CAD, Vol. III, 1st May 1947, p. 488. †Ibid., Vol. III, 1st May 1947, pp. 501-2