Vol. 17, Part I · pages 91–95

66 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES who later became the Prime Minister of Britain, was a member of the Simon Commission. Attlee asked Dr. Ambedkar some pertinent question in the course of the Doctor’s examination. The work of the Simon Commission continued till the winter. The Provincial Committees were also drafting their own reports. The Committee appointed by the Bombay Legislative Council to co-operate with the Simon Commission after hearing both official and non-official evidence relating to the constitutional problem, submitted later their report on May 7,1929.* Dr. Ambedkar, who fundamentally differed with the Committee, did not sign that report and submitted a separate report containing his own views and recommendations on May 17, 1929.* Referring to the demand for the separation of Karnatak, he said he was opposed to the separation of Karnatak from the Bombay Presidency because “the principle of one language one province is too large to be given effect to in practice. The number of provinces that will have to be carved out if the principle is to be carried to its logical conclusion shows in my opinion its unworkability”. “For I am of the opinion,’’ declared the patriot in Dr. Ambedkar, “that the most vital need of the day is to create among the mass of the people the sense of a common nationality, the feeling not that they are Indians first and Hindus, Mohammedans or Sindhis and Kanarese afterwards, but that they are Indians first and Indians last. If that be the ideal then it follows that nothing should be done which will harden local patriotism and group consciousness.” As regards the separation of Sind which had assumed tremendous significance in those days, he said it was a sectional demand, a part of a large scheme designed to make the communal majority of the Muslims a political majority in five provinces. “The scheme,” he warned the nation, “is neither so innocent nor so bootless as it appears on the surface.” He asserted that the motive that lay behind the scheme was undoubtedly a dreadful one involving the maintenance of justice * See Writings and Speeches, Vol. 2. Pp. 315-401.

67ROLE OF ......................... INDIAN DEMOCRACY and peace by retaliation and had stemmed from the principle that the best way of keeping peace was to be prepared for war. To support his conclusions he quoted the address delivered to the Muslim League Session at Calcutta by the Gandhian nationalist Muslim leader, Maulana Azad, in which the Muslim leader said : “There would be nine Hindu Provinces as against five Muslim Provinces and whatever treatment Hindus accorded to the Muslims in the nine provinces, Muslims would accord the same treatment to the Hindus in the five provinces. Was not this a great gain ? Was not a new weapon gained for the assertion of Muslim rights?” This is a searchlight on the Gandhian nationalist Muslim leaders. Dr. Ambedkar then dealt with the Muslim demand for Separate Electorates. He described how different people in Europe lived under a common Government in proximity of each other without objecting to a common electorate. He observed : “It does not seem to be sufficiently known that India is not the only country where the Mohammedans are in a minority. There are other countries in which they occupy the same position. In Albania, the Mohammedans form a very large community. In Bulgaria, Greece and Rumania they form a minority and in Yugoslavia and Russia they form a large majority. Have the Mohammedan communities there insisted upon the necessity of separate communal electorates ? As all students of political history are aware, the Mohammedans in these countries have managed without the benefit of Separate Electorates : nay, they have managed without any definite ratio of representation assured to them. The Mohammedan case in India, therefore, overshoots the mark in my opinion and fails to carry conviction.” The communal representation, he said, was so fundamentally wrong that to give in to sentiment in its case would be to perpetuate an evil. Dr. Ambedkar further said: “Although I am for securing special representation for certain classes, I am against their representation through Separate Electorates. Territorial Electorates and Separate Electorates are the two extremes which

68 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES must be avoided in any scheme of representation that may be devised for the introduction of a democratic form of Government in this undemocratic country. The golden mean is the system of joint electorates with reserved seats. Less than that would be insufficient, more than that would defeat the ends of good Government.” The report, viewed in the context of principles, theories and personalities then prevailing, was as rationalistic as it was patriotic. It had both a balance and a ballast. When it was published, it derived spontaneous eulogy from Dr. Ambedkar’s inveterate foes, obstinate critics and the hostile press. Dr. Ambedkar was found overnight to be a great politician, a great patriot, a diamond in the abysmal coal-mine of the Untouchables, a statesman of rare gift. Like a meteor and a mentor, he emerged as one of the great political minds of his generation. Thus this Report bound him to the active destinies of his country! It will be a sure guide to historians.” 1 As stated above Dr. B. R. Ambedkar had submitted his separate report containing his own views and recommendation. The Summary of Recommendation is below : “SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION I There should be no separation of Karnatak or Sind from the Bombay Presidency. SECTION II Chapter 1. —There should be complete responsibility in the Provincial executive subject to the proviso that if members of the Legislature resolve to make it a reserved subject effect shall be given to their resolution. 1 : Keer, Pp. 114-117, and 121-23.

69ROLE OF ......................... INDIAN DEMOCRACY Chapter 2.—Under no circumstances should the executive be made irremovable. There shall be no communal representation in the executive. Ministers should be amenable to courts of law for illegal acts. The constitution should provide for the impeachment of Ministers. There should be joint responsibility in the executive. The executive should be presided over by a Prime Minister and not by the Governor. Chapter 3.—The Governor should have the position of a constitutional head. He should have no emergency powers. SECTION III Chapter 1.—There should be adult franchise. Chapter 2.—The Legislature should be wholly elective. All class and Communal Electorates should be abolished except for Europeans. Reserved seats should be provided for Mohamedans, Depressed Classes and Anglo-Indians and to the Non-Brahmins only if the franchise continues to be a restricted one. Chapter 3. —The Legislature should consist of 140 members. Of these Mohamedans should have 33 and the Depressed Classes 15. The under-representation of certain districts and the over-representation of others should be rectified on the basis of population. There should be a Committee to adjust seats between different classes and interests. The requirement of a residential qualification for a candidate should be removed. Chapter 4.—Lucknow Pact is not a permanent settlement and cannot prevent consideration of the question arising out of it afresh and on their own merits. Chapter 5. —There should be no second chamber in the Province. Chapter 6.—The Legislature should have the power of appointing and removing the President, of defining its privileges and regulating its procedure Sections 72D and 80C of the Government of India Act should be removed from the Statute.

70 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES The Legislature should have the power to move “a motion of no confidence”. The Legislature should have the power to alter the constitution subject to certain conditions. SECTION IV Chapter 1.—There should be Complete Provincial Autonomy. The division of functions between Central and Provincial should be reconsidered with a view to do away with the control of Central Government now operating through the system of previous sanction and subsequent veto. Chapter 2.—Within the limits fixed by the functions assigned to the Provincial Government the relations between that Government and the Home Government should be direct and not through the medium of the Central Government. Section 2 of the Government of India Act should be deleted as it obscures the position of the Crown in relation to the governance of India. SECTION V There should be a distinct Provincial Civil Service and the Secretary of State should cease altogether to perform the function of a recruiting agency. His functions regarding the Services may be performed by a Provincial Civil Service Commission or by an officer acting conjointly with the Public Service Commission of India. Indianisation of Services should be more rapid. Its pace should vary with the nature of the different departments of State. Indianisation should be accompanied by a different scale of salary and allowances. In the course of Indianisation of the services arrangement should be made for the fulfilment of claims of the backward classes.” 1 17th May 1929 Dr. B. R. AMBEDKAR 1 : Writings and speeches, Vol. 2, Pp. 400-01.