Vol. 17, Part III · pages 451–455

125 FAILURE OF PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY WILL RESULT IN REBELLION, ANARCHY AND COMMUNISM In this speech, delivered before the students’ Parliament of the D. A. V. College, Jullundar City (Punjab) on October 28,1951. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar lucidly explains the Parliamentary Democracy. He said, “Principal, the Hon’ble President and Hon’ble Speaker, I am, indeed, thankful to you for the great honour done to me of asking me to address the special session of your Parliament. During my whole life, I have been, so to say, a wanderer, from subject to subject, from profession to profession. I began my career as a Professor of Political Economics in the Government Commerce College, Bombay, in 1919, after my return from England. But I soon felt that the Government service was no good for a man who wishes to do public service. A government servant is bound by rules of discipline. He is hampered at every stage in his work of public service. I then went back to England and qualified for Bar. After my return I practised for a short period and then accepted the post of the Principal of the Government Law College at Bombay. I came back to the profession of teaching. I worked as the Principal of the Law College for five years. Then, the 1935 Government of India Act came into being, which brought the popular legislatures in existence for the first time. I then thought of taking a jump into the politics and I left the service and took to politics. Since then I have alternatively been doing legal practice and serving the public. Legal practice and public service are, thus, the alternating currents in my life ; and I do not know on which current my life will end whether A.C. or D.C. I am very fond of teaching profession. I am also very fond of students. I have dealt with them. I have lectured them in my life. This is the first opportunity I have got to address the students since my resignation from the Cabinet. I am very glad to talk to the students. A great lot of the future of this country must necessarily depend on the students of this country. Students is an intelligent part of the

423FAILURE OF..............COMMUNISM community and they can shape the public opinion. I, therefore, take special pleasure in addressing you, the members of the Parliament, and I am really thankful for this opportunity given to me. When your Principal wrote to me requesting me to address you, he did not indicate any particular subject. I also had nothing in my mind about the topic on which I shall speak to you this morning. But suddenly, as it usually happens in my case, at the flash of moment the subject became clear to me, and I have decided to speak a few words with you on the subject of Parliamentary Government. The time at my disposal is very short and I will, therefore, be able to give only a brief analysis of the subject. During the discussion in the Constituent Assembly there was a variety of opinion as regards the nature of the Consititution that we should have. Some preferred British system ; some American system. There were others who did not want either of these two types of Government. But after a long discussion, a large majority of members came to a conclusion that the system of the Parliamentary Government as it is in Britain is best suited to our country. There are some sections of people who do not like Parliamentary Government. Communists want the Russian type of Government. The Socialists are also against the present Constitution of India. They are agitating against it. They have declared that if they come to power, they will modify it. Personally speaking, I am very greatly attached to the Parliamentary System of Government. We must understand what it means and we must preserve it in the Constitution. What is meant by Parliamentary Government ? There is a book on English Constitution by Walter Bagehot. It is, indeed, a classic treatise. It was later expanded by other authorities on Constitutional Government like Laski and others. He has put the conception of the Parliamentary Government in one sentence. He says Parliamentary Government means Government by discussion and not by fisticuffs. You will always find in British system of Government that they hardly ever resort to fisticuffs while taking any decision. The decision is always taken after discussion. Nobody introduces element of disturbance in British Paliament.

424 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Look at the French Politics. Decision are arrived at more than often by knocking knock-out blows. You will find that this system is hardly adequate to those not born in that system. It is an alien institution to them. We must learn, understand and make it a success. Parliamentary Democracy is unknown to us at present. But India, at one time had Parliamentary Institutions. India was far more advanced in ancient times. If you go through the ‘Suktas’ of Mahaparinibbana, you will find ample evidence in support of my point. In these ‘Suktas’ it is stated that while Bhagwan Buddha was dying at Kusinara (Kusinagara) a message to the effect was sent to the Mallas who were sitting in session at that time. They were devoted to Parliamentary Institutions. When they received the message about Buddha, they decided that they shall not close the session, but would carry on with their work and will go to Kusinara after finishing of the business of the Parliament. There are innumerable references in our literature to prove that Parliamentary System of Government was not unknown to us. There are many rules about Parliamentary Procedure. May’s Parliamentary practice is generally followed. One rule that is invariably followed everywhere is that there can be no discussion without a motion. That is why there is no discussion on a question. This rule was also practised in our land in ancient times. The system of secret ballot now in vogue is also not new to us. It was followed in Buddhist Sanghas. They had the ballot papers which they called, ‘Salapatraka Grahakas’. Unfortunately, we have lost all this past heritage that was good. Historians of India must tackle this question as to why these Parliamentary Institutions disappeared from our land. But I find that they cannot or do not want to find out the reasons for it. Ancient India was the master of the World. There was such intellectual freedom in ancient India as was nowhere else to be found. Then why this ancient civilisation went to dogs ? Why was India subjected to autocratic monarchies ? We were familiar with Parliamentary Institutions. We know about votes, voting, committees and other things related to Parliamentary Institutions. Today, Parliamentary System of Government is alien to us. If we go to village, we will find that the villagers do not understand what

425FAILURE OF..............COMMUNISM is vote, what is party. They find it something strange, something alien. It is, therefore, a great problem as to how to preserve this institution. We will have to educate public, we will have to tell them the benefits of Parliamentary Democracy and of Parliamentary System of Government. We know what Bagehot means by Parliamentary Government. But today his definition is of no use, it is utterly inadequate. There are three main things inherent in the Parliamentary System of Government. Parliamentary Government means negations of hereditary rule. No person can claim to be hereditary ruler. Whoever wants to rule must be elected by the people from time to time. He must obtain the approval of the people. Hereditary rule has no sanction in the Parliamentary System of Government. Secondly, any law, any measure applicable to the public life of the people must be based on the advice of the people chosen by the people. No single individual can presume the authority that he knows everything, that he can make the laws and carry the Government. The laws are to be made by the representatives of the people in the Parliament. They are the people who can advise the men in whose name the law is proclaimed. That is the difference between the monarchical system of Government and the Democratic System of Government. In monarchy, the affairs of the people are carried on in the name of a monarch and under the authority of a monarch. In democracy, the affairs of the public are carried on in the name of the head of the State : but the laws and the executive measures are the authority on which the Government is carried on. The head of the State is the titular head ; he is merely a symbol. He is a consecrated ‘Murti.’ He can be worshipped but he is not allowed to carry out the Government of the Country. The Government of the country is carried out, though in his name, by the elected representatives of the people. Thirdly and lastly, Parliamentary System of the Government means that at a stated period those who want to advise the head of the State must have the confidence of the people in themselves renewed. In Britain, formerly, the elections to the Parliament were every seven years. The Chartists agitated against this. They wanted

426 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES annual elections. The motive behind this agitation was very praiseworthy, indeed. It would have been best in the interests of the people if annual election were held, had it been possible, of course. But, Parliamentary elections are very costly affairs. So some sort of compromise was arrived at and five years period was supposed to be a responsible period at which the Legislators and the Ministers were to go back to the People and obtain the fresh renewal of their confidence. This is also not enough. Parliamentary System of Government is much more than Government by discussion. There are two pillars on which the Parliamentary System of Government rests. These are the fulcrums on which the mechanism works. Those two pillars are (i) an opposition and (ii) free and fair elections. For the last 20 or 30 years, we acclimatised to one single political party. We have nearly forgotten the necessity and importance of ‘opposition’ for the fair working of Parliamentary Democracy. We are continuously told that opposition is an evil. Here again we are forgetting what the past history has to teach us. You know that there were ‘Nibandhkaras’ to interpret the Vedas and Smrities. They used to begin their comments on ‘Slokas’ and ‘Sutras’ by stating firstly the ‘Purva Paksha’ the one side of the questions. They used to follow up by giving the ‘Uttar Paksha’- the other side. By this they wanted to show us that the question raised was not an easy question : it is a question where there is dispute, discussion and doubt. Then they used to give what they termed as ‘Adhikaran’ where they used to criticise both the ‘Pakshas’. Finally, they gave the ‘Siddhant’, their own decisions. Here from we can find that all our ancient teachers believed in two party system of Government. One important thing in the Parliamentary Democracy is that people should know the other side, if there are two sides to a question. Hence, a functional opposition is required. Opposition is the key to a free political life. No democracy can do without it. Britain and Canada, the two exponents of Parliamentary Systems of Governments recognize this important fact and in both countries the leader of ‘opposition’ is paid salary by the Government. They regard the ‘opposition’ as an essential thing. People of these countries believe that the ‘opposition’ should be as much alive as the Government. The Government may suppress the facts, the Government may have only one-sided propaganda. The people have provision against this eventuality in these two countries.