CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA – VOLUME VII

Thursday, the 4th November 1948

MOTION regarding the DRAFT CONSTITUTION

Mr. President: I think we shall now proceed with thediscussion. I call upon the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar to movehis motion.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General): Mr. President, Sir, I introduce the Draft Constitution assettled by the Drafting Committee and move that it be taken into consideration.

Ambedkar on the History of the Draft Constitution

The Drafting Committee was appointed by a Resolution passed by the Constituent Assembly on August 29, 1947.

The Drafting Committee was in effect charged with the duty of preparing a Constitution in accordance with the decisions of the Constituent Assembly on the reports made bythe various Committees appointed by it such as the Union Powers Committee, the Union Constitution Committee, theProvincial Constitution Committee and the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities, Tribal Areas, etc. The Constituent Assembly had also directed that in certain matters the provisions contained in the Government of India Act, 1935, should be followed. Except on points which are referred to in my letter of the 21st February 1948 in which I have referred to the departures made and alternativessuggested by the Drafting Committee, I hope the Drafting Committee will be found to have faithfully carried out  given to it.

Ambedkar on the composition of the Draft Constitution

The Draft Constitution as it has emerged from the Drafting Committee is a formidable document. It contains 315 Articles and 8 Schedules. It must be admitted that the Constitution of no country could be found to be so bulky asthe Draft Constitution. It would be difficult for those who have not been through it to realize its salient and specialfeatures.

The Draft Constitution has been before the public foreight months. During this long time friends, critics and adversaries have had more than sufficient time to expresstheir reactions to the provisions contained in it. I daresay some of them are based on misunderstanding and inadequate understanding of the Articles. But there the criticisms are and they have to be answered.

For both these reasons it is necessary that on a motion for consideration I should draw your attention to the special features of the Constitution and also meet the criticism that has been levelled against it.

Before I proceed to do so I would like to place on thetable of the House Reports of three Committees appointed bythe Constituent Assembly *

(1) Report of the Committee on Chief Commissioners’ Provinces

(2) Report of the ExpertCommittee on Financial Relations between the Union and the States, and

(3) Report of the Advisory Committee onTribal Areas, which came too late to be considered by that Assembly though copies of them have been circulated toMembers of the Assembly.

As these reports and the recommendations made therein have been considered by the Drafting Committee it is only proper that the House should formally be placed in possession of them.

Ambedkar explaining the Basic Design of the Constitution

Turning to the main question. A student of Constitutional Law if a copy of a Constitution is placed in his hands is sure to ask two questions. Firstly what is the form of Government that is envisaged in the Constitution and secondly what is the form of the Constitution? For these are the two crucial matters which every Constitution has to deal with. I will begin with the first of the two questions.

In the Draft Constitution there is placed at the headof the Indian Union a functionary who is called the President of the Union. The title of this functionaryreminds one of the President of the United States. But beyond identity of names there is nothing in common between the form of Government prevalent in America and the form of Government proposed under the Draft Constitution.

The American form of Government is called the Presidential system of Government. What the Draft Constitution proposes is the Parliamentary system.

The two are fundamentally different.

Under the Presidential system of America, the Presidentis the Chief head of the Executive. The administration isvested in him. Under the Draft Constitution the President occupies the same position as the King under the English Constitution. He is the head of the State but not of the Executive. He represents the Nation but does not rule theNation. He is the symbol of the nation. His place in theadministration is that of a ceremonial device on a seal bywhich the nation’s decisions are made known. Under the American Constitution the President has under himSecretaries in charge of different Departments. In like manner the President of the Indian

Union will have under him Ministers in charge of different Departments of administration. Here again there is a fundamental difference between the two. The President of the United States is notbound to accept any advice tendered to him by any of his Secretaries. The President of the Indian Union will begenerally bound by the advice of his Ministers. He can do nothing contrary to their advice nor can he do any thing without their advice. The President of the United States can dismiss any Secretary at any time. The President of the Indian Union has no power to do so long as his Ministers command a majority in Parliament.

The Presidential system of America is based upon the separation of the Executive and the Legislature. So that the President and his Secretaries cannot be members of the Congress. The Draft Constitution does not recognise this doctrine. The Ministers under the Indian Union are members of Parliament. Only members of Parliament can become Ministers. Ministers have the same rights as other members of Parliament, namely, that they can sit in Parliament, take part in debates and vote in its proceedings.

Both systems of Government are of course democratic and the choice betweenthe two is not very easy.

Ambedkar explaining the preference for a Parliamentary Executive

A democratic executive must satisfy two conditions -

(1) It must be a stable executive and

(2) it must be a responsible executive.

Unfortunately ithas not been possible so far to devise a system which can ensure both in equal degree. You can have a system which can give you more stability but less responsibility or you can have a system which gives you more responsibility but less stability.

The American and the Swiss systems give more stability but less responsibility. The British system on the other hand gives you more responsibility but less stability.The reason for this is obvious. The American Executive is a non-Parliamentary Executive which means that it is not dependent for its existence upon a majority in the Congress,while the British system is a Parliamentary Executive which means that it is not dependent for its existence upon a majority in the Congress, while the British system is a Parliamentary Executive which means that it is dependent upon a majority in Parliament. Being a non-Parliamentary Executive, the Congress of the United States cannot dismiss the Executive.

A Parliamentary Government must resign the moment it loses the confidence of a majority of the members of Parliament. Looking at it from the point of view of responsibility, a non-Parliamentary Executive being independent of parliament tends to be less responsible tothe Legislature, while a Parliamentary Executive being moredependent upon a majority in Parliament become more responsible. The Parliamentary system differs from a non-Parliamentary systemin as much as the former is more responsible than the latterbut they also differ as to the time and agency for assessment of their responsibility.

Under the non-Parliamentary system, such as the one that exists in theU.S.A., the assessment of the responsibility of theExecutive is periodic. It is done by the Electorate. InEngland, where the Parliamentary system prevails, theassessment of responsibility of the Executive is both dailyand periodic. The daily assessment is done by members ofParliament, through questions, Resolutions, No-confidence motions, Adjournment motions and Debates on Addresses. Periodic assessment is done by the Electorate at the time of the election which may take place every five years orearlier. The Daily assessment of responsibility which is notavailable under the American system is it is felt far moreeffective than the periodic assessment and far morenecessary in a country like India. The Draft Constitution inrecommending the Parliamentary system of Executive haspreferred more responsibility to more stability.

Ambedkar explaining the Original Design of “Flexible Federalism” in the Draft Constitution

So far I have explained the form of Government underthe Draft Constitution. I will now turn to the other question, namely, the form of the Constitution.

Two principal forms of the Constitution are known to history – one is called Unitary and the other Federal. The two essential characteristics of

a Unitary Constitution are:

(1) the supremacy of the Central Polity and

(2) the absenceof subsidiary Sovereign polities.

Contrariwise, a FederalConstitution is marked:

(1) by the existence of a Centralpolity and subsidiary polities side by side, and

(2) by eachbeing sovereign in the field assigned to it.

In other words.Federation means the establishment of a Dual Polity.

The Draft Constitution is, Federal Constitution inasmuch as it establishes what may be called a Dual Polity. This DualPolity under the proposed Constitution will consist of theUnion at the Centre and the States at the periphery eachendowed with sovereign powers to be exercised in the fieldassigned to them respectively by the Constitution. This dualpolity resembles the American Constitution. The American polity is also a dual polity, one of it is known as theFederal Government and the other States which correspond respectively to the Union Government and the StatesGovernment of the Draft Constitution. Under the American Constitution the Federal Government is not a mere league of the States nor are the States administrative units oragencies of the Federal Government.

In the same way the Indian Constitution proposed in the Draft Constitution is not a league of States nor are the States administrativeunits or agencies of the Union Government. Here, however,the similarities between the Indian and the American Constitution come to an end. The differences that distinguish them are more fundamental and glaring than the similarities between the two.

Ambedkar explaining how “Flexible Federalism” is distinct from American Federalism

The points of difference between the American Federation and the Indian Federation are mainly two. In the U.S.A. this dual polity is followed by a dual citizenship.In the U.S.A. there is a citizenship of the U.S.A. But thereis also a citizenship of the State. No doubt the rigours ofthis double citizenship are much assuaged by the fourteenthamendment to the Constitution of the United States whichprohibits the States from taking away the rights, privilegesand immunities of the citizen of the United States. At thesame time, as pointed out by Mr. William Anderson, incertain political matters, including the right to vote andto hold public office, States may and do discriminate infavour of their own citizens. This favoritism goes evenfarther in many cases. Thus to obtain employment in theservice of a State or local Government one is in most places required to the be a local resident or citizen. Similarly inthe licensing of persons for the practice of such public professions as law and medicine, residence or citizenship inthe State is frequently required; and in business wherepublic regulation must necessarily bestrict, as in the sale of liquor, and of stocks and bonds,similar requirements have been upheld.

Each State has also certain rights in its own domainthat it holds for the special advantage of its own citizens.Thus wild game and fish in a sense belong to the State. It is customary for the States to charge higher hunting andfishing license fees to non-residents than to its owncitizens. The States also charge non-residents highertuition in State Colleges and Universities, and permit onlyresidents to be admitted to their hospitals and asylums except in emergencies.

In short, there are a number of rights that a State cangrant to its own citizens or residents that it may and does legally deny to non-residents, or grant to non-residentsonly on more difficult terms than those imposed onresidents. These advantages, given to the citizen in his ownState, constitute the special rights of State citizenship.Taken all together, they amount to a considerable differencein rights between citizens and non-citizens of the State.The transient and the temporary sojourner is everywhereunder some special handicaps.

The proposed Indian Constitution is a dual polity witha single citizenship. There is only one citizenship for the whole of India. It is Indian citizenship. There is no Statecitizenship. Every Indian has the same rights of citizenship, no matter in what State he resides.

The dual polity of the proposed Indian Constitution differs from the dual polity of the U.S.A. in another respect. In the U.S.A. the Constitutions of the Federal andthe States Governments are loosely connected. In describing the relationship between the Federal and State Government inthe U.S.A., Bryce has said:

“The Central or national Government and the StateGovernments may be compared to a large building and a set of smaller buildings standing on the same ground, yet distinctfrom each other.”

Distinct they are, but how distinct are the StateGovernments in the U.S.A. from the Federal Government? Somei dea of this distinctness may be obtained from the following facts:

1. Subject to the maintenance of the republican form ofGovernment, each State in America is free to make its own Constitution.

2. The people of a State retain for ever in theirhands, altogether independent of the National Government,the power of altering their Constitution.

To put it again in the words of Bryce:

“A State (in America) exists as a commonwealth byvirtue of its own Constitution, and all State Authorities,legislative, executive and judicial are the creatures of,and subject to the Constitution.”

This is not true of the proposed Indian Constitution. NoStates (at any rate those in Part I) have a right to frame its own Constitution. The Constitution of the Union and of the States is a single frame from which neither can get outand within which they must work.

Ambedkar explaining the most distinctive feature of Flexible Federalism

So far I have drawn attention to the difference between the American Federation and the proposed Indian Federation. But there are some other special features of the proposed Indian Federation which mark it off not only from the American Federation but from all other Federations. All federal systems including the American are placed in a tightmould of federalism. No matter what the circumstances, itcannot change its form and shape. It can never be unitary.On the other hand the Draft Constitution can be both unitaryas well as federal according to the requirements of time and circumstances. In normal times, it is framed to work as afederal system. But in times of warit is so designed as to make it work as though it was aunitary system. Once the President issues a Proclamationwhich he is authorised to do under the Provisions of Article275, the whole scene can become transformed and the Statebecomes a unitary state.

The Union under the Proclamation can claim if it wants

(1) the power to legislate upon anysubject even though it may be in the State list,

(2) thepower to give directions to the States as to how they shouldexercise their executive authority in matters which arewithin their charge,

(3) the power to vest authority for anypurpose in any officer, and

(4) the power to suspend the financial provisions of the Constitution.

Such a power of converting itself into a unitary State no federation possesses. This is one point of difference between the Federation proposed in the Draft Constitution, and all other Federations we know of.

Ambedkar explaining the elasticity in the design of “Flexible Federalism”

This is not the only difference between the proposedIndian Federation and other federations. Federalism is described as a weak if not an effete form of Government.There are two weaknesses from which Federation is alleged to suffer. One is rigidity and the other is legalism. That these faults are inherent in Federalism, there can be no dispute. A Federal Constitution cannot but be a written Constitution and a written Constitution must necessarily bea rigid Constitution.

A Federal Constitution means division of Sovereignty by no less a sanction than that of the law of the Constitution between the Federal Government and the States, with two necessary consequences

(1) that any invasion by the Federal Government in the field assigned tothe States and vice versa is a breach of the Constitution and

(2) such breach is a justiciable matter to be determinedby the Judiciary only. This being the nature of federalism,a federal Constitution have been found in a pronounced formin the Constitution of the United States of America.

Countries which have adopted Federalism at a later datehave attempted to reduce the disadvantages

following from the rigidity and legalism which are inherent therein. The example of Australia may well be referred to in this matter.The Australian Constitution has adopted the following meansto make its federation less rigid:

(1) By conferring upon the Parliament of the Commonwealth large powers of concurrent Legislation and few powers of exclusive Legislation.

(2) By making some of the Articles of the Constitution of a temporary duration to remain in force only “until Parliament otherwise provides.”

It is obvious that under the Australian Constitution,the Australian Parliament can do many things, which are not within the competence of the American Congress and for doing which the American Government will have to resort to the Supreme Court and depend upon its ability, ingenuity andwillingness to invent a doctrine to justify it the exerciseof authority.

In assuaging the rigour of rigidity and legalism theDraft Constitution follows the Australian plan on a far more extensive scale than has been done in Australia. Like the Australian Constitution, it has a long list of subjects for concurrent powers of legislation. Under the Australian Constitution, concurrent subjects are 39. Under the Draft Constitution they are 37. Following the Australian Constitution there are as many as six Articles in the Draft Constitution, where the provisions are of a temporary duration and which could be replaced by Parliament at anytime by provisions suitable for the occasion. T

he biggest advance made by the Draft Constitution over the Australian Constitution is in the matter of exclusive powers of legislation vested inParliament. While the exclusive authority of the Australian Parliament to legislate extends only to about 3 matters, the authority of the Indian Parliament as proposed in the Draft Constitution will extend to 91 matters.

In this way the Draft Constitution has secured the greatest possible elasticity in its federalism which is supposed to be rigid by nature.

Ambedkar explaining how exceptions built into the original design of  ”Flexible Federalism” were meant only for extraordinary National Issues

It is not enough to say that the Draft Constitution follows the Australian Constitution or follows it on a more extensive scale. What is to be noted is that it has addednew ways of overcoming the rigidity and legalism inherent in federalism which are special to it and which are not to be found elsewhere.

First is the power given to Parliament to legislate onexclusively provincial subjects in normal times. I refer to Articles 226, 227 and 229. Under Article 226 Parliament can legislate when a subject becomes a matter of national concern as distinguished from purely Provincial concern,though the subject is in the State list, provided a resolution is passed by the Upper Chamber by 2/3rd majority in favour of such exercise of the power by the Centre. Article 227 gives the similar power to Parliament in a national emergency. Under Article 229 Parliament canexercise the same power if Provinces consent to suchexercise. Though the last provision also exists in theAustralian Constitution the first two are a special featureof the Draft Constitution.

The second means adopted to avoid rigidity and legalismis the provision for facility with which the Constitution could be amended. The provisions of the Constitution relating to the amendment of the Constitution divide theArticles of the Constitution into two groups. In the one group are placed Articles relating to

(a) the distributionof legislative powers between the Centre and the States,

(b)the representation of the States in Parliament, and

(c) thepowers of the Courts. All other Articles are placed in another group.

Articles placed in the second group cover avery large part of the Constitution and can be amended by Parliament by a double majority, namely, a majority of notless than two thirds of the members of each House presentand voting and by a majority of the total membership of eachHouse. The amendment of these Articles does not requireratification by the States.

It is only in those Articleswhich are placed in group one that an additional safeguardof ratification by the States is introduced.

One can therefore safely say that the Indian Federation will not suffer from the faults of rigidity or legalism. Its distinguishing feature is that it is a flexible federation.

Ambedkar explaining the basis for the Central List and why Uniform Laws were meant to encourage movement and trade across States

There is another special feature of the proposed IndianFederation which distinguishes it from other federations.

A Federation being a dual polity based on divided authoritywith separate legislative, executive and judicial powers foreach of the two polities is bound to produce diversity inlaws, in administration and in judicial protection.

Upto a certain point this diversity does not matter. It may be welcomed as being an attempt to accommodate the powers of Government to local needs and local circumstances.

But this very diversity when it goes beyond a certain point is capable of producing chaos and has produced chaos in many federal States.

One has only to imagine twenty different laws-if we have twenty States in the Union-of marriage, of divorce, of inheritance of property, family relations,contracts, torts, crimes, weights and measures, of bills andcheques, banking and commerce, of procedures for obtainingjustice and in the standards and methods of administration.

Such a state of affairs not only weakens the State but becomes intolerant to the citizen who moves from State to State only to find that what is lawful in one State is not lawful in another.

The Draft Constitution has sought to forge means and methods whereby India will have Federation and at the same time will have uniformity in all basic matters which are essential to maintain the unity of the country.

The means adopted by the Draft Constitution are three

(1) a single judiciary,

(2) uniformity-in fundamental laws, civil and criminal, and

(3) a common All-India Civil Service to man important posts.

A dual judiciary, a duality of legal codes and a duality of civil services, as I said, are the logical consequences of a dual polity which is inherent in a federation.

In the U. S. A. the Federal Judiciary and theState Judiciary are separate and independent of each other.The Indian Federation though a Dual Polity has no Dual Judiciary at all. The High Courts and the Supreme Court form one single integrated Judiciary having jurisdiction andproviding remedies in all cases arising under the constitutional law, the civil law or the criminal law. Thisis done to eliminate all diversity in all remedial procedure. Canada is the only country which furnishes aclose parallel. The Australian system is only an approximation.

Care is taken to eliminate all diversity from laws which are at the basis of civic and corporate life. The great Codes of Civil & Criminal Laws, such as the CivilProcedure Code, Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Evidence Act, Transfer of Property Act, Laws of MarriageDivorce, and Inheritance, are either placed in the Concurrent List so that the necessary uniformity can alwaysbe preserved without impairing the federal system.

Ambedkar explaining why a Central Civil Service was meant only for Strategic Roles

The dual polity which is inherent in a federal systemas I said is followed in all federations by a dual service.

In all Federations there is a Federal Civil Service and a State Civil Service. The Indian Federation though a Dual Polity will have a Dual Service but with one exception. It is recognized that in every country there are certain posts in its administrative set up which might be called strategic from the point of view of maintaining the standard of administration. It may not be easy to spot such posts in a large and complicated machinery of administration. But there can be no doubt that the standard of administration depends upon the calibre of the Civil Servants who are appointed tothese strategic posts. Fortunately for us we have inherited from the past system of administration which is common to the whole of the country and we know what are these strategic posts. The Constitution provides that without depriving the States of their right to form their own Civil Services there shall be an All India service recruited on anAll India basis with common qualifications, with uniform scale of pay and the members of which alone could be appointed to these strategic posts throughout the Union.

Such are the special features of the proposed Federation.

Ambedkar responding to criticism of the Draft Constitution as a Copy Paste job

I will now turn to what the critics have had tosay about it.

It is said that there is nothing new in the Draft Constitution, that about half of it has been copied from the Government of India Act of 1935 and that the rest of it hasbeen borrowed from the Constitutions of other countries.Very little of it can claim originality.

One likes to ask whether there can be anything new in a Constitution framed at this hour in the history of the world. More than hundred years have rolled over when thefirst written Constitution was drafted. It has been followedby many countries reducing their Constitutions to writing.What the scope of a Constitution should be has long beensettled. Similarly what are the fundamentals of a Constitution are recognized all over the world. Given thesefacts, all Constitutions in their main provisions must looksimilar. The only new things, if there can be any, in aConstitution framed so late in the day are the variationsmade to remove the faults and to accommodate it to the needsof the country. The charge of producing a blind copy of the Constitutions of other countries is based, I am sure, on an inadequate study of the Constitution. I have shown what is new in the Draft Constitution and I am sure that those who have studied other Constitutions and who are prepared to consider the matter dispassionately will agree that the Drafting Committee inperforming its duty has not been guilty of such blind and slavish imitation as it is represented to be.

As to the accusation that the Draft Constitution has produced a good part of the provisions of the Government ofIndia Act, 1935, I make no apologies. There is nothing to be ashamed of in borrowing. It involves no plagiarism. Nobodyholds any patent rights in the fundamental ideas of a Constitution. What I am sorry about is that the provisionstaken from the Government of India Act, 1935, relate mostlyto the details of administration. I agree thatadministrative details should have no place in the Constitution. I wish very much that the Drafting Committeecould see its way to avoid their inclusion in the Constitution. But this is to be said on the necessity whichjustifies their inclusion.

Ambedkar explaining Constitutional Morality

Grote, the historian of Greece,has said that:

“The diffusion of constitutional morality, not merely among the majority of any community but throughout the whole, is the indispensable condition of a government at once free and peaceable; since even any powerful and obstinate minority may render the working of a free institution impracticable, without being strong enough to conquer ascendency for themselves.”

By constitutional morality Grote meant “a paramount reverence for the forms of the Constitution, enforcingobedience to authority acting under and within these formsyet combined with the habit of open speech, of actionsubject only to definite legal control, and unrestrainedcensure of those very authorities as to all their publicacts combined too with a perfect confidence in the bosom ofevery citizen amidst the bitterness of party contest thatthe forms of the Constitution will not be less sacred in theeyes of his opponents than in his own.” (Hear, hear.)

While everybody recognizes the necessity of the diffusion of Constitutional morality for the peaceful working of a democratic Constitution, there are two things interconnected with it which are not, unfortunately,generally recognized.

One is that the form of administrationhas a close connection with the form of the Constitution.The form of the administration must be appropriate to and inthe same sense as the form of the Constitution. The other is that it is perfectly possible to pervert the Constitution,without changing its form by merely changing the form of theadministration and to make it inconsistent and opposed tothe spirit of the Constitution. It follows that it is onlywhere people are saturated with Constitutional morality suchas the one described by Grote the historian that one cantake the risk of omitting from the Constitution details of administration and leaving it for the Legislature to prescribe them.

The question is, can we presume such a diffusion of Constitutional morality?

Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realize that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on anIndian soil, which is essentially undemocratic.

In these circumstances it is wiser not to trust the Legislature to prescribe forms of administration. This is the justification for incorporating them in the Constitution.

Ambedkar explaining the need for a Republic over a federation of village states

Another criticism against the Draft Constitution is that no part of it represents the ancient polity of India.It is said that the new Constitution should have beendrafted on the ancient Hindu model of a State and thatinstead of incorporating Western theories the newConstitution should have been raised and built upon villagePanchayats and District Panchayats. There are otherswho have taken a more extreme view. They do not want anyCentral or Provincial Governments. They just want India tocontain so many village Governments. The love of theintellectual Indians for the village community is of course infinite if not pathetic (laughter). It is largely due tothe fulsome praise bestowed upon it by Metcalfe whodescribed them as little republics having nearly everythingthat they want within themselves, and almost independent of any foreign relations. The existence of these village communities each one forming a separate little State initself has according to Metcalfe contributed more than anyother cause to the preservation of the people of India,through all the revolutions and changes which they havesuffered, and is in a high degree conducive to theirhappiness and to the enjoyment of a great portion of thefreedom and independence. No doubt the village communitieshave lasted where nothing else lasts.

But those who takepride in the village communities do not care to considerwhat little part they have played in the affairs and thedestiny of the country; and why? Their part in the destinyof the country has been well described by Metcalfe himselfwho says:

“Dynasty after dynasty tumbles down. Revolutionsucceeds to revolution. Hindoo, Pathan, Mogul, Maharatha,Sikh, English are all masters in turn but the villagecommunities remain the same. In times of trouble they armand fortify themselves. A hostile army passes through thecountry. The village communities collect their little cattlewithin their walls, and let the enemy pass unprovoked.”

Such is the part the village communities have played inthe history of their country. Knowing this, what pride canone feel in them? That they have survived through allvicissitudes may be a fact. But mere survival has no value.The question is on what plane they have survived. Surely ona low, on a selfish level. I hold that these villagerepublics have been the ruination of India. I am thereforesurprised that those who condemn Provincialism andcommunalism should come forward as champions of the village.What is the village but a sink of localism, a den ofignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism? I am glad thatthe Draft Constitution has discarded the village and adoptedthe individual as its unit.

Ambedkar spelling out his vision for why the Minority-Majority dichotomy must eventually cease to exist

The Draft Constitution is also criticised because of the safeguards it provides for minorities. In this, theDrafting Committee has no responsibility. It follows thedecisions of the Constituent Assembly. Speaking for myself,I have no doubt that the Constituent Assembly has donewisely in providing such safeguards for minorities as it hasdone. In this country both the minorities and the majoritieshave followed a wrong path. It is wrong for the majority todeny the existence of minorities. It is equally wrong forthe minorities to perpetuate themselves.

A solution must befound which will serve a double purpose. It must recognizethe existence of the minorities to start with. It must alsobe such that it will enable majorities and minorities tomerge someday into one. The solution proposed by the Constituent Assembly is to be welcomed because it is asolution which serves this twofold purpose.

To diehards whohave developed a kind of fanaticism against minority protection I would like to say two things. One is that minorities are an explosive force which, if it erupts, canblow up the whole fabric of the State. The history of Europe bears ample and appalling testimony to this fact. The otheris that the minorities in India have agreed to place their existence in the hands of the majority. In the history ofnegotiations for preventing the partition of Ireland,Redmond said to Carson “ask for any safeguard you like forthe Protestant minority but let us have a United Ireland.”Carson’s reply was “Damn your safeguards, we don’t want to be ruled by you.” No minority in India has taken this stand.They have loyally accepted the rule of the majority which is basically a communal majority and not a political majority.It is for the majority to realize its duty not to discriminate against minorities. Whether the minorities willcontinue or will vanish must depend upon this habit of the majority. The moment the majority loses the habit of discriminating against the minority, the minorities can have no ground to exist. They will vanish.

Ambedkar explaining Fundamental Rights and Limits to Free Speech

The most criticized part of the Draft Constitution isthat which relates to Fundamental Rights. It is said thatArticle 13 which defines fundamental rights is riddled with so many exceptions that the exceptions have eaten up therights altogether. It is condemned as a kind of deception.In the opinion of the critics fundamental rights are notfundamental rights unless they are also absolute rights. Thecritics rely on the Constitution of the United States and tothe Bill of Rights embodied in the first ten Amendments tothat Constitution in support of their contention. It is saidthat the fundamental rights in the American Bill of Rightsare real because they are not subjected to limitations or exceptions.

I am sorry to say that the whole of the criticism about fundamental rights is based upon a misconception. In thefirst place, the criticism in so far as it seeks todistinguish fundamental rights from non-fundamental rightsis not sound. It is incorrect to say that fundamental rights are absolute while non-fundamental rights are not absolute.The real distinction between the two is that non-fundamentalrights are created by agreement between parties whilefundamental rights are the gift of the law. Becausefundamental rights are the gift of the State it does notfollow that the State cannot qualify them.

In the second place, it is wrong to say thatfundamental rights in America are absolute. The difference between the position under the American Constitution and the Draft Constitution is one of form and not of substance. Thatthe fundamental rights in America are not absolute rights is beyond dispute. In support of every exception to the fundamental rights set out in the Draft Constitution one canrefer to at least one judgment of the United States SupremeCourt. It would be sufficient to quote one such judgment of the Supreme Court in justification of the limitation on theright of free speech contained in Article 13 of the Draft Constitution. In Gitlow Vs. New York in which the issue was the constitutionality of a New York “criminal anarchy” lawwhich purported to punish utterances calculated to bring about violent change, the Supreme Court said:

“It is a fundamental principle, long established, that the freedom of speech and of the press, which is secured bythe Constitution, does not confer an absolute right to speak or publish, without responsibility, whatever one may choose,or an unrestricted and unbridled license that gives immunity for every possible use of language and prevents the punishment of those who abuse this freedom.”

It is therefore wrong to say that the fundamental rights in America are absolute, while those in the Draft Constitution are not.

It is argued that if any fundamental rights require qualification, it is for the Constitution itself to qualifythem as is done in the Constitution of the United States and where it does not do so it should be left to be determinedby the Judiciary upon a consideration of all the relevant considerations. All this, I am sorry to say, is a complete misrepresentation if not a misunderstanding of the American Constitution. The American Constitution does nothing of the kind. Except in one matter, namely, the right of assembly,the American Constitution does not itself impose any limitations upon the fundamental rights guaranteed to the American citizens.

Nor is it correct to say that the American Constitution leaves it to the judiciary to imposelimitations on fundamental rights. The right to imposelimitations belongs to the Congress. The real position isdifferent from what is assumed by the critics. In America,the fundamental rights as enacted by the Constitution wereno doubt absolute. Congress, however, soon found that it wasabsolutely essential to qualify these fundamental rights by limitations. When the question arose as to the constitutionality of these limitations before the Supreme Court, it was contended that the Constitution gave no powerto the United States Congress to impose such limitation, theSupreme Court invented the doctrine of police power andrefuted the advocates of absolute fundamental rights by the argument that every state has inherent in it police power which is not required to beconferred on it expressly by the Constitution. To use the language of the Supreme Court in the case I have alreadyreferred to, it said:

“That a State in exercise of its police power maypunish those who abuse this freedom by utterances inimicalto the public welfare, tending to corrupt public morals,incite to crime or disturb the public peace, is not open toquestion. . . . . “

(What the Draft Constitution has done is that instead of formulating fundamental rights in absolute terms and depending upon our Supreme Court to come to the rescue of Parliament by inventing the doctrine of police power, it permits the State directly to impose limitations upon the fundamental rights. There is really no difference in the result. What one does directly the other does indirectly. Inboth cases, the fundamental rights are not absolute.)

Ambedkar explaining the rationale for Directive Principles

In the Draft Constitution the Fundamental Rights are followed by what are called “Directive Principles”. It is anovel feature in a Constitution framed for ParliamentaryDemocracy. The only other constitution framed forParliamentary Democracy which embodies such principles isthat of the Irish Free State. These Directive Principles have also come up for criticism. It is said that they areonly pious declarations. They have no binding force. Thiscriticism is of course superfluous. The Constitution itselfsays so in so many words.

If it is said that the Directive Principle have nolegal force behind them, I am prepared to admit it. But I am not prepared to admit that they have no sort of binding force at all. Nor am I prepared to concede that they are useless because they have no binding force in law.

The Directive Principles are like the Instrument of Instructions which were issued to the Governor-General andto the Governors of the Colonies and to those of India bythe British Government under the 1935 Act. Under the Draft Constitution it is proposed to issue such instruments to thePresident and to the Governors. The texts of theseInstruments of Instructions will be found in Schedule IV of the Constitution. What are called Directive Principles is merely another name for Instrument of Instructions. The onlydifference is that they are instructions to the Legislatureand the Executive.

Such a thing is to my mind to bewelcomed. Wherever there is a grant of power in generalterms for peace, order and good government, it is necessarythat it should be accompanied by instructions regulating its exercise.

The inclusion of such instructions in a Constitutionsuch as is proposed in the Draft becomes justifiable for another reason. The Draft Constitution as framed onlyprovides a machinery for the government of the country. It is not a contrivance to install any particular party inpower as has been done in some countries.

Who should be in power is left to be determined by the people, as it must be,if the system is to satisfy the tests of democracy. But whoever captures power will not be free to do what he likeswith it. In the exercise of it, he will have to respect these instruments of instructions which are called Directive Principles. He cannot ignore them. He may not have to answer for their breach in a Court of Law. But he will certainlyhave to answer for them before the electorate at election time. What great value these directive principles possess will be realized better when the forces of right contrive tocapture power.

That it has no binding force is no argument against their inclusion in the Constitution. There may be a difference of opinion as to the exact place they should be given in the Constitution. I agree that it is somewhat odd that provisions which do not carry positive obligations should be placed in the midst of provisions which do carrypositive obligations. In my judgement their proper place isin Schedules III A & IV which contain Instrument ofInstructions tothe President and the Governors. For, as I have said, theyare really Instruments of Instructions to the Executive and the Legislatures as to how they should exercise theirpowers. But that is only a matter of arrangement.

Ambedkar explaining the concentration of power in the Center as opposed to states

Some critics have said that the Centre is too strong.Others have said that it must be made stronger. The Draft Constitution has struck a balance. However much you may denypowers to the Centre, it is difficult to prevent the Centre from becoming strong. Conditions in modern world are suchthat centralization of powers is inevitable.

One has onlyto consider the growth of the Federal Government in the U.S.A. which, notwithstanding the very limited powers givento it by the Constitution, has out-grown its former self and has overshadowed and eclipsed the State Governments. This is due to modern conditions. The same conditions are sure tooperate on the Government of India and nothing that one cando will help to prevent it from being strong.

On the other hand, we must resist the tendency to make it stronger. It cannot chew more than it can digest. Its strength must becommensurate with its weight. It would be a folly to make it so strong that it may fall by its own weight.

Ambedkar on distinction between provinces and states (no longer relevant)

The Draft Constitution is criticized for having one sort of constitutional relations between the Centre and the Provinces and another sort of constitutional relations between the Centre and the Indian States. The Indian Statesare not bound to accept the whole list of subjects includedin the Union List but only those which come under Defence,Foreign Affairs and Communications. They are not bound toaccept subjects included in the Concurrent List. They are not bound to accept the State List contained in the Draft Constitution. They are free to create their own Constituent Assemblies and to frame their own constitutions. All this,of course, is very unfortunate and, I submit quitein defensible. This disparity may even prove dangerous to theefficiency of the State. So long as the disparity exists,the Centre’s authority over all-India matters may lose itsefficacy. For, power is no power if it cannot be exercisedin all cases and in all places. In a situation such as maybe created by war, such limitations on the exercise of vitalpowers in some areas may bring the whole life of the Statein complete jeopardy. What is worse is that the IndianStates under the Draft Constitution are permitted tomaintain their own armies. I regard this as a mostretrograde and harmful provision which may lead to thebreak-up of the unity of India and the overthrow of theCentral Government. The Drafting Committee, if I am notmisrepresenting its mind, was not at all happy over this matter. They wished very much that there was uniformity between the Provinces and the Indian States in their constitutional relationship with the Centre. Unfortunately,they could do nothing to improve matters. They were bound bythe decisions of the Constituent Assembly, and theConstituent Assembly in its turn was bound by the agreementarrived at between the two negotiating Committees.

But we may take courage from what happened in Germany.The German Empire as founded by Bismark in

1870 was acomposite State, consisting of 25 units. Of these 25 units,22 were monarchical States and 3 were republican cityStates. This distinction, as we all know, disappeared in thecourse of time and Germany became one land with one peopleliving under one Constitution. The process of theamalgamation of the Indian States is going to be muchquicker than it has been in Germany. On the 15th August 1947we had 600 Indian States in existence. Today by theintegration of the Indian States with Indian Provinces ormerger among themselves or by the Centre having taken themas Centrally Administered Areas there have remained some20/30 States as viable States. This is a very rapid processand progress. I appeal to those States that remain to fallin line with the Indian Provinces and to become full unitsof the Indian Union on the same terms as the IndianProvinces. Theywill thereby give the Indian Union the strength it needs.They will save themselves the bother of starting their ownConstituent Assemblies and drafting their own separate Constitution and they will lose nothing that is of value to them. I feel hopeful that my appeal will not go in vain andthat before the Constitution is passed, we will be able to wipe off the differences between the Provinces and theIndian States.

Ambedkar on the description of India as a Union of States and the explicit bar on Secession

Some critics have taken objection to the description ofIndia in Article 1 of the Draft Constitution as a Union of States. It is said that the correct phraseology should be aFederation of States. It is true that South Africa which isa unitary State is described as a Union. But Canada which isa Federation is also called a Union. Thus the description ofIndia as a Union, though its constitution is Federal, doesno violence to usage. But what is important is that the useof the word Union is deliberate. I do not know why the word’Union’ was used in the Canadian Constitution. But I cantell you why the Drafting Committee has used it. TheDrafting Committee wanted to make it clear that though Indiawas to be a federation, the Federation was not the result of an agreement by the States to join in a Federation and thatthe Federation not being the result of an agreement no State has the right to secede from it. The Federation is a Unionbecause it is indestructible. Though the country and thepeople may be divided into different States for convenienceof administration the country is one integral whole, itspeople a single people living under a single imperiumderived from a single source. The Americans had to wage acivil war to establish that the States have no right ofsecession and that their Federation was indestructible. The Drafting Committee thought that it was better to make itclear at the outset rather than to leave it to speculation or to dispute.

Ambedkar on ability to amend the Constitution

The provisions relating to amendment of the Constitution have come in for a virulent attack at the handsof the critics of the Draft Constitution. It is said that the provisions contained in the Draft make amendmentdifficult. It is proposed that the Constitution should beamendable by a simple majority at least for some years. Theargument is subtle and ingenious. It is said that thisConstituent Assembly is not elected on adult suffrage whilethe future Parliament will be elected on adult suffrage andyet the former has been given the right to pass theConstitution by a simple majority while the latter has beendenied the same right. It is paraded as one of theabsurdities of the Draft Constitution. I must repudiate thecharge because it is without foundation. (To know how simpleare the provisions of the Draft Constitution in respect of amending the Constitution one has only to study theprovisions for amendment contained in the American andAustralian Constitutions. Compared to them those containedin the Draft Constitution will be found to be the simplest.The Draft Constitution has eliminated the elaborate anddifficult procedures such as a decision by a convention or areferendum. The Powers of amendment are left with theLegislature Central and Provincial. It is only foramendments of specific matters – and they are only few – that the ratification of the State legislatures is required. Allother Articles of the Constitution are left to be amended byParliament. The only limitation is that it shall be done bya majority of not less than two-thirds of the members ofeach House present and voting and a majority of the totalmembership of each House. It is difficult to conceive asimpler method of amending the Constitution.)

What is said to be the absurdity of the amendingprovisions is founded upon a misconception of the positionof the Constituent Assembly and of the future Parliamentelected under the Constitution. The Constituent Assembly inmaking a Constitution has no partisan motive. Beyondsecuring a good and workable constitution it has no axe togrind. In considering the Articles of the Constitution ithas no eye on getting through a particular measure. Thefuture Parliament if it met as a Constituent Assembly, itsmembers will be acting as partisans seeking to carryamendments to the Constitution to facilitate the passing ofparty measures which they have failed to get throughParliament by reason of someArticle of the Constitution which has acted as an obstaclein their way Parliament will have an axe to grind while theConstituent Assembly has none. That is the differencebetween the Constituent Assembly and the future Parliament.That explains why the Constituent Assembly though elected onlimited franchise can be trusted to pass the Constitution bysimple majority and why the Parliament though elected onadult suffrage cannot be trusted with the same power toamend it.

Ambedkar’s closing remarks

I believe I have dealt with all the adverse criticismsthat have been levelled against the Draft Constitution as settled by the Drafting Committee. I don’t think that I haveleft out any important comment or criticism that has beenmade during the last eight months during which theConstitution has been before the public. It is for theConstituent Assembly to decide whether they will accept theconstitution as settled by the Drafting Committee or whether they shall alter it before passing it.

But this I would like to say. The Constitution has beendiscussed in some of the Provincial Assemblies of India. Itwas discussed in Bombay, C.P., West Bengal, Bihar, Madrasand East Punjab. It is true that in some Provincial Assemblies serious objections were taken to the financialprovisions of the constitution and in Madras to Article 226.But excepting this, in no Provincial Assembly was anyserious objection taken to the Articles of the Constitution.

No Constitution is perfect and the Drafting Committee itselfis suggesting certain amendments to improve the Draft Constitution. But the debates in the Provincial Assembliesgive me courage to say that the Constitution as settled bythe Drafting Committee is good enough to make in thiscountry a start with. I feel that it is workable, it isflexible and it is strong enough to hold the countrytogether both in peace time and in war time.

Indeed, if I may say so, if things go wrong under the new Constitution,the reason will not be that we had a bad Constitution. What we will have to say is, that Man was vile.

Sir, I move.

Now playing on Offstumped.in/live a podcast conversation with @dubash on the Uttar Pradesh assembly elections 2012—
Offstumped (@offstumped) January 23, 2012

A podcast conversation with @dubash of phalaka.com where we talk about the upcoming 7 phase assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh during the months of February and March. In this conversation we go over the history of politics in Uttar Pradesh, the emergence of Mandal era leaders like Mulayam Singh Yadav followed by the lost decade that saw Kalyan Singh and Mayawati at its helm. We also review the 2007 elections and the comeback by Congress in the 2009 lok sabha polls. We also review the opinion polls, the emergence of Uma Bharati on the UP poll scene, the impact of Baba Ramdev and Rahul Gandhi’s desperation over the Muslim sub-quota issue. Finally we wrap up with a view on Mayawati’s performance and how this election may end up being Mayawati’s after all.

As of the writing of this column, uncertainty loomed over writer Salman Rushdie’s [ Images ] participation at the Jaipur [ Images ] Literary Festival.

The political logic over the objection to Rushdie’s participation has a very simple basis. The Congress party in Uttar Pradesh [ Images ] is in a desperate dogfight for the Muslim vote. The Congress government in Rajasthan [ Images ] is in a desperate mood to shift the focus away from the worst sex cum murder scandals to have tainted it in many decades.

The Islamist establishment in India [ Images ] is facing both an existential and generational challenge.

Salman Rushdie is a convenient target of opportunity for both the Congress and the Islamist establishment.

It is no secret that the Islamic seminary of Deoband faces both a generational and existential challenge. The manner in which a reformist Maulana Vastanvi was ousted as its rector spoke volumes of the reformist undercurrents that Deoband is facing.

Outside of the Deobandi school of thought, one also saw in recent months a very bold move by the larger Barelvi organisation in India rejecting the import of hardline Islamist ideas from Saudi Arabia.

In fact, one has also seen a rare move towards bridging the communal faultline when back in October prominent Sunni Sufi leaders expressed a sentiment of reconciliation towards Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi [ Images ].

At a time when even Godhra has turned the corner on overcoming the scars of 2002 and Muslim victimhood, it is jarring and bizarre that there should be opposition to the Rushdie visit from even the BJP’s minority cell in Rajasthan.

At a time when the Delhi [ Images ] high court cites the example of China on Internet restrictions and Dr Subramanian Swamy has to turn up at a police station to explain an opinion column, the brouhaha over Rushdie may appear to be just another strike against Free Speech.

While protection to freedom of speech in India has at best been opportunistic, I would however hazard against drawing phony parallels with the unfortunate circumstances leading up to the self-imposed exile by the late M F Hussain. There is something deeper at work here.

Let us be clear: Rushdie is asserting his Indian identity as a Person of Indian Origin and consequently his right granted by law to be able to visit India at any time. The irony of expressing inability to guarantee security to Rushdie just the week after Jaipur hosted the Pravasi Bhartiya Divas is perhaps lost on the UPA government in Delhi and the Ashok Gehlot [ Images ] government in Jaipur.

The Congress party is hurtling this country down an all too familiar path.

Twenty-three years after the Congress government lead by his father Rajiv Gandhi [ Images ] succumbed to Islamic fundamentalist pressure to ban Rushdie’s book, Rahul Gandhi [ Images ] had an opportunity to stand up and show leadership on this issue.

With his silence and his party’s ambivalence in Delhi, Rahul Gandhi has failed a critical test as far as providing leadership to this country in bridging the deep communal faultline.

Political leadership to bridge that communal divide will have to come from elsewhere. Politics and politicians, however, can only take us so far down that path.

Ultimately, this has to be about the enlightened self-interest of the Indian Muslim. There is a short distance between denial that arises from victimhood and societal schizophrenia. There cannot be a better example than Pakistan on how the false bogey of Muslim victimhood eventually gives way to mass Islamist schizophrenia to justify Muslim killing fellow Muslim.

Islamist Schizophrenia is today so deep in Pakistan that truth has become the casualty even in matters concerning the deaths of that nation’s very own from Benazir Bhutto [ Images ] to Syed Saleem Shahzad.

When Truth dies along with it dies the ‘Fabric of Trust’ that holds nations and societies together.

From raising dishonest questions over the Batla House encounter to raising false bogeys over the Rushdie visit, the Congress party and its leadership Sonia and Rahul Gandhi stand guilty of causing irreversible damage to that fabric of trust.

Related tweets

As heroic as readings of Satanic Verses in Jaipur are they will have counterproductive effect of giving Congress exactly what it wants in UP—
Offstumped (@offstumped) January 20, 2012

There we go – it doesnt end with reading out verses RT “@Outlookindia: TMC Seeks Judicial Probe Into Batla House news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?7483…—
Offstumped (@offstumped) January 20, 2012

It is less about free speech and more about a cynical Culture of Politics that has now become an Institutionalized tradition….—
Offstumped (@offstumped) January 20, 2012

Destiny's daughters face off in Uttar Pradesh twitter.com/ani_news/statu…—
Offstumped (@offstumped) January 18, 2012

We will turn Uttar Pradesh into Uttam Pradesh, will fight to win majority: Uma Bharti after getting Charkhari seat ticket—
ANI (@ANI_news) January 18, 2012

Uma Bharti despite her flaws from the past brings an important dimension to the UP election. In a field littered with non-playing captains she is leading from the front alongside other BJP hopefuls for a leadership role. In stark contrast the Congress and SP charge is being lead by Members of Parliament while Mayawati plays safe through the MLC route.

The Uma Bharti versus Mayawati face off will also draw an earthy contrast against the cheer-leading campaign style of the privileged Nehru-Gandhis.

The other dimension to Uma Bharti’s second coming, after practically self-destructing her career as recently as 2008, is  her entry to the club of four other Destiny’s daughters and one son.

More on that from Column in Rediff

India is poised at a critical juncture as its destiny is now closely intertwined with the political fate of destiny’s four daughters and one son. All five of them are grassroots achievers. What is more, all of five of them have a chosen a lonely political path with no dynasty to bequeath their political legacy to.

Mayawati [ Images ] and Uma Bharti stand between the cynical politics of competitive communalism in Uttar Pradesh between the Congress and the Samajwadi Party. Mamata Banerjee [ Images ] stands in between the Congress’ anti-federal impulses and the next election. Coming from a state with radically altered demographics, thanks to a soft border policy for decades, it is Mamata Banerjee who will face some early tests in bridging this divide.

No less will be the burden on Narendra Modi in bridging this communal fault-line as he continues down a path that few in the BJP have undertaken.

But the all important inoculation against an Islamist veto on the affairs in Delhi will likely have to come from down South. Noted political satirist and the match-maker of many a political alliance, Cho Ramaswamy, mooted a southern second front against the Congress over the past weekend with a key role for Jayalalithaa [ Images ].

Federalism is the credo that binds all of them together as was evident in their collective opposition to the divisive Communal Violence Bill pushed by the Congress. It is in that shared value of federalism that we must look for a new coalition that not just stands up to the cynical vote bank politics of the Congress, but is also able to pave a political path towards permanently burying this communal faultline.

The issue of Federalism assumes immense political significance as Governor’s assert themselves in an extra-constitutional fashion with the shameful approval of a flawed Judiciary as was manifest in the Gujarat Lok Ayukta case.

This is one of the many reasons why the Judiciary needs an overhaul twitter.com/pti_news/statu… @narendramodi—
Offstumped (@offstumped) January 18, 2012

RT “@cbcnn_Pilid: Justice Sahai's deciding opinion in Gujarat Lokayukta case indiankanoon.org/doc/68250714/—
Offstumped (@offstumped) January 18, 2012

It will be interesting to see if a southern second front emerges in the months to come as a bulwark against the Congress’ anti-federal excesses.

More on that Cho Ramaswamy speech at the Tughlak annual event from last week translated from Tamil into English by blogger NR.

Jaya wishes to bring a government like Modis/Gujarat govt in TN. She aspires to take TN to a position better than Modis administartaion of Gujarat. She suffers though from lack of continous run as everytime is time is wasted on repairing the DMK unleashed disarray. She will compete with Modi if she gets continuous run of 10 years

BJP’s decision is in the hands of Advani, but we people have Modi in our minds, we see him as PM candidate. If he comes nation will be electrified, as Modi will become the issue, no other issues needed for BJP, with it they can win  the elections easily.

If for some reason, if those who speak secularism and associated issues combine and say bjp govt cannot come but a bjp supported govt can come, then I would say BJP should support Jaya as pm.

Her patriotism,determination, hardwork, charisma, grasping power, her ability to swim against tideknowing many languages are qualities which will be highly useful for a country.

Even otherwise, I think ADMk will play a crucial role in the formation of next government and they will need to do their bit for a BJP govt.

Be it uniting the party post being hounded out after MGR death, developing the party, or making the phoenix comeback and finally achieving a stupendous electoral achievement not even achieved by MGR, she has done it single handedly, and depended on her own and was her lone campaigner.

I admire leaders like jaya and Modi who get no central support and achieve despite the hurdles of hostile media and centre.

Interesting days ahead, Offstumped will be on a break for a few weeks, look forward to the much promised Uttar Pradesh election special podcast to be released soon   ….

Also read Kanchan Gupta in The Pioneer taking potshots at the Election Commission’s decision to shroud Mayawati’s Dalit Pride in Pink much to the anxiety of the Rahul Gandhi lead Congress.

The Congress’s communal brinkmanship and the Election Commission’s over-zealous conduct have made the contentious issue of a Muslim sub-quota the centerpiece of public debate in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly election. The issue has effectively shut out debate on everything else to the point where it becomes necessary to ask if the Uttar Pradesh poll is now a referendum on this single issue.

The Congress has put both the Uttar Pradesh election and its own campaign on a dangerous trajectory. Its carefully crafted strategy of OBC micro-targetting is under stress while the upper caste vote is being alienated. The Election Commission’s zeal in shrouding Chief Minister Mayawati’s statues has put the Congress further on the defensive.

A high-stakes debate on the Muslim sub-quota is not without its unintended consequences to the other parties as well.  The real danger though is the high risk of competitive communalism from the SP and the BSP to deny the Congress its unfair share of the Muslim vote.

The incident of burning an effigy in Azamgarh over the Batla House encounter must be seen in the light of this competitive communalism the Congress’s sub-quota will spur in the dog-fight over Muslim votes. It is despicable that, despite repeated clarifications by Union Minister for Home Affairs P Chidambaram on the genuineness of the Batla House encounter, Congress’s Digvijay Singh continues to stoke a controversy while Amethi MP Rahul Gandhi fails to take an unequivocal stance on the issue.

The more the Uttar Pradesh election turns into a referendum on the Muslim sub-quota issue the less is the likelihood of a meaningful verdict emerging from this election.

In a recent article, political commentator Ashok Malik has observed how there is no space for politics of growth, aspiration and economic advancement in Uttar Pradesh. The liberal opinion-making establishment must stand guilty for this as much as cynical politics. There has been no serious repudiation of the Congress’ communalism on the sub-quota issue. More inches of print space and more minutes of airtime were devoted to fringe issues in States not even going to polls while the Congress’s cynical pursuit of quotas in Uttar Pradesh was given a free pass. What is worse is the glee and cheer with which sections of the media have reported on the party’s pursuit of community specific entitlements through the story of one Faizan of Azamgarh.

Faizan, we are told, was instrumental in advising Rahul Gandhi to announce a financial package for the mostly Muslim weavers in Uttar Pradesh, bypassing the State Government and middlemen. If media reports are anything to go by, Faizan, who makes three saris a week and earns about Rs 100 per sari, and other beneficiaries like him will be eligible to receive cheap credit and margin money directly in their bank accounts. The politically expedient manner in which central money was doled out by the Congress in Azamgarh notwithstanding, one’s heart goes out for Faizan.

The polio-stricken father of two, who is thrilled at this one-time bail-out, will likely continue to make three saris a week and earn the same or less per sari. Unfortunately for Faizan, Uttar Pradesh goes to a high-stakes election only once in five years for Mr Rahul Gandhi to come around and pull strings in Delhi on his behalf. What happens to Faizan the day after the one-time waiver is spent and the credit dries up?

It is a shame that a Faizan should have to push himself into a corner into making a choice between dependence on a corrupt State Government and what is at best temporary relief.  It is tragic that an opportunistic Congress has raised the hopes of Faizan without offering any economic roadmap for how he takes himself, his family and his community of weavers out of the quagmire they currently find themselves in.

BJP leader Uma Bharati in a Press conference in Delhi alluded to the need for the Muslim community to look beyond quotas, citing the example of Muslim prosperity in Gujarat. A sentiment earlier expressed by the PDP leader from Kashmir, Mehbooba Mufti, in her remarks at the National Integration Council meeting in New Delhi last year.

It must be asked why the Muslim debate in Uttar Pradesh has to remain hostage to a fight over the spoils of reservations. It must also be asked why a Faizan of Azamgarh has to be condemned to a lifetime of dependence seeking bailouts that will only be doled out at the discretion of cynical politicians in Delhi. Surely a Faizan of Azamgarh can do better than three saris a week and earn Rs 100 for asari to dream big of a future, where his enterprise mass produces thousands ofsaris a week.

There is a message for Azamgarh’s Faizan in Mehbooba Mufti’s anecdote of a Muslim businessman in Gujarat benefiting from the kind of Governance that facilitates entrepreneurship.

If only a Faizan could look beyond the dog fights over sub-quotas, false hopes from bailouts and dangerous polemics over victimhood and terror. If only a Faizan could break free from the status quo to demand the kind of governance that fosters economic growth, creates economic opportunity and promotes enterprise, this Uttar Pradesh election would be markedly different.

Uttar Pradesh’s fate in 2012 could be as much a victim of its failed politics as it may be of its voters’ failure to break free from the past to demand better and dream big

A decade back on a first visit to the American City of Chicago I was overcome by a desire to visit the hall where Swami Vivekananda had made his famous speech almost a century before. Back then the Internet was not quite the powerhouse of information that it is today. There was very little information to go by to track down where exactly that speech was delivered and if there was any memorial at all of the events from that last decade of that Century. More recently Vivekananda’s visit to the United States was brought forth to the mind while listening to a speech by Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi who sought to give a new meaning to the date September 11^th marking the day when Swami Vivekananda delivered that famous speech in Chicago.

Thus began a digital quest to reconstruct the events of the 1890s during Swami Vivekananda’s visit and stay in the United States. Thanks to the digital news archives of the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune among others we are able to today assemble a collage of original newspaper clippings from that decade that give a firsthand account of impressions if not insights to that Visit and Stay spanning nearly a decade. The Chicago Tribune naturally has the most number of news items of the Swami’s visit to the U.S. while the New York Times gives some glimpses of his stay in the New York area. One also gains a peek into events that perhaps few are familiar with in the years leading up to the Swami’s passing away and its immediate aftermath.

Most of the newspaper clippings are from the year 1893 when the Parliament of Religions was held in Chicago. In a curtain raiser that appeared in the Chicago Tribune dated 11^th September 1893 with the title “Study of Comparative Religions” one gets a perspective from a local Presbyterian Church on what to expect from the Parliament. It was interesting to note how the local clergy viewed the event as being no threat to Christianity but an opportunity to witness, as the report put it, “the grandest successes and the most pathetic failures in the highest plane of human endeavor”.

In a series of articles that appeared on the 12^th of September 1893 one gets a detailed glimpse of the launch of the Parliament. In a report titled “The Opening of the Great Parliament”, the Chicago Tribune lists all of the major participants in the Parliament. It may be a common misconception that Swami Vivekananda was the only Hindu in attendance when in fact there were many Indians.

Siddhu Ram from Punjab, Raghavji Gandhi, Rev B.B. Nagarkar, P.C. Mazoomdar, Jinda Ram, Dharmapala, Prof G.N. Chakravarti were among others listed by the Chicago Tribune as being in attendance. In fact P.C. Mazumdar is quoted as one of the first speakers from India extending gratitude for the invitation to the Parliament, followed by Dharmapala speaking on behalf of the Buddhist community in India.  The report listed Swami Vivekananda being introduced in the afternoon session after a Lunch recess. Another news report on the same day titled “In a Common Cause” that appeared in the Chicago Tribune described Swami Viveknanda’s attire that day as a “single violent orange garment”.

The highlight of Swami Vivekananda’s opening remarks reported by the Chicago Tribune was his emphasis on Tolerance. In fact Swami Vivekananda’s rejection of bigotry needs to be reproduced in full for the benefit of many who swear by him in the present times to introspect and reflect:

“…. Sectarianism, bigotry and its horrible descendant fanaticism have filled the earth with violence, drenched it often and often with human gore, destroyed civilization and sent whole nations into despair. Had it not been for this horrible demon, society would have been much farther advanced than it is today …… this parliament that is assembled is the death knell to all fanaticism, death knell to all persecution with the sword or the pen and to all uncharitable feelings between brethren wending their way to the same goal but through different ways…..”

The next extensive reportage on Swami Vivekananda comes nine days later from the Chicago Tribune on the 20^th of September 1893. The report titled “Hindoo criticizes Christianity” carries extensive excerpts from Swamiji’s speech under the sub-section titled “Christianity is Intolerant”.  The report quotes Vivekananda saying “….I have sat here today and I have heard the height of intolerance…..Blood and sword are not for the Hindu who’s religion is based on the law of love….”. The report then goes on to carry an extended discourse from the Swamiji on Vedanta with these closing remarks that are significant even today.

“….The Hindoo religion does not consist in struggles and attempts to believe a certain doctrine or dogma, but in the realizing not in the believing, but in the being and becoming. The whole struggle in their system is a constant struggle to become perfect …. this becoming perfect … constitutes the religion of the Hindoos….”

In a report titled “Colored Methodists in Session” that appeared in the Chicago Tribune on the 23^rd September, the attendance to Swami Vivekananda’s speech and the response of the audience was described as

“….Hall3 was crowded to overflowing and hundreds of questions were asked by auditors and answered by the great Sanyasi with wonderful skill and lucidity. At the close of the session he was met by eager questioners who begged him to give a semi-public lecture somewhere on the subject of his religion…”

One reads of Swami Vivekananda’s travels in the United States on and off over the next few years in assorted news clippings that appear in the New York Times listing social events at private residences and public lectures. Of particular curiosity was an event in New York City in May of 1894 when Swamiji spoke on Vegetarianism to an audience of fifty where he debunked the idea of spirituality and vegetarianism

“….some of the greatest propagandists of vegetarianism do not believe in God or in the existence of the soul ….”

In February of 1895 we learn from the New York Times of regular Sunday evening addresses by Swamiji in the Brooklyn area near New York City. The same story also reports that interest in his lectures increased into a demand for additional sessions. We also learn of the existence of a formal entity titled “Swami Vivekananda Educational Work”. In March of 1896 the New York Times interviews an American disciple of Vivekananda who was ordained into asceticism. In April of the same year the New York Times carries a short review of a new publication on Vedanta by Swamji.  In May of 1897 a lengthy letter to the column appears in the New York Times by a Mr. Charles Higgins of the “Brookly Ethical Association” that critiques common misconceptions around Swami Vivekananda in response to a piece by a Mr. Blauss, correspondent of the New York Times, that among other things described the Swamiji as a “Philosophical Quack”.

In November of 1899 the New York Times reports on the Swamiji’s third visit to New York and a lecture in New York City followed by a lengthy book review of Swamiji’s latest book of Vedanta in July of 1902 soon after which Swamiji passed away.

It is only four long years after his death, in January of 1906 that we see a strange story appear in the New York Times of the unfinished legal matter of the Late Swami’s Will. On 17^th January 1906 the New York Times in a report that is wrongly titled “Buddhist’s Old Will” narrates the story of how for three long years lawyers struggled with how to dispose Swami Vivekananda’s will. The will the report said had been executed by the Swami on July 6^th 1900 during a visit to the United States. The will talked of dividing his estate among 5 of his disciples. The story goes into quite some detail on how for two years the executors in the United States attempted to communicate with the executors in India including reproducing a letter from Sister Nivedita. The story concludes with a glimpse of the complexities encountered by an early 20^th century American Legal System in dealing with the will of a Hindu Swami who had renounced kith and kin.

As we near Swami Vivekananda’s 150^th birth anniversary in 2013 one hopes there is renewed interest in his life and teachings. This digital quest to discover firsthand accounts from a period his life that saw him receive global fame and attention is small step towards rekindling that interest.

It would seem the Congress took a calculated gamble by putting Law Minister Salman Kurshid out there to float a trial balloon  on the 9% Muslim sub-quota.

The subsequent action from the Election Commission may carry the pretense of restoring “secular” balance to a seemingly communal campaign.  But its real impact is the issue will now dominate the public debate over everything else effectively making the Uttar Pradesh election a referendum on this single issue thanks to the Congress’ communal brinkmanship.

The Congress has put both the Uttar Pradesh election and its own campaign on a dangerous trajectory here.

The belated re-calibration of its campaign message by Rahul Gandhi shows how the Law of Unintended Consequences has now begun to haunt its UP campaign. So we have Rahul Gandhi in this recalibrated mode once again talking of visiting Dalit homes and exorcising the ghost of  ”India Shining” 8 years after its burial.

The UP election turning into a referendum on Muslim sub-quota is a Catch-22 for the Congress. It puts its carefully crafted strategy of OBC micro-targeting under stress. It also alienates the Upper Caste vote that it managed to wrest from the BSP in the 2009 election. The election commission’s zeal in shrouding Mayawati’s Dalit pride has effectively shut the doors on Rahul’s nocturnal visitations.

It appears Rahul’s Social Engineering has ignored the basic tenets of Electoral Coalition Building 101 by saddling itself with too many contradictions. We can already see the anxiety setting in to the Rahul Gandhi campaign over these contradictions.

The high stakes debate on a Muslim sub-quota is not without its unintended consequences to the other parties. The Samajwadi Party and the BSP do not enjoy the BJP’s luxury of taking a vocal stance against the sub-quota. The SP especially has the unenviable challenge of having to hold on to both its Muslim and OBC vote base without appearing to antagonize either. Hence we see an interesting play by the SP floating rumors on the Congress dumping from the Union Cabinet its own OBC posterboy Beni Prasad Verma post-polls.

The real danger though is the high risk of competitive communalism from the SP and the BSP to deny the Congress an unfair share of the Muslim vote. The incident of burning an effigy of Rahul Gandhi in Azamgarh over the Batla House encounter must be seen in the light of this competitive communalism the Congress’ sub-quota will spur in the dog fight over Muslim votes.

The BJP it would appear is the natural beneficiary of this UP election flipping on the issue of a Muslim sub-quota. Conventional wisdom would suggest the upper caste vote drifting towards it apart from a consolidation of the OBC vote that views any community specific sub-quota as threat. But the catch-22 for the BJP is the higher its chances of winning the greater the odds of a Muslim vote consolidation against it. The BJP also has to contend with the fact that this cynical mandalization of the election over reservations could have the unintended effect of depressing voter turnout especially of the upper castes who see little at stake directly in a dog fight over sub-quotas.

The more the UP election turns into a referendum on Muslim sub-quota the greater the uncertainty on the final outcome.  It shifts the focus away from Mayawati’s performance and  Akhilesh Yadav’s promise. It takes the sheen off Rahul’s appeal while infusing energy into a moribund BJP.

We perhaps are headed into uncharted waters here and conventional political may not be of much help in sorting through the catch-22s and paradoxes to predict which way this election will eventually go.

What do you think ?

What started as 4.5% lollipop has already doubled in to a 9% kebab even before the election started ?

How long before it trebles to a 18% salami ?

It is galling that there has practically been no liberal outrage on this escalating Communalism of the Congress borne out of sheer desperation over Rahul Gandhi’s performance in Uttar Pradesh.

First sample the glee with which the ET Bureau reports this promise for a 9% Muslim Quota within Quota, almost sounding like a cheerleader:

 After leaving its rivals in Uttar Pradesh, barring BJP, tongue-tied with its poll-eve announcement of 4.5% minority quota in central jobs, Congress has flashed yet another ace by wooing the community with the promise of 9% reservation, also within the existing 27% OBC quota, in state government jobs if voted to power

Next Sample this:

- More Columns have been written and TV Studio discussions have been held on a Cow Slaughter legislation in Madhya Pradesh passed two years ago than on a Muslim Sub-Quota in Uttar Pradesh. The irony of course there is no election in Madhya Pradesh. The hypocrisy of course is there wasn’t even the semblance of a murmur on this law for the past two years.

- More polls have been conducted on a proposal calling for more debate on a proposed after-school optional program to teach Gita in Karnataka than on the doubling of the Muslim Sub-Quota in Uttar Pradesh. The irony of course is it is just “a proposal to debate a proposal” and no after-school programs in Karnataka are not on the ballot in Uttar Pradesh. The tragedy of course not even the schools of Uttar Pradesh are on the ballot in Uttar Pradesh with real issues taking a backseat.

In its desperation to go one up over the Samajwadi Party and the traction its young leader Akhilesh Yadav is getting from the Muslim community, the Rahul Gandhi lead congress today went out of its way to expand the ambit of a quota within a quota for Muslims in Uttar Pradesh.

Wooing Muslim voters, Union law minister Salman Khurshid said the Congress party would provide nine per cent sub-quota for backward Muslims if it was voted to power in the coming Uttar Pradesh assembly election.

The Congress leader promised this while addressing a poll meeting on Sunday in Farrukhabad assembly constituency from where his wife Louise is contesting.

Khurshid said the Congress would provide nine per cent reservation for backward Muslims within the existing OBC quota in UP in the event of its forming the government in the state.

He said more than eight castes such as Mansoori and Qureshi would benefit from such a move.

He reminded the voters that the UPA government at the Centre had already taken a decision to provide 4.5 per cent reservation for minorities within the existing 27 per cent OBC quota.

The desperation to lock in the Muslim vote is understandable given the skepticism with which the Muslim voters of western UP have been viewing this belated attempt at appeasement by the Congress:

 The calibrated projection of Mulayam Singh Yadav’s son Akhilesh as the campaign leader is doing to the Samajwadi Party what the Congress had hoped Rahul Gandhi’s foregrounding would do.

Conversations with Muslims and youths in some crucial districts of the first-phase belt in Uttar Pradesh suggest the two principal constituencies are tilting more towards the Samajwadis than the Congress.

“The Congress has forced an artificial divide in the community. Nobody openly thought in casteist terms but the parlance we use is are you an upper caste, an OBC or a Dalit Muslim?”

There is nothing new about certain Muslim communities being the beneficiaries of OBC quota in certain states. What is however disturbing is the dogged attempt by the Congress to Institutionalize sub-quotas based on Religion.

This dogged attempt at injecting Communalism into the Uttar Pradesh campaign by the Congress is both deliberate and dangerous.

It is deliberate in its sinister hope that a backlash would provoke violence thus triggering yet another consolidation of the Muslim vote out of fear.

It is dangerous in the precedent it sets for permanent religious quotas while quietly burying the original rationale for why Quotas where created by the Constitution Framers in the first place.

We must also fear this Politics of Quota inside Quota for the kind of Muslim Fundamentalism it might foster in response to what some see as anti-Islamic caste designations.

The saving grace in this reckless attempt at Communal Engineering in Uttar Pradesh is perhaps the sagacity and the wisdom of the Muslim voter who is no longer easily taken by the bogey of fear or the lure of appeasement. Whether that sagacity and wisdom will ultimately hold out come polling day, remains to be seen.

But the hypocritical and shameless Liberal discourse can be relied upon to do everything in its power to foster that bogey of fear while choosing to remain silent on that lure of appeasement.

It is ironic that Mr Rahul Gandhi is attempting to become a micro-Mandal messiah trying to win the political battle his father lost in Uttar Pradesh to Mandal politics two decades back. The Uttar Pradesh election has now been reduced to an exercise in micro-Mandal targeting to slice and dice the OBC vote bank. The logic of micro-mandalisation has now been taken to its logical extreme just as it has been in Bihar by Chief Minister Nitish Kumar with even the Muslim vote-bank staring at a three-way fragmentation if not more. It is not without reason that the original micro-Mandal messiah, Mr Nitish Kumar, has decided to plunge in to this campaign in Uttar Pradesh against this upstart micro-Mandal messiah in Mr Gandhi.

We are less than four weeks away from the Uttar Pradesh election but are no wiser on which way the State’s voter will likely swing. The confusion now is so deep that one can safely find an opinion poll for every possible end game scenario in Uttar Pradesh. The micro-Mandalisation of the OBC vote has been elevated to such a sophisticated science that it won’t be long before ‘social engineering’ is listed alongside ‘astrology’ to offer more science choices to college students. To appreciate the precision of this micro-Mandal engineering one only has to look at the various news stories that appeared over the past week. On the one hand you had the Indian Express listing precisely the number of votes and seats the Congress hopes to target by stitching together a coalition between the Kurmi vote and the Muslim vote. On the other you had Mail Today baring the precise number of seats being targeted by the BJP including some by name to gain a slice of the OBC vote while hoping to have a lock on the upper caste vote. Mercifully favourable opinion polls have also appeared in the media to support either scenario.

Ignoring these favourably engineered opinion polls for a moment, conventional political wisdom suggests that the battle in Uttar Pradesh is one primarily between the BSP and the SP. Conventional political wisdom also suggests that the BJP and the Congress are merely fighting for third and fourth place. Why then would the entry of a tainted Babu Singh Kushwaha into the BJP become such a hot button issue? After all by extending the logic of conventional political wisdom a tainted Mr Kushwaha should push the BJP from third place to the fourth place. The Congress, going by conventional political wisdom, should have everything to gain from this BJP ‘self-goal’. Why then, pray, has it been firing all guns against the BJP for the last four days?

But then political logic in Uttar Pradesh is anything but conventional. Nothing exemplifies the micro-Mandalisation of the political debate in Uttar Pradesh better than the manner in which all sides have obsessed over the entry of Mr Kushwaha, expelled from the BSP, into the BJP. Ashok Malik, writing in The Pioneer, explains why a Kushwaha who has never contested a real election is such a seemingly prized catch for the BJP. Mr Kushwaha, having run a patronage network for his community, distributed jobs and other public goods, we are told, is in a position to transfer a very specific slice of the OBC vote within a very specific region of Uttar Pradesh.

So we have this bizarre battle for the OBC vote where even Sam Pitroda’s OBC caste is now public knowledge and whenever Mr Gandhi sees Muslims at a rally, he suffers this uncontrollable urge to hail them by their OBC caste.

Lost and forgotten in this battle for a micro-share of micro-spoils is of course the Uttar Pradesh voter who can put to rest any hope of this election producing an outcome that fundamentally alters politics in Uttar Pradesh. How can any party that comes to power riding on the logic of precision targeting sub-castes legitimately claim a mandate to govern all of Uttar Pradesh?

The continuation of cynical realpolitik as the dominant political paradigm in Uttar Pradesh is a sign of the absence of an overarching idea, theme or personality that can appeal to all of Uttar Pradesh, speak for all Uttar Pradesh or legitimately claim to represent all of Uttar Pradesh.

There is a risk here for campaign strategists the pursuit of realpolitik is an end in itself. Electoral tactics rooted in micro-targeting and less than ethical opportunism that facilitates such micro-targeting run the risk of getting blindsided from macro-trends with mass appeal sweeping them by the wayside. One cannot deny the success of micro-Mandal targeting in Bihar but it was not in isolation for the idea of Mr Nitish Kumar reflected a pan-Bihari desire for a clean and meaningful Government.

In response to the UPA’s move to splinter the OBC quota further with a Muslim sub-quota, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi recently made a very powerful remark — “I am an OBC too but I have never used my caste to gain power”.

How many leaders in India today can credibly make such a claim to a culture of politics that transcends caste to speak for all citizens of a state or the entire country? Not even Mr Nitish Kumar.

It is anybody’s guess at this time if all this micro-Mandalisation and micro-targeting will turn conventional political on its head to reverse the pecking order in Uttar Pradesh. Astute observers like Mr Malik continue to put much currency on a possible SP revival under its new scion Akhilesh Yadav. It is a reflection on how low the bar of expectations has been set in Uttar Pradesh that an iPad-sporting Akhilesh Yadav is seen as the great new hope.

Is Uttar Pradesh condemned forever to suffer politics of fragmentation in the absence of a transformational big idea? The political division of Uttar Pradesh will perhaps be a ‘surgical act of mercy’ for its citizens. Maybe that is the big idea this election is missing.