|
The
question of reservations for the minorities, not
just Muslims alone, was discussed in great detail
in the Constituent Assembly. The Constituent Assembly
appointed an Advisory Committee comprising of
more than 50 members that included a large number
of Muslims as well as other minorities, to look
into the question of reservation to the Minorities
as well as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe.
The chairman of this Committee was Shri H.C. Mookerjee,
a Christian. Some of the Members representing
the interests of Muslims were Maulana Abul Kalam
Azad, Khan Abdul Samad Khan, Hifzur Rehman, Syed
Ali Zaheer, Abdul Quiyum Ansari, Chaudhari Khaliquzzam,
Saiyid Jafar Imam, Haji Abdul Sathar Haji Isaq
Seth, H.J. Khandekar.
After
discussing the matter from 21 July to 27 July
1947, the issues for the consideration of the
sub-Committee were formulated as follows:
1.
Representation in the Legislature; joint vs
separate electorate and weightage;
2.
Reservation of seats in the cabinets;
3.
Reservation in public services;
4.
Administrative machinery to ensure protection
of minority rights (partly covered by making
certain fundamental rights justiciable.)1
Advisory
Committee's Recommendations
Discussions
on these issues in the sub-committee continued
till 27 July 1947after which the sub-committee
submitted its report to the Advisory Committee.
The report said that there shall be no 'separate
communal electorates for elections in the Legislatures.'2
On the issue of the reservation of seats for minorities,
it was in favour of reservation only for the different
recognized minorities and that too only for ten
years. The Committee classified minorities into
three groups which ware as follows:
A
- Population less than ½ per cent in the Indian
Dominion, omitting the Indian States
1.
Anglo-Indians.
2.
Parsees.
3.
Plains tribesmen in Assam.
B
- Population not more than 1½ per cent
4.
Indian Christians
5.
Sikhs
C
- Population exceeding 1 ½ per cent
6.
Muslims
7.
Scheduled Castes
3
The
sub-committee further recommended that there shall
be reservations for the SC/ST Muslims and other
minorities for ten years, in proportion of their
populations but on the principle of joint electorates
and there shall be no weightage for any community.
On
the issue of the reservation in the Cabinets,
it recommended that there shall be no statuary
provision for such reservation.
On
the issue of reservation in public services it
was recommended that there shall be no reservation
in the public services and competitive services
except for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes.4
However, with regard to the fourth point i.e.
administrative machinery to ensure protection
of minority rights, the committee recommended
that the best machinery for ensuring the implementation
of the guarantees and safeguards provided for
the minorities in the Constitution was for the
centre and each of the units to appoint a special
Minority Officer charged with the duty of enquiring
into allegations of infringement of safeguards
and of reporting to Parliament or the appropriate
Legislature. The committee also accepted the suggestion
regarding the provision to set up a statuary commission,
scope of whose inquiry would be wider than the
safeguards of the recognized minorities.5
Recommendations
in the Constituent Assembly
The
reports of the Advisory Committee on minority
rights and on Anglo-Indians were considered by
the Constituent Assembly on 27 and 28 August 1947.While
introducing the report on the minority rights
Sardar Patel said:
"I
am happy to say that this report has been the
result of a general consensus of opinion between
the minorities themselves and the majority.
Therefore, although it is not possible to satisfy
all, you will see that this report has been
the result of agreement on may points ; and
wherever there has been disagreement the recommendations
have been carried by a very large majority,
so that except on one point the report is practically
an agreed report. It may be that there are some
who are not satisfied on some points, but we
have to take into consideration all points of
view and feelings and sentiments of the minorities,
big and small. We have tried as for as possible
to meet the wishes of all the miorities."6
Once
the recommendations of the Advisory Committee
were taken up by the Constituent Assembly for
its consideration, B. Pocker (a Muslim Leaguer
from Madras) moved an amendment which asked for
the continuation of the separate electorate for
the Muslim community. This was supported by another
famous Muslim Leaguer, Chaudhuri Khaliquzzaman.
Their demand was that the proportional representation
with the joint electorate was not acceptable to
them and that the provision of separate electorate
in the Central and Provincial Legislature should
be provided in the Constitution. Both of them
made very emotional but communal speeches. Pocker
said:
"It
will be very difficult for members of particular
communities, say the non-Muslims to realise
the actual needs and requirements of the Muslim
community. I say that even if a non-Muslim does
his best to do what he can for the Muslim community,
to represent their views, he will find it impossible
to do so because he is not in a position to
realise, understand and appreciate the actual
needs of the members of that particular community,
so long as he does not belong to the community….I
do admit that there may be efficient men on
either side possessing knowledge of the need
of both Hindus and Muslims, but they will not
be many. Therefore, it is that I say that the
principle should be the best man in the community
should represent the views of that community
and this purpose cannot be served except by
means of separate electorates.
"One
more point I wish to place before you is this.
This institution of separate electorates was
being enjoyed by the Muslim community from the
first decade of this century, i.e. for over
40 years and now the moment independence has
been obtained it is being abolished. It would
be a very sad thing, I submit, to give rise
to the feeling among Muslims that at this critical
stage they are being deprived of the benefit
of this institution now and that they are being
ignored and their voice stifled. I request Honourable
Members to avoid such a contingency and the
creation of such a feeling among the Muslim
community of India."7
Mr.
Pocker did not mind giving even a veiled threat
to the Constituent Assembly in the matter. He
further said:
"One
other point I would like to mention is this.
The Muslim community is well-organised…. At
present Muslims are strong and well-organised.
Now, if they are made to feel that their voice
cannot even be heard in Legislature, they will
become desperate. I would request you not to
create that contingency…. I say in spite of
the great differences of opinion that exist
today, granting of separate electorates to the
Muslims and allowing Muslims to have their voices
heard in the Legislature so as to enable them
to act hand in hand with the Congress will be
the best method. I do not want to be more explicit
on the point because I know that Hon'ble Members
understand me when I say this."8
Speaking
on the issue Chaudhuri Khaliquzzaman argued in
the favour of separate electorates in the following
words:
"I
feel that it is my duty to point out one very
serious objection which was urged against separate
electorates. The objection was that it has helped
it has helped a third party. Fortunately for
all of us that third party is no more here.
Should we really visualise the situation as
it stands today in its true perspective, much
of the suspicion that hangs round this system
of separate electorates will disappear. After
all, if they are conceded to us, what will happen
to this great majority?... What use is then
people cite history, which history is as dead
as bones? Surely, there were very serious objections.
Rightly or wrongly the Muslims did not realise
that separate electorates were the cause of
dividing communities. But today those arguments
do not hold good. If you concede separate electorates,
the Muslim community feels that they will help
in returning their true representatives, representatives
who will lay before you - not to any other power,
not to any other Government, not even to
Pakistan - our grievances and our claims,
therefore I beg you and beg of this house to
consider the new situation in which this question
is being discussed."9
It
may be mentioned here that Chaudhuri Khaliquzzaman,
the foremost Muslim Leaguer, had tried hard to
get into the United Provinces ministry of 1937
and had supported the resolution in favour of
the creation of Pakistan. Soon after his speech
in the Constituent Assembly he migrated to Pakistan.
And his concern was "OUR GRIEVANCES AND OUR
CLAIMS" and certainly not OUR DUTIES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES!
Many prominent leaders like P.S. Deshmukh, V.I.
Muniswami Pillai, F.R. Anthony, Rohini Kumar Chaudhury,
S. Nagappa, R.K. Sidhwa, Jaipal Singh, M.S. Aney,
M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, Mahavir Tyagi, and
many others spoke on the issue. Due to constrain
of space it may not be possible to quote all.
But it is worthwhile to quote Govind Ballabh Pant
and Sardar Patel whose speeches reflect the mood
of the Constituent Assembly. Pant termed the proposal
of separate electorates as suicidal:
"Mr.
President, I regret that the mover of the resolution
should have considered it necessary to introduce
this subject at this stage and existing circumstances.
I had thought that we had outgrown the stage
when sentiments instead of reason used to overpower
us. My friend the leader of the Muslim League
Party asked us to take note of the changed circumstances.
That is exactly what I ask him to do. I regret
very much that the magnitude of the great change
that has come over this country has been made
over lock stock and barrel to the people of
this country. I may also assure him and those
associated with him that I am trying to look
at the question exclusively from the point of
view of the minorities…. So when I am opposing
this motion, it is because I am convinced that
it would be suicidal for the minorities themselves,
if the system of separate electorates were countenanced
and upheld now. In fact, we seem to forget the
great change as I said which has come over the
political status of our country. In the olden
days, whatever be the name under which our Legislature
functioned, in reality they were no more than
the advisory bodies. The ultimate power was
vested in the British and the British Parliament
was the ultimate arbiter of our destiny. So
long as the power was vested in the foreigners,
I could understand the utility of separate electorates….Then
perhaps the representatives of different communities
could pose as the full-fledged advocates of
their communities, and as the decision did not
rest with the people of the country they could
satisfy themselves with that position. But it
is not merely a question of advocacy now. It
is a question of having an effective decisive
voice in the affairs of and in the deliberation
of the legislatures and the Parliament of this
free country…. so I believe separate electorates
will be suicidal to the minorities and will
do them tremendous harm. If they are isolated
forever, they can never convert themselves into
a majority and the feeling of frustration will
cripple them even from the very beginning. What
is it that you desire and what is your ultimate
objective? Do the minorities always want to
remain as minorities or do they ever expect
to form an integral part of a great nation and
as such guide and control its destinies? If
they do, can they ever achieve that aspiration
and that ideal if they are isolated from rest
of the community? I think it would be extremely
dangerous for them if they segregated from the
rest of the community and keep aloof in an air-tight
compartment where they would have to rely on
others even for the air they breathed….
"Further,
what is your ultimate ideal? Do you want a real
national secular State or a theocratic State.
If the latter, then in this Union of India a
theocratic State can only be a Hindu State.
Will it be in your interest to isolate yourself
in such a manner?…Will anything be more dangerous
than that. Then you have also to consider, if
such a system is introduced, how it will react
on you now and hereafter. If you have separate
electorates for the minorities, the inevitable
result is that the majority becomes isolated
from the minorities, and being thus cut off
from the minorities, it can ride rough-shod
upon them….
"I
have no doubt that from whichever point of view
you may look at it, it will be extremely detrimental
to your interests if you now clamour for separate
electorates. Apart from other things, it is
an absolute anachronism today. In a free country
no body has ever heard of separate electorates….
In democracies one should care less for himself
and more for others. There cannot be any divided
loyalty. All loyalties must exclusively be centered
round the state. If in a democracy, you create
rival loyalties, or you create a system in which
any individual or group, instead of suppressing
his extravagance, cares not for larger or other
interests, then democracy is doomed."10
Thus,
it can be seen that as mild and politically as
wise as Govind Ballabh Pant not only was on his
persuasive best but also had harsh words to say
in the matters of reservation and separate electorates.
Replying to the debate on 27 August 1947 and addressing
the issue of separate electorates, Patel addressed
the Constituent Assembly more or less squarely
and frankly:
"I
am sorry to learn that this question was taken
seriously because when this question came before
the Advisory Committee, there was not so much
debate as I heard here today. My friends of
the Muslim League here who moved this amendment
and supported it took it for granted that they
had a duty to perform in a sense. They had been
pressing for separate electorate and enjoying
it for long time and felt that they should not
leave it all of sudden, but just move the motion
and have a vote of House. But when I heard the
elaborate speeches I thought that I was living
in the ages in which the communal question was
first mooted. I had not the occasion to hear
the speeches which were made in the initial
stages in which this question of communal electorates
was introduced in the Congress; but there are
many eminent Muslims who have recorded their
views that the greatest evil in this country
which has been brought to pass is the communal
electorate. The introduction of the system of
communal electorates is a poison which has entered
into the body politic of our country. Many Englishmen
who were responsible for this also admitted
that. But today, after agreeing to the separation
of the country as a result of this communal
electorate, I never thought that this proposition
was going to be moved seriously, and even if
it was moved seriously, that it would not be
taken seriously. Well, when Pakistan was conceded,
at least it was assumed that there would be
one nation in the rest of India - the 80 per
cent India - and there would be no attempt to
talk of two nations here also. It is no use
saying that we ask for separate electorates,
because it is good for us. We have heard it
long enough. We have heard it for years, and
as a result of this agitation we are now a separate
nation. The agitation was that "we are a
separate nation, we cannot have either separate
electorates or the weightage or any other concessions
or consideration sufficient for our protection.
Therefore, give us a separate State." We said,
"All right, take your separate State". But in
the rest of India, in 80 per cent of India do
you agree that there shall be one nation? Or
do you still want the two nations talk to be
brought here also? I am against separate electorates.
Can you show me a free country where there are
separate electorates? If so, I shall be prepared
to accept it. But in this unfortunate country
if this separate electorate is going to be persisted
in, even after the division of the country,
woe betide the country; it is not worth living
in. Therefore, I say, it is not for my good
alone, it is for your own good that I say it,
"forget the past. One day we may be united.
I wish well to Pakistan. Let it succeed. Let
them build in their own way, let them prosper.
Let us enter into a rivalry of prosperity, but
let us not enter into that rivalry that is going
on today in the land of Pakistan. My friend
the mover of the amendment says the Muslim community
today is a strong-knit community. Very good:
I am glad to hear that, and therefore I say
you have no business to ask for any props, (cheers).
Because there are other minorities who are not
well- organised, and deserve special consideration
and some safeguards, we want to be generous
to them. But at the same time, as you have enjoyed
this to a certain extent for a long time and
you may not feel that there is discrimination,
we agree to reservation according to population
basis. Where is that kind of reservation in
any other free country in the world? Will you
show me? I ask you. You are very-well organised
community. Tell me, why do you behave like a
lame man? Be a bold and strong man, as you are
well-organised and stand up. Think of the nation
that is being built on this side. We have laid
the foundation of a nation…. Therefore I say,
and appeal to you. "What are you doing"? Think
about it. Do you expect any one man in this
country outside the Muslim League who will say
'Let us now also agree to separate electorates'?
Why do you do this? If you say "We want now
to have loyalty" on this side of this nation",
may I ask you "Is this loyalty." Are you provoking
response of loyalty form other side? I have
no intention to speak on this, but when the
mover of this amendment talked such a long time
and it was supported by the Leader, then I felt
that something is wrong again still in this
land. Therefore, my dear friends, I ask you
"Do you want now peace in this land? If so do
away with it.... I appeal to you 'let us at
least on this side show that everything is forgotten'."11
Once
the proposal for the separate electorates did
not find favour in the Constituent Assembly, the
next day i.e. 28 August 1947, many Muslim League
members, led by K.T.M. Ahmad Ibrahim made another
attempt to introduce the principle of separate
communal voting. Ibrahim proposed that candidate
from the reserved constituencies may be elected
on the basis of getting a certain minimum percentage
of votes from within his own community. It was
proposed that:
"Out
of the candidates who have secured at least
30 per cent of the votes polled of their own
community the candidates who secure the highest
number of votes polled on the joint electoral
rolls shall be declared elected. In case there
is no candidate, who has secured not less than
30 per cent of the votes polled of his community,
that candidate shall be declared elected who
secures the highest number of the total votes
polled."12
Many
members like Kazi Syed Karimuddin, Chaudhuri Khaliquzzaman,
Naziruddin Ahmad and others supported the amendment.
Similar amendment was proposed by S. Nagappa for
the Scheduled Castes but after hearing the views
of many leaders he withdrew his amendment proposal.
However, Muslims Leagues insisted. Patel saw through
the game of "further attempts at sowing the seeds
of communal disruption and categorically refused
to accept the amendment."13
But that a little later. While opposing the amendment
Renuka Ray said:
"It
is a back door method of bringing in separate
electorates, which the house did not accept
yesterday. Sir, we have stood aside helplessly
while artificially this problem of religious
differences - an echo of medieval time, has
been fostered and nurtured and enhanced by the
method of political devices such as separate
electorates in order to serve the interest of
our alien rulers. Today we see as a result our
country divided and provinces like my own [West
Bengal] dismembered…. A separatist tendency
on the basis of religion is something that I
do not think we can tolerate any longer. We
have never stood nor do we stand today for Hindu
domination; we do not want that Hindus as such
as religious community shall override any other
interests. But we do want that India's interest
shall be paramount, that the interests of no
special community shall stand in the way whether
it is majority or a minority religious community."14
However,
once again (i.e. 27.8.1947) it was left to Sardar
Patel to stand with a mirror and call a spade
a spade. Replying to the various amendment motions
moved in the Constituent Assembly, he spoke thus:
"Sir,
I am sorry to see that so much time has been
taken on this amendment which I thought was
going to be withdrawn and on which there would
not be much debate….
"So
far as the amendment moved by the representative
of Muslim League is concerned, I find that I
was mistaken in my impression and if I had believed
this, I would certainly not have agreed to any
reservation at all. (Hear, Hear). When
I agreed to the reservation on the population
basis, I thought that our friends of the Muslim
League will see the reasonableness of our attitude
and allow themselves to accommodate themselves
to the changed conditions after the separation
of the country. But now I find them adopting
the same methods which were adopted when the
separate electorates were first introduced in
this country, and in spite of ample sweetness
in the language used there is a full dose of
poison in the method adopted. (Hear, Hear)….
"Now,
this formula has a history behind it and those
who are the Congress will be able to remember
that history. In Congress history this is known
as Mohammad Ali formula. Since the introduction
of separate electorates in this land there were
two parties amongst the Muslims. One was the
Nationalist Muslims or the Congress Muslims
and other the Muslim League members, or the
representatives of the Muslim League. There
was considerable tension on this question and
at one time there was practical majority against
this joint electorate. But a stage was reached
when, as was pointed out by the mover of this
amendment in Allahabad a settlement was reached.
Did we stand by that settlement? No. We now
have got the division of the country. In
order to prevent the separation of the country
this formula was evolved by the nationalist
Muslims, as a sort of half way house, until
the nation becomes one; we wished to drop it
afterwards. But now the separation of the country
is complete and you say let us introduce it
again and have another separation. I do
not understand this method of affection. Therefore,
although I would not have liked to say anything
on this motion, I think it is better that we
know our mind perfectly each other, so that
we can understand where we stand. If the
process that was adopted, which resulted in
the separation of the country, is to be repeated,
then I say: Those who want that kind of thing
have a place in Pakistan, not here (applause).
Here, we are building a nation and we are laying
the foundation of One Nation, and those who
choose to divide again and sow the seeds of
disruption will have no place, no quarter, here,
and I must say that plainly enough. (Hear, Hear).
Now, if you think that reservation necessarily
means this clause as you have suggested, I am
prepared to withdraw reservation for your own
benefit. If you agree to that, I am prepared,
and I am sure no one in this house will be against
the withdrawal of the reservation if that is
a satisfaction to you. (Cheers). You cannot
have it both ways. Therefore, my friends,
you must change your attitude, adopt yourself
to the changed conditions. And don't pretend
to say "Oh, our affection is very great for
you". We have seen your affection. Why talk
about it? Let us forget the affection. Let us
face the realities. Ask yourself whether you
really want to stand here and cooperate with
us or you want again to play disruptive tactics.
Therefore when I appeal to you, I appeal to
you to have a change in your heart, not a change
of tongue, because that won't pay here. Therefore,
I still appeal to you: 'Friends, reconsider
your attitude and withdraw your amendment".
Why go on saying "Oh, Muslims were not heard;
Muslim amendment was not carried". If that is
going to pay you, you are mistaken, and I know
how it cost me to protect the Muslim minorities
here under the present condition and in the
present atmosphere. Therefore, I suggest that
you don't forget the days in which the agitations
of the type you carried on are closed and we
begin a new chapter. Therefore, I once more
appeal to you to forget the past. Forget what
has happened. You have got what you wanted.
You have got a separate State and remember,
you are the people who were responsible for
it, and not those who remain in Pakistan. You
led the agitation. You got it. What is it that
you want now? I don't understand. In the majority
Hindu provinces you, the minorities, you led
the agitation. You got the partition and now
again you tell me and ask me to say for the
purpose of securing the affection of the younger
brother that I must agree to the same thing
again, to divide the country again in the divided
part. For God's sake, understand that we
have also got some sense. Let us understand
the thing clearly. Therefore, when I say we
must forget the past, I say it sincerely…. There
must be reciprocity. If it is absent, then you
take it from me that no soft words can conceal
what is behind your words. Therefore, I plainly
once more appeal to you strongly that let us
forget and let us be one nation."15
Speaking
on the issue Dr. S. Radhakrishnan said:
"Before
we put down the decisions, let us have some
introductory sentences and make it clear that
it is not our desire in this house to have these
minorities perpetuated. We must put an end to
the disruptive elements in the State. What is
our ideal? It is our ideal to develop a homogenous
democratic state - that is why we have provided
for fundamental rights, we allow no discrimination
in public employment, we say, it is s secular
State…. So we must declare our objective
- that it is our desire to set up here a homogenous,
democratic and secular State and those devices
which were hitherto employed to keep the different
sections of society apart have to be scrapped….
"What
is our objective? Do we want to keep these minorities
over all India as separate entities in the State?
Have we not suffered enough? Are not the tragic
happenings of the Punjab directly traceable
to the development of disruptive tendencies
and deliberate indoctrination? These are not
the acts of God but the acts of man. You will
find that in the I.N.A. or in the Indian Army
where we wished to develop loyalty to a single
State we succeeded; where we wished to disrupt
a State we have succeeded. It is therefore time
for us to put our foot down on all disruptive
tendencies and take care to work for other aims
and say that it is not our desire to maintain
these minorities as minorities."16
|
