When the Constituent Assembly was considering the recommendations of the Advisory Committee about the minorities in August 1947, it was stated in the Assembly that:

"the effect of the Redcliff award on the population structure of East Punjab and West Bengal was not accurately known; further a tragic and immense migration of population was taking place across the frontiers of these Provinces. The Assembly accordingly decided to postpone consideration of the whole question of minority rights in the political field to be provided in the Constitution for Sikhs and other minorities in the East Punjab. It was also agreed, at the suggestion of representatives of West Bengal, to postpone consideration of the question as to whether minorities in that provinces should have the rights to contest general seats in addition to having seats reserved for them according to population strength."1

The Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities, and Tribals and Excluded Areas met on 24 February, 1948. In order to come to a quick, reasonable and expeditious solution on the issue Dr. B.R. Ambedkar suggested that a small committee may be appointed. "He proposed that the committee should consist of: The Hon'ble Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, as its Chairman; the hon'ble Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru; the Hon'ble Dr. Rajendra Prasad; Shri K.M. Munshi; and the Hon'ble Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The suggestion was agreed to. It was also agreed that the report the report of this special committee should come up before the Advisory Committee for their consideration."2 This sub-committee submitted its report on 23 November 1948. The Advisory Committee considered this report on 30 December, 1948.

The report was discussed by the Constituent Assembly for two days, 25 and 26 May 1949. The recommendations as adopted by the Assembly were included in the Draft Constitution. It would be worthwhile to see the debate that took place in Constituent Assembly on this report of the sub-committee.

Given below is the debate that took place in the Constituent Assembly. Due to constraints of space entire debate can not be given. However, efforts have been made to include as many speakers as possible.3 The names of speakers whose speeches could not be included here one given within brackets in italics at appropriate places.

REPORT OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON MINORITIES, ETC.

The Honourable Sardar Vallabhbhai J. Patel (Bombay: General): Sir, I have come before you to move for the consideration of the Report of the Advisory Committee which met during this month for the last time (see the report in Appendix-A). The Committee has, after completion of its work, been dissolved. The House will remember that in August 1947, probably on the 8th of August, a report was submitted by the Advisory Committee, and the Minority Committee taking into consideration the Advisory Committee's report then submitted its proposals advising this House to adopt certain political safeguards for the minorities by way of reservations of seats in the legislatures on the basis of population and also certain other safeguards.

Now when this report was made, the House will remember that it was at a time when conditions were different and even the effect of partition was not fully comprehended or appreciated. At that time even when the report was passed suggesting the acceptance of reservation of seats in the Legislature on population basis, there was difference of opinion. Well, a group of people of highly nationalistic tendencies led by Dr. Mookerjee, Vice Chairman of this House, from the beginning opposed such reservations in the Constitution. Rajkumari Amrit Kaur also at that time stoutly opposed these reservations, but the minorities then were apprehensive of getting the quantum of their representation due to them on basis of population; and the Advisory Committee, in spite of the difference of opinion, thought it necessary to allay the apprehensions of the minorities at that time, which they considered might be regarded as reasonable. The House will also recall that the representative of the Muslims in South India, Mr. Pocker, the no-changer and confirmed Muslim Leaguer, then proposed an amendment in this House when the proposals were submitted to the House, for introducing or continuing the separate electorates, the effects of which have been fully known and felt allover the country' and perhaps, known outside too. My proposals as Chairman of the Advisory Committee were then accepted by the House practically unanimously and a general sense of appreciation was expressed by the minorities when these proposals were accepted. At a later stage we had to meet again because our proposals were incomplete in so far as the East Punjab and the West Bengal provinces were concerned, because when the House passed the proposals in the August Sessions of 1947, the effect of partition was not felt or known and the vast migrations that took place were at that time in a process of continuation and the position of the Sikhs was practically uncertain at that time. So also in Bengal the effect of the partition was not fully realized, and both the Provinces were desirous of postponing the question till the conditions were fully settled and the effects were fully realized. At a later stage in December a Committee was appointed to consider this question. A sub-committee of five persons was appointed by the Advisory Committee in which our revered President was also one of the members; Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, myself, Mr. Munshi and Dr. Ambedkar were the members of this Committee. This Committee met and made its report in February. When this report was made the representatives of the Sikh community wanted time to consider the report and consult their community in this matter. Also when the report was put before the Advisory Committee, the Muslim representatives, some of them, had changed their opinions after full reflection for a long period since the passing of the principles of the Constitution in August Sessions of 1947; they put forward the plea that all these reservations must disappear and that it was in the interests of the minorities themselves that such reservations in the Legislature must go. It was strongly pressed by the representative from Bihar and supported by other representatives…. There was then a little difference of opinion and I was anxious, and so was the Committee, that we should do nothing to take a snatch vote on a question of such vast importance. As the Sikh representatives wanted time to consider their position, we naturally adjourned and met again, during the early part of this month.

When we met this time, we found a considerable change in the attitude of the minorities themselves. Dr. Mookherjee moved a motion for the dropping of the clause on reservation of seats in the legislature on population basis. When this proposal was moved, Mr. Muniswamy Pillai, who was representing the Scheduled Castes, moved an amendment to the effect that the provision for reservation, so far as the Scheduled Castes are concerned, may be continued for a period of ten years. The general opinion in the Advisory Committee was, which was almost unanimous, that this reservation so far as the Scheduled Castes are concerned, should be continued for that period and that Mr. Muniswamy Pillai's amendment should be accepted. The Sikh representatives brought in a proposal which, to a certain extent, was an improvement on the previous position. Whatever may be the object of that proposal, the Advisory Committee thought it fit to give due consideration to the proposal of the Sikhs, because the members of the Committee always felt a sort of responsibility for the susceptibilities and sentiments of the Sikh community which has suffered vastly by the partition of the Punjab. After a full debate, the Committee came to the conclusion that the Sikh proposal to fall in line with the dropping of reservation clause was, although diluted by another proposal which, in effect, gave them a sort of reservation on certain conditions, a great improvement. The Committee considering the whole situation came to the conclusion that the time has come when the vast majority of the minority communities have themselves realised after great reflection the evil effects in the past of such reservation on the minorities themselves, and the reservations should be dropped.

In a House of about forty members of the Advisory Committee, there was only one -solitary vote against the proposal. So we thought that although these proposals were accepted by this House in August 1947, it was due to us and to the House that we should advise this House to reconsider the position and put before the House a proposal which is consistent with the proclaimed principles of this House for the establishment of a genuine democratic State based purely on nationalistic principles. Therefore, when we found the changed atmosphere, we considered it our duty to come before this House to revise this former decision, which was provisional as has been laid down by this House in several cases. It is under these circumstances that these proposals have been brought before the House.

So far as the Sikh community is concerned, there is only one proposal which in effect, does not really differ from the principles that have been laid down by the Advisory Committee, because the Advisory Committee also has accepted the amendment of Mr. Muniswamy Pillai that the reservation for the Scheduled Castes must continue. The Sikhs themselves have thought that certain classes of people amongst them, who have been recent converts, and who were originally Scheduled, Caste Hindus, are suffering from the disabilities which the Scheduled Caste Hindus are suffering from for the fault of the Hindu community. The Sikhs are suffering for the fault of the Sikh community and nobody else. Really, as a matter of fact, these converts are not Scheduled Castes or ought not to be Scheduled Castes; because, in the Sikh religion, there is no such thing as untouchability or any classification or difference of classes. But, as unfortunately in this country the Hindu religion is suffering from the evil effects of certain customs and prejudices that have crept into the society, so also, the reformed community of the Hindus, called the Sikhs, have also in course of time suffered from degeneration to a certain extent.… The Sikhs, today it should be recognised, have suffered from various causes and we have to regard with considerable tenderness of feeling in taking into consideration their existing state of mind and provide as far as possible to meet with that situation. And so when these proposals were brought to us, in fact, I urged upon them strongly not to lower their religion to such a pitch as to really fall to a level where for a mess of pottage you really give up the substance of religion. But they did not agree. Therefore, the utmost that we can do is to advise those people in their community who were wanting these safeguards to go into the classification of Scheduled Castes. These people have now agreed to be lumped into the Scheduled Castes; not a very good thing for the Sikh community, but yet they want it, and we feel, for the time being, we would make that allowance for them. Theoretically the position is logically correct. They will be all Scheduled Castes, the Ramdasis, and three or four others whatever they are, they will all be called one Scheduled Caste. The Sikhs may call them Scheduled Caste Sikhs…. Now our object is, or the object of this House should be, as soon as possible and as rapidly as possible to drop these classifications and differences and bring all to a level of equality. Therefore, although temporarily we may recognise this it is up to the majority community to create by its generosity sense of confidence in the minorities; and so also it will be the duty of the minority communities to forget the past and to reflect on what the country has suffered due to the sense of fairness which the foreigner thought was necessary to keep the balance between community and community. This has created class and communal divisions and sub-divisions, which in their sense of fairness, they thought fit to create, apart from attributing any motives. We on our part, taking this responsibility of laying the foundations of a free India which shall be and should be our endeavour both of the majority-largely of the majority-and also of the minority community, have to rise to the situation that is demanded from all of us, and create an atmosphere in which the sooner these classifications disappear the better.… So far as the other communities are concerned, I feel that enough time was given when we met in February in the Advisory Committee when these proposals were brought forward on behalf of the minorities, particularly the Muslims, enough time was given to consult their own constituencies, their communities and also other minority communities. It is not our intention to commit the minorities to a particular position in a hurry. If they really have come honestly to the conclusion that in the changed conditions of this country, it is in the interest of all to lay down real and genuine foundations of a secular State, then nothing is better for the minorities than to trust the good-sense and sense of fairness of the majority, and to place confidence in them. So also it is far us who happen to be in a majority to think about what the minorities feel, and how we in their position would feel if we were treated in the manner in which they are treated. But in the long run, it would be in the interest of all to forget that there is anything like majority or minority in this country and that in India there is only one community (heal; hear). With these considerations, Sir, I move that the Report of the advisory Committee be taken into consideration, as under:-

"Resolved that the Constituent Assembly do proceed to take into consideration the Report dated the 11th May 1949 on the subject of certain political safeguards for Minorities submitted by the Advisory Committee appointed by resolution of the Assembly of 24th January 1947.

Resolved further-
(i) that notwithstanding any decision already taken by the Constituent Assembly in this behalf, the provisions of Part XIV of the Draft Constitution of India be so amended as to give effect to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee contained in the said report; and
(ii) that the following classes in the East Punjab, namely, Mazhabis, Ramdasis, Kabirpanthis and Sikligars be included in the list of Scheduled Castes for the province so that they would be entitled to the benefit to representation in the legislatures gives to the Scheduled Casts.

(After this speech of Sardar Patel the debate on the Bill began. I have listed only a few speakers here, mainly Muslims. In between two speakers quoted here name of those speakers not quoted here shall be given within the brackets. Before Mr. Pocker Sahib there were the follwing who have not been quoted: Mr. President, Z.H. Lari, Mahavir Tyagi, Muhammad Ismail Khan, Lakshmi Kanta Maitra, and Jaspat Roy Kapoor)

Mr. B. Pocker Sahib (Madras: Muslim): Sir, on the point of order raised, I would like to mention this. Under the present motion it is sought to take away the reservation which was decided upon previously by the House, and that reservation is based upon the fact that the minorities must have some method of representing their grievances. It is for the same purpose that the question of separate representation was also urged. When this reservation goes, the only chance of the minorities having their representation in the legislature also goes. Therefore the question of separate representation automatically arises on the consideration of this report.

Mr. Mohamed Ismail Sahib (Madras: Muslim): …. I shall, first of all, move the amendment that stands in my name and that of my friends.

Sir, I move:
(a) That sub-paragraph (i) of the second paragraph of the motion be deleted, and sub-paragraph (ii) be re- numbered as sub-paragraph (i).
(b) That after sub-paragraph (i) so formed, the following sub-paragraphs be added:-
"(ii) that the principle of reservation of seats on the population basis for the Muslims and other minority communities in the Central and Provincial legislatures of the country be confirmed and retained; and
(iii) that notwithstanding any decisions already taken by this Assembly in this behalf, the provisions of Part XIV and any other allied article of the Draft Constitution be so amended as to ensure that the seats reserved in accordance with sub-clause (ii) above shall be filled by the members of the respective communities elected by constituencies of voters belonging to the said respective minorities."

(Jaspat Roy Kapoor, Mohamed Ismail Sahib, Mr. President, Z.H Lari, Balkrishna Sharma, Mahavir Tyagi, Prof. Sibban Lal Saksena, Mohamed Ismail Sahib, and Mr. President)

Mr. Mohamed Ismail Sahib: ….Then, the report further on says that the Committee are satisfied that the minorities themselves feel that statutory reservation of seats should be abolished. I do not know how the Committee to be satisfied in that manner. So far as the Muslims are concerned, some members of this honourable House might have agreed to the abolition of reservation. I admit it, but then what is the nature of their agreement? What is the nature of any action of theirs with reference to the community which they seek to represent? Some of them have repudiated the ticket on which they were elected and on which they have come to the Assembly. Thereby they have demolished their representative character. Therefore, to take them as representing the views of the minorities of the Muslims, I think, is not fair. I know that there was canvassing for sometime past in connection with this question and now we have got the report before us.

Sir, I assert and say definitely that the Muslim, as a community, are not for giving up reservation. Not only that, they implore this House to retain separate electorates which alone will give them the right sort of representation in the legislatures. The Muslim League, which still is the representative organisation of the Muslim community, has more than once within this year not only expressed a definite view in favour of reservation of seats, but has also urged the retention of separate electorates. That is the position so far as the Muslim minority is concerned…. Sir, in other countries of Europe, special arrangements have been made for minorities, in countries like Poland, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Albania, Greece, Turkey and so on.

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar (Madras: General): Are there separate electorate anywhere in those countries?

Mr. Mohamed Ismail Sahib: …it is not the question of the separate electorate, but the minorities had the safe guards that they wanted… Then, Sir, even supposing you persist in doing away with such differences, can you do it by ignoring them, because doing away with separate electorate means ignoring all the differences that exist between one group of people and another? Surely, Sir, ignoring them and trying to forget the differences is not the way to deal with them. It will create and breed a feeling of grievance, discontent and dissatisfaction amongst the people and this is not good to anybody or to anything.... If they are given this right, they are satisfied, they go the right way and they co-operate with the other people, and there is harmony in the land. This right they have been enjoying for a long time, from the time when features of parliamentary rule were introduced into this country. Therefore, I say that separate electorate instead of creating any trouble is really the means, the device of bringing about harmony amongst the people….

(B. Das, Mr. President, Mohamed Ismail Sahib, R.K. Sidhva, an Honourable Member, Mr. President, Mohamed Ismail Sahib, and Mr. President)

Mr. Z.H. Lari (United Provinces: Muslim): Mr. President, I express my humble concurrence with the approach of the special sub-committee appointed by the Advisory Committee on Minorities. That Approach is - to use their own words - that "the Constitution should contain no provisions which would have the effect of isolating any section of the people from the main stream of public life." I concede that a minoritiy must aspire to be an integral part of the nation. [After this Lari suggested multiple voting system and multiple choice system which created a lot of furor about its inapplicability and absurdity. Many members accused Lari of misquoting and misleading the Assembly.]

(Tajamul Hussain, Z.H. Lari, Lakshmi Kanta Maitra, Z.H. Lari, K. Santhanam, Z.H. Lari, K. Santhanam, Z.H. Lari, K. Santhanam, Z.H. Lari, K. Santhanam, Z.H. Lari, H.V. Kamath, Z.H. Lari, N.G. Ranga, Z.H. Lari, M. Thirumal Rao, Mr. President, Mr. President, Thakur Das Bhargawa, Mr. President Ghanshyam Singh Gupta, Japat Roy Kapoor, S. Nagappa, Mohan Lal Gautam and several others)

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim): Mr. President, Sir, the Resolution moved by Dr. Sardar Patel is an important land-mark in the constitutional history of our country, and will be referred to by future historians and constitutional writers with enthusiastic applause. Sir, at the very outset, I desire to declare that I am in complete and wholehearted agreement with the Resolution (Hear, Hear)…. I think that reservations of any kind are against healthy political growth. They imply a kind of inferiority. They arise out of a kind of fear-complex, and its effect would be really to reduce the Muslims into a statutory minority. Then, again, Muslim reservation is psychologically linked up with separate electorates, which led to so many disasters. Therefore I should submit that to carry on reservation would only serve to perpetuate the unpleasant memory of those separate electorates and all the embitterments, that accompanied them. I submit that it will be bad even for ten years…. I therefore submit that reservation for Muslims would be undesirable…. Sir, reservation is a kind of protection which always has a crippling effect upon the object protected. So for all these reasons, I should strongly oppose any reservation for Muslims. Now, Mr. Lari's amendment is to the same effect, that there should be no reservations for Muslims, and I welcome it so far as Muslims are concerned. His amendment, however, is hedged in with the conditions that there should be cumulative votes…. The system of cumulative voting is not necessary, and it is extremely difficult to work. I do not think it is needed in the conditions present in India, especially among hundreds of millions of illiterate voters. I therefore submit that any kind of cumulative voting or other intellectual abstractions of refinements of the kind are unnecessary. From the Muslim point of view alone, we do not want any reservation whatsoever…. Then, again reservation of seats to the communities was inevitably connected with separate electorates. With the removal of separate electorates, reservation of seats would be absolutely illogical….

Those of my honorable friends who think that there should be reservations, have their eyes on the past. They are looking behind. But our eyes, the eyes of the Indian Muslims, should be facing the future. We should have a progressive outlook. Now, Indian politics contain a large number of subjects, none of which I can think of as having communal implications. In the Provinces there are the principal subjects-education, sanitation and local self-government. These subjects do not affect any community in particular or as such. Hindus and Muslims will have to stand side by side and work these subjects for the common welfare of our motherland.

In the Central sphere there are the industrial problems, irrigation schemes, the question of defence and external affairs and also the common problems of peace and order. There is nothing communal in these matters and everyone is equally interested in them irrespective of his community or religion. I feel very strongly that religion should have nothing to do with politics; not that religion is to be ignored; but religion is a private matter and in public life we should cease to think in terms of communities. Whether in this Assembly or in public life outside, we are neither Hindus nor Muslims. In private life we should be devout Hindus or Muslims. So if we distinguish our outlook as between private and public life, there will be no trouble. The State should interfere as little as possible with the religious feelings of its citizens. They should be left untouched. If Muslims play their part well and intelligently, if they play their part faithfully and patriotically, their position will be respected….

So far as the Muslims are concerned we have had a debate in the West Bengal Legislature, where I find that the Muslim opinion against reservation of seats was overwhelming. For the election to the Union Boards etc., already the system of reserving seats has been abolished and Hindus and Muslims vote side by side as friends.… The Muslims should be realists as they are expected to be and they must not have their eyes on the past.…

(H.C. Mookerjee and Mr. President)

Begum Aizaz Rasul (United Provinces: Muslim): Sir, I come to give my whole-hearted support to the resolution moved by the Honourable Sardar Patel regarding the representation of the minority communities. Sir, I am sorry that I have to oppose the amendment moved by Mr. Ismail from Madras. The basis of his amendment is the retention of separate electorates. For my part I have from the beginning felt that in a secular state separate electorates have no place. Therefore the principle of joint electorates having once been accepted, the reservation of seats for minorities to me seems meaningless and useless…. To my mind reservation is a self-destructive weapon which separates the minorities from the majority for all time. It gives no chance to the minorities to win the good-will of the majority. It keeps up the spirit of separatism and communalism alive which should be done away once and for all…. Sir, this is one ground on which I support the motion of the Honourable Sardar Patel.

The second ground on which I support it is that there is still a feeling of separatism prevalent amongst the communities in India today. That must go. I feel that it is in the interests of the minorities to try to merge themselves into the majority community. It is not going to be harmful to the minorities I can assure them, because in the long run it will be in their interests to win the goodwill of the majority…. We want to finish with the past and we want that a new page should be turned over in which all communities living in this country would feel happy and secure…. Sir, I feel that we Muslims should pave the way for not only the introduction but the strengthening of a secular democratic State in this country. The only way in which we can do it is by giving up reservations….

Sir, I would like my Muslim friends to visualise this position: If reservation of seats for Muslims remains, it would be tantamount to an act of charity on the majority community. They will say: 'Let us give them so many seats.' We will get the seats, but there will not be much good-will on the part of the majority in giving that. The idea of separatism will remain….

Sir, those Muslims who wanted to go to Pakistan have done so. Those who decided to stay here wish to be on friendly and amicable terms with the majority community and realise that they must develop their lives according to the environments and circumstances existing here. I do not say that they have to change except in accordance with the aspirations of the other people living in this country. Sir, we do not want any special privileges accorded to us as Muslims but we also do not want that any discrimination should be made against us as such. That is why I say that as nationals of this great country we share the aspirations and the hopes of the people living here hoping at the same time that we be treated in a manner consistent with honour and justice…. In spite of the great and able advocacy of Mr. Lary of the principle of proportional representation, I am not impressed by it. We must once and for all give up all ideas of separatism. And to my mind even this proposition of Mr. Lari keeps up the spirit alive….

(Syed Muhammad Saadulla and B. Poker Sahib)

Syed Muhammad Saadulla (Assam: Muslim): …We have been nurtured under the system of separate electorate from 1906. For good or evil, we have been accustomed to that system (Interruption). There is an interruption from some colleague, who himself is a product of separate electorate. That honourable interrupter forgets that Members of this House have been returned on the system of separate electorate. I was elected to this House by the Muslim members only of the Assam Legislature….

Sir, the question of reservation is implicit in the report itself. You admit reservation for the Scheduled Castes whose number is twice that of the Muslim minority community in India. You admit at least in two provinces the right of the Indian Christians for political safeguards or reservation. You admit it for the Anglo-Indian community. The only part where the recent report and the present resolution differs from the previous decision of the House is as regards the Muslims. I appeal to the House that they should not deny this safeguard when it is wanted by the minority concerned. If it is said that many members have said that they do not want it, let us take the majority view of the Muslim Members present here. If the Majority of the members say that they do not want it, I will be the first person to how to the opinion of the majority….

(Honourable Members, Mr. President, Many Honourable Members, Mr. President, Many Honourable Members, Mr. President, and Rev. Jerome D'Souza)

Shri Jagat Narain Lal (Bihar: General): Mr. President, Sir, I have come to support the motion and to oppose the amendments moved by Mr. Ismail and Mr. Lari. In fact, after the speeches of so many of the Muslims friends who have themselves opposed the amendments, and of my predecessor who has just spoken, it was not very necessary that I should come forward to oppose it, but I have only come to express one sentiment and that is, that after the bitter experience of the partition of India, there should be left any member in this House or anyone in this country who should think of separate electorates and should come forward and advocate them. It is a feeling of pain and of surprise which I could not help expressing here. After all the assurances of the past and of what is being done in the neighbouring country, that this State is going to be a Secular State, and will guarantee freedom of faith, worship and of thought, and that it is not going to recognise any religious distinctions for the purpose of conferring political rights, it does not seem proper, and it does not seem to be good for any community, for any minority community to come forward and advocate any sort of reservation whatever.

Mr. Lari came forward and talked of cumulative votes. He talked of the Third Series of Constitutional Precedents. But he could have seen from the same Constitutional Presidents-time is short, otherwise I would have read out the portions-how the U.S.S.R. by article 123, Switzerland by article 49, Germany by article 136, Yugoslavia, Finland and so on, have all declared that religion or religious distinction will have nothing to do with political rights whatsoever. Sir, the bitter fruits of separate electorates ever since they were advocated in 1906, all through the subsequent years, during the Round Table Conference, and now ending with the partition are all too well known to be recounted. I therefore humbly beg to oppose the amendments and also to say that after the assurances that have been given, that there is to be a secular State, there should not be any advocacy for reservation whatsoever. So far as the Scheduled Castes are concerned, repeated references have been made and especially by one of the previous speakers who asked, "When they have got it, why not we?" But let me point out once again that the Scheduled Castes have been given reservation not on grounds of religion at all; they form part and parcel of the Hindu Community, and they have been given reservation apparently and clearly on grounds of their economic, social, educational backwardness.

Therefore, that analogy does not apply here. With these words I beg to oppose the amendments and support the motion.

(Mr. President)

Shri R.K. Sidhva (C.P. & Berar: General): Mr. President. What a marvelous outlook and change in the Meeting of the Minorities Committee of 11the May 1949 as compared with the first meeting of the same committee in 1947! It was asked here yesterday: what has happened since 1947 that has made this Committee revise its decision? I might inform the honourable House that at the first meeting it was not that the large majority of the members were not opposed to any reservation of seats or that several of them - minus very few - were not for complete elimination of separate electorates and of reservation of seats also; but our leaders felt that if, just at the commencement of our freedom, we went the whole hog our position would be misunderstood and it might be said that the majority was going to trample down the rights of the minorities. Therefore, they stated that we should have a very good start by removing separate electorates. Let us work it for some some time and give them a chance. Some of us did not share their view and we went into voting - though we were in minority - for the abolition of the reservation of seats. We had to agree to the other view.

But what has happened since then? It was asked yesterday why a trial is not being given. But before we give a trial, what has occurred in the country? Communal incidents have played havoc in this country. I do not want to repeat what has happened. Everyone in this House knows what has happened. Due to that communal havoc, in our Parliament last year, we had to pass a resolution that no communal organization which has as its aims and objects the political rights and privileges of its members shall be recognised by Parliament. It was thirteen months ago that this resolution was passed and in my opinion this resolution should have been revised long ago but our leaders wanted the communal passions to subside. Thank God that somehow this Constitution was prolonged for its completion. Had it not been so, let me tell you that reservation of seats would have been a blot in our Constitution if it had remained. But thank God, Nature has played its part in the prolongation that has occurred and time has shown that reservations must go.

Now, if communal fracas has played such havoc I do not understand why some want communal safeguards. How can there be any kind of communal safeguard now? It was present in the days when the British were here so that they could play their own game. Now they have gone there would be no cause for safeguard of anybody's rights. It has been our cherished desire for the last fifty years to see that this evil, that has played such havoc and which has been a kind of cancerous and poisonous element in our political life, should be done away with. Today it is 'red-letter' day and when this constitution comes into law, it will be with pride that our nation will be remembered by the nation of the world that in our Constitution we have kept no room for communalism and that we are in the true sense of word a secular State.

My Friend, Mr. Muhammad Ismail, while arguing yesterday stated that without separate electorates the Muslims will not get justice and they will not get that representation which they desire. If my Friend, Mr. Muhammad Ismail even at this stage believes in the two-nation theory-communalism-then certainly he will have no place. But there are many persons like Mr. Lari, who told his co-religionists that "even at this stage you are talking of the two-nation theory and separate electorate: please forget all this." Whatever other views Mr. Lari may hold, I can assure him that so long as there are Muslims like him, they will command confidence of the majority: but if there are persons like Mr. Muhammad Ismail they shall not have the support of the majority community and it is not surprising if he does not get it. In the Bombay Municipal elections, where they have joint electorates, with the support of the majority community many Muslims have come in. If the majority community had not supported the Muslim Candidates in Bombay the said candidates set up by the Congress would not have been elected. This is just an illustration. Dr. Mookherjee from his personal experience said that the majority community in the past has been generous. I say that in the case of my community there has not been any instance where we demanded any special political rights or privileges, we stand on our legs and on merits, we did not demand favours, and the major community of its own accord took good care of our work. Mr. Lari while making a beautiful speech stated that the majority community should be generous, fair and reasonable and Dr. Mookherjee stated that they had been. I can tell from my own personal experience as a member of the minority community that the majority community have been really generous. I am not exaggerating when I say that sometimes they have been more than generous. There is nothing to fear from the majority community if we are reasonable, if the minorities are reasonable in their demands and I can assure them that there will be no difficulty in getting a large majority of Muslims returned by the votes of the majority community….

A system of proportional representation cannot work here. From the material supplied by the Constituent Assembly Office I find that in one country they experimented with this system and they had to revert to the majority ballot box system. In a general election this system can never work.

Mr. Ismail and Mr. Pocker who supported the resolution had very strong views regarding separate electorates. I might tell them that the Advisory Committee has constantly changed from time to time. At the first meeting when we passed the resolution Mr. Khaliquzzaman who was a member (he was also President of the Muslim League) supported it. Mr. Chundrigar was also a member of the Advisory Committee but they both have gone away to Pakistan. They were both parties to it, but believing in the two-nation theory they have gone away. How can you blame the majority community by saying that they had changed after making a decision which was acceptable to them? It is rather strange. Let them search their hearts and their conscience as to what they have done after having been a party to the resolution against the wishes of some of us. I was very much averse to reservation but I had to bow before our leaders and our Muslim friends. I said "give it a trial and you will soon give it up." The day has come and it is an auspicious day in the history of our constitution-making when we have to revise the former decision….

(Prof. Sibban Lal Saxena Sardar Hukam Singh, B. Das, Sardar Hukam Singh)

Mr. Muhammad Ismail Khan (United Provinces: Muslim): Sir, I give my unstinted support to the revised decision of the Advisory Committee which has done away with reservation of seats, which only kept alive communalism and did not constitute an effective safeguard. With the vast superiority of the majority community in the number of voters, they could have had no difficulty in using this device for their own ends by electing men of their own choice and I, therefore, congratulate them that they have not thought fit to take advantage of this device.

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru (United Provinces: General): Mr. President, Sir, we cannot hear the honourable Member distinctly. He is not at all distinct.

Mr. Muhammad Ismail Khan: Sir, I am very glad that this decision has been taken and I welcome it. Why? Because this reservation of seats would only keep alive Communalism and would be ineffectual as a safeguard for the Muslim minorities or for the matter of that for any other minorities. I congratulate the majority community, that they have not taken advantage of their superiority in numbers, by utilising this device for their own purposes. The Muslims have been thinking for some time that this reservation was wholly incompatible with responsible Government and I may say that when Provincial autonomy was introduced in the provinces for the first time the Muslims soon began to realize the separate representation was not going to be an effective safeguard for the protection of their interests. Not only did they realize it but even before that the Muslims were not their convinced of the adequacy of this safeguard. I think it will be recalled that when Mr. Jinnah put forward his famous fourteen points, he contemplated that if certain safeguards demanded were conceded elections in future would be by means of joint electorates. For some time the Muslims have been thinking that with the inauguration of responsible Government separate electorates would be out of place. I would like to point out to my friends from Madras who insist on separate electorates, the circumstances and conditions which gave birth to that system. At that time when separate electorates were claimed, there were no direct elections to the legislatures. The members were elected to the legislature by the members of the Municipal or District Boards. There were no statutory safeguards in the Constitution. A foreign Government was in power and had an official bloc in the legislatures and the Muslims were able to use the separate electorates for their own purposes, but as I said just now as soon as Provincial autonomy came, they very soon found that separate electorate was no safeguard for their interests and they were doomed to remain in Opposition which led to frustration. My honourable friend Mr. Muhammad Saadulla has said that this reservation of seats had been given away by the solitary vote of Begum Aizaz Rasul. May I remind him in this connection of a meeting which was held tenor twelve months ago in which it was decided that we should take steps to do away with reservation. So Begum Aizaz Rasul in casting her vote was not casting a solitary vote, but she did so on behalf of those people who had taken part in that meeting. I do not say that Sir Syed Saadulla agreed with it, but there were ten or twelve members present who agreed that they should take steps to have this reservation done away with.

Now I would like to point out to my friends who insist on separate electorates for the purpose of safeguarding their rights that, in the Constitution today, we have justiciable fundamental rights prescribed, in the Constitution. We can vindicate our rights in future not in the legislature, but in the Supreme Court and I say that that forum is much better from our point of view. In the legislatures party feelings run high and disinterested consideration is seldom given to such matters, but with the statutory safeguards provided for in the Constitution, we have nothing to fear and our cultural, religious and educational associations should keep a vigilant eye and see that those rights are not infringed or curtailed by appealing to the Supreme Court of judicature. In future I trust the Muslim members will be able to speak on behalf of their constituencies as authoritatively as the other members. That is why I want to do away with Communalism in the shape of separate electorates so that when they come here they can speak with the same authority as any other member and as a representative not only of the Muslims but also of the majority community. There is no half-way house between separate representation and territorial electorates. Reservation was an ineffective method for the protection of communal rights and I therefore give my unstinted support to this decision which does away with it. I wish to point out to my Madras friends that even twenty years back the Muslims were thinking of giving up separate electorates provided certain safeguards were provided and conceded, but in the Constitution that was framed, for instance, in the act of 1935, no safeguards were given. The responsibility for the protection of their rights was entrusted to the Governor of the provinces by the Instrument of Instructions, but today the conditions are different. Here we have got statutory safeguards. Why then do we want separate representation? How will it help us? Would it not do always keep us from joining other parties? After all, with communal electorates, you would have to have a communal organization to put up candidates and frame a programme and policy for their work in the legislatures which means that the present state of affairs would continue and keep alive communalism in its worst form. Would this lead to the establishment of harmonious relations? No. I therefore think that we should give up this system although many of us who have been nurtured in the old traditions find it hard to part with rights which we have so far enjoyed. We are doing all this not for ourselves, but for the future generations of Muslims in this country…. Moreover we desire that our State should be non-communal and secular. Here is an opportunity and we should grasp it. Let us not stand in the way of the emergence of a really secular and non-communal State. I support the motion.

(Rohini Kumar Chaudhari, Mr. President, Rohini Kumar Chaudhari, and Frank Anthony)

The Honourable Shri Jawaharlal Nehru (United Provinces: General): Sir, there has been such an abundance of goodwill shown towards this motion that it is hardly necessary for me to intervene in support of it. But I have felt the urge to do so because I wish to associate myself with this historic turn in our destiny: for, indeed, it is a historic motion that my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister has put before this House. It is a motion which means not only discarding something that was evil, but turning back upon it and determining with all our strength that we shall pursue a path which we consider fundamentally good for every part of the nation.

Now, all of us here, I believe, are convinced that this business of separatism, whether it took the shape of separate electorates or other shapes has done a tremendous amount of evil to our country and to our people. We came to the conclusion some time back that we must get rid of separate electorates. That was the major evil. Reluctantly we agreed to carry on with some measure of reservation. Reluctantly we did so for two reasons: Reason No.1 was that we felt that we could not remove that without the goodwill of the minorities concerned. It was for them to take the lead or to say that they did not want it. For a majority to force that down their throats would not be fair to the various assurances that we had given in the past and otherwise, too, it did not look the right thing to do. Secondly, because in our heart of hearts we were not sure about ourselves nor about our own people as to how they would function when all these reservations were removed, we agreed to that reservation, but always there was this doubt in our minds, namely, whether we had not shown weakness in dealing with a thing that was wrong. So when this matter came up in another context, and it was proposed that we do away with all reservations, except in the case of the Scheduled Castes, for my part I accepted that with alacrity and with a feeling of great relief, because I had been fighting in my own mind and heart against this business of keeping up some measure of separatism in our political domain: and the more I thought of it the more I felt that it was the right thing to do not only from the point of view of pure nationalism, which it is, but also from the separate and individual view-point of each group, if you like, majority or minority.

We call ourselves nationalists, but perhaps in the mind of each, the colour, the texture of nationalism that is present is somewhat different from what it is in the mind of the other. We call ourselves nationalists-and rightly so-and yet few of us are free from those separatist tendencies-whether they are communal, whether they are provincial or other: yet, because we have those tendencies, it does not necessarily follow that we should surrender to them all the time. It does follow that we should not take the cloak of nationalism to cover those bad tendencies.

So I thought about this matter and I came to the conclusion that if at this stage of our nation's history, when we are formulating this Constitution…we put things into it which are obviously wrong, and which, obviously make people look the wrong way, then it is an evil thing that we are doing to the nation. We decided some time ago in another connection that we should have no truck with communalism or separatism. It was rightly pointed out to us then that if that is so, why do you keep these reservations because this itself will make people think in terms of separate compartments in the political domain.

I would like you to consider this business, whether it is reservation or any other kind of safeguard for the minority, objectively. There is some point in having a safeguard of this type of any other type where there is autocratic rule or foreign rule. As soon as you get something that can be called political democracy, then this kind of reservation, instead of helping the party to be safeguarded and aided, is likely actually to turn against it. But where there is a third party, or where there is an autocratic monarch, or some other ruler, it is possible that these safeguards may be good. Perhaps the monarch may play one off against the other or the foreign ruler. But where you are up against a full- blooded democracy, if you seek to give safeguards to minority, and a relatively small minority, you isolate it. May be you protect it to a slight extent, but at what cost? At the cost of isolating it and keeping it away from the main current in which the majority is going,-I am talking on the political plane of course-at the cost of forfeiting that inner sympathy and fellow-feeling with the majority. Now, of course, if it is a democracy, in the long run or in the short run, it is the will of the majority that will prevail. Even 1 if you are limited by various articles in the Constitution to protect the individual or the group, nevertheless, in the very nature of things in a democracy the will of the majority will ultimately prevail. It is a bad thing for any small group or minority to make it appear to the world and to the majority that "we wish to keep apart from you, that we do not trust you, that we look to ourselves and that therefore we want safeguards and other things". The result is that they may get one anna in the rupee of protection at the cost of the remaining fifteen annas. That is not good enough looked at from the point of view of the majority either. It is all very well for the majority to feel that they are strong in numbers and in other ways and therefore they can afford to ride rough-shod over the wishes of the minority. If the majority feels that way, it is not only exceedingly mistaken, but it has not learnt any lesson from history, because, however big the majority, if injustice is done to minorities, it rankles and it is a running sore and the majority ultimately suffers from it. So, ultimately the only way to proceed about it-whether from the point of view of the minority or from the point of view of the majority-is to remove every barrier which separates them in the political domain so that they may develop and we may all work together. That does not mean, of course, any kind of regimented working. They may have many ways of thinking; they may form groups; they may form parties, but not on the majority or minority or religious or social plane, but on other planes which will be mixed planes, thus developing the habit of looking at things is mixed groups and not in separate groups. At any time that is obviously a desirable thing to do. In a democracy it becomes an essential thing to do, because if you do not do it, then trouble follows- trouble both for the minority and for the majority, but far more for the minority….

Many of our discussions here are inevitably derived from the past. We cannot get rid of them. None of us can, because we are part of the past. But we ought to try to get ourselves in connected from the past if we are to mould the future gradually. Therefore, from every point of view, whether it is theoretical or ideological or national or whether it is in the interest of the minority or majority or whether it is in order to come to grips with the realities of today and of tomorrow which is so different from yesterday, I welcome this proposal.

Frankly, I would like this proposal to go further and put an end to such reservations as there still remain. But again, speaking frankly, I realise that in the present state of affairs in India that would not be a desirable thing to do, that is to say, in regard to the Scheduled Castes. I try to look upon the problem not in the sense of a religious minority, but rather in the sense of helping backward groups in the country. I do not look at it from the religious point of view or the caste point of view, but from the point of view that a backward group ought to be helped and I am glad that this reservation also will be limited to ten years….

One of the biggest things in regard to them is this one of separate electorates, reservation of seats and the rest. Therefore, I think that doing away with this reservation business is not only a good thing in itself-good for all concerned, and more especially for the minorities - but psychologically too it is a very good move for the nation and for the world. It shows that we are really sincere about this business of having a secular democracy….

(Rohini Kumar Chaudhari)

Shri Tajamul Hussain (Bihar: Muslim): Mr. President, Sir, reservation of seats in any shape or form and for any community or group of people is, in my opinion, absolutely wrong in principle. Therefore I am strongly of opinion that there should be no reservation of seats for anyone and I, as a Muslim, speak for the Muslims. There should be no reservation of seats for the Muslim community. (Hear; Hear). I would like to tell you that in no civilised country where there is parliamentary system on democratic lines, there is any reservation of seats. Take the case of England. The House of Commons is the mother of parliaments. There is no reservation of seats for any community there. No doubt they had reservation of seats for the universities but even that has been abolished. What is reservation, Sir? Reservation is nothing but a concession, a safeguard a protection for the weak. We, Muslims do not want any concession. Do not want protection, do not want safeguards. We are not weak. This concession would do more harm than good to the Muslims. Reservation is forcing candidates on unwilling electorates…. We must exert ourselves. Separate electorates have been curse to India, have done incalculable harm to this country. It was invented by the British. Reservation is the offspring of separate electorates. Do not bring in reservation in the place of separate electorates. Separate electorates have barred our progress. Separate electorates have gone for ever. We desire neither reservation nor separate electorates. We want to merge in the nation. We desire to stand on our own legs. We do not want the support of anyone. We are not weak. We are strong. We are Indians first and we are all Indians and will remain Indians. We shall fight for the honour and glory of India and we shall die for it. (Applause). We shall stand united. There will be no divisions amongst Indians. United we stand; divided we fall. Therefore we do not want reservation. It means division. I ask the members of the majority community who are present here today:- Will you allow us to stand on our legs? Will you allow us to be a part and partial of the nation? Will you allow us to be an equal partner with you? Will you allow us to march shoulder to shoulder with you? Will you allow us to share your sorrows grief and joy'? If you do, then for God's sake keep your hands off reservation for the Muslim community. We do not want any statutory safeguard. As I said before, we must stand on our own legs. If we do that, we will have no inferiority complex. We are not inferior to you in any way, Do not make us feel inferior by giving us this concession. I say emphatically there is no difference between you and me. Because we worship the same God by different names, in a different way, that is no reason why we should be considered a minority. We are not a minority. The term 'minority' is a British creation. The British created minorities. The British have gone and minorities have gone with them. Remove the term 'minority' from your dictionary. (Hear; Hear). There is no minority in India. Only so long as there were separate electorates and reservation of seats there was a majority community and a minority community….

I appeal to all minorities to join the majority in creating a secular State. In the new state of things, I want that every citizen in India should be able to rise to the fullest stature and that is why I say that reservation would be suicidal to the minority. I want the minorities to forget that they are minorities in politics. If they think they are minorities in politics, they will be isolated. If they are isolated, the feeling of frustration will cripple them. I do not want to remain a minority. Do the minorities, I ask, expect to form part of the great nation and have a hand in the control of its destinies. Can they achieve that aspiration if they are isolated from the rest of India? The minorities if they are returned as minorities, i.e., by reservation of seats can never have an effective voice in the affairs of the country. They can never form a Government. Disraeli could never have formed a Government and could never have become the Prime Minister of England had there been reservation of seats for the Jews in England. I want the minorities to have an honourable place in the Union of India. National interests must always be placed over group interests. The minorities should look forward to the time when they could take their place not under communal or racial labels, but as part and parcel of the whole Indian community.

Now, Sir, with your permission, I want to say a few words with regard to the speeches made against the motion of Sardar Patel. I take first Mr. Muhammad Ismail of Madras. He wants separate electorate. I appeal to him not to ask for charity. Asking for separate electorates is nothing but asking for charity. I tell him that the consequences will be terrible. The majority community will never trust you then. You will never be able to exert yourself. You will be isolated, you will be treated as an alien and your position will be the same as that of the Scheduled Caste. You are not poor Like the Scheduled Castes, you are not weak, you are not uneducated; you are not uncultured; you can always support yourself. You have produced brilliant men. So do not ask for protection or safeguard. You must have self-confidence in you. You must exert yourself you must get into the Assembly by open competition. The times have changed. Adjust yourself. You admitted yesterday in your speech that the atmosphere is better now. I entirely agree with you that the atmosphere is better now. I appeal to you, do not spoil that atmosphere. Improve it, but do not spoil it and if you insist on separate electorate, you will spoil atmosphere very badly. If you get separate electorates, it will again become as bad as before. Say to yourself, Mr. Ismail, that you are an Indian first and an Indian last. Then you will forget all about separate electorates. You will never think of it again….

Now, Sir, with regard to Mr. Lari, he does not want separate electorates; he does not want reservation of seats; he has condemned both the systems and he says that both the systems are dangerous. He has said that, and I entirely agree with him. He has always opposed separate electorates, reservation of seats and the partition of the country. He is right. But he wants cumulative voting, that is, proportional representation by means of a single transferable vote, or something like that. My honourable Friend, Mr. Saksena has told us that it is a very cumbrous system of mathematical calculations; I am not dealing with that now. The only thing I want to say is that Mr. Lari wants to get into the Assembly by the back door…. Again separate electorates, again reservation of seats. I should like to say to my honourable Friend Mr. Lari if I may say so, that this is worse than separate electorate, as the method is not clean. It is not straightforward. I quite understand Mr. Mohamed Ismail's view when he asks for separate electorates. That is a straightforward method. What is this back-door method of Mr. Lari. I do not understand.…

Last of all, I come to the speech of my honourable and esteemed friend, for whom I have very great regard, Sir Saadulla, the Ex-Premier of Assam. He complains before us that the majority of the Muslim members of the Advisory Committee on Minorities Fundamental Rights etc. did not support the resolution that there should be no reservation of seats for the Muslims. I have already told you, Sir, that I have very great esteem and regard for the Ex-premier of Assam, but I am afraid I must differ from him on this point. I sent my resolution to the Committee to the effect that there should be no reservation of seats. My resolution was discussed under the Chairmanship of the Honourable Sardar Patel. I spoke on my resolution. Begum Aizaz Rasul supported me. Maulana Azad was present there; he did not oppose me. The only person who opposed me was my honourable friend Jafar Imam, from Bihar. There too, I had a majority: Begum Aizaz Rasul, Maulana Azad and myself as against one. The meeting could not be finished and was adjourned sine die. Then it was held on the 11th of this month. I wanted to attend that meeting, particularly because my resolution was there. I wanted to move it again. But I never received notice of the meeting. The notice was lying in Delhi; it never reached me. If I had got notice of the meeting, I would have attended it. When I came to Delhi, I learnt that there was the meeting that day. I was happy to learn that the substance of my resolution had been accepted though I was absent. I sent a statement to the Press why I could not attend the meeting that day and it was published in all the papers. Sir Saadulla could not attend the meeting; I do not know why. That meeting was attended by four honourable members: Maulana Azad, Maulana Hifizur Rahman, Begum Aizaz Rasul and Mr. Jaffar Imam. Maulana Aza4 and Maulana Hifizur Rahman did not oppose my resolution that there should be no reservation of seats. Every member of this House does not speak. If he opposes, he opposes. If he does not speak, but says "I vote for it", then he is with it. Maulana Azad was present. If he wanted to oppose, he would have opposed. The two Maulanas did not oppose Begum Aizaz Rasul supported my resolution in substance. The resolution was moved by my honourable Friend Dr. Mookherjee. It was the same as my own. Begum Aizaz Rasul supported it. My honourable Friend Mr. Jaffar Imam opposed it. If the Maulanas were not with my resolution, they would have sided with Jafar Imam. They said nothing. Votes were taken. There was a clear majority. The Honourable Sardar Patel, I understand, declared that the Muslims were in favour of the motion in spite of the two Maulanas remaining silent. It means that they were with me: three to one voting: there was a majority.

I believe - I do not remember exactly - there are seven Muslim members on the Committee. Only two