Wednesday, October 20, 2021
Home > Miscellaneous > CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS UNINDIAN: Adv Shri M. Sundara Rami Reddy

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS UNINDIAN: Adv Shri M. Sundara Rami Reddy

धर्मोरक्षतिरक्षितः

Talk Link: Individualism and the Indian Constitution | Adv Shri M. Sundara Rami Reddy | #SangamTalks – YouTube

Transcript of the Talk:

I am thankful to Sangam Talks of Sarayu Trust and its organizers for organizing zoom meeting. In the objective of Sarayu Trust it is aptly mentioned: until the lions tell their side of the story, the tale of the hunt will always glorify the hunter ~ African Proverb

As the proverb goes, till now we have heard the glorification of Constitution of India but we have seldom heard the other side of the story.

Constitution of India is based on western concept of individualism and it promotes cut through competition and there by tend to promote corruption and it promotes Para Ninda and Atma Stuthi.

The history of English does not go beyond 1200 years. As stated Anglo, Saxon, Jutes, Normans invaded England again and again. During such aggressions, the natives were annihilated and thus their history is erased. Nobody knows as to what language the inhabitants were speaking and what religion they were practicing, before their massacre. Then came archeological approach to rebuild history, with the aids of excavations etc.  Such countries practiced worst form of slavery (serfdom). In Britain, Manor system was there, where Lords holds large tracts of lands and people living there were serfs, who were not treated as humans. From such system, people started protesting and in course of time, slowly, one by one individual rights came to dawn on the slaves. They could not evolve community life, as the people are yet to settle to form organic social life. It may take centuries to evolve as community, from displaced and settled individuals from different places. So from individual to social and then to community life, the English society is trying to evolve. A comparison of prevalent social, cultural and civilizational situations in India, in a given period with that of west and particularly English will give clear picture.

British, after settling down politically, when tried to justify their aggression, several European scholars were astonished with civilizational and cultural riches of India. Sir William Jones translated Kalidasa’s Shakuntala into English in 1789 and Manusmriti in 1794. Jones minced no words in expressing imperial design in making such translations by stating “It must be remembered, that those laws are actually revered, as a word of the Most High, by nations of great importance to the political and commercial interests of Europe,” 

 Britishers surveyed the prevalence of education in India and to their surprise literacy rate was far more than what was there at that time in England. As rulers, English could not digest the superiority of India in culture, history, civilization. Then English started searching for the theories to justify their rule. English started calling India, rude, crude, barbaric, backward, uncivilized nation and stated that it was their burden to civilize the uncivilized.

Jeremy Bentham theory Utilitarianism was proposed (1789) stating “Greatest Good for the Greatest Number”. Utilitarianism approves or disapproves actions according to the amount of happiness brought about. Bentham’s follower was James Mill and he extended the utilitarian theory stating that the aim of government was to increase human happiness, and only individuals could make the utilitarian calculation of pleasure and pain. James Mill’s son John Stuart Mill championed individualism.

In India, English men became administrators and judges. To aid them, at the instance of Warren Hastings, in 1775, N.B. Halhed, presented codification of ‘Gentoo Laws’ i.e. Hindu Law. Halhed never studied Sanskritam. First it was prepared in Persian and translated into English. “Gentoo, also spelled Gentue or Jentue, was a term used by Europeans for the native inhabitants of India”[1]

East India Company employed Bentham’s disciple, James Mill to write “History of British India”. He started his work in 1806 and took 12 years to complete the task. Never had he visited India. He proudly declared that he does not know any of the Indian languages. He picked up translations here and there and presented his version of History of British India. He did not restrict to write history of India, from British occupation. He ventured to ridicule and deny everything Indian and to depict the same as pigment of imagination. He repeatedly calls people of India as rude and ignorant. Mill wrote that Ramayan, Mahabharat are imaginary and unbelievable myths. He calls the calculation of time period and ‘yugas’ as figment of imagination. For him India is a place of snake charmers, barbarians. According to him Brahmins made all the imagination and they yield great power and control even kings. Indians does not have history, laws. He criticized Manu Dharmasastra as barbaric. James Mill’s History of British India was the official History text Book in Indian Education for about 200 years and the generation after generation, even its Indian students believed its version, developed prejudice against what is really of India, its great Sruti, Smriti Puranas and developed animosity against Brahmins. James Mill’s History of British India became bible for several political and cultural philosophies such as Individualism, Socialism and Atheism etc. and even today they sing the song of James Mill. At the instance of such James Mill, Macaulay came to India and introduced English educational system.

Here a word about English may not be out of place. When Anglo, Saxon, Jutes tribes invaded sporadically the then Briton, in course of time they annihilated native Celts. As time passes these tribes slowly developed English by picking bits and pieces, from Latin, Greek, French, Scottish, Norse and several other languages. By about 1000 AD English became language of masses of Briton. Then came Norman Conquest of 1066 of England and they brought French, which became language of law, administration and nobility.

 “National feeling was beginning to arise in England, as in other countries of western Europe, and this must have railed the prestige of the English language…In 1362 the king’s speech at the opening of Parliament was made in English the official language of the law courts instead French, though their records were to be kept in Latin”[i].This shows the history of English in short, which was eulogized by Macaulay. The whole effort of English men was like a frog in a well.

Then came Henry Thomas Colebrook, “After eleven years’ residence in India, Colebrook began the study of the Sanskrit language; and to him was entrusted the translation of the major Digest of Hindu Laws, a monumental study of Hindu law which had been left unfinished by Sir William Jones. He translated the two treatises, the Mitacshara of Vijnaneshwara and the Dayabhaga of Jimutavahana, under the title Law of Inheritance. During his residence at Calcutta he wrote his Sanskrit Grammar (1805), some papers on the religious ceremonies of the Hindus, and his Essay on the Vedas (1805), for a long time the standard work in English on the subject”.

2nd February 1835 is the black letter day for India i.e. Bharat. Thomas Babington Macaulay’s infamous Minutes was prepared on that day and his minutes was accepted by William Bentinck issued his proclamation in March 1835. British Government sanctioned Rs. 1, 00,000/- to be spent on education in India. Question arose as to whether the said amount should be continued to be spent for the education in Samskritam and Persian. Committee was divided equally, i.e. one half sided for the continuation of Samskritam and Persian and the other half sided for the education in English. Macaulay wrote in his said Minutes:  “I have no knowledge of either Sanskrit or Arabic. But I have done what I could to form a correct estimate of their value. I have read translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanskrit works. I have conversed, both here and at home, with men distinguished by their proficiency in the Eastern tongue. I am quite ready to take the oriental learning at the valuation of the orientalists themselves. I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia.” Macaulay minced no words in expressing his strategy for the introduction of English education and said in the said Minutes: “We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, –a class of persons Indian in blood and color, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.”

Indian Penal Code was prepared by the First Law Commission, chaired by Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1834 and was submitted to Governor-General of India Council in 1837. It was ultimately enacted in the year 1860. Even England at that time did not have codified criminal law at that time.

In the whole world, India is having longest, continuing society and history, with well-organized community life. Here individual merges, due to his philosophical and historical background, with the community, village, and society and with the nation.

After the manuals on Indian laws, with additions of case law, in the name of Hindu Laws, volumes came into existence. From there codification of laws for India started.

K.V.Rangaswami Aiyangar, prophetically said: “Legalistic enthusiasm for Dharmasastra rapidly waned with the growth of case-law and the ever-widening rift between the traditional Hindu Law and the judge-made law of the British Indian courts. If and when the proposal under consideration to codify Hindu law becomes fait accompli, the little interest which survives among professional men will vanish completely.”[ii]

 “In Hindu view of life, aims, ideals, and activities were not divided up and considered as dependent of one another. There was no distinction between things secular and things religious: the distinction would have been unintelligible to the ancient Hindu. Society was viewed as indivisible, except for distribution of duties and obligations.”[iii]

The Indian Penal Code was first drafted by Macaulay, the Law Member of the Governor General’s Executive Council. The inspiration behind it was the utilitarian beliefs of both Macaulay and the Governor General, Lord Bentinck. They believed that a codified Penal law applying English notions of justice to India would be a massive improvement over India’s own indigenous concepts of crime and punishment. Macaulay primarily relied on the existing English case law because England itself had no Code to rival this. Some parts come from Napoleon’s reforms of French law too.

Macaulay had to leave India in 1838 and the finished draft Indian Penal Code went into cold storage. It was referred to various committees which took a lot of time to come out with their suggestions. The draft was finalized in 1860 and therefore the Code is known as the IPC, 1860.

 “Indian National Congress itself was founded and inspired by men of our own race”[iv]

Britishers took pool-poof steps for the introduction and continuation of their language, laws & institutions, political, social and cultural so that they can  safe guard their interests and continue to claim racial superiority and imperialism and in that process, as a first step, English Educational system was introduced, The author of English Education in India in a letter to his father wrote: “We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern-a class of persons Indian in blood and color, but English in tastes, in tastes, in opinions, in moral and in intellect.”[v]

Britishers were clear from the beginning that they cannot rule India for ever. Mount Stuart   Elphinstone wrote in 1854: “we must not dream of perpetual possession, but must apply ourselves to bring the natives into a state that will admit of their governing themselves in a manner that may be beneficial to our interests as well as their own”.[vi] 1857 war of Independence jolted the English thoroughly and they have over hauled their administrative setup. The British Crown shelved ruling India under veil of East India Company and took over the reins directly in 1858. The freedom fighters were organizing   to strike at the aliens. The English seriously thought to counter the same and they have thought of “A safety-valve for the escape of great and growing forces, generated by our own action, was urgently needed and no more efficacious safety-valve than our Congress movement could possibly be devised.”[vii]

It was not a secret that Indian National Congress was fostered in the interest of the Britishers. W.C.Banerjee first President of Congress had to say the following on the establishment of the Congress: “It will probably be news to many that the Indian National Congress, as it was originally started and as it was since been carried on, is in reality the work of the Marquis of Dufferin and Ava when that noble man was the Governor General of India…………..Lord Dufferin took great interest in the matter and after considering over it for some time he sent for Mr. Hume and told him that in his opinion, Mr. Hume’s project (social organization) would not be of much use. He said there was no body of persons in this country who performed the functions which Her Majesty’s Opposition did in England…….Mr. Hume was convinced by Lord Dufferin’s arguments and when he placed the two scheme, his own and Lord Dufferin’s, before the leading politicians in Calcutta, Bombay, Madras and other parts of the country, the latter unanimously accepted Lord Dufferin’s scheme and proceeded to give effect to it. Lord Dufferin had made it a condition with Mr. Hume that his name in connection with the scheme of the Congress should not be divulged so long as he remained in the country, and his condition was faithfully maintained and none but the men consulted by Mr. Hume knew anything about the matter”.[viii]

Dadabhai Naoroji in his Congress Presidential speech date: 27/12/1986 said: “It is our good fortune that we are under a rule which makes it possible to meet in this manner. (Cheers) It is under the civilizing rule of the queen and the people of England that we meet here together, hindered by none, and are freely allowed to seek our minds without the least fear and without the least hesitation. Such a thing is possible under British rule and British rule only. (Loud cheers).Then I put the question plainly: Is this Congress a nursery for sedition and rebellion against the British Government (cries of no, no); or is it another stone in the foundation of the stability of that Government (cries of yes, yes)? There could be but one answer, and that we have already given, because we are thoroughly sensible of the numberless blessings conferred upon us, of which the very existence of this Congress is a proof in nutshell.”[ix]

Duffer said on the Congress in 1888 that “The fact is that the Congress is the product only of that infinitesimal section of the Indian community to whom I have already referred as having been tinctured either directly or indirectly with an infusion of European education, European political ideas, and European literature. They neither represent the aristocratic sections of Indian society, nor are they in special contact or sympathy with the great masses of the population; they do not understand their wants or necessities, if indeed they are not indifferent or even opposed to them – as was evidenced by the strenuous resistance of the important Native Associations to our recent Land Legislation – and they are very imperfectly fitted to grasp any of the larger questions which affect the stability or safety of the Empire as a whole.”[x]

Dr.Pattabhi Sitaramayya official historian of Indian National Congress writes:” Mr. Hume had unimpeachable evidence that the political discontent was going underground. He came into possession of seven volumes containing reports of the communications of the disciples of various gurus to their religious heads….Hume thereupon resolved to open a safety-valve for this unrest and the Congress was such an outlet.”[xi]

Britishers after starting congress as a ‘a safety valve’, to be an ‘opposition party’, continued to have their say in it, In a letter date 4 November 1906, Minto wrote to Morley stating that:

“Tilak, as you no doubt know, has as evil reputation, and if he and his party gained control of the Congress, knowing what we do, we could not look upon them otherwise than as irreconcilably hostile to British rule…..Our friendly recognition of a moderate Congress might, I believe, do much good. If the extremists, such as Tilak and Bipin Chandra Pal, gain the ascendency, it will be impossible to deal with them, and the Congress will split up……Their (extremists) success would mean the disappearance of British administration and their own annihilation the next day”.[xii]

English took care that “extremists” does not succeed in taking control of the Congress,  ‘which would mean the disappearance of British Administration’ and when there was ‘ascendancy’ of  Tilak, the congress did split in/on      …………          ‘. Thus the ‘extremists’ do not find place in the scheme of the Congress. Savarkar, Aurobindo, Subhash Chandra Bose and such other great ‘extremists’ could not go with the Congress. The Britishers did not forget the congress even at the end. C.R.Attlee, the then British Prime Minister while introducing the Indian Independence Bill, on 10th July 1947, before the British Parliament, declaring that “British rule which has endured so long is now, at the instance of this country, coming to an end” came out openly to state; “Indian National Congress itself was founded and inspired by men of our own race”[xiii]. Purpose of creation of Congress was served and power is transferred from the ruling party to the ‘Opposition’. British left the country because of threats of ‘extremists’ but rewarded ‘moderates’ by transferring power to them.

Hence there is nothing like Swarajya. Congress continued to serve the purpose of its creation by fostering the British Institutions. Congress members, transformed themselves as constituent assembly and gave to themselves the Constitution of India which safeguards the British Institutions, laws and systems which further fosters individualism as against the community life and disintegrates the polity society and even family systems. British succeeded in their pronounced scheme and India was given independence but it is yet to obtain Swarajya.

English planned for smooth transition from Whitish to Wheatish by vivisecting Bharat, and by ensuring the drafting and adopting of the Constitution of India taking individual as unit and thereby sealing the fate of India to resurrect.

 Further the Constitution of India gave permanency to English rule, without Englishmen. All the laws thrust upon India during British rule has been validated. Same administrative set up. Same land laws. Same type of taxation. Same legal and judicial set up. The same education system. In the education system the British brought English with that grades/class, degrees, Ph.Ds. came. With that great Gurukula Vyvastha, great limb for preaching of Dharma of India has gone and even Guru are rare to guide people and the society. The British, unlike earlier marauders, imported their half-baked systems to India.  They become gospel truths. The decentralized legal system in India, before the advent of British was dispensing justice to the satisfaction of one and all. The English brought entirely new class of ‘trained’ lawyers, judges, leave alone the laws. Finance and economic systems brought by British has transformed India into a commercial society from dharmic. The political system introduced has becoming laughing stock. It built on the basis of atma stuti – para ninda, which is alien to the Indian culture.  Vast and ancient country like India could only stare at it. The result is havoc in all the fields of governance. The Constitution of India is only extension of British systems and laws. Nothing new and nothing Indian in it. 

India, a victim of Individualism, alien to the Indian culture and Dharmasastra:                                                                                                                       

MotilalNehru committee Recommendations on the Principles of Constitution of India 1928, lead foundation for the present Constitution.

The first recommendation of the said committee is as follows:

Constitutional status of India

1.          India shall have the same constitutional status in the comity of nations known as the British Empire, as the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa and the Irish Free State, with a Parlia­ment having powers to make laws for the peace, order and good government of India, and an executive res­ponsible to that Parliament, and shall be styled and known as the Commonwealth of India.

Constituent Assembly for India was formed in May 1946, under British Cabinet Mission plan of British and statement 15 of the said Mission stated “We recommend that the Constitution should take the following basic form” and based upon the same Constituent Assembly passed objective resolution, which ultimately became preamble of Indian Constitution. There was no discussion as to what are the values and philosophy that should be the basis of the Indian Constitution. British objective, individual as the basis and based on their ideology, Objective resolution was passed.

B. N. Rau, an ICS (Rtd.) officer under the British Government, was appointed as the Constitutional Adviser to the Constituent Assembly in formulating the Indian Constitution and he organized the drafting of the Constitution and produced his draft. He just proceeded to draft the Constitution for India with individual as basis and not community or village. Constitutions were taken from Western shelf, changed the label (made for India) and prepared the draft Constitution in about a months’ time.

For the criticism, B.N.Rau said:  “Even if panchayat plan is to be adopted, its details will have to be carefully worked out for each province and for each Indian State with suitable modification for towns apart from other difficulties. This will take time and rather than delay the passing of the Constitution further, it would seem better to relegate these details to auxiliary legislation to be enacted after the Constitution has been passed….”[xiv]

Though B.N.Rau took to prepare the draft about a month, it took three years to adopt the same!

 In reply to the criticism that draft constitution does not take into consideration the native values, systems, Nehru has to say in the Constituent Assembly:

“This House cannot bind down the next generation, or the people who will duly succeed us in this task. Therefore let us not trouble ourselves too much about the petty details of what we do, those details will not survive for long, if they achieved in conflict”.[xv]

Poor Gandhiji could only murmur by saying:

“I must confess that I have not been able to follow the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly… (The correspondent) says that there is no mention or direction about village panchayats and decentralization in the fore shadowed constitution. It is certainly an omission calling for immediate attention if our independence is to reflect the people voice. The greater the power of the panchayats, the better for the people.”[xvi]

Gandhiji in 1909, in his famous ‘Hind Swaraj’, the views expressed therein was held him till last, called British Parliament with  “a sterile woman and a prostitute” and stated “Both these are harsh terms, but exactly fits the same.” He further warned therein, that “If India copies England, it is my firm conviction that she will be ruined.” And emphatically dismissed the situation “English rule without Englishman”, “is not the Swaraj I want’ The whole edifies of formal legal system, built by the British, for the British, followed and continued by us, is sheer artificial and farce. It is not based on Indian ethos, practices and value systems. Penal laws, particularly Indian Penal Code is of no exception. None can, confidently claim to get justice under the present laws and legal system.

It is clear that English educated failed the nation. Lot of search and research has to be carried, to provide alternative, native institutional frame work, which, not only is craved by India, the whole world is longing, since the failure of dispensation of justice is of world phenomena. Study and spread of Dharmasastra is the only way, to arrive at right path, to restructure present social, economic, legal and political structure and institutions, connecting with past glorious and golden Indian period.

THE LEGACY OF LOKAMANYA[2]’ an American Jew, Theodore L. Shay has brought out in 1956 as to how the Constitution of India  is totally un-Indian, it was brought out of expediency, and as to why till now (1956) the Constitution based on Indian ethos has not come. In this book he has brought out the political philosophy of West as well as Indian.

Gandhiji opined that the Constitution must base upon Panchayat (Community) System. He said that “…There are seven hundred thousand villages in India each of which would be organized according to the will of the citizens, all of them voting. Then there would be seven hundred thousand votes and not four hundred million votes. Each village, in other words, would have one vote. The villages would elect the district administration; the district administrations would elect the provincial administration and these in turn would elect the President who is the head of the executive. ..”

Shriman Narayan Agarwal prepared a Gandhian Constitution for Free India and was ready by 2nd April 1945.

Gandhian Constitution was prior to Objective Resolution (13-12-1946). Kudos to Shroman Narain Agarwal. Constitutional Law student will find how Nehru and B.N.Rau managed to through it dust bin. B.N.Rau version that it will take time if the Constitution for India has to draft based on Village Panchayat, is blatant lie. Though is named Gandhian, Gandhiji ducked. Full text is available in internet.

H .V Kamath in the Constituent Assembly on 19th November 1949 spoke about Panchayat System. He spoke that “A time will arrive when India is stabilized and strong, and I hope we will then go back to the old plan of the Panchayat Raj or decentralized democracy, with village units self-sufficient in food, clothing and shelter and interdependent as regards other matters. I hope we will later go back to that Panchayat Raj Sir, to my mind the only system that will save India and the world is what I may call spiritual communism.”

On the philosophy behind drafting the Indian Constitution Jayaprakash Narayan explicitly observed that:

“One concept is that put forward by Dr.Ambedkar and accepted as basis of the Constitution namely, the atomized and inorganic view of the society. It is this view that governs political theory and practice in the West today….

“The other is the organic or communitarian view that puts man in his natural milieu as a responsible member of a responsible community. This view treats of a man not as a particle of sand in an inorganic heap, but as a living cell in larger entity”.

In the Constituent Assembly those who were spoke about the Constitution based on Panchayat was pooh-poohed and was not cared for the opinion.  The Debates in the Constituent Assembly was farce.

Rajendra Prasad, President of the Constituent Assembly wrote a letter dated May 10,1948 to  B N Rau, the Constitutional Adviser, enclosing a letter written to him by one K S Venkataramani and in the said letter, inter-alia, a serious proposal was made to make village a unit. Prasad wrote:

“I like the idea of making the Constitution begin with the village and go up to the Center. The Government of India Act started with the Center and then went down to the Provinces leaving still lower basis to be dealt with by the Provinces. We have followed the same model. The idea is to reverse the process and start with the village which has been and will ever continue to be our unit in this country.

To the said proposal B N Rau coolly gave a reply stating:

  1. “It may not be easy to work the panchayat idea into the draft Constitution at the present stage….
  2. “The world trend is thus strongly towards direct elections for obvious reasons….
  3. “Perhaps the best course would be so to frame the constitution as to permit either mode of election, the actual mode to be adopted in any particular case being left to the appropriate legislature….
  4. “If we were to do this, not merely for the district but down to the village, the constitution would not only be of inordinate length but would be even more rigid than it is in the draft….
  5. “While, it may be possible to create panchayats and similar bodies elected by adult suffrage, to function as electorates, for the provincial and Central legislatures, it would, to say the least, be inconvenient to endow them or other bodies at the same level with specific executive, legislative or judicial functions by provisions inserted in the constitution itself….

“Even if panchayat plan is to be adopted, its details will have to be carefully worked out for each province and for each Indian State with suitable modification for towns apart from other difficulties. This will take time and rather than delay the passing of the Constitution further, it would seem better to relegate these details to auxiliary legislation to be enacted after the Constitution has been passed…

In the above background B N Rau was chosen to implement Nehru scheme and ignore Gandhi scheme. The rest of Constituent Assembly proceedings are only farce and matter of history. Nehru led the debacle others followed like sheep following the butcher. For the demands of the members of the Constituent Assembly for making the Indian Constitution on the basis of Indian polity and village system, Nehru shut their mouth and closed the debate and asked to adopt the Constitution as drafted stating:

This House cannot bind down the next generation, or the people who will duly succeed us in this task. Therefore let us not trouble ourselves too much about the petty details of what we do, those details will not survive for long, if they achieved in conflict”.16

Poor Gandhi could only murmur by saying:

“I must confess that I have not been able to follow the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly… (The correspondent) says that there is no mention or direction about village panchayats and decentralization in the fore shadowed constitution. It is certainly an omission calling for immediate attention if our independence is to reflect the people voice.

The greater the power of the panchayats, the better for the people.”

Shamshul Islam writes that the European scholars who were accustomed to the Biblical idea of the age of the world and chronology of Greek and Roman histories that are matters of less than three thousand years were stunned at the puranic chronology that dealt with lakhs and crores of ears, which sounded more astronomical, than historical, to their ears.

The Whiteman declared that “The White Man’s Burden” and “Divine mission of the Anglo-Saxons to civilize the world” and India being “half devil and half child” which “could not be performed without the help of rod” and took the position as a “master over its servants” and called it as “inscrutable India.”[xvii] According to British theirs “is essentially an absolute Government, founded, not on consent, but on conquest.

The Life of west is about 2000 years and in that period many wars took place. When the war took place the original inhabitants were brutally massacred and nobody knows what was their culture and civilization. In England they present races was mixture of several European tribes. The History will not go back more than 1200 years.  They treat them as serf and unimaginable with brutality they were treated gradually they came to Bill of Rights and Parliamentary System.

The Britishers destroyed everything Indian. They interfered the Laws of Government, Judicial System, Law Making System, Personal Laws, Educational System, Revenue/ Property System etc.,

In that process they made the Indian Constitution also. If we see Motilal Nehru committee Recommendations on the Principles of Constitution of India 1928, it will be clear. It contains the provisions similar to that of Indian Constitution.

Cabinet Mission Plan (Cabinet Mission, 1946) 16th May 1946 contains at point 15 the provision similar to objective resolution.

Resolution on the Aims and Objects of the India’s Constitution, 13 12 1946While introducing the Resolution, Nehru said that this objective resolution formed basis of Indian Constitution.

That is before independence itself they preparation for the Constitution of India was made and draft Constitution was prepared by B.N Rau an ICS Officer in the British Government and was presented to the Constituent Assembly through a resolution appointed a drafting committee on 29th August 1947 consisting of :

Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar

N Gopalaswami Ayyangar

B R Amdedkar

K M Munshi

Saiyed Mohd. Saddulla

B L Mitter

D P Khaitan

While commenting on the drafting committee T.T Krishnamachary absolved in the constituent Assembly, one died and was not replaced. One was away in America and his place was not filled up and another person was engaged in State affairs and there was void to that extent. One or two people were far away from Delhi and perhaps reasons health did not permit them to attend”.

During the general debate on 04 09 1948 while referring to the demand for inclusion of provisions relating to Panchayat system in the Constitution B.R.Ambedkar revealed his antipathy towards Villages by stating that:

“What is the village, but a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow mindedness and communalism? I am glad that the draft Constitution has discarded the village and adopted the individual as its unit”.

On the philosophy behind drafting the Indian Constitution Jayaprakash Narayan explicitly observed that:

“One concept is that put forward by Dr.Ambedkar and accepted as basis of the Constitution namely, the atomized and inorganic view of the society. It is this view that governs political theory and practice in the West today….

“The other is the organic or communitarian view that puts man in his natural milieu as a responsible member of a responsible community. This view treats of a man not as a particle of sand in an inorganic heap, but as a living cell in larger entity”.

N G Ranga, commenting on the observation of Ambedkar on villages observed that:

“If he had cared to study Indian History with as much a care as is seems to have devoted to the History of other countries he certainly would not have ventured those remarks”.

Dr.Raghuveera observed on the subject:

“But I do ask that if B N Rao our constitutional advisor could go to Ireland Switzerland or America to find out how the people of those countries are running their governmental system, could you not find a single person in this (Drafting Committee) who was well in the political lore of this country who could have told you that this country has also something to contribute, that there was a political philosophy in this country which had permeated the entire being of the people of this country and which could be used beneficially in preparing a Constitution for India. It is a matter of deep regret to me that this aspect of thought was not considered at all by us”.

 Jawaharlal Nehru knew pretty well stated that community should be the basis for the Indian polity and the statecraft. He writes in his The Discovery of India that:

“The village, which used to be an organic and vital unit, became progressively a derelict area, just a collection of mud huts and odd individuals. But still the village holds together by some invisible link and old memories revive….. I feel sure that the village should be treated as a unit. This will give a truer and more responsible representation.”

Panchayat (community governance) is not a forgotten chapter. It is in the genes of every Indian.


 

 


[i]., The Story of Language,  Pan Books, 1972  C. L. Barber p. 156.

[ii] . Rajadharama by K.V.RangaswamiAiyangar.  Adayar Library, Adayar, 1941,P. xii 

[iii] .  Ibid at P. xiv

[iv]. C.H , Phillips, The Evolution of India and Pakistan, 1858 to 1947 Select documents, The English Language Book Society and Oxford University Press, P. 404 

16.Minute by T B Macaulay, dated the 2nd February 1835 

[vi]. Frank Heinlein, British Government Policy And Decolonisation  1945- 1963 , Routledge, P. 25

[vii].  Wedderburn, Life History of A.O. Hume P.77.

[viii]. Supra note 15 at P . 138

[ix]. Ibid at P. 139

[x]. Id. at P. 145

[xi]. B.Pattabhi Sitaramayya, The History of the Indian National Congress, p.11

[xii].Supra note 15 at P. 77

[xiii].id at P. 404

[xiv] . Quoted in Decentralization in government by Sweta Mishra 1994edn.P. 20.

[xv] . CAD 2.14.35.dt.22-01-1947.

[xvi] .Gandhi in Harijan, Dec 21,1947.                 

 

Leave a Reply

Sarayu trust is now on Telegram.
#SangamTalks Updates, Videos and more.

Powered by
%d bloggers like this: