Please read these Words of wisdom which were ignored. Prophetic words?
Mr Frank Anthony speaking on the Constitution of India in Parliament.
Mr. Frank Anthony : (C.P. & Berar : General)
Mr. President, Sir, first of all I wish to thank you for the unfailingly
courteous and gracious manner in which you have invariably presided over the
deliberations of this House. Deserving tribute has already been paid to the
Drafting Committee for the way in which it has performed its arduous and
responsible duties. I would like very briefly to pay a particular tribute to my
honourable Friend, who is sitting on my right, Dr. Ambedkar. I do not believe
that any one of us can really gauge the volume of work and the intensity of
concentration that must have been involved in the production of this voluminous
and by no means easy document. And while, on occasions, I may not have agreed
with him, it always gave me the very greatest pleasure to listen to his
tremendous grasp not only of fundamentals but of details, of the clarity with
which he invariably presented his case. It has been said that this Constitution
has received a mixed reception. It is inevitable that its reception should have
been mixed because, inevitably, it is a mixed constitution. It is composite in
character. I believe that it is a blend and a proper blend between idealism on
the one side and realism on the other. I know that some of my ardently
idealistic friends have criticized it. They would like to have seen instead of
this blend something in the nature of a decalogue or the Ten Commandments,
something which was so wholly idealistic that it would have wilted and died
under the first impact of administrative realities and political difficulties.
As I have said, I believe that we have borrowed enough from idealism to
make the Constitution a fairly attractive and an aspiring document and on the
other hand we have not based it entirely on material, from mundane
considerations so as to retard or in any way to take away from this the
inspiring elements. I realize, sir, that it is not a perfect document, but at
the same time I feel that in hammering it out, we have traversed all the
processes of the democratic manufactory, that we have ranged through the whole
gamut of democratic factors; there has been careful thought; there has been
close analysis; there has been argument and counter-argument; there has been
fierce controversy and at one time I thought that the controversy was so fierce
that we might reach the stage of what the Romans called Argumentum ad baculum
that is, settling it by actual physical force. But in the final analysis has
pervaded a real sense of accommodation and a real feeling of forbearance.
So far as the minority provisions are concerned, Sir, I cannot speak on
behalf of any other minority but I do claim to speak on behalf of the
Anglo-Indian Community. I have paid repeated tributes to the generous and
understanding way in which the Anglo-Indian Community has been dealt with under
this Constitution. All I feel I need say at this moment is to reiterate my own
gratitude and appreciation for the very generous way in which the Anglo-Indian
community has been treated.
Now I shall deal very briefly with certain aspects of the Constitution. I
agree with my honourable Friend, Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru when he says that it
might have been wiser for us not to have extended the franchise at one bound to
universal suffrage. I recall the experience in Britain and the precedent of
Britain. I am aware that the precedents and experience in other countries are
not sacrosanct for us. But what happened in Britain in this matter of
franchise? Representative parliamentary Government was introduced in Britain in
the 19th Centruy but it was not till as recently as 1928 that universal
franchise or adult suffrage was introduced. Though some of us are in the habit
of talking about democracy without understanding its real purpose and its real
content, to my mind a mere counting of heads has never constituted democracy.
Democracy has always carried the postulate, the implication that at least the
exercise of the franchise would be made, if not on an essentially rationalistic
basis, would be made at least on a common-sense basis. And my own feeling is,
Sir, that if we had pursued the path of wisdom – more than that – of
statesmanship, that we would have been justified to hasten slowly in this
matter, that we would have not at one bound adopted the device of adult
franchise but will have proceeded progressively not necessarily gradually but
progressively. As it is I am one of those who can only express the very sincere
hope that when the next elections are fought or the elections after that and
with an electorate which will be predominantly illiterate, with an electorate
which will be predominantly unaware of exercising the franchise on a basis of
being able to analyse political issues in a rational way, that this electorate
will not be stampeded by empty slogans by meretricious shibboleths into chasing
political chimeras which will not only lead to chaos but to the very
destruction of the democracy which we have chosen to give them.
And, Sir, I feel that there has been unjustified criticism of what has been
stigmatized as over-centralization. I will say quite frankly that I was very
happy, I was jubilant at every provision that tended to place more and more
power into the hands of the Centre. Here again, we tend to mouth slogans about
democracy but in the final analysis, in its actual spirit and content, what
does democracy imply? It dos imply the greatest good of the greatest number I
say it with regret, I say it without pointing a finger, what is the increasing
evidence which rises every day before our eyes, evidence with regard to most of
the Provincial administrations? Do we not see that there is an increasing
evidence every day, of increasing maladministration, of an increasing negation
of the fundamental principles of democracy? Quite frankly, in the transition
stage I would have been one of those who would have supported our going the
whole hog that we should have avowedly and without any qualification accepted a
unitary form of Government. We might have administered the provinces either
through Governors or Rajpramukhs supported by a permanent civil service. At any
rate, Sir, I feel that I ought to place on record my disappointment that
certain vital subjects like Education, Health and Police should have been left
entirely within the ambit of provincial autonomy. We have given a head to
provincial regimes in the matter of education, and today, I regret to say,
within a very short time, they have taken the bit between their teeth and are
running wild. What is happening in the Central Provinces? When I say this, I
say advisedly, that the educational policy of the central Provinces represents
a deliberate negation of democracy, represents a travesty of the provisions of
secular democracy. The linguistic minorities in the Central provinces only look
forward to educational and linguistic death. That is what is happening. They
have no regard for the linguistic minorities. Overnight they are pursuing an
intolerant, parochial, aggressive linguistic policy which, as I said, is an
absolute negation of every provision we have embodied in the fundamental
rights. Not only that. You have given a head to these provinces and they are
running amock. National progress, the larger interests of the country mean
nothing to them. My own conviction is that a few years will be sufficient to
make the leaders of the country realise the great blunder that we have
committed in allowing education to remain entirely in the provincial sphere.
You will see balkanisation of the country will take place so quickly, because
through this powerful lever which you have left in the hands of the provinces
they will split this country up into linguistic enclaves, seal one from the
other, so that the idea of a common nationality will recede more and more into
the background. I feel very strongly about this. I do not know how the damage
that is going to be done can be undone, unless some radical steps are taken in
the not distant future.
Another matter which I would have liked to have brought at least in the
Concurrent List is Health. May is say, Sir, in some provinces, it is all right.
Bombay is fortunate in having a person of the stature of Kherji. The country
would have been more fortunate to have transported outstanding men from the
provinces to the Centre to administer the country on a unitary basis. As I
said, about health, we have left it in the hands of the provincial Governments
and inevitably this greatest nation building subject will be dealt with in a
feeble, halting manner, according to the different capacities of the different
provincial regimes.
Last but not least, I should like to have seen police made central subject.
Police in a province like Bombay have a deservedly good reputation. But, let us
be honest. What kind of reputation or lack of reputation do the police
administrations in many of the provinces enjoy? What does the man in the street
think of the police regimes in many of the provinces? I know what he thinks you
know what he thinks. The police have fallen into disrepute in many of the
provinces. They are not regarded as guardians of law and order but as agencies
of corruption and oppression. I should like very much to have been the Police
administration at least brought on to the Concurrent List.
May I say a word about the Directive Principles? I know my honourable
Friend Mr. Her will not agree with what I say and my views will be regarded as
heterodox and as perhaps striking a discordant note. I would not like to have
seen prohibition put in the Directive Principles. I am not advocating the cause
of drunkards or drunkenness. Far from it. I think prohibition as an ideal is a
very good ideal. But, what I am afraid of is this : having put this into the
Directive Principles, once again, you are giving a head to certain provinces
which, without considering the realities, may rush ahead with this scheme. I am
one of those who regard it probably from a rationalistic point of view or from
the point of view of a psychologist. I regard this question of prohibition
fundamentally as a psychological problem. I believe that there is a fundamental
similarity in human nature everywhere, and that an Indian is no different in
certain fundamentals from an European. I believe that essentially legislation
in this matter has tended to be resented and regarded as an entrenchment on the
domain of private life and private liberty. As I was trying to explain to my
honourable Friend Mr. Kher will you be able to legislate for morality? Can you
create morality through legislation? You can ever do it; it has never been
possible. I agree you may be able to wean certain people from drinking provided
your process and programme of prohibition was so graduated and you accompanied
it pari passu with measures of social reform. As long as you have your chawls
for workers in the urban areas, and you cannot even provide them with a
semblance of decent living conditions, what is the good of trying to make them
moral or weaning them from drunkenness by legislation? As an ideal, I have
nothing against it. What I am against is this. While the Prime Minister keeps
on asking us to let first things come first, we have fallen into the
unfortunate habit of making last things come first. What should be the first
priority in any administration? What are the most urgent nation-building
activities on which we should concentrate? Surely, health and education. But,
today, ask your average provincial Government what it is doing in these
matters. It pleads poverty on the one hand in the matter of the most urgent
nation-building subjects which should have received top priority, and on the
other hand chases these idealistic chimeras. We are throwing away crores and
crores of Rupees. That is my main objection to the precipitate introduction of
a measure like prohibition. Not that I have any radical objection against it;
as an ideal it is a very good thing and if we succeed, it will be a great boon
to many families.
While on the matter of Directive Principles, I would like to refer to this
provision regarding cow slaughter. I know, again, here, that I will be treading
on difficult ground. But, I want to make my position clear. What I resent in
this Directive Principle is the insidious way in which this provision with
regard to the banning of cow slaughter has been brought in. It was not there
before. I cannot help saying that those fanatics and extremists who could not
bring in this provision through the front door have succeeded in bringing it
through the back-door. Sir, I am not a beef eater; I am not holding a brief for
beef eaters. I say, you may ban co-slaughter, but we should have done it
honestly without our tongues in our cheeks, without resorting to methods which
may give rise to the accusation of subterfuge. I ask my Hindu friends, does
cow-slaughter offend your religious susceptibilities.
Shri K. Hanumanthaiya : (Mysore State) : Yes; it does.
Mr. Frank Anthony : All right; I am glad you have said so. I you had said
that. I would have sponsored a provision that a ban on cow-slaughter should
have been introduced in the Fundamental Rights and that cow-slaughter should be
made a cognisable offence. But, there were not people who were prepared to do
that. Why bring in this provision in an indirect way? If it offends your
religious susceptibilities, just as much as I expect you to respect my
religious susceptibilities. I am prepared to respect yours. As I said, why
bring it in, in this indirect way, as an afterthought into the Directive
Principles? Look at the way you have brought it in. The clause reads :
"for the purpose of protecting the cattle wealth of India, for the purpose
of protecting cattle, milch and draught cattle, a ban on cattle slaughter may
be imposed."
Shri K. Hanumanthaiya : On a point of order, Sir, is it right for the
honourable Member to attribute motives, subterfuge and all that? I draw your
kind attention to it. The honourable Member is saying that we have introduced a
provision by way of a subterfuge. He has attributed motives in regard to the
way we have put in this provision in the Directive Principles. Whether
attributing motives is right, I leave it to you, Sir to Judge.
Mr. Frank Anthony : I apologise to you and to the House if what I may have
said even remotely raises the suggestion of unparliamentary language. I was not
attributing motives. I am merely stating objectively what had happened. As I
have said, what has happened raises the accusation that perhaps motives may
have been there to bring in this provision in an indirect way; I will not say
it tantamounts to subterfuge. As I have said, I repeat, if this gives you
offence, I would have been the first person to suggest that it should have
formed part of the Fundamental Rights. In the way it has been done, it has been
attached to a clause purporting to protect the cattle wealth of this country.
Any child knows that in this country, in proportion to the population, we have
more cattle than in any other country in the world. Any intelligent child also
knows that in spite of this huge cattle population, our output for milch and
draught purposes is the lowest per capita in the world. The preservation of
cattle-wealth and the preservation of the best interests of the country would
have required not the banning of cattle slaughtering but the slaughtering of
over half of your present cattle population in this country. That is why I say,
it should not have been done in this particular way. I only draw your attention
to it and I leave it at that.
Finally I wish, to say a word about article 21. As a lawyer I will say
quite clearly that this article 21 which says that a person may not be deprived
of his life or liberty except by procedure of law as established, gave me cause
for considerable misgivings. I am afraid, that in this form article 21, if the
Executive and Government of the day choose to, can be abused and made a handle
for totalitarian oppression. The Executive can make it a handle for superseding
rule of law they can make it a handle for depriving citizens of the elementary
principles of natural justice, and of jurisprudence. But the reason why it was
disposed not to oppose this particular article, the reason why we are prepared
to suffer an abatement of what I regard as a Fundamental human right – was
because we are in a period of transition – and it may be necessary to give
Governments and administrators extraordinary powers, not to be abused but in
order to prevent any drift towards chaos and towards anarchy. And with that
warning I sincerely hope that there will be no tendency on the part of any
Provincial Government or on the part of Central Government to misuse or abuse
the tremendous powers which we have given them under article 21. If they choose
to, all that is required is that the procedure of law should be observed. We
hope that the procedure of law which will be prescribed by provincial or
Central Government will not be such as to represent the negation of the
principle of natural justice.
May I end on this note – I believe that by and large we have hammered out a
good Constitution. It will be fallible and it will be necessarily imperfect as
it is the product of imperfect human beings. But I believe we have done a good
job of work and I believe that this Constitution deserves not only our good
wishes but our blessings. But in sending it out on its mission with these
blessings, I feel that the paramount consideration which should be before us
permanently is not that we have framed a voluminous and important document –
not that we have sought to give careful and elaborate guarantees to minorities,
but that ultimately the final test by which this Constitution will be judged
and by which it will stand or fall, the final test will be the intention and
the spirit with which the provisions of this Constitution are worked.
Cyrus
Socegado Express
> On 24-Feb-2014, at 7:08, " Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या *فريدريك
> نورونيا " <fredericknoro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "People-sell-their-vote" theories would not explain a large percentage of
> the electoral results.
>
> For that, one perhaps needs to look at a runaway electoral system which can
> conveniently keep people divided -- on basis of religion, caste or language
> -- and allow the Permanent Government with a few skilled players as their
> fronts to split votes, create votebanks, and match-fix too.
> The electoral results over decades of MGP-UGP, MGP-Congress, Congress-BJP
> (with a few Independents and support-the-winning-side smaller parties throw
> in) battles for power tell an interesting story. But maybe we're not
> looking deep enough.
>
> When a myth is repeated many times over, people believe it. FN
>
>> On 23 February 2014 22:52, Jim Fernandes <amigo...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> Goans deserve this rot because they are the ones who vote for these dirt
>> bags. Just before the elections, a large number of Goan voters personally
>> accept largesse from the politicians in return for votes. Once these guys
>> get elected, they go on to recover their investment and some more. I'd say
>> - screw them Goans even more.
>>
>> What you need is people like Floriano and his party to pump new blood into
>> the political arteries in Goa. But I don't see much support forthcoming for
>> him.
> --
> FN Phone +91-832-2409490 Mobile +91-9822122436
