Last speech delivered by Dr Ambedkar in constituent assembly on 25th November 1949.

Earlier, sometime in between 1988 and 1990, I had read this speech of Dr Ambedkar on Indian constitution delivered on 25th November, 1949. Today I thought of reading it again and I am reproducing it for the benefit of political scientists and the eager youth who want to study the art of writing a suitable constitution to the World Government.

LAST SPEECH

Delivered by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar

in the Constituent Assembly

On adoption of the Constitution

Friday, the 25th November, 1949

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, looking back on the

work of the Constituent Assembly it will now be two years, eleven months

and seventeen days since it first met on the 9th of December 1946. During

this period the Constituent Assembly has altogether held eleven sessions.

Out of these eleven sessions the first six were spent in passing the ejectives

Resolution and the consideration of the Reports of Committees on

Fundamental Rights, on Union Constitution, on Union Powers, on

Provincial Constitution, on Minorities and on the Scheduled Areas and

Scheduled Tribes. The seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth and the eleventh

sessions were devoted to the consideration of the Draft Constitution. These

eleven sessions of the Constituent Assembly have consumed 165 days.

Out of these, the Assembly spent 114 days for the consideration of the

Draft Constitution.

Coming to the Drafting Committee, it was elected by the Constituent

Assembly on 29th August 1947. It held its first meeting on 30th August.

Since August 30th it sat for 141 days during which it was engaged in the

preparation of the Draft Constitution. The Draft Constitution as prepared

by the Constitutional Adviser as a text for the Draft Committee to

work upon consisted of 243 articles and 13 Schedules. The first Draft

Constitution as presented by the Drafting Committee to the Constituent 117

Assembly contained 315 articles and 8 Schedules. At the end of the

consideration stage, the number of articles in the Draft Constitution

increased to 386. In its final form, the Draft Constitution contains 395

articles and 8 Schedules. The total number of amendments to the Draft

Constitution tabled was approximately 7,635. Of them, the total number of

amendments actually moved in the House was 2,473.

I mention these facts because at one stage it was being said that the

Assembly had taken too long a time to finish its work, that it was going on

leisurely and wasting public money. It was said to be a case of Nero

fiddling while Rome was burning. Is there any justification for this

complaint? Let us note the time consumed by Constituent Assemblies in

other countries appointed for framing their Constitutions. To take a few

illustrations, the American Convention met on May 25th, 1787 and

completed its work on September 17, 1787 i.e., within four months. The

Constitutional Convention of Canada met on the 10th October 1864 and

the Constitution was passed into law in March 1867 involving a period of

two years and five months. The Australian Constitutional Convention

assembled in March 1891 and the Constitution became law on the 9th July

1900, consuming a period of nine years. The South African Convention

met in October, 1908 and the Constitution became law on

the 20th September 1909 involving one year’s labour. It is true that we

have taken more time than what the American or South African

Conventions did. But we have not taken more time than the Canadian

Convention and much less than the Australian Convention. In making

comparisons on the basis of time consumed, two things must be

remembered. One is that the Constitutions of America, Canada, South 118

Africa and Australia are much smaller than ours. Our Constitution as I said

contains 395 articles while the American has just seven articles, the first

four of which are divided into sections which total up to 21, the Canadian

has 147, Australian 128 and South African 153 sections. The second thing

to be remembered is that the makers of the Constitutions of America,

Canada, Australia and South Africa did not have to face the problem of

amendments. They were passed as moved. On the other hand, this

Constituent Assembly had to deal with as many as 2,473 amendments.

Having regard to these facts the charge of dilatoriness seems to me quite

unfounded and this Assembly may well congratulate itself for having

accomplished so formidable a task in so short a time.

Turning to the quality of the work done by the Drafting Committee,

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed felt it his duty to condemn it outright. In his

opinion, the work done by the Drafting Committee is not only not worthy

of commendation, but is positively below par. Everybody has a right to

have his opinion about the work done by the Drafting Committee and

Mr. Naziruddin is welcome to have his own. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed thinks

he is a man of greater talents than any member of the Drafting Committee.

The Drafting Committee would have welcomed him in their midst if the

Assembly had thought him worthy of being appointed to it. If he had no

place in the making of the Constitution it is certainly not the fault of the

Drafting Committee.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed has coined a new name for the Drafting

Committee evidently to show his contempt for it. He calls it a Drafting

committee. Mr. Naziruddin must no doubt be pleased with his hit. But he

evidently does not know that there is a difference between drift without 119

mastery and drift with mastery. If the Drafting Committee was drifting, it

was never without mastery over the situation. It was not merely angling

with the off chance of catching a fish. It was searching in known waters to

find the fish it was after. To be in search of something better is not the

same as drifting. Although Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed did not mean it as a

compliment to the Drafting committee. I take it as a compliment to the

Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee would have been guilty of

gross dereliction of duty and of a false sense of dignity if it had not shown

the honesty and the courage to withdraw the amendments which it thought

faulty and substitute what it thought was better. If it is a mistake, I am glad

the Drafting Committee did not fight shy of admitting such mistakes and

coming forward to correct them.

I am glad to find that with the exception of a solitary member, there is

a general consensus of appreciation from the members of the Constituent

Assembly of the work done by the Drafting Committee. I am sure the

Drafting Committee feels happy to find this spontaneous recognition of its

labours expressed in such generous terms. As to the compliments that

have been showered upon me both by the members of the Assembly as

well as by my colleagues of the Drafting Committee I feel so overwhelmed

that I cannot find adequate words to express fully my gratitude to them. I

came into the Constituent Assembly with no greater aspiration than to

safeguard the interests of he Scheduled Castes. I had not the remotest idea

that I would be called upon to undertake more responsible functions. I

was therefore greatly surprised when the Assembly elected me to the

Drafting Committee. I was more than surprised when the Drafting

Committee elected me to be its Chairman. There were in the Drafting 120

Committee men bigger, better and more competent than myself such as

my friend Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar. I am grateful to the Constituent

Assembly and the Drafting Committee for reposing in me so much trust

and confidence and to have chosen me as their instrument and given me

this opportunity of serving the country. (Cheers)

The credit that is given to me does not really belong to me. It belongs

partly to Sir B.N. Rau, the Constitutional Adviser to the Constituent

Assembly who prepared a rough draft of the Constitution for the

consideration of the Drafting Committee. A part of the credit must go to

the members of the Drafting Committee who, as I have said, have sat for

141 days and without whose ingenuity of devise new formulae and

capacity to tolerate and to accommodate different points of view, the task

of framing the Constitution could not have come to so successful a

conclusion. Much greater, share of the credit must go to Mr. S.N. Mukherjee,

the Chief Draftsman of the Constitution. His ability to put the most

intricate proposals in the simplest and clearest legal form can rarely be

equalled, nor his capacity for hard work. He has been as acquisition to the

Assembly. Without his help, this Assembly would have taken many more

years to finalise the Constitution. I must not omit to mention the members

of the staff working under Mr. Mukherjee. For, I know how hard they have

worked and how long they have toiled sometimes even beyond midnight. I

want to thank them all for their effort and their co-operation. (Cheers)

The task of the Drafting Committee would have been a very difficult

one if this Constituent Assembly has been merely a motley crowd, a

tasseleted pavement without cement, a black stone here and a white stone

there is which each member or each group was a law unto itself. There 121

would have been nothing but chaos. This possibility of chaos was

reduced to nil by the existence of the Congress Party inside the Assembly

which brought into its proceedings a sense of order and discipline. It is

because of the discipline of the Congress Party that the Drafting

Committee was able to pilot the Constitution in the Assembly with the sure

knowledge as to the fate of each article and each amendment. The

Congress Party is, therefore, entitled to all the credit for the smooth sailing

of the Draft Constitution in the Assembly.

The proceedings of this Constituent Assembly would have been very

dull if all members had yielded to the rule of party discipline. Party

discipline, in all its rigidity, would have converted this Assembly into a

gathering of yes’ men. Fortunately, there were rebels. They were Mr. Kamath,

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh, Mr. Sidhva, Prof. K.T. Shah and Pandit Hirday Nath

Kunzru. The points they raised were mostly ideological. That I was not

prepared to accept their suggestions, does not diminish the value of their

suggestions nor lessen the service they have rendered to the Assembly in

enlivening its proceedings. I am grateful to them. But for them, I would not

have had the opportunity which I got for expounding the principles

underlying the Constitution which was more important than the mere

mechanical work of passing the Constitution.

Finally, I must thank you Mr. President for the way in which you have

conducted the proceedings of this Assembly. The courtesy and the

consideration which you have shown to the Members of the Assembly can

never be forgotten by those who have taken part in the proceedings of this

Assembly. There were occasions when the amendments of the Drafting

Committee were sought to be barred on grounds purely technical in their 122

nature. Those were very anxious moments for me. I am, therefore,

specially grateful to you for not permitting legalism to defeat the work of

Constitution-making.

As much defence as could be offered to the constitution has been

offered by my friends Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar and Mr. T.T.

Krishnamachari. I shall not therefore enter into the merits of the

Constitution. Because I feel, however good a Constitution may be, it is

sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be

a bad lot. However had a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good

if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot. The working of

a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the

Constitution. The Constitution can provide only the organs of State such

as the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The factors on which

the working of those organs of the State depend are the people and the

political parties they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes

and their politics. Who can say how the people of India and their purposes

or will they prefer revolutionary methods of achieving them?

If they adopt the revolutionary methods, however good the Constitution

may be, it requires no prophet to say that it will fail. It is, therefore, futile to

pass any judgement upon the Constitution without reference to the part

which the people and their parties are likely to play.

The condemnation of the Constitution largely comes from two

quarters, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party. Why do they con-

demn the Constitution? Is it because it is really a bad Constitution? I

venture to say no’. The Communist Party want a Constitution based upon

the principle of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They condemn the 123

Constitution because it is based upon parliamentary democracy. The

Socialists want two things. The first thing they want is that if they come in

power, the Constitution must give them the freedom to nationalize or

socialize all private property without payment of compensation. The

second thing that the Socialists want is that the Fundamental Rights

mentioned in the Constitution must be absolute and without any limitations

so that if their Party fails to come into power, they would have the

unfettered freedom not merely to criticize, but also to overthrow the State.

These are the main grounds on which the Constitution is being

condemned. I do not say that the principle of parliamentary democracy is

the only ideal form of political democracy. I do not say that the principle

of no acquisition of private property without compensation is so

sacrosanct that there can be no departure from it. I do not say that

Fundamental Rights can never be absolute and the limitations set upon

them can never be lifted. What I do say is that the principles embodied in

the Constitution are the views of the present generation or if you think this

to be an over-statement, I say they are the views of the members of the

Constituent Assembly. Why blame the Drafting Committee for embodying

them in the Constitution? I say why blame even the Members of the

Constituent Assembly? Jefferson, the great American statesman who played

so great a part in the making of the American constitution, has expressed

some very weighty views which makers of Constitution, can never afford

to ignore. In one place he has said :- “We may consider each

generation as a distinctnation, with a right, by the will of the

majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding

generation, more than the inhabitants of another country. ” 124

In another place, he has said :

“ The idea that institutions established for the use of the national

cannot be touched or modified, even to make them answer their end,

because of rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage

them in the trust for the public, may perhaps be a salutary provision against

the abuses of a monarch, but is most absurd against the nation itself. Yet

our lawyers and priests generally inculcate this doctrine, and suppose that

preceding generations held the earth more freely than we do; had a right to

impose laws on us, unalterable by ourselves, and that we, in the like man-

ner, can make laws and impose burdens on future generations, which they

will have no right to alter; in fine, that the earth belongs to the dead and not

the living; ”

I admit that what Jefferson has said is not merely true, but is

absolutely true. There can be no question about it. Had the Constituent

Assembly departed from this principle laid down by Jefferson it would

certainly be liable to blame, even to condemnation. But I ask, has it? Quite

the contrary. One has only to examine the provision relating to the

amendment of the Constitution. The Assembly has not only refrained from

putting a seal of finality and infallibility upon this Constitution as in Canada

or by making the amendment of the Constitution subject to the fulfilment

of extraordinary terms and conditions as in America or Australia, but has

provided a most facile procedure for amending the Constitution. I

challenge any of the critics of the Constitution to prove that any

Constituent Assembly anywhere in the world has, in the circumstances in

which this country finds itself, provided such a facile procedure for the

amendment of the Constitution. If those who are dissatisfied with the 125

Constitution have only to obtain a 2/3 majority and if they cannot obtain

even a two-thirds majority in the parliament elected on adult franchise in

their favour, their dissatisfaction with the Constitution cannot be deemed

to be shared by the general public.

There is only one point of constitutional import to which I propose to

make a reference. A serious complaint is made on the ground that there is

too much of centralization and that the States have been reduced to

Municipalities. It is clear that this view is not only an exaggeration, but is

also founded on a misunderstanding of what exactly the Constitution

contrives to do. As to the relation between the Centre and the States, it is

necessary to bear in mind the fundamental principle on which it rests. The

basic principle of Federalism is that the Legislative and Executive authority

is partitioned between the Centre and the States not by any law to be made

by the Centre but by the Constitution itself. This is what Constitution

does. The States under our Constitution are in no way dependent upon the

Centre for their legislative or executive authority. The Centre and the States

are co-equal in this matter. It is difficult to see how such a Constitution can

be called centralism. It may be that the Constitution assigns to the Centre

too large a field for the operation of its legislative and executive authority

than is to be found in any other federal Constitution. It may be that the

residuary powers are given to the Centre and not to the States. But these

features do not form the essence of federalism. The chief mark of

federalism as I said lies in the partition of the legislative and executive

authority between the Centre and the Units by the Constitution. This is the

principle embodied in our constitution. There can be no mistake about it.

It is, therefore, wrong to say that the States have been placed under the

Centre. Centre cannot by its own will alter the boundary of that partition. 126

Nor can the Judiciary. For as has been well said :

Courts may modify, they cannot replace. They can revise earlier

interpretations as new arguments, new points of view are presented, they

can shift the dividing line in marginal cases, but there are barriers they

cannot pass, definite assignments of power they cannot reallocate. They

can give a broadening construction of existing powers, but they cannot

assign to one authority powers explicitly granted to another. ”

The first charge of centralization defeating federalism must

therefore fall.

The second charge is that the Centre has been given the power to

override the States. This charge must be admitted. But before condemning

the Constitution for containing such overriding powers, certain

considerations must be borne in mind. The first is that these overriding

powers do not form the normal feature of the constitution. Their use and

operation are expressly confined to emergencies only. The second

consideration is : Could we avoid giving overriding powers to the Centre

when an emergency has arisen? Those who do not admit the justification

for such overriding powers to the Centre even in an emergency, do not

seem to have a clear idea of the problem which lies at the root of the

matter. The problem is so clearly set out by a writer in that well-known

magazine “ The Round Table” in its issue of December 1935 that I offer

no apology for quoting the following extract from it. Says the writer :

“ Political systems are a complex of rights and duties resting

ultimately on the question, to whom, or to what authority, does the citizen

owe allegiance. In normal affairs the question is not present, for the law

works smoothly, and a man, goes about his business obeying one 127

authority in this set of matters and another authority in that. But in a

moment of crisis, a conflict of claims may arise, and it is then apparent that

ultimate allegiance cannot be divided. The issue of allegiance cannot be

determined in the last resort by a juristic interpretation of statutes. The law

must conform to the facts or so much the worse for the law. When all

formalism is stripped away, the bare question is, what authority commands

the residual loyalty of the citizen. Is it the Centre or the Constituent State ? ”

The solution of this problem depends upon one’s answer to this

question which is the crux of the problem. There can be no doubt that in

the opinion of the vast majority of the people, the residual loyalty of the

citizen in an emergency must be to the Centre and not to the Constituent

States. For it is only the Centre which can work for a common end and for

the general interests of the country as a whole. Herein lies the justification

for giving to all Centre certain overriding powers to be used in an

emergency. And after all what is the obligation imposed upon the

Constituent States by these emergency powers? No more than this – that

in an emergency, they should take into consideration alongside their own

local interests, the opinions and interests of the nation as a whole. Only

those who have not understood the problem, can complain against it.

Here I could have ended. But my mind is so full of the future of our

country that I feel I ought to take this occasion to give expression to some

of my reflections thereon. On 26th January 1950, India will be an

independent country (Cheers). What would happen to her independence?

Will she maintain her independence or will she lose it again? This is the first

thought that comes to my mind. It is not that India was never an

independent country. The point is that she once lost the independence she 128

had. Will she lost it a second time? It is this thought which makes me most

anxious for the future. What perturbs me greatly is the fact that not only

India has once before lost her independence, but she lost it by the infidelity

and treachery of some of her own people. In the invasion of Sind by

Mahommed-Bin-Kasim, the military commanders of King Dahar accepted

bribes from the agents of Mahommed-Bin-Kasim and refused to fight on

the side of their King. It was Jaichand who invited Mahommed Gohri to

invade India and fight against Prithvi Raj and promised him the help of

himself and the Solanki Kings. When Shivaji was fighting for the liberation

of Hindus, the other Maratha noblemen and the Rajput Kings were fighting

the battle on the side of Moghul Emperors. When the British were trying to

destroy the Sikh Rulers, Gulab Singh, their principal commander sat silent

and did not help to save the Sikh Kingdom. In 1857, when a large part of

India had declared a war of independence against the British, the Sikhs

stood and watched the event as silent spectators.

Will history repeat itself? It is this thought which fills me with anxiety.

This anxiety is deepened by the realization of the fact that in addition to

our old enemies in the form of castes and creeds we are going to have

many political parties with diverse and opposing political creeds. Will

Indian place the country above their creed or will they place creed above

country? I do not know. But this much is certain that if the parties place

creed above country, our independence will be put in jeopardy a second

time and probably be lost for ever. This eventuality we must all resolutely

guard against. We must be determined to defend our independence with

the last drop of our blood. (Cheers) 129

On the 26th of January 1950, India would be a democratic country in

the sense that India from that day would have a government of the people,

by the people and for the people. The same thought comes to my mind.

What would happen to her democratic Constitution? Will she be able to

maintain it or will she lost it again. This is the second thought that comes to

my mind and makes me as anxious as the first.

It is not that India did not know what is Democracy. There was a time

when India was studded with republics, and even where there were

monarchies, they were either elected or limited. They were never absolute.

It is not that India did not know Parliaments or Parliamentary Procedure. A

study of the Buddhist Bhikshu Sanghas discloses that not only there were

Parliaments-for the Sanghas were nothing but Parliaments – but the Sanghas

knew and observed all the rules of Parliamentary Procedure known to

modern times. They had rules regarding seating arrangements, rules

regarding Motions, Resolutions, Quorum, Whip, Counting of Votes,

Voting by Ballot, Censure Motion, Regularization, Res Judicata, etc.

Although these rules of Parliamentary Procedure were applied by the Bud-

dha to the meetings of the Sanghas, he must have borrowed them from the

rules of the Political Assemblies functioning in the country in his time.

This democratic system India lost. Will she lost it a second time? I do

not know. But it is quite possible in a country like India – where

democracy from its long disuse must be regarded as something quite new

– there is danger of democracy giving place to dictatorship. It is quite

possible for this new born democracy to retain its form but give place to

dictatorship in fact. If there is a landslide, the danger of the second

possibility becoming actuality is much greater. 130

If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact,

what must we do ? The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold

fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic

objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution.

It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience,

non-cooperation and satyagraha. When there was no way left for

constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there

was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where

constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these

unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of

Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.

The second thing we must do is to observe the caution which John

Stuart Mill has given to all who are interested in the maintenance of

democracy, namely, not “to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great

man, or to trust him with power which enable him to subvert their

institutions ”. There is nothing wrong in being grateful to great men who

have rendered life-long services to the country. But there are limits to

gratefulness. As has been well said by the Irish Patriot Daniel O’Connel,

no man can be grateful at the cost of his honour, no woman can be grateful

at the cost of her chastity and no nation can be grateful at the cost of its

liberty. This caution is far more necessary in the case of India than in the

case of any other country. For in India, Bhakti or what may be called the

path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in

magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the

world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in

politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to even-

tual dictatorship. 131

The third thing we must do is not to be content with mere political

democracy. We must make our political democracy a social democracy as

well. Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it

social democracy. What does social democracy mean? It means a way of

life which recognizes liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life.

These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life.

These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not to be treated as

separate items in a trinity. They form a union of trinity in the sense that to

divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy.

Liberty cannot be divorced from equality, equality cannot be divorced

from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity.

Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the

many. [Equality without liberty would kill individual

initiative]. Without fraternity, liberty would produce the supremacy of

the few over the many. [Equality without liberty would kill individual

initiative]. Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a

natural course of things. It would require a constable to enforce them. We

must begin by acknowledging the fact that there is complete absence of

two things in Indian Society. One of these is equality. On the social plane,

we have in India a society based on the principle of graded inequality

which we have a society in which there are some who have immense wealth

as against many who live in abject poverty. On the 26th of January 1950,

we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have

equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics

we will be recognizing the principle of one man one vote and one vote one

value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social 132

and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one

value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How

long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If

we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political

democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest

possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the

structure of political democracy which is Assembly has to laboriously

built up.

The second thing we are wanting in is recognition of the principle of

fraternity. what does fraternity mean? Fraternity means a sense of common

brotherhood of all Indians-if Indians being one people. It is the principle

which gives unity and solidarity to social life. It is a difficult thing to achieve.

How difficult it is, can be realized from the story related by James Bryce in

his volume on American Commonwealth about the United States of America.

The story is- I propose to recount it in the words of Bryce himself-

that-

“Some years ago the American Protestant Episcopal Church

was occupied at its triennial Convention in revising its liturgy. It was

thought desirable to introduce among the short sentence prayers a

prayer for the whole people, and an eminent New England divine

proposed the words ‘O Lord, bless our nation’. Accepted one after-

noon, on the spur of the moment, the sentence was brought up next

day for reconsideration, when so many objections were raised by

the laity to the word nation’ as importing too definite a recognition

of national unity, that it was dropped, and instead there were adopted

the words `O Lord, bless these United States.” 133

There was so little solidarity in the U.S.A. at the time when this

incident occurred that the people of America did not think that they were a

nation. If the people of the United States could not feel that they were a

nation, how difficult it is for Indians to think that they are a nation. I

remember the days when politically-minded Indians, resented the

expression “the people of India ”. They preferred the expression “the

Indian nation.” I am of opinion that in believing that we are a nation, we are

cherishing a great delusion. How can people divided into several

thousands of castes be a nation? The sooner we realize that we are not as

yet a nation in the social and psychological sense of the world, the better

for us. For then only we shall realize the necessity of becoming a nation

and seriously think of ways and means of realizing the goal. The realization

of this goal is going to be very difficult – far more difficult than it has been

in the United States. The United States has no caste problem. In India

there are castes. The castes are anti-national. In the first place because they

bring about separation in social life. They are anti-national also because

they generate jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste. But we must

overcome all these difficulties if we wish to become a nation in reality.

For fraternity can be a fact only when there is a nation. Without fraternity

equality and liberty will be no deeper than coats of paint.

These are my reflections about the tasks that lie ahead of us. They

may not be very pleasant to some. But there can be no gainsaying that

political power in this country has too long been the monopoly of a few

and the many are only beasts of burden, but also beasts of prey. This

monopoly has not merely deprived them of their chance of betterment, it

has sapped them of what may be called the significance of life. These 134

down-trodden classes are tired of being governed. They are impatient to

govern themselves. This urge for self-realization in the down-trodden classes

must no be allowed to devolve into a class struggle or class war. It would

lead to a division of the House. That would indeed be a day of disaster.

For, as has been well said by Abraham Lincoln, a House divided against

itself cannot stand very long. Therefore the sooner room is made for the

realization of their aspiration, the better for the few, the better for the

country, the better for the maintenance for its independence and the better

for the continuance of its democratic structure. This can only be done by

the establishment of equality and fraternity in all spheres of life. That is

why I have laid so much stresses on them.

I do not wish to weary the House any further. Independence is no

doubt a matter of joy. But let us not forget that this independence has

thrown on us great responsibilities. By independence, we have lost the

excuse of blaming the British for anything going wrong. If hereafter things

go wrong, we will have nobody to blame except ourselves. There is great

danger of things going wrong. Times are fast changing. People including

our own are being moved by new ideologies. They are getting tired of

Government by the people. They are prepared to have Governments for

the people and are indifferent whether it is Government of the people and

by the people. If we wish to preserve the Constitution in which we have

sought to enshrine the principle of Government of the people, for the

people and by the people, let us resolve not to be tardy in the recognition

of the evils that lie across our path and which induce people to prefer

Government for the people to Government by the people, nor to be weak

in our initiative to remove them. That is the only way to serve the country.

I know of no better.