Dr. B. R. Ambedkar upon presentation of the final draft of the Constitution of India containing special reservation provision under Chapter XVI Article 330 to 334 ,in delivering his momentum speech on the floor of the Constituent Assembly on 25th.November 1949, had expressed his view on the strong Republic of India with the words as extracted;
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, of 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 mountain it or will she lose it again? This is the second thought that comes to my mind and makes me as anxious as the first is not that India did not know what Democracy is. There was a time when, India was studded with several republics, and even when there were monarchies, they were either elected or selected. They were never absolute. It is not that India which did not know Parliaments or Parliamentary Procedure. A study of the Buddhist, Bhikshu Sanghas discloses that not only there were Pachamcats for the Sanghas, were nothing less than 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 his ballot, censure motion, regularization, resjudicata etc. Although these rules of parliamentary procedure were applied by Buddha to the makings 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 in India lost. Will she lose it a second time? 1 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.
If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact. what must we do? The first thing in my judgment 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 Biểm Stuart Mill has given to all who are interested in the minstemane democracy, namély, not to lay their liberties at the fett if even is great man, or to trust him with powers which enable him to sibver: 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 Donne. no man can be grateful at the cost of his honour, no wonsan can be gniténi 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 if India than in the case of any other country. For in India, Bhakti or what may the ciltel the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics inequalities 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 soil. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure trail to desolation ant to eventual dictatorship. The third thing we must do is not to be content with mere political democracy. We must make our political democracy a social itemsensoy as well. Political democracy cannot last unless there lies it (the base off ift social democracy. What does social democracy mean? It means in way of life which recognizes liberty, equality and fraternity as the (priseijitas off life. These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not to the traitor as separate items in a trinity. They form in union of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat the wery purpose off democracy. Liberty cannot be divorced from equality, egumility sumo: se divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality the divoreel from fraternity. Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy off thye few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill indivilhall 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 lin India a society based on the principle of graded inequality which means elevation for some and degradation for others. On the economic pilan. We have a society in which there are some who have immense wealth ass against many who live in abject poverty. On the 26th January 1950, are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politios 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 wote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our sochil and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man cone value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? Flow 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 this Assembly has so 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-of Indians being one people. It is the principle which gives unity and solidarity to social life. It is a diflicult 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 afternoon, 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’.
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 word, 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. These 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 not 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 down-trodden classes are tired of being governed. They are impatient to govern them-selves. This urge for self-realization in the down-trodden class’s niust not 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 of 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 stress 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 Government 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.
Our Constitution makers have visely tailored the provision of reservation in the Constitution of India enabling the Government to provide social, political and economic justice to all unprivileged and depressed classes of the society with an object behind to uplift and bring at par with the other members of the society, e. g equality in all spheres of life by removing breaking all chains of evils and I’ll treatment metout to such certain sections of the society. This relief and time frame to undo injustice of societal discrimination was fixed only for ten years only but further went on exceedingly extended for further decade after decade till now by hurting the very object of our tallest stalwart belonging to this Backward and most depressed member from this society coining this beautiful Constitution of India, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, thereby creating a wrong notion of fundamental right in the wake of perpetuations though the Special Court in case of Ajit Singh Vs State of Punjab AIR 1989 SC 208 has held that in explicit terms that the provisions of Article 16(4) as well as 16(4A) do not confer any fundamental right not do they impose any constitutional duties but are only in the nature of enabling provision vesting a discretion in the state to consider providing reservations of the circumstances mentioned in those Articles so warranted. The reservation of post in promotion is dependent on the inadequacy of representation of members of the Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes and subject to the condition of ascertaining as to whether such reservation was at all required as held by the Supreme Court in case ofSuraj Bhan Meena Vs State of Rajasthan AIR 2011 SC 874.
Though Indian society is a caste-ridden society, still, it is a Constitu wanal mandate not to discriminate on the basis of caste alone. Provisiona www to made for the phrtment of socially and educationally backwart heduled vastes or scheduled tribes or for women and childres 小物) or constitution of India empowers the States for making any POV Or Peservation in appointments or posts in favour of any backwart Www wizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequatel pinsented in the services under the State. Reservation is permissible Aweer of any backward class of citizens; and (ii) if it is not adequately represented in services under the State.( Chattar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan (AIR 1997 SC 303).
Whe historical background, reasons and justifications for the reservation have been exhaustively dealt with by a nine judge Bench of the Supreme Want in India Sawhney’s case (AIR 1993 SC 477). The Apex Court in this Love wheerved that Article 16 (1) of the Constitution of India provides that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating te employment or appointment to any office under the State. Clause (4) of the Avvala, however, provides an exception to this rule. It provides that nothing th Art 16 shall prevent the state from making any provision for the reserva dan or appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizen The opinion of the state, is not adequately represented in the wwwwww under the state. Clause (4) is hot in the nature of an exception to stance of classification permitted by clause L waese) and (2), but an instance Cause ya), however, does not cover the entire field covered by clause (1) & hot fell within the mischief of the exception of clause (4). Thus, as Wwards the condition of service relating to employment such as salary, Thevement, gratuity, pension and age of superannuation, there can be no elweption even in regards to the backward classes of citizens. The only matter which clause (4) covers is à provision for the reservation of appointments in favour of backward class of citizens (Indra Sawhney Vs Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477).
Reviews
There are no reviews yet.