PROF.
M. VENKATARANGAIYA
The
quarter October–December 1971 is a most memorable one in the history of our
country. We won a war against
We argued earlier that without a
military intervention on our part it would be impossible to send back to their
homes with honour and dignity the ten million
refugees to whom we gave shelter on purely humanitarian considerations and that
such intervention would be equally necessary to settle the issue of the freedom
of Bangla Desh. Events have
shown that our line of argument was correct. War becomes inevitable in certain
situations and no country should shirk from it when no other alternative is
available. Non-violence and peaceful negotiations are no doubt desirable but
they are not always possible. This is the lesson of history.
In the war we waged we were lucky in
two ways. In the first place we waited and waited patiently till
We
have also to recognise in this connection that the
Indo-Soviet Treaty concluded in August also contributed–though in-directly–to
our victory. Both
Let
us now see what the meaning and significance of our victory are. Here we have
to remember that twenty-five years ago our leaders agreed to the partition of
the country and the
creation of Pakistan in the hope that it would
satisfy once for all the Muslim communalists, that in consequence peace and
stability would reign in the sub-continent and that both the new States would
be able to concentrate their efforts on economic and social development and on
raising the standards of living of the two peoples. But such a hope has all along
been belied by the hostile attitude adopted by
Ever since 1962 when
The emergence of Bangla
Desh which is one of the fruits of
The
fact, however, that
II
In
the last issue reference was made to the 24th and 25th amendments to the
Constitution and the significance of the 24th amendment which
was passed by that time. Subsequently the 25th and 26th amendments were also
passed and a fundamental change has been brought about in our Constitution. It
is no longer what it was all these years.
According to the 25th amendment it
is open to Government to take possession of private property by paying what is
called some “amount” instead of compensation. It is not open to any court to
question whether the amount paid is adequate. Moreover this amendment touches
not only the right to property but also the other fundamental rights like the
right to equality and equal protection of laws guaranteed in Article 14, and
the right to seven fundamental freedoms guaranteed in Article 19. A mere declaration
by Parliament that these rights are in conflict with Article 39 which lays down
a number of Directive Principles of State Policy is enough to give validity to
any law which abrogates these rights and such a declaration is not open to
question by any court of law. The 25th amendment thus puts an end to the right
of property, the right to equality and the right to fundamental freedoms.
This is not the whole of it. Even
the rights of minorities and the rights of states may be abrogated if they come
into conflict with Article 39. Parliament can thus change the nature of the
whole Constitution in whatever way it likes. Instead of the Constitution
remaining supreme, Parliament becomes supreme. The Judiciary is deprived of
whatever power the Constitution has given to it to check the hasty and
unconstitutional action that Parliament and the Executive might take.
All this has been considered
necessary to give effect to socialism and eliminate poverty. This amounts to
saying that for the sake of socialism all other rights should be abrogated.
This is a dangerous doctrine as it virtually amounts to the introduction of
communism by the backdoor. In communist states there is no right to private
property and there are no other fundamental rights. A democracy differs from
communism as individuals are guaranteed certain rights in the former which is
not the case in the latter. If according to the 25th amendment a man can be
deprived of his property on payment of a nominal amount it is virtually a
denial of the right to it. The same is the case when other rights are taken
away in the name of the Directive Principles of State Policy. The State becomes
virtually the master of every citizen. There is nothing which the citizen can
call his own.
It
is to prevent totalitarianism of this type that in all democratic constitutions
provision is made for the sharing of power by different institutions–the
legislature, the executive and the judiciary, a central government and a number
of local governments and so on. It is the experience of history that
concentration of power proves dangerous. Whatever might be the outcome of such
concentration in nature democracies where there are strong opposition parties,
a live public opinion, and a large section of politically conscious people
keeping a constant watch on the deeds and misdeeds of those in power, its
outcome is bound to be harmful in our country where these factors are absent
and where a majority returned in an election is in a position to exercise dictatorial
power. It is because of this that the 25th amendment should be regarded as
having given a shock to the democratic nature of our Constitution and as having
cleared the path towards some kind of ‘constitutional’ dictatorship.
The
26th amendment which has deprived the Princes of their so-called privileges has
also been passed in the name of equality. The assumption is that there should
be no class of people with hereditary privileges even though such a class is
sure to disappear by efflux of time as is the case with the princely order.
Here is a clear breach of promise made by national leaders who were at the helm
of affairs only twenty-five years ago. We proclaim that it is one of our sacred
duties to pay regard to the commitments of those who led us to freedom. The
26th amendment is a deliberate disregard of such commitments. It was no less a
person than Sirdar Patel who made those commitments
and this is what he said in their defence.
“The
privy purse settlements are therefore in the nature of consideration for the
surrender by the rulers of all their ruling powers and also for the dissolution
of the States as separate units. We would do well to remember that the British
Government spent enormous amounts in respect of the Maharatta
settlements alone. We are ourselves honouring the
commitments of the British Government in respect of the pensions of those
rulers who helped them to consolidate their empire. Need we cavil then at the
small–I purposely use the word small-price we have paid for the bloodless
revolution which has affected the destinies of millions of our people.
The capacity for mischief and trouble
on the part of the rulers if the settlement with them would dot have been
reached on a negotiated basis was far greater than could be imagined at this
stage. Let us do justice to them; let us place ourselves in their position and
then assess the value of their sacrifice. The rulers have now discharged their
part of the obligations by transferring all ruling powers and by agreeing to
the integration of their states. The main part of our obligation under these
agreements is to ensure that the guarantees given by us in respect of privy
purses are fully implemented. Our failure to do so would be a breach of faith
and seriously prejudice the stabilisation of the new
order.”
Further comment on the amendment is
needless. Every honest citizen whose representative the members of Parliament
claim to be should ask himself the question whether and to what extent it is
right to break promises solemnly given by the makers of the Constitution and
embodied in it for achieving socialism with all the vagueness and ambiguity
surrounding this word. Before answering the question he will do well to read
the chapter entitled “The Cost of Integration” in V. P. Menon’s
“The Story of the Integration of the Indian States” (Orient Longman’s).
3rd
March 1972