Indian Parliament

The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi at 10 o'clock, Mr. President (The Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad) in the Chair.

Sardar Bhopinder Singh Mann: I submit, Mr. President, that unless a special resolution is moved, the present House is not competent to go back upon its own decisions. This very article has already been agreed to by this House.

Mr. President: This article 296?

Sardar Bhopinder Singh Mann: The principle underlying this, the main principle on which this is based has been agreed to in very clear and emphatic terms. I shall make it clear. In the report submitted by the Honourable Sardar Patel as Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Minorities, Fundamental Rights, etc., presented to this House on 27th August 1947, clearly the minorities were defined on the one hand; and secondly, four points were discussed one by one distinctly, separately and quite clearly.

The four points were : first, representation in the legislatures, joint versus separate electorate secondly, reservation of seats for the minorities in the Cabinet; third, reservation for the minorities in the public services; and fourth administrative machinery to ensure the protection of minority rights.

This report was submitted to the House and was later agreed to by this House. In this appendix, as adopted by the Constituent Assembly during the August 1947 session, it was agreed in regard to representation of minorities in the Cabinet as well as recruitment to the services-it is paragraph 9-it is said that due share will be given to the minorities in the all India services and provincial services and the claims of the minorities shall be kept in view in making appointments to these services, consistently with the efficiency of administration. Not only that. They make it further clear in emphatic and clear terms. They say, appropriate provision shall be embodied in the Constitution or a schedule thereto to this effect.

Having agreed to that, actually the Drafting Committee moved a special article 299 in which the rights of all the minorities were granted. Not only that. A later report was submitted to this House by the Advisory Committee on the subject of political safeguards to minorities on May 11, 1949. In this report the earlier decisions were reiterated and confirmed and not denied. Only in so far as the first item was concerned, that is safeguards in the legislatures were concerned, they were abrogated.

So far as the other rights were concerned, they were allowed to remain intact. What had been conceded or passed by this House is now being taken away. I submit Sir, that this is a substantial change and unless a special resolution is brought in this House, this House cannot go back upon its earlier decisions.

Sardar Hukam Singh (East Punjab : Sikh): Mr. President Sir, I beg to move:....

Now, Sir, I appeal to you to see how the representatives of the Sikhs know that they would be altered at the last moment ? If I do desire to retain those decisions, I am not asking for any further safeguards for the Sikh Community. I am only raising my voice against those safeguards being taken away from us, safeguards which had already been given. And, if any body is going back on the undertaking or on his word, then it is the Drafting power and not the Sikhs.

The Sikhs are told, when they remind the congress of their past pledges in 1929, 1946 and again in 1947 that circumstances have changed. The Sikhs were recognised as one of the three main communities in the Cabinet Mission Plan of which this Constituent Assembly is the creature. The only changed circumstances is that the Muslims have got Pakistan. Does it stand to reason that because the Muslims have secured Pakistan, therefore the Sikhs have ceased to be a minority?

Is this a logical conclusion? I will be failing in my duty if I do not point out what our feelings are. Pakistan resorted to crude and positive violence to eliminate their minorities. We are using a subtle, indirect and peaceful way of resolving the same question. True to our traditions, we are of course non-violent. I appeal to the House to go slow.

I request the majority to win the confidence of the minorities by positive actions and not by mere slogans. This change in article 296 has caused consternation in the minds of the minorities affected thereby. I request that the whole draft be allowed to remain as in my amendment.

........Then I come to the special provisions relating to the minorities.

It would be interesting to know how an ordinary Sikh mind is working in these days. If the sacrifices for freedom were to be looked back upon, the Sikhs can feel well proud of their contributions. In 1872 in the well-known Kuka rebellion more than 68 Sikhs were blown off with cannons. In 1907 S. Ajit Singh, Kishen Singh and others played a very important part in the movement. During 1912-16 the Ghadar movement got considerable momentum by the advent of revolutionaries brought in by Kamagata Maru and other ships. Most of them were Sikhs who died cheerfully on the gallows for the love of their country.

During Martial Law Regime in 1919 the Sikhs raised a bold and open revolt against the British and underwent many hardships. The Gurdwara movement, though directly organised for religious reform in Gurdwaras had its political aspect no less important, as by the huge sufferings and strict restraint the Sikhs lowered the prestige of the rulers.

In 1937 the Akali Dal formed an alliance with the Congress and succeeded in elections on national'programme against the Unionist alliance with the bureaucracy. That union must have grown closer and had been further cemented but for the Congress wooing the Muslim League in order to put up a concerted fight. The Sikhs grew apprehensive that the Congress, in their anxiety to win freedom, otherwise very commendable, might hand over their home-land to the Muslims and they might be subjugated for ever.

These fears led a section of the Sikh community to chalk out an independent line of action. But, even after that, preserving their individual identity, this small community supported the Congress very faithfully in the negotiations during 1942, 1945 and 1946.

The Cabinet Mission Plan was unjust and unfair for the Sikhs and it was so acknowledged by the Congress Working Committee in their resolution dated 25th June 1946. The Sikhs got indignant and the Panthic Prathinidhi Board boycotted the Constituent Assembly by their resolution dated 5th July 1946 when the Muslim League had accepted it. The Congress Working Committee in their meeting of 10th August 1946 appealed to the Sikhs to reconsider their decision and participate in the Constituent Assembly. The Working Committee assured the Sikhs that the "Congress will give them an possible support in removing their legitimate grievances and in securing adequate safeguards for the protection of their just interests".

Immediately, the Sikhs, on this assurance, reversed their decision, and directed their Sikh representatives to raise the question of safeguards in the Assembly at the proper time in the hope that the Congress. would support the Sikh demands in accordance with the assurances dated 10th August 1946 and their promises earlier in 1929. Since that day, the Sikhs made common cause with the Congress and stood firmly by it. Then again on 6th January 1947, the Congress, in accepting the interpretation put forward by the British Government on the Cabinet Mission Plan, made it clear that the rights of the Sikhs in the Punjab should not be jeopardised.

Later, on 8th March 1947 the Working Committee assured the Sikhs that "they would keep in close touch with the representatives of the Sikhs and other groups with a view to co-operating with them in the steps that may have to be taken and in safeguarding their interests"

The Congress as announcing again and again that all minorities shall have proper safeguards. The Muslims refused to be contented with any safeguards, but insisted on having a home for themselves. They got Pakistan, and can have no further grievance. The Anglo-Indian community has been sufficiently protected. They can have no grouse. The Parsees and the Christians are far more advanced educationally and economically and have declared that they do not want any safeguards.

It is only the Sikh community that earnestly desired, repeatedly requested and constantly cried for safeguards but have been denied any consideration. They fail to understand why they have met this treatment. The majority can oppress, it can even suppress the minority; but it cannot infuse contentment or satisfaction by these methods.

Separate electorates have been done away with; the Sikhs submitted to it cheerfully. The reservation on population basis in the legislatures was abolished. Their representatives fell in line with the others. But the economic safeguards about services were never voluntarily given up. On scrutiny, it appears to be a very trivial thing. But it was a test case where the majority was on trial. It was said that it was a blot to acknowledge any religious minority; but the Anglo-Indians have been given safeguards in the Constitution. They are a religious as well as a racial minority according to Government's own publication.

The entry about consideration of claims of Sikh community to services would have disfigured the Constitution, we were told here; but a similar entry about the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the Anglo-Indians does not impair its beauty. The whole economy of the Sikh community depended upon agriculture and army service. Lands have been left in Pakistan and their proportion in the army since the partition has been greatly reduced and is being reduced every day.

Their demands were very simple. They wanted a Punjabi speaking province. That has been denied. It was not a communal demand, but a territorial one. But the majority community in the province went so far as to disown their mother tongue. That language is in danger on account of aggressive Communalism of the majority. Andhra province is a settled fact; other cases are to be looked into, but North India cannot even be considered for it. The next was this consideration for services. That has also been denied.

Mr. Khandekar today referred that there was no untouchability among the Sikhs, and that seats had been taken out of the Scheduled Castes seats. I may briefly refer to these observations of his. Certainly according to the Sikh religion, there is no untouchability. But does it stand to reason that if there are two sons of one father and they are untouchables and one embraces the Sikh religion, he should be neglected simply because he professes that religion, different from the one which he originally professed ? Would that not have been discrimination on account of religion? I think that injustice has been removed and the Scheduled Castes should have no complaint about it.

Then again, he made a remark that Sikhs have been given seats out of the Scheduled Castes quota. That was what I could not comprehend, because reservation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is to be made on the basis of population. If certain castes have been included in the Scheduled Castes, then, certainly they would bring in their population and their seats will be increased. It does not stand to reason that the Sikhs have taken away any part of their quota which the Scheduled Castes possess.

Naturally, under these circumstances, as I have stated, the Sikhs feet utterly disappointed and frustrated. They feel that they have been discriminated against Let it not be misunderstood that the Sikh community has agreed to this Constitution. I wish to record an emphatic protest here. My community cannot subscribe its assent to this historic document.

I now come to centralisation of powers. For the last thirty years, the policy had been progressing towards provincial autonomy. There were valid reasons for it. The vastness of the country, its multifarious population organised in units having different languages, varied social systems, uneven economic development, made it impossible to have uniformity everywhere. Even in old regions whenever centralisation was attempted in India, the system cracked under its own weight. Independent units with greater responsibility and willing co-operation would have lent greater strength. In our Constitution, each article tends to sap the local autonomy and makes the provinces irresponsible.

To sum up, our Constitution does not give anything substantial or concrete to the individual. It only gives solemn promises and pious platitudes. The Fundamental Rights are worthless as they have so many restrictions and are left at the mercy of the legislature. The right to work is not guaranteed. There is no assurance for old age maintenance or provision during sickness or loss of capacity. Even free primary education has not been provided for. The minorities and particularly the Sikhs have been ignored and completely neglected..........

With them words, I thank you, Sir, for giving me this opportunity to express my views in short.

Mr. President: The House stands adjourned to 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

The Assembly then adjourned till Ton of the Clock on Tuesday, the 22nd November, 1949.

Source