“Carry on! But Remember. . .!!”
Anna’s Rajya Sabha Speech
25.01.1963
(Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4)

Bhupesh Gupta : I did champion it here. Dr. B.C.Roy knew it.

I am very sorry you have lost the battle. What I want to say is that the working of the federal structure is in such a way that the States are feeling more and more frustrated, and their demand is to make the Union Government think that there should be a review of the Constitution, a reappraisal of the Constitution. And in that I am supported by a very presentable personlaity, a personality who can, when he wants, get out and get into the Cabinet. I am referring to the Hon. Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari, Minister of Economic and Defence Co-ordination. On September 8, 1962, delivering an address in one of the institutions in New Delhi in memory of a great soul, the late lamented Feroze Gandhi, he has stated that as framers of the Constitution they have failed to incorporate a provision for a decennial review of the Constitution. Not only that, he said that public opinion should assert itself for that. Well, why do you take me as a Naga? Take me as a guardian of public opinion and come along with me to the States and find out the opinion of the people in the States. Well, I do not think that I want to place any difficulty or trouble in the way of any member of the ruling party, but without mentioning names I may say that many of the members of the ruling party in Madras may swear by the sovereignty and integrity of India, but whenever they find one of their proposals brushed aside, whenever they find one of their projects not taken up, whenever they find that they are not allotted the amount they need, they think about me. (Interruption.) That is why Annadurai is demanding support. deny me a steel plant in Salem, I rise up there. Deny Tuticorin its development, the DMK comes in. Therefore, you should take the DMK as the spearhead of the opposition to the unitary nature of the federal structure of this Consitution. As elder members of Parliament, why should you take this into the jungle? Lift it up to the highest political arena and allow it free play: make the Federation become a real Federation.

Then some of the members may turn around and tell me, “You are talking about separation.” Mr Bhupesh Gupta was saying that it was unthinkable. Even if others are not aware of it, Mr Bhupesh Gupta should be aware of the Soviet Constitution. It allows the prerogative of separation and yet they are not raising a hue and cry that their soverignty is in danger. ( Interruption). Mr Bhupesh Gupta seems to take the bad out of the Soviet Union and not the good out of it. I would request him and persuade him to see that the very mention of separation is not a danger to sovereignty. Not only that, even granting that our propaganda for separation endangers sovereignty, what should a democratic party that controls the Government try to do? Should it not go to the people? Does not our Preamble say that soverieignty rests with the people? It is the people who have created the Constitution. It is to them the repositories of our political rights, that you should appeal. I go to the people with confidence. I would request memebers of the ruling party to assure your Government about your capacity, about your ability to counteract me by educating the public. Why do you give up your rights? You as members of the ruling party and as responsible public men should suggest to the Government, “ Do not intervene between us and the public. If Annadurai carries on a propaganda for separation, we are alive to that danger. We shall meet the people and make the people understand the venomousness of the propoganda”. May I request Members of this House to give an amount of respect to the common man as a democrat? Do not think that the common man can be deluded by anybody. He may not be well versed especially in law but he has got a sound and robust commonsense. He knows how to distinguish between cheese and chalk, and when you bring in this measure, you are passing a vote of no-confidence against the commonsense of the entire nation. Why not leave the issue to the people? Let them decide. Do not think that I along with a handful of people in the party can delude the people or mislead them.The law Minister in the other House gave an argument which I can only say would please teenagers.

Mr. N.RAMA REDDY:
A very misleading logic.

Mr. C.N.ANNADURAI:
Mine?

Mr. RAMA REDDY:
Yours is a very misleading logic.

Mr. AKBAR ALI KHAN (Andra Predesh):
I would like Mr.Annadurai to consider what part communal passions have played in the history of India and how people are carried away by communal feeling and communal appeals. I would like him to consider that.

Mr.SANTOSH KUMAR BASU (West Bengal):
May I supplement it by putting another question before Mr.Annadurai who is dealing with this in a most admirable way in my humble opinion? Is it not a fact that the cry for Pakistan was preceded by the cry for more powers to the States in supersessiion of the idea of a centralised government and did uit not form athe preliminary to the cry for Pakistan which was ultimately won on the basis of their claim for moire powers to the States?

Mr. C.N.ANNADURAI:
Madam Deputy Chairman, after enunciating what I want to say, if you will be kind enough to allow me some more time, I will try to answer him.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:
You can have some more time.

Mr. C.N.ANNADURAI:
So long as sovereignty rests with the pople, they should be the proper authority to decide upon issues. Since the federal structure has been to a certain extent debased and taken into the unitary structure, the demand for separation can be viewed in consonance with the discontent of the other States. I was pressing that point that even granting that our propaganda was dangerous the members of the ruling party should try to counteract us.And even granting that they are relinquishing their right, I would request the Members of the House to consider whether, to counteract that propaganda, curtailment of the fundamental rights is necessary. I would ask the House to consider that point. Of course, I am conscious and perfectly aware that fundamental rights are not absolute and that there are limitations.

Mr. AKBAR ALI KHAN:
Quite right.

Mr. C.N.ANNADURAI:
. . . . . and Parliament has got every right to restrict them. These are the elementary principles. One need not take much trouble to understand them. But some trouble should be taken to understand that the emphasis should be on the rights and not on the limitations and that is why in our Constitution it is stated in very clear terms, that the restrictions ought to be reasonable. My honest submission is that the restrictions are not reasobable, not reasonable in the sense that firstly, you have not analysed the problem: secondly, you have not tried to understand us: thirdly, you have not given us alternatives and forthly, you have not taken the pople into your confidence. It may not be in the legal sense, but in the political sense the restrictions that you have placed are not reasonable.

And coming to the fundamental rights, I was saying that the Law Minister was giving a very funny argument in the other House.He said that if fundamental rights were to be allowed to have their full sway, some people might use those fundamental rights to invite the Chinese themselves. What I want to point out is, why should the Law Minister or, for that matter, any Member discount the ability of the public to judge things for themselves? Would the public countenance anybody getting on the platform and saying, “ We welcome the Chinese?” No. Our people may not be well-versed in the sections and in the chapters of the Consitution but they know how to differentiate between good and evil. And that is why in spite of so much enslavement by a powerful imperial power, the people were ready to come forward when there was a call for fighting for freedom. Don’t minimise your abiding faith and confidence in the public.

And as regards the fundamental rights, the argument presented by the Law Minister in the other House, as I have said, is far removed from not only truth but also from all seriousness. But, as I said, limitations can be placed and Parliament is empowered to place limitations. But all these limiations should be in consonance with the extraordinary circumstances warranting such limitations. I argue, I submit that there have not been any extraordinary cicumstances warranting such a limitation. In fact, in the Motilal Nehru Committee, I think in the year 1928 Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru has stated very clearly that we should not only get our fundamental rights but guarantee to the people that those rights will not be withdrawn under any circumstances. Note these words, Madam Deputy Chairman, and through you, I would request Members of this House also to mark all these words: “ under any circumstances,” We may have grown weaker since. I can understand it. But has an extraordinary circumstance arisen to warrant these restrictions? No: and arguments have been put forward that circumstances may arise, that the DMK might not have crossed the legal bounds but yet the tendency to create mischief is there, the tendency to create danger is there and we should put down with an iron hand even that tendency.I do not think that I have time enough to talk about the place of the phrase ‘tendency’ in the legal field and jurisprudence known to the legal hierachy. But I would say this that one of our best legal luminaries, Mr Justice Patanjali Sastry, has stated that it is better to allow certain noxious branches to have a luxurious growth rather than to attempt to cut off and sap the vitality of the plant. That is one of the judicial pronouncements about fundamental rights and its limitations. And in America there are many Supreme Court judgements. Of course we are not bound by them but they point to the liberality of thought that can be found in democratic countries. At one time in one of the States, New York I think, when a new law was brought in that, those who wanted to become teachers should take an oath there that they would be loyal to the Constitution and that they would be loyal to the political institutions, the Governor of New York stated that such an abridgement of the fundamental rights was unnecessary and vetoed it. I think that we should follow or at least try to shape our thoughts according to the liberal traditions built up in other democratic countries.If, instead of that, you say, “Well. We have the power to annihilate, annihilate any oposition party, today the DMK, tomorrow the Communist Party, the day after the Jana Sangh,” you have got that power, well carry on. But remember where any government depending for its solidarity and supremacy only on legal repression went. And what the result would be, I need not remind you. Even today, we found on this side of the House, Mr Bhupesh Gupta wanted not only the DMK to be countered but the Jana Sangh to be counteracted because to him the Jana Sangh is a communal party. and the PSP has stated that the Communist Party is more dangerous than the DMK, so we come in handy. We are on the opposide side...

Mr.sHEEL BHADRA YAJEE:
It would apply to all parties which would advocate separation from India whether it is the Communist Party or the DMK.

Mr. BHUPESH GUPTA:
He is Mr. Yajee.Madam Deputy Chairman, if anybody should be counteracted by all of us, it is Mr. Yajee.

Mr. A.K.SEN:
Madam Deputy Chairman, it was said that I said that this was due to the Defence of India Rules. I never said it. I said, to a certain extent, it might be and I have no doubt taht for some miscreants those rules are meant. I never suggested either the DMK or anyone else. Far from it, I said this that, to a certain extent, the Defence of India Rules might be responsible. What is wrong in it?

Mr. C.N.ANNADURAI:
My complaint was that expression of such a sort of sentiment is not in the nature of reciprocation of thought.

Mr. A.K.SEN:
We cannot shut overselves to the fact that there are miscreants about, who wanted to fish in troubled waters, but let the Hon.Member not accept the cap fitting him. I never mentioned him or his party.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:
You carry on, Mr. Annadurai. I hope it is clear now.

Mr. C.N.ANNADURAI:
I was talking about this issue. If you allow the ruling party to get into the temptation to restrain or restrict freedom of speech and expression, it may be aimed at the DMK to day, but what guarantee is there that it may not be aimed at other parties tomorrow? For that the ruling party need not argue. We argue ourselves. The PSP argues for restricting the Communists: the Communists argue for restricting the Jana Sangh. The more the merrier for the ruling party. Therefore I would request members of this House to look at this problem as a problem of restriction of Fundamental Rights. let the members of the ruling party at least say that they can stoutly oppose us in our propaganda: let them come forward at least to convince me and on that ground, if they can, let them oppose this Bill in toto. Because my friend, Mr Bhupesh Gupta, has said that he is accepting it in principle. Another friend of mine, Mr Gurupada Swamy, has said that he is accepting it as an overall objective, which means...

Mr. BHUPESH GUPTA:
Overall political objective.

Mr. C.N.ANNADUARAI:
.... which means that they realise the consequences of such restrictions. I would request them to take into consideration the consequences of such a law rather than the party at which it is aimed. It has been stated, Madam Deputy Chairman, that freedom of expression and thought should not be restricted in a democratic society if members of the ruling party are confident not only about themselves but about the people. Says Bagehot:

“One of the most important purposes of society and government is the discovery and spread of truth on subjects of vital concern. This is possible only through absolutely unlimited discussion. . . “ As Bagehot points out, “. . . once force is thrown into the argument, it becomes a matter of chance whether it is thrown on the false side or the true, and truth loses all natural advantages in the contest.” I would request the government not to establish silence by coercion of force but to establish concord by talking in the language of the heart. I therefore appeal to the members of the ruling party to stand by the fundamental rights, and to maintain your right to educate the public, instead of bringing in a legislation which is in the nature of a penal provision to put down all thought and all expression of dissent or difference.

(Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4)

முகப்பு | இலக்கியம் | அரசியல் | வரலாறு | புகைப்படங்கள் | பேரவை | தொடர்புகொள்ள