Sir, many things have happened between the starting of our work of framing the Constitution and the completion thereof which has unnecessarily blurred our vision, with the result that we are running away with the idea of a strong centre and launching ourselves probably unconsciously, unknowingly and irresistibly on a line which may not be successful. If we have clearly grasped the implication of our line of thought and action it means that it is our opinion that the people as a whole, the common man, is not capable of exercising properly his rights as a citizen of a democratic federation. In that case, the best course would have been to give up entirely the idea of a Federation, and frame a unitary type of constitution. I could have understood that. We could then have said: “No, we are not in favour of a Federation; we want for this country a unitary type of Government.” But that is not what we have done. Again, if we thought that for a few more years our people would be illiterate and that illiteracy which is a curse of democracy would disappear but that time then we could have said: “Well, our people will be ripe for a Federal type of Government after fifteen or twenty years.” In that case we should have been content with framing an interim Constitution and left the task of framing the final constitution to those who may come after us. But the present Constitution though called a Union-the word Federation has disappeared, and “Union” has taken its place-is not federal in substance. It is not unitary, for it was never framed as a unitary constitution. The whole things, as a result of circumstances and events, some of which at any rate are beyond our control. I do not want to blame any party or group of persons-is a queer combination of disjointed parts of both Federal and unitary type of constitutions. I want to make it clear that in saying what I do, I do not want to throw any blame on the Drafting Committee. I am just trying to explain the reasons that have led to this result.
