Now, Sir, in this age the divine right of kings has given place to the divine right of the majority, as has been put by a jurist. Our aim must be how best to temper the rigours of the majority in order that the minorities may have confidence in the majority, and in the constitution framed by the majority and may work out the constitution with all sincerity and honesty of purpose. We are assembled here as citizens of the State to frame a constitution in such a manner as to assure all sections of the population of their rights and to infuse confidence in the minds of all the sections of the population that their rights will be safeguarded. This amendment does not go any further than this, that in respect of the election of all representatives who are expected to reflect the views of a particular minority or community, at least a fair proportion of the voters of that particular minority or community should have voted for the said representatives. This is a very legitimate request and by passing this amendment, Sir, we are not taking away the right of the majority to finally determine the representative of the constituency. Therefore, Sir, I appeal to this House to dispose of this question, in the words of the Honourable Mover “in an atmosphere of friendliness”. As the Honourable Mover rightly said “we must leave behind us the legacy of bitterness” arid we must look at this question devoid of all passion. I am anxious, Sir, that this matter should be considered in an atmosphere of extreme calm. Left to myself I would have wished that this Report on the Rights of Minorities was considered at a time when this country was free from all passion and the heat of the moment has subsided and died down, but unfortunately it has been taken up now. I appeal to you, following the appeal of the Honourable Mover, to consider this question in a dispassionate manner and not to import any heat. After all we request that the members of the minority community should be afforded the necessary facilities in order that the representatives elected in their name for the purpose of speaking on their behalf may have the confidence of a fair proportion of the voters. There is nothing anti-national in it and there is nothing fundamentally wrong. On the other hand it would be granting one of the fundamental and vital rights of every citizen in any form of democracy that he should have the right to have this views represents in the parliament of the country by a person in whom he has got confidence and the members elected by the minority will after all be in a minority and the minority will not be able to dominate over the decisions of the majority in the legislature. The only purpose, is that the views and opinions of the minorities and the other communities may be reflected on the floor of the House in a proper manner by a person in whom those communities have got confidence at least to a limited extent. This is the purpose of this amendment and I do not know how it will infringe on the rights of the majority or how it will convert the majority community into a minority in any manner.
