It is not, Sir, without a certain amount of diffidence that I stand here to move my amendment. After the great and magnificent speech of the Hon’ble the Mover of this Resolution it took me a great deal of thought and vacillation before I decided to send in this amendment especially because I thought my amendment perhaps achieved the objective which the Hon’ble the Mover had rather than stand in the way of it. I have an apprehension that perhaps attempts might be made by interested parties to isolate those of us who constitute the Constituent Assembly to-day but whatever happens, it is my desire- my extreme desire, as I know it is the desire of every one assembled here- that this Constituent Assembly shall proceed with its task. The Hon’ble Dr. Jayakar in his speech made references to several difficulties. One of the difficulties pointed out was that we have to work under the limitations laid down by the Cabinet Mission. I am nowhere near him in the matter of knowledge of constitutional law but I heard the Chairman of this Constituent Assembly saying in his speech that although there may be limitations placed on the Constituent Assembly, it has the inherent right of getting over them. I have based part of my amendment on this consideration. I will now try to point out, Sir, the difference between the original Resolution and the amendment as I have put it for it will be necessary to explain why it is that I have introduced certain changes in the Resolution. In the first place, I have altered the word ‘proclaim’ into ‘constitute’. I shall give my reason for doing so at a later stage and I would point out now only what the difference is between the Resolution and the amendment. Then I have omitted the word ‘Union’. I have introduced the words “within the shortest time” and I have said that the Constitution should not only be framed but should be laid down. These are some salient points of difference between the Resolution as proposed and my amendment. I have read the Resolution carefully and I had, on one occasion, an opportunity of placing my views to a certain extent before the Hon’ble the Mover of the Resolution, who agreed that the wording of the Resolution at certain places looked archaic. Perhaps in laying down a law or framing a constitution, it is necessary to use terms which were used 100 years before either by the framers of the American Constitution or the constitutions of other countries but I think, in our case, it might be more useful and more helpful to be precise and to state our view-point clearly in unambiguous and in easily understandable language rather than use words only because they were used in previous constitutions. I will now try to explain the reasons for the changes I propose. I think the word “proclaim” is not exactly what you would like this Constituent Assembly to do. Proclamation of independence, I suppose, has been made on other occasions before this. It is now our duty to actually constitute the State into an Independent Sovereign Republic and therefore I introduced the word “constitute”, instead of the word “proclaim”. I have also, Sir, left out the word “Union”. I believe that India is India. It needs no Union. It has got a providential Union, and I would not like even to reiterate it now as it might be interpreted that the Union of India was still to be achieved. It is quite another matter that for the time being, we may be able to enforce the Constitution we frame on only a part of India. But we look forward at the earliest possible moment to introduce it on other parts also. As such I would, if it were left to me, stick to India as such and not introduce the word “Union”. Where the word “Union” has been used in other countries there has been good reason for using that term. Here, I suppose we would be better advised to leave out the word “Union”. Then, as I said, I have used the words “frame and lay down”. I have heard it said in this House before that the Constituent Assembly has got the sanction behind it to enforce the Constitution that it frames. I have also read carefully the Declaration of May 16. It does not in any way state that this Constitution that is passed here will require the sanction of the British Parliament. The two essential conditions laid down are that a treaty will be entered into between England and India and that the minorities will be protected. I take it, therefore, that we assembled here have not merely the right and the power to frame a constitution, but also to lay down the Constitution and enforce it. That is why I have omitted the word “draw up” and used in its place the words “frame and lay down”.
