Now, Sir, with regard to the form of constitution, I am unable to agree with the constitution that is embodied in the Draft Constitution. People seem to think that the Centre must be strong, and that unless the Centre is very strong the provinces will always be an impediment in the way of the Centre becoming strong. That is a wrong view. If provinces are made autonomous, that does not necessarily mean that the Centre will be rendered weak. What do we find here? My view is that the provinces will be nothing but glorified District Boards. Look at Article 275 where in an emergency all powers can be usurped by the Centre. Look at articles 226, 227 and 229. The Centre can legislate for the provinces in all matters; and again look at the long Union List and the Concurrent List. All these clearly show that in the hands of a Central Government which wants to over ride and convert this federal system into a unitary system, it can be easily done. Now there is a danger of this sort of Government becoming totalitarian. This is the danger in the form of the constitution that is embodied in the Draft Constitution. Now to add to this, look at the Fundamental Rights that are enunciated. Can they be called Fundamental Rights at all? Fundamental Rights are those which are fundamental in character, unchangeable except in extreme circumstances. But what do you find here? These Fundamental Rights are hedged in by provisos, by overriding exceptions. There is a little confusion also in that chapter that deals with Fundamental Rights. It is said that from experience, it is found that instead of a Supreme Court deciding whether the government cannot under certain circumstances override the Fundamental Rights, provision is made in the draft itself; and it is claimed, Sir, is the provisions for the form of constitution that it must be a flexible constitution. May I, with due respect to Dr. Ambedkar, state that the rigidity and the legalism which he says must be avoided are the very essence of a written constitution? It is not an unwritten constitution as in the case of Britain. In the case of Britain, Sir, it is a matter of history. It is an unwritten constitution and it has suited the peculiar genius of the British people to go on with their work without any written constitution and the peculiar parliamentary democracy suited the British Government. The very rigidity and the legalism which Dr. Ambedkar complained of is a necessary and unavoidable characteristic of a written constitution. We do not want to be so flexible as to allow any Government to ride rough-shod over the fundamental rights. They are not written rights at all if they are hedged in by so many exceptions. What is stated as Fundamental Rights, in the very article they have been rendered useless. Further, with regard to these Fundamental Rights, it is stated in section 13 that nothing contained in this shall in any way affect the operation of the existing laws. You know very well how reactionary the existing laws have been. No doubt in Article 8 it is stated that all laws which are inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights must go, but in article 13 it is said that the existing laws must prevail as against the Fundamental Rights. Not only there is contradiction here but there is confusion. I could understand, Sir, if under Article 8 a list of Acts and their sections have been mentioned as well as those which have been annulled. That section does not make it clear. In these circumstances, Sir, I am afraid, there are no fundamental rights at all.
