Ambedkar always advocated unity of country: Justice Gavai

Justice Gavai said that “another important aspect that we…find in this first speech is with regard to the centre-state relationships.”

He said that “in the objective resolution which was proposed by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, a constitution on the American pattern was proposed wherein a separate constitution would be there for the federal government and there would be separate constitutions for the provinces as well as the princely states.”

Ambedkar had objection to what was said in para 3 which spoke about two sets of polity for the country, he pointed out.

“What does para 3 say? Para 3 says that in this country there shall be two different sets of polity. One at the bottom — autonomous provinces or the states or such other areas as where to join united India. These autonomous units will have full power. They will also have residuary powers. At the top of the provincial units there will be union government having certain subjects for legislation, for execution and for administration. As I read this part of the resolution I do not find any reference to the idea of grouping an intermediate structure between the union on the one hand and the provinces on the other”, Justice Gavai said quoting Ambedkar.

Ambekar “further stated that “I must confess that I am a great deal of surprised at the absense of any reference to the idea of grouping of provinces. So far as I am personally concerned I do not like the idea of grouping. I like a strong united centre, much stronger than the centre we had created under the Government of India Act 1935,” said Justice Gavai.

He said that “Ambedkar was always for a united India, and the interest of the nation was to be above all interests, be it the interest of the individuals, be it the interest of any caste, or be it the interest of any ideology. And therefore, he expressed his concern and asked the question, “why did not the mover of the resolution make reference to the idea of a Union of provinces or grouping of provinces on the terms on which he and his party was prepared to accept it? Why is the idea of union completely effaced from this resolution?”

Ambedkar said that “the common goal is a building up of the feeling that we are all Indians. I do not like what some people say that we are Indians first and Hindus afterwards and Muslims afterwards. I’m not satisfied with that. I do not want that our loyalty as Indians should be in the slightest way affected by any competitive loyalty, whether that loyalties arise arise out of our religion, out of our culture, or out of our language. I want all people to be Indians first, Indians last, and nothing else but Indians,” said Justice Gavai.

The directive principles of state policy also find their foundation in Ambedkar’s first speech before the constituent assembly, he said.

Justice Gavai said that Ambedkar while responding to criticism that directive priciples are nothing else but a pious declartion having no binding force, had said, “if it is said that the directive principles have no legal force behind them, I’m prepared to admit it. But I’m not prepared to admit that they have no sort of binding force at all, nor am I prepared conceded that they are useless because they have no binding force. He said that the directive principles are like an instrument of instructions to the executives and legislatures who will be discharging their duties in the future. He said that we are not drafting the constitution to enable a particular party to come into power. Rather, we are drafting the constitution to provide what will be the polity in future and for guidance to the executive and administration.”

Ambedkar added, “but whoever captures power will not be free to do what he likes with it. In the exercise of of it, he will have to respect these instruments of instructions, which are called the directive principles. He cannot ignore them. He will not have to answer for their breach in a court of law but he will certainly have to answer for them before the electorate during election time.”

There was also criticism that under the draft constitution, the centre was too strong and there were also demands that it should have been made even stronger.

Replying to these, “Ambedkar stated that the draft constitution has struck a balance. He said “however much you may deny powers to the centre, it is difficult to prevent the center from becoming strong. Conditions in the modern world are such that all centralisation of power is inevitable.” Finally, he said that the draft constitution which was prepared was workable, flexible, and strong enough to hold the country together both in peace time and in wartime,” Justice Gavai pointed out.