Speech on the Report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee, Legislative Assembly

[p. 1] [After the three sittings of the Round Table Conference a White Paper, embodying the proposals of the British Government for constitutional reforms, was issued. Later a Joint Committee consisting of members of both Houses of Parliament was appointed to go through the whole question. After prolonged sittings and cross-examination of witnesses the Committee published its recommendations in its Report. The Legislative Assembly in India was also invited to discuss the Report and express its opinion. The scheme recommended by the Committee was in two parts—one proposing a federation of Indian States and British Indian provinces, the other conferring autonomy on the provinces. Another aspect of the Report was the Communal Award which fixed the proportion of representation of the various communities and interests in the legislatures, provincial and federal. The most weighty and successful contribution to the debate was made by Mr. Jinnah who, as leader of the Independent Party, took an eminently sane and practical view of the matter and reflected the true Muslim opinion. The position was that the Federal scheme was most retrograde and detrimental specially from the Muslim point of view. The provincial scheme had many objectionable features, but it did represent a certain amount of advance on the present position. As for the Communal Award, it held the field in the absence of any agreed solution of the problem. Mr. Jinnah proved himself to be the greatest strategist on the occasion. His amendment to the original resolution for acceptance of the Report was in three parts. Firstly, his amendment recommending acceptance of the Communal Award till an agreed solution is found was carried, the Congress Party remaining neutral and Government supporting. The other two parts expressing dissatisfaction with the provincial scheme and completely rejecting the Federal part were carried, the Congress Party supporting the amendment. The result of the debate was hailed as a personal triumph for Mr. Jinnah, his political acumen, and parliamentary skill.]

[p. 2] MR. M. A. JINNAH (Bombay City: Muhammadan Urban): Sir, on an occasion of such grave importance, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the attacks and misrepresentations that have been made with regard to my position regarding this question, and I think the House will bear with me for a few minutes. A newspaper, of the standing and position like the Statesman, has, in its recent issue dated the 2nd February, stated this:

"Race hatred is the prime mover of the Congress Party which has an important following. No doubt, they will always find fortuitous allies like Mr. Jinnah."

Sir, I repel that with all the power that I can command. ("Hear, hear" from the Opposition Benches.) I bear no race hatred of any kind whatsoever to any race. (Hear, hear.)

SIR MUHAMMAD YAKUB (Rohilkund and Kumaon Divisions: Muhammadan Rural): Shame to that paper!

MR. M. A. JINNAH: Then the paper proceeds further and says this :

"Mr. Jinnah, who started as a keen Round Tabler, an enthusiastic Federalist—"

—yes, I admit, Sir, I was not only a keen Round Tabler, but, if I may say so, I was the keenest Round Tabler, but I did not start as an enthusiastic Federalist. From the very commencement, rightly or wrongly, I knew that the scheme would never materialise in a manner which would satisfy the legitimate aspirations of India. Then, this paper further on says:

"Is now," (that is I) "dissatisfied, because he was not invited to the later sittings of the Conference."

SEVERAL HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

MR. M. A. JINNAH : I was not invited to the later sittings of the Conference, because I was the strongest opponent of the scheme, that was being constructed, from the commencement, and not that I have become an opponent because I was [p. 3] not invited to the Third Round Table Conference. Sir, these lies, these insinuations, these reflections are not worthy of any newspaper worth the name...

THE HONOURABLE SIR HENRY CRAIK: I hope the Honourable Member is not associating me with those remarks, because he keeps on looking at me. I had nothing to do with it. May I assure my friend that I have not even read what he has just read out? I never heard of the article before, and this is the first time I hear it from my Honourable friend.

SIR MUHAMMAD YAKUB: Now, probably the Honourable the Home Member will associate himself with what Mr. Jinnah has said against that newspaper.

MR. M. A. JINNAH: Well, Sir, I will leave it at that. I do not for a moment include the Honourable the Home Member in the criticism I have made, or for the matter of that, I do not include any other Englishman, except the writer of that article.

THE HONOURABLE SIR HENRY CRAIK: I know nothing about it.

MR. M. A. JINNAH: I will say no more about it for the moment.

Coming, Sir, to the question before the House, first I shall deal with some of the observations that fell from my Honourable friend, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Desai. Sir, I do not agree with his amendment. His first amendment is a flat rejection. I admit that I do not dispute it, and I don't think he disputes it either; it is a flat rejection, because he asks that no legislation shall be proceeded with based on the Joint Parliamentary Committee's Report. That means that if we accept it, everything goes, and I think he will also admit that nothing remains, even his neutrality in regard to the Communal Award goes. Is that the reason why he, having taken up the position that it should be thrown out lock, stock and [p. 4] barrel, says in the second part of his amendment that he is neutral to the Communal Award? Now, Sir, I cannot accept his view. He has no alternative either, and, therefore, it is a pure and simple negative position, and I cannot subscribe to that position. That is the reason, Sir, why I have been compelled to put forward my amendment. My amendment accepts the Communal Award,—and, remember, until when,—until a substitute is agreed upon between the communities concerned. Now, it may be that our Hindu friends are not satisfied with the Communal Award, but at the same time I can also tell the House that my Muhammadan friends are not satisfied with it either (Hear, hear), because it does not meet their full demand. And, speaking for myself, personally, I am not satisfied with the Communal Award (Hear, hear), and, again, speaking as an individual, my self-respect will never be satisfied until we produce our own scheme. (An Honourable Member: "Very good of you.") (Hear, hear.) Do not relegate me only to God, but take the man into consideration also. But why do I accept it? I do not want to go into the past history, but I can tell the House that I accept it, because we have done everything that we could so far to come to a settlement, and, though, so far, we have not been able to come to a settlement, and, therefore, whether I like it or whether I do not like it, I accept it, because unless I accept that, no scheme of Constitution is possible. ("Hear, hear" from Official Benches.) Therefore, please stop this talk of rejection now. For the time being let it stand. I entirely reciprocate every sentiment which the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition expressed, and I agree with him that religion should not be allowed to come into politics, that race should not be allowed to come into politics. Language does not matter so much, I agree with him, if taken singly one by one. Religion is merely a matter between man and God, I agree with him there entirely, but I ask him to consider this,—is this a question [p. 5] of religion purely? Is this a question of language purely? No, Sir, this is a question of minorities and it is a political issue. (Some Muslim Honourable Member: “Civilisation and culture.”) Have we not got in other countries questions of minorities? Have not those problems been faced and solved?—and this problem must also be faced and solved. Now, what are the minorities? Minorities mean a combination of things. It may be that a minority has a different religion from the other citizens of a country. Their language may be different, their race may be different, their culture may be different, and the combination of all these various elements—religion, culture, race, language, art, music, and so forth makes the minority a separate entity in the State, and that separate entity as an entity wants safeguards. Surely, therefore, we must face this question as a political problem; we must solve it and not evade it.

Then my Honourable friend laid down the proposition; acquisition first and distribution afterwards. There is a great fallacy, if I may say so, most respectfully, in that statement. This is not a question of acquisition and distribution. It is not that we are acquiring some land, it is not that we are going to enter upon a venture and then we share or distribute the spoils. But, may I know, if that proposition is correct, why did Mahatma Gandhi fast to death and come to an agreement with the sanction and concurrence of all Leaders from India and arrive at the Poona Pact as regards the Depressed Classes? (Hear, hear.) Why were they not told, acquisition first and distribution afterwards? (Hear, hear.) Mahatma Gandhi was right. He knew, and they are drawn from your race, they are Hindus, 50 or 60 millions of Hindus. He was right, and I agree with him. I begged of him in England. First he said: "No, I will not divide the Hindus. I will never agree to this." I begged of him. Believe me, I pleaded more for the Depressed Classes before Mahatma Gandhi than I did for the Mussalmans. But he [p. 6] was adamant, but ultimately he did realize, and I congratulate my Hindu brethren that they have, by recognizing and giving this protection and safeguard to the Depressed Classes, won them over, and to-day he is still working for their amelioration. Show us the same spirit, join hands with us and we are ready. (Hear, hear.) I will say no more about the Communal Award.

Now, I come to the question of my amendment. Sir, the Honourable the Leader of the House was very hard on me. He said, he understood the straightforward, honest amendment of the Leader of the Opposition, but he said that mine was a disingenuous...

THE HONOURABLE SIR NRIPENDRA SIRCAR (Leader of the House): Crooked and tortuous.

MR. M. A. JINNAH: He reminded me of a petty court where a petty lawyer, when he has got a bad case, abuses the other side. So he started by abusing me. He never told me why it was crooked, why it was tortuous, and why it was disingenuous.

THE HONOURABLE SIR NRIPENDRA SIRCAR: I will tell you at 3-30.

MR. M. A. JINNAH: Ah! That is the game, that is adopting tactics which are not fair in this House. It may have been all right if he was in the High Court working for a reply. I want Government to put their cards on the table and tell me on what grounds you say that my amendment is disingenuous, tortuous and crooked.....

THE HONOURABLE SIR NRIPENDRA SIRCAR : Grounds I have stated.

MR. M. A. JINNAH: You have not stated. What does he say? Mr. Jinnah, by his amendment—I suppose he meant No. 3, he could not have meant No. 2,—he said, if the third amendment of Mr. Jinnah was carried, what would happen? He said, “What he wants us to do is this. He wants to destroy the foundation, he wants to keep the upper storey [p. 7] and wants us to change the glasses and windows." Is that your answer? Have you studied your own Bill? There is no foundation that we can talk of except one, and there is no storey, and the only storey is the pretty story of the Law Member about glasses and windows. Go and deliver those stories to the children. (Laughter.) There is no such thing as a storey here, and I shall illustrate it to the House. Let us examine this thing. Now, what are we doing? We are building a constitutional scheme for the provinces first, then we are building a scheme for the Central Government, it is all ground floor, there is no storey. I was threatened further, if the third amendment of mine were carried, the whole Bill would drop. But what does the Bill itself do? What does the Joint Parliamentary Committee Report itself say? It says that, in the first instance, Provincial Autonomy will come into being as soon as this Bill is passed, or very soon after it. But the Federation is not coming into being. It may take two years, it may take three years, it may take five years, and they have laid down in this very report and the White Paper proposals that there may be difficulties after the Provincial Autonomy has come into being in full working order. There may be difficulties, and there are various other conditions which have got to be complied with. They have got to get the assent of the princes, they have got to get the instruments of accession, they have got other things to do. Then, at page 286 of the Joint Parliamentary Committee Report, we find this:

"It is probable that it will be found convenient, or even necessary, that the new Provincial Governments should be brought into being in advance of the changes in the Central Government and the entry of the States. But the coming into being of the autonomous Provinces will only be the first step towards the complete Federation for which the Constitution Act will provide; and His Majesty's Government have stated that if causes beyond [p. 8] their control should place obstacles in the way of this programme, they will take steps to review the whole position in consultation with Indian opinion.

"Provision will, accordingly, be required in the Constitution Act for the period, however short it may be, by which Provincial Autonomy may precede the complete establishment of the Federation. The nature of the transitory arrangements contemplated for this purpose is explained in paragraph 202 of the Proposals."

And that is provided in the Bill itself. Therefore, the question of Federation coming into being still is suspended, it is subject to the vote of the two Houses of Parliament, and is subject to various other conditions which will have to be complied with. Now, my reply to you is this. Please stop this scheme,—remember, I want to emphasise, this scheme of Federation, stop it. I do not want to wait for those conditions to arise. The conditions have already arisen in my judgment, and I say, stop this. What are the conditions that have arisen? The conditions that have arisen are these. I have seen your scheme and it is thoroughly rotten, fundamentally bad and totally unacceptable. (An Honourable Member: "Why?") Why am I to be told that the whole Bill will be dropped? That is what I want to know. And now I will tell you why I object to the Central scheme. I object to the Central scheme first. Take your own words, Sir, not as the President, but as a public man, as a prominent leader and a Leader of the Independent Party. This is what you said: "The scheme is wholly unnatural, artificial and unknown to any Constitution." I would add to that—it is devoid of all basic and essential elements and the fundamental requirements which are necessary to form any Federation. My second ground is that it proposes the entry of the princes on terms and conditions laid down by them, as sine qua non and as conditions precedent, and which are, [p. 9] on the face of them, most detrimental to the vital interests of British India. There may be an impression that I am against the princes. I am not against the princes. I am not against anybody. I am for British India. It is not that I do not wish to have anything to do with the princes. I have said it over and over again that I am not opposed to all-India Federation and the Honourable the Home Member very rightly said that even Mahatma Gandhi was not opposed to all-India Federation. What follows from that? When I say that I am not opposed to all-India Federation, does it follow from that that you are to hold me to any scheme of all-India Federation that you laid down, however bad and however unacceptable it may be? Is that the argument? The point is not that we are opposed to all-India Federation, but what kind of all-India Federation? I say, standing on the floor of the House, that I do not preclude myself from considering any alternative scheme of all-India Federation which, I think, is in the interests of British India, and I shall be only too glad if I am satisfied that it is good to accept it. I know this also that having regard to these impossible terms, which the princes have laid down it is impossible to construct any kind of Federation worth its name, and, therefore, I say it is no use going on like this. We have gone on for four years. On the one hand, the princes have laid down their definite ultimatum—this and no more. On the other hand the British Government have laid down their safeguards—an iron wall. This you must accept! And I am between the two. You accept this and call it a Federation. That is not a fair way of looking at the scheme. Therefore, I am obliged to say this scheme is not acceptable. As regards the Honourable the Home Member, I accept every word of what he said about his sincerity. I appreciate his appeal. I understand the spirit in which he spoke. I am thankful to him for all that. I know that he believes what he said. What he said was this: take this and work it.

[p. 10] He said: “When there was no light, what happened to Moses? He was in darkness.” True, but is there any light here? Is this the light? I say that Moses is still in darkness.

THE HONOURABLE SIR HENRY CRAIK: My point was that it was not we but the Congress Party who blew out the candle.

MR. M. A. JINNAH: When it suits the Home Member, when it suits the Government, they say that the Congress represents the whole of India. When it suits them, they say that the Congress is only rebels and a minority in this country. Where do I come in? Where do all these stand (pointing to some of the Muslim Members and the rest of the House)? This really is not a fair argument—because of the utterances of a few of my countrymen, you are going to impose this Constitution on India and, therefore, I should accept it. Might I not turn round and say: "What about Mr. Churchill, Lord Lloyd, Sir Michael O'Dwyer, Sir Reginald Craddock and the rest of them?" If I am to believe their utterances and go by them, would I not be justified to say: "I will kick the British out from India at once and there is nothing to talk about?" Do I say that? But the British Government are determined to impose on me this Constitution, which, they know perfectly well, as well as I do, is much worse than the present Constitution. Why do they want to impose this upon us against our will? If I were to go by the utterances of one section or one party, and then decide to meet that, it is not a fair deal to India. It is an excuse. When I have examined this problem in no light manner, but with full responsibility, what do I find? I believe that it means nothing but absolute sacrifice of all that British India has stood for and developed during the last 50 years, in the matter of progress in the representative form of Government. No province was consulted as such. No consent of the provinces has been obtained, whether they are willing to federate as federating units on [p. 11] the terms which are laid down by the princes or by the British Government. My next objection is that it is not workable. It does not really satisfy anybody and it certainly does not satisfy the minimum demand of anybody. It is not workable. Believe me, it will lead us to nothing but bitterness and ill-will, nothing but wrangles in the so-called Federal Legislature. I appeal to the princes to consider whether they are prepared to draw the chestnuts out of the fire. I appeal to the princes also—is this the responsibility which they laid down for the Centre and on which condition they were prepared to come into the Federation? The princes laid it down that, "yes, we are willing to come, provided there is a real, substantial responsibility at the Centre." Do they find that that is there? Here there are 98 per cent. of the safeguards and two per cent. of responsibility! Sir, I appeal to them to consider this aspect.

Now, next, what do we find about the safeguards? I am not going into the various clauses of the Statute. I will only give a short summary to the House in two sentences. Reserve Bank, Currency, Exchange—nothing doing. Railway Board—nothing doing, mortgaged to the hilt. What is left? Fiscal Autonomy Convention. (Laughter.) Next, what is left? Defence, External Affairs—reserved. Finance—it is already mortgaged to the hilt, our Budget, and the little that may be there, what do we find? Special responsibility of the Governor-General! His powers as to the Budget and the estimates, his powers as to the interference in legislation, his extraordinary powers, his special responsibility, Sir, what do they leave us? What will this Legislature do? The Honourable the Home Member said: "Are we willing to go on with this present humiliating and intolerable Constitution?" I say, I do not like this Constitution, it is humiliating, it is intolerable, but I will refer you to the words of Lord Reading. It has got more powers than the one that you are giving me, and the one that [p. 12] you are proposing now is more humiliating and more intolerable than the present one. But I know they will say to me,—and I think somebody said that the Leader of the Opposition is really playing the same rôle as Mr. Winston Churchill,—and that I shall be told also probably that I am playing the same rôle as Mr. Winston Churchill because he wants to wreck the scheme and we are joining hands with Mr. Churchill. You will say that to me. Yes, I know that,

THE HONOURABLE SIR HENRY CRAIK : You are.

MR. M. A. JINNAH : I am doing it with my eyes open.

THE HONOURABLE SIR NRIPENDRA SIRCAR: You may change any moment, Churchill won't.

MR. M. A. JINNAH: I am not concerned whether the Law Member changes or whether I change. I am now concerned with expressing my opinion. This, Sir, is a grave moment. I have to express my opinion and I must express my opinion with all the responsibility, and I must express my opinion deliberately and clearly, and that is what I am concerned with. Nor am I concerned with the threat of the Law Member that the Bill will be dropped. He knows nothing about it. (Laughter). The whole of the Government of India know nothing about it. What is the good of their pretending? I am not going to make any appeal to them. As the Home Member very correctly said, neither the Government nor the people of this country have the last word; the last word is with Parliament. I want to express my opinion for the benefit of Parliament and I want to tell them what my opinion is, and let them take the consequences. Therefore, if the Home Member said: "You are playing into the hands of Mr. Churchill," my answer is: "If you want to misunderstand us, do so, if you want to misrepresent us, do so. We are not agreeing with Mr. Churchill. Mr. Churchill's point is that he does not want any advance at the Centre. That is not my point. My point is that I do not want this scheme at the Centre, and [p. 13] I call upon you to review the whole position in consultation with Indian opinion and to establish a responsible Government in my country." (Loud and Prolonged Applause.) That is the difference. Well, Sir, as I say, therefore, it is no use misrepresenting us. Then, Sir, it is really a breach of a solemn announcement made by the Viceroy, then Lord Irwin, now Lord Halifax, and, as Mr. Sastri said, with the change of his name, he has changed his views also. (Laughter.) But, Sir, the announcement that he made was not on his own personal behalf, but on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and what was that announcement? "That His Majesty's Government will place those proposals before Parliament which will receive the largest common measure of agreement." I ask you in all your conscience: has the scheme received the largest common measure of agreement—I mean of the Indian opinion? It may have received the largest common measure of agreement of the Conservative Party, but that was not the announcement. Therefore, there is no agreement. Then, we were told in our earlier stages that we were going to make India an equal partner. Sir, that word is dropped recently. Is this a partnership? Sir, the meaning of the word "partnership" and the meaning of "co-operation" with our British friends was this, that "we will call you a partner, but you must do as I tell you." Well, we will call it "co-operation and good-will" provided you submit to me in everything that I say and everything that I do. That is good-will! That is co-operation! Sir, I, from the very start, felt—and I am more convinced than I was at that time—that this idea of an all-India Federation was started as a device in order to withhold responsibility at the Centre in the British Indian Constitution. We were put on the wrong track. Anybody, who had any sense must have seen or at any rate, within a short time, realized that the scheme, which we were led into and had undertaken to construct was [p. 14] impossible really to construct. It was an impossibility almost from the start, and now there is this vicious circle: Provincial Autonomy, Federation, then Responsibility at the Centre. What responsibility at the Centre? This. If you don't accept this scheme, no responsibility at the Centre, and there is nothing more to be done, and even Provincial Autonomy must go. The whole thing is to be dropped. I, therefore, say to this House that the third part of my amendment really is clear, is definite in this that I do not accept the scheme, and I call upon His Majesty's Government to review the whole position in consultation with Indian opinion.

My friend, Mr. Mody, said why not say now that these are the modifications we want. The answer I can give is this. I think the House will agree with me, because it is on record that at the First Round Table Conference we made proposals and suggestions which ended in the Sankey report. We practically rejected most of the important considerations. At the next Round Table Conference, we again made proposals and suggestions. It was worse than the first one. And what is more important is that when they say that the proposals that we made would give us an advantage, they took jolly good care to see that some safeguard is invented to prevent that being exercised. The Third Round Table Conference was still worse. Then came the Joint Parliamentary Committee. I do not challenge for a single moment that some of the Indian gentlemen who associated with the Joint Parliamentary Committee were patriots. They were men for whom I have respect, however much I may disagree with them. They tried their very best. As Mr. Sastri said, they were not only incurable optimists like my Honourable friend, Mr. Mody, but they were chronic and incurable co-operators and they hoped against hope and they thought that they could still appeal to the fair mind of the British people and the British [p. 15] statesmen and they went on in that hope. Ultimately, when all failed, they prepared a Joint Memorandum. All sections—Hindus, Muhammadans, Parsees and others—jointly said: At least give effect to these modifications. They were the moderate of moderates. What has happened to it? Where is that joint Memorandum now? It is in the waste-paper basket. Sir, I say, our self-respect demands that, helpless as we are, we must move on. We have seen this scheme, and we are not going to accept it. I want no more dilly-dallying; I want to express my definite opinion. I am threatened: Are you going to remain in darkness for ever? Are you going to go without a Constitution of any kind for ever? Well, these threats are not going to disturb me. These threats are not going to prevent me from expressing my views. If you like, go on with this Constitution. Therefore, Sir, I hope I have convinced the House that I am not taking merely what you may call a petulant attitude or that I am trying to force my views on anybody. I say, these are the events and I say that we must really express our opinion now unequivocally. Then, about the safeguards. It is said—I think the Honourable the Law Member said it—that these safeguards will not be used. Sir, I have got the speech of the Secretary of State for India with me, and I do not want to quote it. But he says that these safeguards are going to be used. Not only are they going to be used, but he says: Remember what is behind them. The whole service is behind us, and ultimately he says the whole army is behind us, and these safeguards are going to be used. So, what is the good of telling me that they are not going to be used?

The next thing I wish to say is this. Sir Joseph Bhore made an appeal—a personal appeal, and I have great respect for him. I have very great respect for his opinion. He said, make the best of it. Sir, I would have understood that, but then he quoted Abraham Lincoln, a great patriot with [p. 16] noble sentiments. When he quoted Abraham Lincoln, it reminded me “the devil quoting the scripture.” He did not finish the scripture. Is there any analogy between what Abraham Lincoln said there and the conditions and the circumstances that were in front of him and the conditions and circumstances that are in front of us? Sir, that is what I have to say so far as the third part of my amendment is concerned.

With regard to the second part of my amendment, I think Honourable Members ought to appreciate that I am not carried away by any extraneous considerations. If I had been, I would have certainly agreed with my Honourable friend, the Leader of the Opposition. I may be wrong or I may be right, but I do believe and I have no hesitation in saying so on the floor of this House, that so far as the provincial schemes are concerned, they are undoubtedly an advance on the present, and that is why I want to make a distinction. They are an advance to this extent, and I will put it shortly. First of all, the franchise, the enlargement of the electors and voters. That is the foundation-stone of any Constitution. That is an advance in my judgment. Next, all the Members of the Provincial Legislatures will be elected: that is an advance. Your Cabinet in the provinces will be of the elected Members responsible to the Legislature and the Legislature will be responsible to the electorates. That frame-work of the Provincial Constitution is undoubtedly an advance. But having done that, there are certain objectionable features which I have already pointed out, such as, the Second Chamber and the Governor's powers. I think the Honourable the Leader of the House was wrong when he said that I was only dealing with special responsibility. My amendment deals not only with special responsibility but it says that there are some highly objectionable features, particularly the Second Chamber and the extraordinary and special responsibility [p. 17] powers. I am not making any distinction—and, of course, rules with regard to the Police and the Intelligence Department. Therefore, the distinction that I make is that with regard to the provincial scheme I cannot say that I am so fundamentally opposed to it as to reject it. Therefore, I say, please make those modifications, and if you make those modifications...

MR. S. SATYAMURTI : Is there any chance ?

MR. M. A. JINNAH: I am not going now by chances. I am not gambling here.

MR. S. SATYAMURTI : You are.

MR. M. A. JINNAH: I am not. I am expressing my opinion. I am not here at a game of chance. Therefore, I am expressing my opinion and I am expressing it, as far as it lies in my judgment, honestly and fairly and consistent with the realities and the facts. Therefore, I say, make these modifications. I think the Honourable Member, the Leader of the Opposition, said that my amendment also means a rejection.

MR. S. SATYAMURTI (sitting): Even the Leader of the House says so.

MR. M. A. JINNAH : Have you got to say anything ?

[Mr. Jinnah sat down, but there was no reply from Mr. Satyamurti.]

The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition said that my amendment also means rejection, I mean the third part of my amendment. He takes a legal view, and, to a certain extent, he is right, and I will tell you to what extent he is right. You have made an offer, and so far as he is concerned, he says: "I do not look at it. It is so bad and I am so much disgusted with it that I do not want to look at it or any part of it."

MR. BHULABHAI J. DESAI (Bombay Northern Division : Non-Muhammadan Rural): I have looked at it, but found it disgusting.

[p. 18] MR. M. A. JINNAH: He says: "I won't look at it again; I am finished with it." I, on the other hand, say: "Yes, I have examined it: it is bad as far as provinces go, and the Central scheme is totally bad, fundamentally bad: however, I do not stop there, but I make you a counter-proposal," because, I think, it is my duty not merely to indulge in a flat negative. You will say: "What do you want then?" Well Moses does not want to be in darkness for all time. Moses says to you: "This is my alternative and proceed with it." Modify the Provincial scheme, drop the Central scheme, and review the whole position in consultation with Indian opinion with a view to establishing complete responsible Government in British India. Sir, I have done. (Applause.)