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

[…] The editor's headnote; Jinnah rebuts a newspaper's charges against him.

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.

[…] Jinnah cites Gandhi's Poona Pact for the Depressed Classes and closes on the 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.

[…] Jinnah details his objections to the federation and its safeguards, and answers comparisons with Churchill.

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.)