Purnima Banerji moved an amendment according to which the preamble should begin with ‘We on behalf of the people of India from whom is derived all power and authority of the independent India….”
Mahavir Tyagi and Acharya J. B. Kripalani spoke in support of this amendment.
On the words “from whom is derived all power and authority”, Ambedkar said that the Constitution acknowledge, recognise and proclaim that it emanates from the people. “I personally myself, do not understand unless a man was an absolute pedant, that a body of people 292 in number, representing this vast continent, in their representative capacity, could not say that they are acting in the name of the people of this country”, he said. He also added that there is no justification for altering the language which has been used by the Drafting Committee.
Thus, the amendment was put to vote and was negatived.
This was followed by the motion to put the preamble to put the preamble to vote. The motion was adopted.
Selected Speeches
Purnima Banerji: Sir, my honourable Friend Mr. Tyagi has given point to my amendment and further strengthened my hands. I feel that the Preamble that we are now dealing with forms one of the most important parts of the Constitution and to persons like us who are not of a legalistic bent of mind, it stands as a charter of our freedom and as a measure of our success or our failure. It lays down the goal to which we are going and therefore at this moment if members of this House will allow us to express what we feel on this subject with a little more patience, then, I personally will be very grateful. Sir, I feel that the Constitution which we have drawn up has invested the President and Parliament with wide powers. At this moment, I do not think we should be content with considering the masses of our people as the sovereign authority from whom all power is derived and in whom all sovereign authority rests by merely believing that because they once go to the polls once in five years their sovereignty is secured. Therefore, I feel that, in the Preamble, mention of that sovereignty should be made. I have not gone beyond what the House has already passed. The wording which I have quoted here is taken almost verbatim from the Objectives Resolution which was first passed in this House in January 1947. As I said before, the three parts of the Constitution or rather three incidents in the Constitution, one, the Objectives Resolution, second the statement of Objectives of State policy and the Preamble are supposed not to have any legal binding upon the Constitution. But they, in fact, constitute the very life breath of the Constitution which we have here framed. I do not wish to take more of your time. I would strengthen my argument with the speech quoted by my honourable Friend Mr. Tyagi from the speech made by Dr. Ambedkar when he moved the Preamble. At that moment, I was not present in the House. But that has borns my contention out that the sovereignty of the people should be mentioned somewhere in the Constitution. With these words, I move my amendment.
Mahavir Tyagi: Sir, In supporting the amendment of my honourable Friend, Shrimati Banerji, I have to remind the House of the proceedings of 15th November 1948, when a similar amendment was moved by me. It was worded like this that the sovereignty will vest in the whole body of people. It was discussed thread-bare and I was assured that the article to which I was moving that amendment was not the proper place for that amendment and I was promised that this amendment would be considered when the Preamble was discussed. Now is the occasion when I beg to remind the House of the promise the Chairman of the Drafting Committee gave me. I am keen that the residence of the sovereignty should be defined, I am more keen about it because up till today the sovereignty vests in His Majesty the King of England. There is all Englishman in whom we have vested the sovereignty for a century past. So if we do not say in so many word, as to where the sovereignty would vest in future it will go on vesting in an Englishman. We want to break it away from him. Therefore we must definitely say that there is no more sovereignty attached to the King of England. Then, I also do not want to let remain any doubt or danger of any Government, this or future, to bargain or barter away the sovereignty of the Country in the name of Commonwealth or common brotherhood or common citizenship or whatever it be. So the sovereignty must be vested in so many words in the people as a whole. In China in their Constitution they have put it that the sovereignty vests in the whole people of China. Whether the Communists take China or not, the people will remain. People will not be animals if they become communists or if they adopt any party label. People will remain in India as well and the sovereignty will vest in the people of India. It must be defined so that the Government might not misuse it. It does not vest even in the Government. Government only represents the people. Because Dr. Ambedkar has agreed to put it in the Constitution, I do not want to dilate upon it and I hope he will kindly accommodate these words and make it clear once for all that the sovereignty vest in the people and not in any foreigner as it does today, nor in the state even though it has the title of being a “sovereign state”.
Acharya J. B. Kripalani: I think the amendment proposed by Shrimati Purnima Banerji should be accepted, because it really describes the true position and as such it should be enunciated in the Preamble. On formal occasion, on great occasions, on important occasions, we have to remind our selves that we are here as the representatives of the people. More than that. We have to remind ourselves that we are the servants of the people. We often forget that we are here in a representative capacity. We, often forget that we are the servants of the people. It always happens that our language, because of our thoughts and actions, gives little countenance to this basic idea. A Minister says “Our Government” not “The People’s Government.” The Prime Minister says “My Government” not the “People’s Government”. Therefore, on this solemn occasion, it is necessary to lay down clearly and distinctly that sovereignty resides in and flows from the people. (Cheers). I hope therefore, this House will carry Shrimati Purnima Banerji’s amendment.
What is suggested in this amendment is already contained in the draft Preamble
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. President, Sir, the point in the amendment which makes it, or is supposed to make it, different from the Preamble drafted by the Drafting Committee lies in the addition of the words “from whom is derived all power and authority”. The question therefore is whether the Preamble as drafted, conveys any other meaning than what is the general intention of the House, viz. that this Constitution should emanate from the people and should recognise that the sovereignty to make this Constitution vests in the people. I do not think that there is any other matter that is a matter of dispute. My contention is that what is suggested in this amendment is already contained in the draft Preamble.
Does this Constitution or does it not acknowledge, recognise and proclaim that it emanates from the people? I say it does !
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: This amendment if one were to analyse it, falls into three distinct parts. There is one part which is declaratory. The second part is descriptive. The third part is objective and obligatory if I may say so. Now, the declaratory part consists of the following phrase: ‘We the people of India, in our Constituent Assembly, day, this month…… do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves constitution.’ Those Members of the House who are worried as to whether Preamble does or does not state that this Constitution and the power and authority and sovereignty to make this Constitution vest in the people should separate the other parts of the amendment from the part which I have read out, namely the opening words ‘We the people of India in our Constituent Assembly, this day, do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution’ Reading it in that fashion……
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : That is a different matter. I am for the moment discussing this narrow point: Does this Constitution say or does this Constitution not say that the Constitution is ordained, adopted and enacted by the people. I think anybody who reads its plain language, not dissociating it from the other parts, namely the descriptive and the objective cannot have any doubt that that is what the Preamble means. Now my friend Mr. Tyagi said that this Constitution is being passed by a body of people who have been elected on a narrow franchise. It is quite true that it is not a Constituent Assembly in the sense that it includes every adult male and female in this country. But if my Friend Mr. Tyagi wants that this Constitution should not become operative unless it has been referred to the people in the form of a referendum, that is quite a different question which has nothing to do with the point which we are debating whether this Constitution Should have validity if it was passed by this Constituent Assembly or whether it will have validity only when it is passed on a referendum. That is quite a different matter altogether. It has nothing to do with the point under debate. The point under debate is this: Does this Constitution or does it not acknowledge, recognise and proclaim that it emanates from the people? I say it does.
I would like honourable Members to consider also the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States. I shall read a portion of it. It says: “we the people of the United States” — I am not reading the other parts — “We the people of the United States do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” As most Members know, that Constitution was drafted by a very small body. I forget now the exact details and the number of the States that were represented in that small body which met at Philadelphia to draw up the Constitution. (Honourable Members There were 13 States). There were 13 States. Therefore, if the representatives of 13 States assembled in a small conference in Philadelphia could pass a Constitution and say that what they did was in the name of the people, on their authority, basing on it their sovereignty. I personally myself, do not understand unless a man was an absolute pedant, that a body of people 292 in number, representing this vast continent, in their representative capacity, could not say that they are acting in the name of the people of this country. (‘Hear, hear’).
We wish to delete every vestige of the sovereignty of the British Parliament
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : That is a different matter, Maulana. I cannot deal with that. Therefore, so far as that contention is concerned, I submit that there need be no ground for any kind of fear or apprehension. No person in this House desires that there should be anything in this Constitution which has the remotest semblance of its having been derived from the sovereignty of the British Parliament. Nobody has the slightest desire for that. In fact we wish to delete every vestige of the sovereignty of the British Parliament such as it existed before the operation of this Constitution. There is no difference of opinion between any Member of this House and any Member of the Drafting Committee so far as that is concerned. Some Members, I suppose, have a certain amount of fear or apprehension that, on account of the fact that earlier this year the Constituent Assembly joined in making a declaration that this country will be associated with the British Commonwealth, that association has in some way derogated from the sovereignty of the people. Sir, I do not think that that is a right view to take Every independent country must have some kind of a treaty with some other country. Because one sovereign country makes a treaty with another sovereign country, that country does not become less sovereign on that account. (Interruption). I am taking the worst example I know that some people have that sort of fear. (Interruption)
I say that this Preamble embodies what is the desire of every Member of the House that this Constitution should have its root, its authority, its sovereignty, from the people. That it has. Therefore I am not prepared to accept the amendment. I do not want to say anything about the text of the amendment. Probably the amendment is somewhat worded, if I may say so with all respect, in a form which would not fit in the Preamble as we have drafted, and therefore on both these grounds I think there is no justification for altering the language which has been used by the Drafting Committee.
