Renuka Ray: A Stalwart Advocate for Women’s Rights and Constitutional Equality
Renuka Ray, born on 4th January 1903, emerged as a beacon of change in the landscape of India’s struggle for independence and the subsequent framing of its constitution. A devout follower of Mahatma Gandhi, Ray’s journey was marked by unwavering commitment to social justice, women’s rights, and constitutional principles.
Basic details and biography of Renuka Ray:
| Birthdate | 4th January 1903 |
| Deathdate | 1997 |
| Party Affiliation | Indian National Congress |
| Constituency | West Bengal |
| Mother Tongue | Bangla |
| Education | Graduate |
| Committee Memberships | None |
| Notable Contributions | – Advocate for women’s rights and inheritance rights – Author of ‘Legal Disabilities of Women in India: A Plea for a Commission of Inquiry’ – Worked against women trafficking and for the improvement of conditions of female labourers – Fought for Uniform Personal Law Code – Represented India in the UN General Assembly in 1949. |
| Role in Independence Movement | – Inspired by Gandhi, joined his Ashram and participated in protests. |
| Contribution to Constitution Making | – Elected to the Constituent Assembly from West Bengal – Advocated for women’s rights, minority rights, and a Uniform Personal Law Code. |
| Later Contributions | – Represented India in the UN General Assembly – Elected to West Bengal Legislature in 1952 and Parliament in 1957 – Awarded Padma Bhushan in 1988. |
| Key Writings | – ‘My Reminiscences: Social Development During Gandhian Era And After’. |
| Key Speeches | – Advocated against special constitutional privileges and reservations for women – Moved an amendment to prohibit religious instructions in public-funded schools – Expressed scepticism about the efficacy of a ‘bicameral legislature’. |
Early Life and Education
Ray’s early education at Loreto House School and Diocesan College, Calcutta, laid the foundation for her intellectual prowess. The Indian political scenario, undergoing transformation in the early 20th century, became a subject of deep interest for Ray. Inspired by Gandhi’s clarion call for the fight against British rule, she joined Gandhi’s ashram, actively participating in protests that shaped her commitment to the cause of independence. Ray’s quest for knowledge led her to the London School of Economics, where she honed her understanding of social and political dynamics.
Role in India’s Independence Movement
A staunch advocate for women’s rights, Ray played a pivotal role as the legal secretary to the All India Women’s Conference. In 1934, she authored a seminal work, ‘Legal Disabilities of Women in India: A Plea for a Commission of Enquiry,’ addressing the systemic challenges faced by women. Her work extended beyond theory, as she actively worked towards the prevention of women trafficking and tirelessly campaigned for the improvement of conditions for female laborers. Ray’s efforts during this period laid the groundwork for her enduring legacy as a champion of gender equality.
Contribution to Constitution Making
Ray’s journey took a constitutional turn as she was elected to the Constituent Assembly from West Bengal. Her interventions in the Assembly reflected her commitment to women’s rights, minority rights, and the structure of the bicameral legislature. Notably, she advocated for a Uniform Personal Law Code, emphasizing equality and justice for all citizens.
Later Contributions and Recognition
Ray’s commitment to public service extended beyond the Constituent Assembly. In 1949, she represented India in the United Nations General Assembly, showcasing her dedication to global issues. Elected to the West Bengal Legislature in 1952 and the Parliament in 1957, Ray continued to shape India’s political landscape. Her exemplary services were recognized with the prestigious Padma Bhushan in 1988, a testament to her enduring impact on public affairs.
Key Writings and Speeches
Ray’s literary contributions include the autobiographical work ‘My Reminiscences: Social Development During Gandhian Era And After.’ This insightful piece provided a panoramic view of Indian social development from the early 20th century to the Seventies.
In her speeches, Ray passionately argued against special constitutional privileges and reservations for women, promoting the idea of equal opportunities. During discussions on religious rights, she moved an amendment to prohibit religious instructions in public-funded schools, underlining her commitment to a secular educational system. Her skepticism about the efficacy of a ‘bicameral legislature’ in the Indian political setup showcased her critical thinking and commitment to refining the democratic process.
In conclusion, Renuka Ray’s life and work stand as an inspiring testament to the transformative power of individuals dedicated to the principles of justice, equality, and constitutional ideals. Her legacy continues to resonate, reminding us of the indomitable spirit required to shape a nation’s destiny.
Selected Speeches from Constitutional Assembly Debates:
Equality of Status and Justice for Women[1]
Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal: General): Mr. President, Sir, I rise to support Clause 19 and in particular Section (2) of this Clause which provides for territorial representation without reservation of seats. We are particularly opposed to the reservation of seats for women. Ever since the start of the Womens’ Movement in this country, women have been fundamentally opposed to special privileges and reservations (hear, hear). Through the centuries of our decadence, subjection and degradation, the position of women too has gone down until she has gradually lost all her rights both in law and in society. Nonetheless, with the first stirrings of consciousness amongst women, there never arose any narrow suffragist movement that has been so common in so many so-called enlightened nations. Women in this country have striven for their rights, for equality of status, for justice and fairplay and most of all to be able to take their part in responsible work in the service of their country. The social backwardness of women has been sought to be exploited in the same manner as backwardness of so many sections in this country by those who wanted to deny the country its freedom.
Before the 1935 Act came in, the representatives of India’s women made it very clear that they were against the reservation of seats or any special privileges for women. They made this clear through the All India Women’s Conference. Our representatives, the three women who gave evidence before the Joint Parliamentary Committee, made it clear in unequivocal terms — (I may say that Rajkumari Amrit Kaur was one of the three women) — that we did not want reservation, but in spite of our protests, and in direct contravention to our desires, reservation of seats was brought into the 1935 Act. This Act has been so great a factor in bringing dissensions in our fold and has at last divided the country. But where the heart is strong, where there is sound judgment, no machinations can divide and the women did not allow themselves to be caught in the trap. It would be wrong to say that all the credit for our attitude goes to women. From the very start of our national awakening in this country, enlightened men have encouraged women to come forward as equal partners in the struggle for freedom and to do service for national regeneration in the different walks of life. When Mahatma Gandhi gave his call so specifically to the women of this country to take part in the national movement, all the social barriers of centuries broke down. There are no words to convey the gratitude of the women of this country to this great man — who has today brought the country to the very threshold of freedom (hear, hear). So, it is not only the inherent qualities of women but more particularly I should say the qualities of our men that is responsible for the fact that in our country, there has never been any strife between men and women.
When the Hindu Law Reform Bills were put in the Central Assembly, women were naturally anxious that these Bills which conceded certain rights to them should be adopted, but we found an opposition which was not so great in numerical strength but which was very formidable because of the fact that it was from a reactionary group who were the erstwhile supporters of the then Government and who were also betraying the country at every turn. The alien Government could not afford to displease them, and unless we too were willing to barter away our souls and our birthright, we could not fight that opposition.
Sir, what we have upheld so long has come to pass today. We always held that when the men who have fought and struggled for their country’s freedom came to power, the rights and liberties of women too would be guaranteed. We already see the evidence of this today. No reservation of seats was required to induce the men who are today in power to select a woman as Ambassador, the second in the history of any nation. Vijayalakshmi Pandit has not been selected because she is a woman nor was sex made a bar to the appointment. It is her proven worth that has been responsible for her appointment to the high office of ambassador to a land which is admittedly one of the greatest forces in the world today. This has vindicated our position and women are indeed proud of this. I am confident that it will not be only women of exceptional ability who in future will be called upon to occupy positions of responsibility, but all women who are equally capable, equally able as men will be considered irrespective of sex.
In the legislatures of India, we have some women, but there are few women who have come from general constituencies. I think that the psychological factor comes into play when there is reservation of seats for women. When there is reservation of seats for women, the question of their consideration for general seats, however competent they may be, does not usually arise. We feel that women will get more chances in the future to come forward and work in the free India, if the consideration is of ability alone.
With these words, Sir, I should like to support this Clause which has done away once and for all with reservation of seats for women, which we consider to be an impediment to our growth and an insult to our very intelligence and capacity.
Question of Religious Minorities and Majorities in a Secular State[2]
Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal: General): Sir, I rise to oppose this last amendment. The report of the Advisory Committee shows very clearly that its authors have done their utmost to satisfy all elements in the country. In fact, Sir, if the report has erred it has erred in the direction of over generosity to the so-called minorities. In order to allay suspicion and distrust and to come to an agreed solution it has given every consideration to those who are swayed by communal and religious considerations even to the sacrifice of national interests. After all Sir, it is not a question of minorities and majorities on a religious basis that we should consider in a democratic secular State. We have agreed to the reservation of seats just for the time being for the next ten years to allow those who cannot think of themselves in terms of “Indians” to adjust themselves over this period. I am surprised that the Mover of this amendment should have persisted today in bringing it forward. After the stirring appeal that was made by Sardar Patel and the very cogent and comprehensive arguments put forward by Pandit Pant to show that separate electorates are not only discordant and jarring to national interests but against the interests of the very communities for which they are intended, I thought he would not have pressed this amendment.
It is a back door method of bringing in separate electorates, which the House did not accept yesterday. Sir, we have stood aside helplessly while artificially this problem of religious differences — an echo of medieval times, has been fostered and nurtured and enhanced by the method of political devices such as separate electorates in order to serve the interests of our alien rulers. Today we see as a result our country divided and provinces like my own dismembered. We see that many who have made sacrifices, in the struggle for the freedom of India cannot be citizens of India today. We have learnt indeed a bitter lesson. We have submitted to all this so that at least in the rest of India that remains with us now we may go ahead in forming a democratic secular State without bringing in religion to cloud the issue. Religion is a personal matter. Religious differences might have been exploited as a political expedient by the British but there is no room for that in the India of today. Sir, the problem, that faces us is not a problem of minorities or of majorities on a religious basis. The problem that faces us is the problem of the vast majority in the country irrespective of religion, the majority who today are surrounded by ignorance and ill-health, hunger and want. It is they who are the backward sections
of the community and who are the majority at the same time. It is their problem that we have to take up. If we want to make the Objectives Resolution that this House has passed and the Fundamental Rights that have been laid down, a living reality, it is this problem that we have got to tackle. We cannot allow any subtle devices by the back door such as restricted separate electorates to sidetrack us now from the main issue. We cannot expect those who are backward to function and participate as citizens with equal rights unless we take steps to make them conscious of their rights. By all means let us do all that we can to help their development through every means in our power, and make such provision in the Constitution. But a separatist tendency on the basis of religion is something that I do not think we can tolerate any longer. We have never stood nor do we stand today for Hindu domination; we do not want that Hindus as such as a religious community shall override any other interests. But we do want that India’s interests shall be paramount, that the interests of no special community shall stand in the way, whether it is a majority or a minority religious community. Sir, I hope that this House will throw out this amendment and that we shall be able to go ahead until we are able to find a solution for the real problems that confront us, so that India can take her proper place in the comity of nations; so that in accordance with the cultural heritage which is ours, enriched by the variety of the cultures, that have found a home in this country, we will be enabled to play an effective part in the harmonious development of the world as a whole.
Against Religious Instructions in Public Funded Schools[3]
Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal: General): Mr. President, Sir, I move my amendment leaving out the first part, namely—
That for Clause 16, the following be substituted:-
“No denominational religious instruction shall be provided in schools maintained by the State. No person attending any school or educational institution recognised or aided by the State shall be compelled to attend any such religious instruction.”
Sir, I feel that the framers of the Report did not intend to imply what this Clause does imply, namely, that instruction given in schools maintained by the State of out of public funds may be of a denominational character. Surely denominational schools cannot be run by a democratic secular State. Such schools may be recognised or even aided, but as the State, we envisage under the new Constitution, will be secular having no State religion as such, it cannot set up denominational religious institutions as State schools.
I do not want to make a long speech; I merely want to point out that if my amendment is substituted for Clause 16, then this interpretation will not be possible and what this Clause is intended to convey, will be brought out better. I hope the House will realise the necessity of making this substitution.
Sir, even before we have freedom, the Central Advisory Board of Education decided that the education that was to be given by the State in this country should not be of a denominational character and that religious education of a denomination character was the responsibility of the community and the home to which the child belongs and not of the State. I am sure that now that we have to fashion our own destinies and we are in a position to usher in that free and democratic State for which we have striven and for which so many have sacrificed and died, it is open to us to say that we do not want to be inconsistent. We do not want to bring in an educational system whereby the education given by the State will be in direct contravention to the ideals and the interests of the State itself. I do not say that denominational religious education should not be allowed. But education given by the State should have the teaching of moral and spiritual values; it cannot by the very nature of the State be of a denominational religious character. I hope that Sardar Patel will accept this amendment, because it is not in contravention to the desire of the Committee. It merely tries to clarify the issue. The Clause as it now stands may be misunderstood to mean that we are submitting to the State having denominational educational institutions as a part of its educational programme of policy.
A Critique of the Draft Constitution[4]
Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal: General): Sir, the main features of the Draft Constitution embody the principles of a democratic federation and as such should win the approbation of all. At the same time there are certain matters which I feel are not quite explicit or in which changes are required, if this constitution is to conform to those ideals which actuated India during its many years of struggle and which are embodied in the Objectives Resolution to which our Prime Minister referred yesterday. Sir, I agree with my Honorable friend Dr. Ambedkar that it is the spirit in which the Constitution is worked that really counts. I feel that whatever the paper Constitution may be, it is the spirit in which we are able to work it, that will make all the difference. Again, whatever Constitution we may draw up today, it will not be possible for us to foretell how it will fit in with our requirements in its actual working and with the inherent genius of our race. It is, therefore, quite essential, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, that the Constitution at present should be flexible. I think amendments of the Constitution should be by simple majority for the next ten years so that there may be opportunities for adaptations and modifications in the light of experience.
Turning to the citizenship Clause, I think there should be a categorical statement in it about a single uniform citizenship with equal rights and privileges. As rights involve responsibilities, so it is necessary that the obligations of citizenship should also be enumerated in this Clause.
With regard to Fundamental Rights, equal rights have been prescribed. Quite rightly, it has been laid down that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds of religion, race or sex. But in view of conditions in this country and in view of some of the opinions expressed by the public — and the last speaker’s chivalry touched us deeply — I think it is necessary to have an explicit provision that social laws of marriage and inheritance of the different communities shall not also have any disabilities attached to them on grounds of caste or sex. It is, of course, true that the right of equality includes this but there may be different interpretations and much confusion and I therefore appeal to the House to have a proviso to explain this.
I will not repeat what my honourable friend Shri Ananthasayanam Ayyangar said but I do feel that in regard to the economic rights of the common man there is a lacuna. Although I agree that the provision “that no person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of the law” is alright, I do not, at the same time, see why under justiciable rights one should have the second part of this Clause which goes into details about compensations when property is taken by the State for public purposes in accordance with law. Surely if there is any need for putting this into the Constitution it should be under directives and not under rights which are justiciable and enforceable in courts of law. It is not right that we should commit the future to the economic structure of the present. Turning to education, which I consider to be one of the most fundamental of rights, I feel there is a great inadequacy. I do not want to repeat what other speakers have said, but I would appeal to the House to include a proviso whereby a definite proportion of the budget is allotted for this purpose. This is nothing very new; it is already there in the Constitution of China which says:
“Educational appropriations shall set apart not less than 15 per cent of the total amount of the budget of the Central Government and not less than 30 per cent of the total amount of the provincial, district and municipal budgets respectively.”
If we are to progress and prosper I suggest that in the matter of the two nation-building services of education and public health there should be some provision in the Constitution of the type that is there in the Chinese Constitution.
With regard to the reservation of seats for minorities we have not, of course, in a secular State provided for separate electorates, but I do not see why we should have reservation of seats for minorities. It is psychologically wrong to lay down, as it has been laid down, that after ten years the right shall lapse unless extended by amendment. I am sure that if this privilege is conceded now there will be a clamour for its extension. It is not fair to these minorities; it is not self-respecting for them. If the House wants to ensure representation for minorities I would suggest multiple constituencies with cumulative voting. Some speakers have suggested proportional representation by single transferable vote. I think that is a difficult procedure particularly for India and I would not recommend it. But I think that multiple constituencies with cumulative voting has a great deal to recommend it. In the first place, it will give much better representation not only to these minorities but to others; and it will also be a method of ensuring representation to the minorities without creating a separatist tendency. The last speaker Shri Rohini Chaudhari the erstwhile champion and defender of women who is against removing their social disabilities spoke about special electorates for women. All along the women of India have been against reservation of seats or special electorates. Before the 1935 Act came in we were against it and put forward our views in no uncertain terms, but it was forced upon us; and today, in spite of the chivalry of the previous speaker, Indian women will not tolerate any such reservations in the Constitution. I will not repeat what others have said about village panchayats. I feel that freed from the shackles of ignorance and superstition, the panchayat of the Gandhian village will certainly be the backbone of the structure of this country’s Constitution. I do not think there is anything in the Constitution that can bar it.
Coming to the allocation of powers between the units and the Centre, I think we must approach this subject dispassionately. There is a great deal to be said for giving as much provincial autonomy as possible. At the same time, where a country has a tremendous leeway to make up, particularly in the nation-building services, the unifying force must be strong and the Centre should be given some power of a supervisory and co-ordinating character, in regard to both education and health. I do not think the provinces should be crippled by taking away from them certain financial securities. They should at least be given 60 percent of the income-tax according to the recommendations of the expert committee, 35 percent on the basis of collection, 20 percent on the basis of population and 5 per cent for hard cases. This is a very good recommendation and I hope this House will agree to embody it in the Constitution. I also feel that a Financial Commission should be set up immediately and not after five years.
Before I conclude, I wish to say something about linguistic provinces. Unity must be our watchword today and it is a fatal mistake to allow realignment of provincial boundaries on a linguistic basis at this juncture of our country’s history. It has already led to much bitterness and strife and will lead to more. There is no justice or logic if such a thing is allowed in one part of the country and not in others. For instance if you allow a province of Maharashtra to be formed, naturally there will be other parts which will want it. There is in Bengal a feeling of great bitterness that she who has sacrificed part of her territories so that the transfer of power could take place should be denied her rights, now. It was because of the political expediency of the British and to suit the purposes of an alien Government that Bengal was forcibly deprived of much of its territory when the movement for the freedom of India started here. I do not subscribe to the theory that we should have a reallocation on a linguistic basis at this time. If it is to be done at all it should be done after ten years when passions have subsided. In any case, for administrative purposes there is no need for a linguistic realignment. Linguistic minorities in every province should have a guarantee that they will be given education in their mother tongue. I would urge that the Linguistic Boundary Commission should stop work or in any case it should be put off for ten years. I repeat that the overriding consideration is that of unity, if we want that India should be strong and prosperous and should take its rightful place in the comity of nations.
Prevention of Trafficking of Women and Abolition of Devdasi System[5]
Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I shall try to be as brief as possible.
The awakened conscience of women in India and the world is fully alive to the problem of the traffic in women and cannot tolerate its continuance. Sir, if we do not accept the amendment of Mr. B. Das, it is not because we do not appreciate his purpose. We realise that he wishes to place particular emphasis on the problem of the traffic in women, but I do think that the Article as it stands, does cover it. I am merely pointing this out because it may be thought that the women members of this House are not alive to this problem. It is one of the most urgent of all problems on which women’s organisations in this country, have focussed their attention for some time past.
As for the amendment that my honourable friend, Mr. K.T. Shah, moved, I agree with Shrimati Durgabai that legislation has covered this problem in regard to Madras, but I think that if Mr. Shah’s amendment could be accepted by this House so that the Devdasi system—the dedication of women in temples—is abolished by a categorical provision in the Constitution, it would be better procedure as the custom still lingers in some areas. Otherwise it is to be hoped that legislation abolishing the custom in other parts where it still exists will soon come in. I want to stress the fact that women are fully alive to the fact that it is the dual standards of morality that have led to traffic in women. It is when society realises fully the need for doing away with dual standards of morality that this Article that is being adopted can really come into effect and become a reality and not merely a paper provision in the Constitution.
Acts for the prevention of immoral traffic in women do exist already in this country but their operation is not effective and even if legal flaws are amended, these can only become really effective when men’s minds change towards this problem, whereby a section of women are at the mercy of exploiters whereby the very dignity of womenhood is lowered.
For an Education Unblemished by the Legacy of Religious Strife[6]
Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal : General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, while supporting this Article, there are one or two points on which I should like some elucidation. Prof. K.T. Shah has brought forward a point which really needs to be cleared up. Part (1) of this Article says: “No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of state funds”. There is likelihood of this being misinterpreted in the future, so as to nullify its very object. As he has pointed out even if a small donation is paid to a public school, it can be held that such a school is not wholly maintained out of State funds, and therefore denominational religious instruction may be given. I hope that when Dr. Ambedkar speaks, he will clear up this point because it is a very important one. If such interpretation can be given then it is necessary to have safeguards against it.
In this country we have seen the exploitation, and the prostitution of what we call religion and we have seen to our bitter cost what is done in the name of denominational religion. It has not only led to the dismemberment and division of our country, but it has also led to the worst horrors that could be perpetrated in the name of religion. Now, when we are building for the future, we must build in such a manner that we are able to do so untrammelled by the legacy of the past. The only real way in which this could be done is to see that the next generation are educated in such a manner that they are not actuated by motives that divide and disintegrate man from man, but that the religion of humanity is much greater to them than religious dissensions on a denominational religious basis. If that is to be so, we must be very careful, now that we are building up the Constitution for the future, that there shall not be in the fundamental rights any kind of confusion as to the kind of instruction that is to be given at least in those institution that are maintained out of public funds. If we use this word “wholly”, there is likely to be this confusion that has been already pointed out and I would like to hear from Dr. Ambedkar if it is possible for him either to accept this amendment or at least to assure the House that no such interpretation will be possible in the future.
I would again urge that he should accept in particular the amendment for the deletion of Clause (3) which has been moved by Mr. Jaspat Roy Kapoor, because as he has pointed out there is no doubt that if this Clause remains, there is likelihood that in a certain area where there may be a small number of schools or only one school, a fight between the various denominations as to which particular type of religious instruction should be given out of school hours may ensue. Therefore, it is much better that Clause (3) be deleted from this Article.
I am sure that all those in this House and the country outside will agree with me that above all things, it is necessary that the instruction that is given to the citizens of the future shall be such that the idea of a Secular State in which all citizens are equal comes into being, and the provision for this adopted in our Constitution becomes a living reality. This can only be done if education which is the very basis on which we build our society is so imparted to the young that they do not learn to realise the distinctions which separate man and man, but rather to learn that the underlying unity of humanity is more fundamental and the basis of religion to which they must adhere.
Question of Bicameral State Legislatures[7]
Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal: General): Mr. Vice-President, I am one of those who hold the opinion that the bicameral legislature in the present context of things is unnecessary, if not retrograde. Sir, in India, particularly at the present moment, when we need to go through a good deal of legislation in the economic and social field, which has been long overdue during the years of foreign rule, I do feel that the Second Chamber, particularly in the provinces will be very dilatory. The only reason advanced for having a Second Chamber is that we can thus prevent hasty or careless legislation. But, Sir, when there is a Governor, in the Province and a President at the Centre, who is empowered to send back to the legislature any Bills which may have been enacted carelessly, for revision, I do not think that this excuse obtains. However, Sir, the majority of provinces have decided to have a Second Chamber and therefore, in the present Constitution, we shall be embodying it. I want to point out only this, that even if we at the present moment do have to agree to have Second Chambers in the provinces, there should be some provision in the Constitution that the Second Chambers can be got rid of as speedily as possible, not at the initiative or the votes of both Houses of Legislature in the provinces, but according to the desire of the Lower House alone. I do not think that it is right that whether a Chamber shall continue to exist or not, should be left to the Chamber to decide in any way. Although there is an Article in the Draft Constitution regarding the manner in which the provinces may decide later not to have Second Chambers, if they do not wish to, that Article prescribes that this can be done by both Houses of the Legislature. I hope, Sir, that when the time comes, at least the House and Dr. Ambedkar will agree that it should be the Lower House alone which shall decide whether the Second Chamber should continue or not. As I said before, I do not think that bringing in the Second Chamber is going to be helpful at the present moment. I do understand that the composition of the Second Chamber is going to be fundamentally different from the composition of the Upper Houses of the past. But all the same in the present context of things, as I have said, it will be very much better if we had just one Chamber. As we have seen during the past year or so, while this Constituent Assembly has been functioning as a Dominion Legislature and with an unicameral Chamber, even so the procedure by which legislation is enacted is slower than we desire. I do not see why it is necessary, particularly in the Provinces, that we should go in for a Second Chamber, and if we do so, at least let us provide that the Lower Houses in the Provinces are in a position to rid themselves of this encumberance as soon as possible.
Second Chamber in Provincial Legislature: A Dilatory Chamber?[8]
Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal: General): Mr. President, Sir, I rise to support this amendment which I think is an extremely wholesome one. I was one of those who believed that a Second Chamber was not a necessity and that in fact in many of the smaller Provinces it will be a very expensive luxury. All the same, it has been incorporated in the Constitution with the avowed object that the Second Chamber was necessary as a revising Chamber. It was pointed out that inadvertently or otherwise it may be possible for the Lower House to pass legislation which it would find difficult to rectify later and the Second Chamber might serve the purpose of revision. This was the object put forward for which a Second Chamber was acceptable to the majority. But now we find that there are some who would like to have it in the form of a Chamber with dilatory functions. For if we are going to allow six months, if joint sessions are going to be allowed it would mean that the Second Chamber would not only be just for the sake of revising a Bill which has some defects, and which the Legislative Assembly itself would like to revise, but it would also be tantamount to acting as a dilatory Chamber, which would be extremely retrograde. Because we have agreed to having Second Chambers in some of the Provinces, it does not mean that we should give it more powers and have a Chamber with dilatory functions imposed in the Constitution. I myself am of the opinion that the purpose for which a revising Chamber has been sought to be put in was also not necessary because the President or Governor has the power always to send back a piece of legislation to the Assembly and any mistakes could be rectified through this procedure. However, if the majority felt otherwise and put the Second Chamber in the Constitution, there is no reason whatsoever to give it more power and thus hold up legislation, which may be very pressing and necessary. The dilatory powers would be injurious for the country and a very retrograde provision in the Constitution. I do feel that it seems to be the object of some of those who have spoken to bring in the type of Second Chamber that we had in the past. We talk of the composition being quite different; even if it is quite different, it is quite true that people, even if they were scientists or doctors, who go through the process of political life into Upper Chambers — or Lower Chambers for the matters of that — have to enter the arena of politics and Party Politics. Somebody said that Second Chamber would be for men like Rabindranath Tagore. But the best scientists and men of literature are not likely to enter Party Politics and come into the Second Chamber at any price. If their opinion has to be sought, it has to be sought from outside the Legislature in any case. Therefore, I would appeal that, although this House has agreed to a Second Chamber, it will not in any case agree to extending its powers, but accept this amendment which will give it only the functions of a revising nature.
Scarce Provincial Finances[9]
Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal : General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I am one of those who believe that, in the present context of things in this country and in view of the fact that we have so much leeway to make up in the matter of the nation-building services, we should of course have a very strong federal Centre. It is necessary that the Centre should be in a position to see that the provinces do not fall behind in regard to the minimum standards of development. But, nonetheless, I must say that the arguments that Pandit Kunzru has advanced before the House this morning have a great deal in them. It is not possible for a province to administer its responsibilities in an adequate manner if its financial position is unstable or uncertain. I realise that it is in the case of emergencies alone that this power under Article 277 is sought to be given to the President, which means the Central Government. Nonetheless I do feel that this is a very drastic measure. The provinces draw their finances from two sources. One source is the obligatory allocation made to them to maintain their general services. The other is the grants made for development purposes. I could have understood it, if a demarcation had been made and the finances of the provinces had been left intact in the matter of obligatory taxes with which they carry on their normal life. Even that has not been done. I do not want to reiterate all that Pandit Kunzru has very pertinently pointed out. I do feel that this is a vital matter. There is Article 276-B under which all extravagant expenditure during emergencies could be stopped. The provinces can be requested to drop their development programmes during an emergency such as war. But surely it should not be in the power of the Centre or the President to stop the normal functioning of the provinces. It is through the provinces that the life and activities of the people of the country is administered. I should like to point out that the Centre does not work in the air. It has to work through the provinces and I can see no reason whatsoever for having this provision just as it is. I do think that Pandit Kunzru has drawn attention to a very important point. I would therefore request Dr. Ambedkar and Drafting Committee to hold over this Article and re-draft it in the light of the observations that have been made.
Prof. N.G. Ranga (Madras: General): Hold over till the emergency is over?
Shrimati Renuka Ray: I do not mean that Professor Ranga has sought to be very sarcastic. I would point out to him that even in an emergency the normal functioning of the provinces must continue. I see no reason whatsoever to give the President power to stop those sources of revenue from which the provinces have to function in a normal way, even in an emergency. I can understand stopping the development activities of a province in an emergency, but how can the normal functioning of the provinces be stopped even in emergencies? Even in war-time, people have to continue to eat, to have education and be protected against evil-doers. I do appeal to Dr. Ambedkar and the Drafting Committee to reconsider this Article which is a vital one. I support the changes proposed by Pandit Kunzru.
Role of Centre in Coordinating the Educational Standards in the Country[10]
Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I should like to support the amendment that has been moved by Mr. Basanta Kumar Das. It is a very wholesome amendment. As he has pointed out the first part of his amendment has already been accepted but 57(b) and (c) are also extremely important. The co-ordination of educational policy and, in particular, the maintaining of a uniform national minimum standard of education throughout the country is essential. Education is the very basis of our progress and advancement; and unless the Centre is able to co- ordinate education and to see that no part of the country falls behind a minimum standard of education, it is really impossible for us to advance. Any State or any area in this country which remains behind a minimum standard will be a drag on the rest of the country. Therefore I feel that this is extremely essential. At the same time it is not possible for Provinces or States to maintain a minimum standard of education unless they have sufficient finances to do so.
At the present moment perhaps due to the many transitional difficulties we have faced and may be for other reasons upto now we have not been able to focus sufficient attention on these very essential nation-building services. Those services that were neglected and treated in a step-motherly manner in the past, under the old regime, have yet to get that help that they need in order that the country may progress. I would say that at least 25 to 30 per cent of our national income should be set aside immediately for the nation-building services. I do claim that in every province at least 15 if not 20 per cent of our national income should be set aside immediately for the nation-building services. In this country unless we can produce more we cannot increase our national income. It has been pointed out that unless we increase our national income how is it possible to find the money for these essential services? We have to break that vicious circle somewhere. It is not possible for our country to progress or produce more unless the efficiency of the worker is increased. Unless the worker is given the basic opportunities, how can efficiency be increased. This implies that there must be minimum standards for education and health. Unless the men and women who are the builders of society have a minimum standard of education and of health, it is not possible for us really to have any increase in efficiency, and unless we have increase in efficiency it is no use talking about producing more. I think it is at this end that we must tackle this problem.
If we are to do so, this particular amendment of Mr. Das will help towards this end. Both the points that he raised that the Centre must have power to co-ordinate and be able to see that no State remains behind a minimum standard and the fact that the States must be given sufficient financial assistance to be able to develop education are most important. I do not say that the Centre should have any power to interfere with any State going ahead of the minimum standard. That is not a power that is implied in this resolution. The power that is implied in this is that no State should remain behind the minimum standard and I do hope that Dr. Ambedkar and the Drafting Committee will consider this and will accept this amendment.
Issue of Justiciability of Compensation in the Event of Acquisition of Property[11]
Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal : General): Sir, I move:
“That in amendment No. 369 of List VII (Seventh Week), for clause (4) of the proposed Article 24, the following be substituted:-
‘(4) No law making provision as aforesaid shall be called in question in any court either on the ground that the compensation provided for is inadequate or that the principles and the manner of compensation specific are fraudulent or inequitious.’ ”
I am compelled to move this amendment even at this late hour because we are faced with a very genuine and a real difficulty. By Clauses (4) and
(6) of the draft that we are considering, we find that pending legislation or legislation that has already been enacted in regard to compensation for property is to be treated on a different basis to compensation for all other types of property. If it becomes necessary to have an exemption Clause for certain types of zamindari property for coming to brass tacks, it means the Zamindari Bills of U.P. and those of Madras and Bihar are to be exempted—it necessarily follows that all other property including zamindari property in other areas must be justiciable. It means that the authority of the sovereign Parliament is to be challenged by courts of law. I know that there is difference of opinion amongst some of the lawyers. Some hold that although other forms of property are included as justiciable, the courts of law will not challenge the authority of Parliament in laying down principles of compensation until and unless there is intent to fraud. Other lawyers again support the view of the Supreme Court of the United States that the word ‘compensation’ means equivalent value. I am not a lawyer and I have neither the merit nor the right to enter into the hair-splitting arguments that are the lawyers, paradise; but as a layman I would like to know that how it is that there has to be this differentiation. Is it then that the provision of the U. P. Zamindari Bill has shown an intent to defraud, or that no compensation to be paid under its provisions? Why is it that the special provisions have to be made for the Zamindari Bills of U.P., Madras and Bihar? If it were that the lawyers who hold the view that the justiciability would not be challenged unless there was intent to defraud, were correct then it would not be necessary to include, Clauses (4) and (6). Shorn of all legal technicalities, as we can see it, the position really comes down to this, that it is not the Sovereign Parliament that has the last word, but it is the Court of Law that will have the last word in case of other properties except those covered by Clauses (4) and (6). I would like to ask what justice is there for this procedure? There are other fundamental justiciable rights, but even these rights are subject to the proviso that it is under the authority of law, e.g., the right of freedom of speech and expression, to assemble freely without arms, to form associations or unions — all have limitations, by which they come under the authority of Parliament. What is the justification in 1947 for us to place property on a very different basis? Pandit Nehru said in his speech this morning that the very conception of property is changing. The sacrosance attached to property is no longer there. Surely when we are deciding this issue today we must make it so that it is Parliament whose authority shall be supreme and that we shall not lay down a vested interest for all times.
It is quite true that Parliament sometimes does pass hasty legislations. Well we have the Second Chambers as Panditji pointed out this morning. Apart from that there is Clause (3) of this article which gives the President, i.e., the Central Government, final power as assent has to be given by the President before any such legislation comes in. I think the safeguards here are surely enough. It is not for us to include provisions whereby there can be various interpretations given by courts of law. If there can be various interpretations amongst a few lawyers, even now just think of the varying interpretations that we shall have with different courts deciding differently. As I said before it will indeed become a lawyers paradise and litigation will become even more widespread.
Mr. President: You have made out that point.
Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal: General): There is no question of expropriation of property. The question of nationalisation or socialisation really does not arise today. These are issues that have been raised to confuse the matter. The Government has laid down its economic policy. That policy does not include any nationalisation or socialisation except in the case of the abolition of zamindari property.
Shrimati Durgabai (Madras: General): May I know from the speaker through you, Sir, whether it is her intention to oust the jurisdiction of the Court even when the compensation so fixed is fraudulent?
Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal: General): I say, who is to decide what is fraudulent? Is the Zamindari Bill of U.P. and the compensation fixed in it today fraudulent, and if that is not so, then why have we to make provision for an exemption Clause ? Therefore, I say that it must be Parliament that must have the supreme voice in the matter, and it cannot be left to courts of law to challenge the decisions of Parliament even on the excuse that it is fraudulent. A court of law may decide that even paying half the value is fradulent. There will be nothing to debar it unless this amendment is included.
Now, as I said, there has been confusion of issues. This question of expropriation of property has been brought up. There is no question of expropriation today, and even in the Parliament of tomorrow, I do not think that so long as there is a constitutional authority and so long as there is responsible government, there can ever be any question of expropriation of property, without paying compensation. Even those people who want a new economic structure and who believe in the gradual transformation of the present structure into a new economic structure where economic justice prevails, even they do not want that a new class of destitute or poor should be created. We do not want and the government of the future will not want to create a new liability for the State. Thus, neither the Parliament of today nor that of the future will expropriate property without compensation, because their object will be to bring about a reduction in the disparity of wealth and not to create new class who will become the concern of the State.
Mr. President: I hope you have finished now?
Shrimati Renuka Ray: I have just one or two more points.
Mr. President: More points or more words?
Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal: General): More points, Sir. Another point that has been raised in some of the speeches made today is that because of the economic difficulties of today it is essential for us to put this Clause in the draft. Mr. Himatsingka asked the question as to how production could be increased if you do not satisfy the capitalists on this point. I say, we have been making concession after concession to capitalists, and still production has not gone up so far. The question of capital for nation and of increased production is an urgent one today. Even if capitalists do not conform, we have to find ways and means towards this end. We cannot be at their mercy altogether if they do not play the game. But I fail to see what this Article has got to do with this. This is not a provision that is being incorporated in an Act of the legislature, but something we are considering in a permanent Constitution for the future.
Sir, before I conclude, I just want to point out that if we do not allow constitutional remedies, if we bind and fritter the future, then a time will come when extra-constitutional remedies will be resorted to, and when this Constitution will be treated as a scrap of paper.
Sir, before I conclude, I would appeal most particularly and most especially to Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru who, above all, believes in economic justice and social justice, to accept this amendment and substitute Clause (4) by my amendment. I appeal to the Drafting Committee that if they have any differences of opinion, then this makes it quite clear. If they believe that the provision does not mean justifiability, then what objection can they have to my amendment?
Last of all, I appeal to this House and say, let us not accept something which posterity may point to and say that, we were more interested, and concerned at all in entrenching vested interests in the Constitution, than all other rights. Let them not say that the right of property was the only fundamental right in which we showed most concern as only to it we gave a double assurance by the incorporation of Article 24 in this manner let us not forget that no other economic right is incorporated in Fundamental Rights — all others are on directives as pious hopes for the future.
Summarising the Work of the Constituent Assembly: Hopes and Aspirations[12]
Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal: General): Mr. President, Sir, we are at last reaching the final stages of our Constitution-making, in three years. Three years, naturally, may appear to be a long time to frame a Constitution. But it must be borne in mind that since this Constituent Assembly first came into existence, swift-riding changes came in our country. With the partition of the country, the territorial orbit of the constitution-makers was circumscribed, while with the transfer of power, this House became a sovereign body, drawing up the constitution of a free country, and acting also in the dual role of Parliament. Thus the first seven months of its labour were largely wasted as changes had to be made. Much of the time of the Constituent Assembly was also spent in dealing with emergency situations and the day to day problems of Parliament. Again, Sir, with the integration of the Indian States, even changes which were not contemplated a year ago had to be made. Sir, when this country was partitioned and provinces like my own province and the Punjab were dismembered, those who were not our friends thought and expected that the further Balkanisation of India was imminent. Who could have thought at that time, which of us conceived, that in two short years, all the Indian States, including Hyderabad, would become a composite parts of the co-ordinated whole, and that for the States and the Provinces in a common measure, we would be drawing up a Constitution for the entire Indian Union? Sir, living as we do in close proximity to these events that have taken place, it is difficult for us to realise the full significance of the bloodless revolution that has taken place and which stands as an eloquent testimony to the genius of Sardar Patel. I feel that it is only posterity that can give due appreciation to these events.
Sir, turning now to the Constitution, I must say that it is a very voluminous Constitution that we have drawn up. It is perhaps the most voluminous in the world today. I was one of those who had believed that it would have been better not to have entered into such a welter of details, but to have drawn up a Constitution on more general lines. Sir, a written Constitution, however, elastic, must, to a very large extent, be a rigid Constitution. It would have been better, I think, to have eliminated as far as possible rigidity, by not going into too many details. But the argument that held with this House was that we were concerned with numerous complex problems, that living conditions in this country differed so much and so widely that much detail was necessary. But for the life of me, I cannot understand why we had to go to such details as to put in the salaries of high dignitaries of the State, like the President and the salaries of Judges, in the Constitution. Why should the Constitution thus usurp what are really the normal duties of Parliament? Apart from any question of the amounts of salaries that have been put in, I should like to point out that in the modern world, where money is always changing in value, a sum of Rs. 5,000 today, may tomorrow be worth only 500 or 5. So in the Constitution what purpose can be served by prescribing the exact amount of the salaries?
Sir, turning to the Constitution as it stands, in broad outline, though there may be many flaws, and one very major transgression against the very objectives of our Preamble, I feel, on the whole, this Constitution can fulfil the objectives for which we have drawn it up.
It has after all been drawn up by men and women who represent this country but who belong to very diverse cultures, different outlooks, with varying ideas on many subjects and thus the Constitution had to be drawn up in common agreement and as a matter of compromise and therefore it may be said, though each of us individually may have much to say on a great many of the clauses, on the whole we have been able to achieve a measure of common agreement.
So far as the Fundamental Rights of this Constitution are concerned, I think in the case of the majority of them, if they are properly explained to our people, there is nothing that will not win their approbation and the approval of all. I should like in particular to refer to one Fundamental Right which makes a tremendous difference and really does bring in equality: “The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. ”. This right
is a justiciable Fundamental Right today enforceable through courts of law, and if there are any laws, social and which remain as a contradiction to this principle of a justiciable right, those laws will have to be overridden.
It is very unfortunate that although the political rights are in these fundamental principles, the economic rights of citizens have not been able to be put in as justiciable rights today. Conditions in our country are such that it has not been possible for us at the present moment to have them as Fundamental Rights which are enforceable through courts of law. They have been put in as directives of State policy. Sir, it is also all the more unfortunate that among these directives of State policy are some to the most vital rights of citizens and along with them are lumped many matters of much lesser importance. At the same time, I do not think there is anything to despair because it is possible for the Parliament and the government of the future to bring these rights which are now directives as economic rights, and as Fundamental Right, in the near future.
Sir, the content of democracy is not political democracy alone, and although it is quite true that we have laid down a Constitution which with adult suffrage has brought political democracy to this country, it is equally true that this Constitution has not been able to provide as effectively as possible for the economic rights of the citizens, although there is no bar in attaining them.
I said a little while ago that there is one great flaw, one great transgression, in the Fundamental Rights which is a blot on this very Constitution. While every other economic right is in directives of States policy, the right to hold and acquire private property alone remains as the fundamental justiciable right. Not only is it there in Article 13(f) but it is further entrenched because of Article 31 of the Fundamental Rights. It is entrenched in such a manner that the Parliament of the day has not the final authority to even determine the amount and value of the compensation that has to be paid when property is acquired in the national interest.
Sir, the very exemptions that have been made in Article 31 show how firmly these rights are entrenched. These exemptions are in regard to zamindari property in certain provinces and even for these there is a time- limit. So that in the case of all other forms of property as well as in the case of zamindari property which cannot be legislated for in the prescribed time-limit, Parliament will have little voice. There was a great deal of confusion on this matter, I feel. There were many who seemed to think that if it was Parliament who had the final right to lay down the manner of compensation it may so happen that no compensation at all would be paid. Sir, I am sure you will agree with me, and the House also will agree with me, that no constitutional authority could ever have laid down any such principles in which no compensation whatsoever was paid. Therefore, I consider that there was a great confusion of issues when this point was raised and I feel, and I would humbly submit, that many of us did not quite realise what we were doing when we allowed this Clause in the present form to be included in the Constitution.
Posterity may well say of us that here, we did try to lay down the economic structure of future times, for all time, perhaps there is only one compensation, one consolation that we can by amendment of the Constitution change this, and I am sure Sir, that very shortly it will be necessary to bring in such an amendment.
After all, a Constitution is but a paper document. It is the way in which it is worked that will determine its success or its failure. We are the framers of this Constitution and in our humble way, as a compromise amongst so many, we have done the best that we could have perhaps, although we must consider that there are many flaws left. But it is the architects who will actually implement this Constitution, who will give it life and breath, who will really determine in what manner it will be worked. It will be to them to make of it something worthy and worthwhile and also it may be that they can mar it, distort it, maim it and make those very fundamental principles and rights which are meant for the security of citizens be used in such a way as to bring about the detriment of the citizen. It is really the architects of this generation and the next we are going to put this Constitution into working, on whom will depend a great deal, its success or its failure. It is not for us to say whether we have done our job well or badly. There will be, as I have said, need for amendments which some of us feel must come in the near future. In the light of the experience of the working of this Constitution, there will be need for many other adaptations to bring it into conformity with and adapted to the needs of the genius of our race.
Sir, before I conclude, I should like to join with those who have expressed their gratitude to you for the fortitude and the patience and the sweet tolerance that you have shown to the Members of this House.
I would also like to express my thanks to the able members of the Drafting Committee and its Chairman, and particularly I should like to say a word about Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari who has put in as much effort and as much energy as this galaxy of brilliant lawyers amongst whom he has on more than one occasion brought to bear a humanising touch. Our deep gratitude is also due to Sir B.N. Rau, the Constitutional Adviser who without prejudice, explained legal intricacies to us and made them clear.
Sir, finally I would like to say that may it be given to us to be able to work this Constitution in this generation and in the generations to come, in such a manner, that the lofty ideas that the Father of our Nation laid down, may indeed become a living reality for the people of this land. May Gandhian socialism be a practical contribution of this country to the world of man.
[1] Consideration of Report on the Principles of a Model Provincial Constitution, C.A.D., Vol. IV, L.S.S., 18 July 1947, pp. 668-669
[2] Discussion on the Report of Minority Rights, C.A.D., Vol. V, L.S.S., 28 August 1947, pp. 268-269
[3] Discussion on Clause 16 of Supplementary Report on Fundamental Rights, C.A.D., Vol. V, L.S.S., 30 August 1947, pp. 350-351.
[4] Debate on Motion regarding Draft Constitution, C.A.D., Vol. VII, L.S.S., 9 November 1948, pp. 356-358
[5] Consideration of Article 17 of the Draft Constitution, C.A.D., Vol. VII, L.S.S., 3 December 1948, p. 810.
[6] Consideration of Article 22 of the Draft Constitution, C.A.D., Vol. VII, L.S.S., 7 December 1948, pp. 878-879
[7] Consideration of the Article 148 Draft Constitution, C.A.D., Vol. VII, L.S.S., 6 January 1949, p. 1312.
[8] Discussion on Article 172 of the Draft Constitution on the procedure for transmission of Bills between Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council, C.A.D., Vol. IX, L.S.S., 1 August 1949, pp. 56-57.
[9] Discussion on Article 277 of the Draft Constitution, C.A.D., Vol. IX, L.S.S., 19 August 1949, pp. 510-511
[10] Discussion on the Entries in the Lists of Union and State, C.A.D., Vol. IX, L.S.S., 31 August 1949, pp. 794
[11] Debate on Article 24 of the Draft Constitution, C.A.D., Vol. IX, L.S.S., 10 September 1949, pp. 1260-1263.
[12] Discussion on Draft Constitution, C.A.D., Vol. XI, L.S.S., 19 November 1949, pp. 715-718
