The Preamble
The Preamble, which is the key to understand the Constitution, emphasises by the very opening words, the democratic nature of the Republic guaranteeing equality of status to all which the people of India had resolved to constitute by adopting, enacting and giving to themselves the Constitution. The personality of the Constitution is developed in Part III dealing with the Fundamental Rights, and the framers of the Constitution, even after including Article 14 ensuring equality before law, were not satisfied unless they specifically prohibited religion as a ground for differential treatment.
The freedom of propagation of religion and the right to manage religious affairs et cetera were expressly recognised by Articles 25 to 28 but when it came to deal with the State, the verdict was clear and emphatic that it must be free from all religious influence.
Special Electorates
Much thought was bestowed in the Constituent Assembly on the question whether separate electorate could be permitted under the Constitution. An Advisory Committee was constituted on January 24, 1947 for determining the fundamental rights of citizens, minorities, et cetera. The Advisory Committee was empowered to appoint sub-committees[1] and accordingly a Sub-Committee on Minorities was appointed on February 27, 1947, to consider and report, inter alia, on the issue whether there should be joint or separate electorates.
The Sub-Committee by a majority of 28 to 3 decided that there should be no separate electorates for election to the legislatures[2]. The Report of the Sub-Committee was accepted by the Advisory Committee and the following observations were made:
“The first question we tackled was that of separate electorates; we considered this as being of crucial importance both to the minorities themselves and to the political life of the country as a whole. By an overwhelming majority, we came to the conclusion that the system of separate electorates must be abolished in the new Constitution.
In our judgment, this system has in the past sharpened communal differences to a dangerous extent and has proved one of the main stumbling blocks to the development of a healthy national life. It seems especially necessary to avoid these dangers in the new political conditions that have developed in the country and from this point of view the arguments against separate electorates seem to us absolutely decisive. We recommend accordingly that all elections to the Central and Provincial Legislatures should be held on the basis of joint electorates.”[3]
Sardar Patel, after referring to the suffering and the heavy penalty the nation had to pay on this count, expressed his satisfaction “that there has been unanimity on the point that there should be no more separate electorates and we should have joint electorates hereafter. So this is a great gain”. Replying to the Debate Sardar Patel expressed his views in the following words:
“I had not the occasion to hear the speeches which were made in the initial stages when this question of communal electorates was introduced in the Congress; but there are many eminent Muslims who have recorded their views that the greatest evil in this country which has been brought to pass is the communal electorate. The introduction of the system of communal electorates is a poison which has entered into the body politic of our country.
Many Englishmen who were responsible for this also admitted that. But today, after agreeing to the separation of the country as a result of this communal electorate, I never thought that that proposition was going to be moved seriously, and even if it was moved seriously, that it would be taken seriously.”[4]
Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant, opposing an amendment moved by B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur of the Muslim League providing for separate electorate for Muslims, expressed his indignation thus We all have had enough of this experience, and it is somewhat tragic to find that all that experience should be lost and still people should hug the exploded shibboleths and slogans.”[5]
Shri V.I. Muniswami Pillai, on this occasion reiterated these sentiments and said with a sigh of relief:
“…Sir, which I would like to tell this House is that we got rid of the harmful mode of election by separate electorates. It has been buried seven fathom deep, never more to rise in our country. The conditions that were obtaining in the various provinces were the real cause for introducing the system of separate electorates.
The Poona Pact gave us both the separate and joint electorates but now we have advised according to this report that has been presented here that the Depressed Classes are doing to enjoy joint electorates. It is hoped, Sir, that, in the great Union that we are all envisaging that this Country will become in the years to come, joint electorates will give equal opportunity for the Caste Hindus and the Minority communities to come together and work together and produce a better India.”[6]
Unfortunately, the firm belief of Mr. Pillai was not shared when the reservation in question was introduced by amendment three decades later in 1980. It will be helpful, for appreciating the reference by Sardar Patel to the opinions of even Englishmen in his reply and to the Poona Pact by Shri Pillai, to recall briefly the developments during the British Rule relevant to this aspect.
In order to break the united front of the Indians against foreign domination, one of the most effective steps taken on behalf of the regime was to introduce separate electorates with weightage for the Muslims. The occasion was provided by the demand of the separate electorate for the Muslims by a deputation headed by Aga Khan presented to the then, Viceroy, Lord Minto, in 1906. Lord Minto not only supported him but added that in view of the service that the Muslims had rendered to the Empire, their position deserved to “be estimated not merely on “their” numerical strength but in respect of the political importance of “the” community and the service that it had rendered to the Empire”.
The demand was accepted in 1909 by Minto Morley Reforms. The matter was again considered in 1919 by the Montague-Chenisford Committee. Their report disapproved the idea of separate electorates by stating that such electorates “were opposed to the teaching of history: that they perpetuated class division: that they stereotyped existing relations; and that they constituted a very serious hindrance to the development of the self-governing principle”.
Sardar Patel was, in his reply, presumably referring to these expressions and similar other opinions: Unfortunately, however, the principle of communal electorates was adopted for the Muhammadans in the country and in Punjab for Sikhs. Having, thus succeeded in introducing this highly undesirable system of separate electorates on the basis of religion, the British rulers proceeded to extend the same with a view to divide the people further by proposing separate electorate for the “Depressed Classes” in 1932 under the Communal Award of Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald.
By that time the leadership of the country was in the hands of Mahatma Gandhi, who fully realised the dangerous fall-out of the proposed measure. Rejecting the suggestion of the British Prime Minister to accept the same even for a temporary period, he staked his life for fighting out the menace by deciding to go on fast unto death. The rulers conceded and backed out, and the matter was sorted out by the famous Yarvada Pact. Separate electorate for the Muslims, however, could not be undone, and was given effect to in the Government of India Act, 1935, ultimately leading to the partition of the Country.
Reference
R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India (1993)
[1] see B. Shiva Rao’s Framing of Indian Constitution, Vol. II, pp. 56-571
[2] Shiva Rao’s Vol. II, p 3921
[3] Shiva Rao’s Vol. II, p. 412
[4] Constituent Assembly Debates; Vol. V, p. 225
[5] Constituent Assembly Debates; Vol. V, p.224
[6] Constituent Assembly Debates; Vol. V,p.202