I have perhaps detained you longer than I
should have done. You will allow that it is not altogether my fault. The vastness of the
subject is one reason for the length of this address.
I must, however, confess that there is also
another reason which has persuaded me not to cut too short. We are
standing today at the point of time where the old age ends and
the new begins. The old age was the age of Ranade, Agarkar, Tilak, Gokhale, Wachha, Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, Surendranath Bannerjee. The new age is the age of Mr. Gandhi and this generation is said to be Gandhi generation. As one who knows
something of the old age and also something of the new I see some very definite marks of
difference between the two. The type of leadership has undergone a profound
change. In the age of Ranade the leaders struggled to modernize India. In the age of
Gandhi the leaders are making her a living specimen of antiquity. In the age of Ranade
leaders depended upon experience as a corrective method ot their thoughts and their deeds. The leaders of the present age depend upon
their inner voice as their guide. Not only is there a difference in their mental make up there is a difference even in their viewpoint
regarding external appearance. The leaders of the old age took care to be well clad while
the leaders of the present age take pride in being half clad. The leaders of the Gandhi
age are of course aware of these differences. But far from
blushing for their views and. their appearance they claim that the India of Gandhi is superior to India of Ranade. They say that the age of Mr. Gandhi is an agitated and an expectant age,
which the age of Mr. Ranade was not.
Those who have
lived both in the age of Ranade and
the age of Gandhi will admit that there is this difference between the two. At the same
time they will be able to insist that if the India of Ranade
was less agitated it was more honest and that if it was less expectant it was more enlightened. The
age of Ranade was an age in which men and women did engage themselves seriously in studying and examining the facts of their life, and what is more important is that
in the face of the opposition of the orthodox mass
they tried to mould their lives and their character in accordance with the light they found as a result of their research. In the age of Ranade there was not the
same divorce between a politician and a student which
one sees in the Gandhi age. In the age of Ranade a politician, who was not a student, was
treated as an intolerable nuisance, if not a danger. In
the age of Mr. Gandhi learning, if it is not despised, is
certainly not deemed to be a necessary qualification of a politician.
To my mind there is no doubt that this Gandhi
age is the dark age of India. It is an age in which people instead of looking for their ideals in the
future are returning to antiquity. It is an age in which people have ceased to think for themselves
and as they have ceased to think they have ceased to read and examine the facts
of their lives. The fate of an ignorant democracy which refuses
to follow the way shown by learning and experience and
chooses to grope in the dark paths of the mystics and the megalomaniacs is a sad thing to contemplate. Such an age I thought needed something more than a
mere descriptive sketch of the Federal Scheme. It needed a treatment which was complete though
not. exhaustive and pointed without being dogmatic in order to make it
alive to the dangers arising from the inauguration of the Federal
Scheme. This is the task I had set before myself in preparing this address.
Whether I have failed or
succeeded. it is for you to say. If this address has length which is not compensated
by depth, all I can say is
that I have tried to do my duty according to my lights.
I am not opposed to a Federal Form of
Government. I confess I have
a partiality for a Unitary form
of Govsernment. I think
India needs it. But I also realize
that a Federal Form of
Government is inevitable if there is to be Provincial Autonomy. But I am in dead horror the Federal
Scheme contained in the Government of India Act. I think I hive justified my antipathy by giving adequate reasons. I want all to examine them and
come to their own conclusions. Let us however realize that the case of Provincial Autonomy is very different from that of the Federal Scheme. To those
who think that the Federation should become acceptable, if the Governor-General gave an assurance along the same lines as was
supposed to be done by the Governors that he will not exercise his powers under his special responsibilities. I want to say two
things. First I am sure the Governor-General cannot give such an assurance because he is exercising these powers not merely in the interest
of the Crown but also in the interest
of the States. Secondly, even if he did, that cannot alter
the nature of the Federal Scheme. To those who think that a change in the
system of State representation from nomination to election
will make the Federation less objectionable, I want to say that they are
treating a matter of detail as though it was a matter of
fundamental. Let us note what is fundamental and what
is not Let there be no
mistake, let there be no fooling as to this. We have had enough
of both. The real question is the extension and the growth of
responsibility. Is that possible ? That is the crux. Let us
also realize that there is no use bugging to Provincial Autonomy and leaving responsibility in the Centre hanging in the
air. i am convinced that without real responsibility at the Centre,
Provincial Autonomy is an empty shell.
What we should
do to force our point of view, this is no place to discuss.
It is enough if I have succeeded
in giving you an adequate idea of what are the dangers of
this Federal Scheme.____________
(Kale Memorial Lecture)
Address delivered on 29th January 1939 at the Annual Function
of the
Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics held in the Gokhale Hall, Poona
http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/08.%20Federation%20vs%20Freedom.htm
http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/08.%20Federation%20vs%20Freedom.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment