An Absurd Claim

The Congress Party has proved to its own satisfaction, and through its whipped votes to the satisfaction of Parliament, that no land reform is possible unless the fundamental rights guaranteed by the fathers of the Constitution of India be all revoked! This is a reductio ad absurdum and it proves, not that the Seventeenth Amendment was necessary, but that the Congress Party has confessed its unfitness by declaring inability to rule the country under the Constitution framed by the fathers of Indian Independence. Would any group of honest citizens in England listen to a politician or to a party which said they could govern Britain to the satisfaction of the people only if the Magna Carta were repealed or modified out of shape, or unless land was defined as movable property or that the Established Church may be deemed to be Roman Catholicism? Would we allow a teacher to say that he would be Professor of Trigonometry provided angles of 60 degree were deemed to be right angles? Would we allow an inspector of police to hold office if he wanted the Criminal Procedure Code to be abolished so that he might function efficiently?

Surely the disillusioned people of India should say to the Congress Party, “if you cannot hold the trust or wield responsibility unless the fundamental principles of the Constitution be abrogated, make room for others who will undertake the responsibility of governance under the Constitution whole and entire”. There are Opposition parties, which are prepared to bring about all land reform without disturbing the fundamental rights of citizens and without declaring that the framers of the Constitution were fools. Did the Constituent Assembly that sat and deliberated on every minute detail at the time not know what it was about? Did not the members envisage reforms and ideals towards which the nation should move and embody them in comprehensive articles in Part IV of the Constitution and at the same time inscribe the rights in Part III as inviolable, with power given to the courts to sit in guard? Shall we impute gross ignorance to them by assuming that Part III was inconsistent with Part IV? The absurdity of the contention that the sacred articles of the Constitution in Part III thereof are obstacles to land reform and must be got out of the way, would be patent to any statesman and to all men of ordinary common sense, but for the fact that Sri Nehru associated himself with the Amendment. The Seventeenth Amendment was hustled through Parliament during the elaborately planned funeral of the late Prime Minister—the Government claiming that it was a codicil to his last will and testament. The story of the Amendment being the late Prime Minister’s sacred dying wish is childish deception. He did not know he was going to die and his wish in respect of this Amendment was just one of his many policies and no sacred accretion should be affixed to it. Yet this story of a dying wish was seriously advanced and an emotional atmosphere was created in order to get the mass-voting required for changing the Constitution.

This testamentary illusion and parliamentary trick apart, how absurd it is to say that land reform necessitates the giving up of the fundamental rights solemnly inscribed after full discussion when India framed her charter of freedom for all time for her citizens! Land reform means the happiness and contentment of all who work on land, and conditions for increased production. Land reform does not mean State-acquisition of land. Land reform does not mean a permanent power of arbitrary expropriation. Land reform does not mean that ownership should be defined as being only an unwanted intermediary position between the rural labourer and the State. Land reform does not mean the constitutional repudiation of peasant proprietorship. Land reform does not mean fragmentation of land or that agriculture should be deprived of capital by dismissing from it all those who could put in capital. Land reform does not mean the enforcement of dogmas which must result in a fall in production and create scarcity of grain in the urban markets and famine conditions for industrial workers and other city-dwellers. Land reform should not mean the abolition of the rule of law.

What I have said must be obvious to anyone who is interested in liberty as well as welfare. But “such is the power of reputation”, as Dr. Samuel Johnson said, “that its blaze drives away the eye from nice examination.” Because Sri Jawahartal Nehru was associated with this amendment, there are people who have made it a superstition without examining the matter with care. If any one cannot govern India without accepting the rule of law and without statutorily defining things as being what they are not, and inscribing such absurd definitions in the Constitution itself, such a one, be he an individual or a political party, should be ruled out as an incapable tyrant and asked to make room for others who will undertake to manage affairs under the Constitution as it was solemnly subscribed to by Babu Rajendra Prasad and the Constituent Assembly members that sat under his Chairmanship.