The Delhi Debate on Future Citizenship

Assurance against Tyranny

The third plenary session of the Constituent Assembly, held during the last week of April, was concerned with relations between the proposed Union of India and the Indian States; the powers of the Union vis-a-vis its component units; and the fundamental rights to be guaranteed under the new constitution. Of these subjects the last engaged most attention. An interim report prepared by an advisory committee was adopted, with certain amendments and with certain clauses held over for further consideration because they were not acceptable to the House as a whole.

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, who holds the portfolios of Home Affairs and Information and Broadcasting in the present Interim Government, piloted the Fundamental Rights Bill through the House. He made it clear that the report was not final and included only justiciable rights. Sardar Patel's handling of the debate showed his characteristic firmness; he did not dragoon opponents into swallowing unpalatable clauses, but dealt summarily with many objections. When opposition was too strong to be ignored, further debate was short-circuited by referring contentious clauses back to the advisory committee. Certain vital matters thus remain undecided.

LIBERTY RESPECTED

The measure embodies in letter and in spirit the principles of social democracy evolved by liberal thought in western countries and offers the best proof of the liberalizing influence of British rule in India. It is also evidence that, whatever totalitarian influences there may be in the Indian National Congress-and their existence cannot be gainsaid- the main stream of nationalism has its sources in the same springs of respect for individual liberties, subject only to the overriding common good of society and the State, as feed the democracies of the British Commonwealth of Nations. In this there lies hope of future Indian cooperation, if not as a member of that commonwealth, then as a participant in the United Nations.

The report has sections on citizenship, rights of equality, rights of freedom, rights relating to religion, cultural and educational rights, and the right to constitutional remedies. The first, on qualifications for citizenship, was the subject of much discussion, but no agreement. The clause was redrafted, but still failed to find general approval because of difficulties arising from the possible partition of India into two or more states. The clause reads : "Every person born in the Union and subject to its jurisdiction, every person either of whose presents was at the time of such person's birth a citizen of the Union, and every person naturalized in the Union, shall be a citizen of the Union." This fails to provide for an Indian born in a state which does not adhere to the Union, or in an area which decides to form a separate state, such as Pakistan. Its literal application would deprive of Indian nationality many millions of people (mainly Hindus) born in provinces and states which choose to keep out of the Union, although the persons themselves might prefer to claim such nationality. It also differentiates between members of the same family who happen to have been born in different parts of the country, and it raises problems of dual nationality as between Pakistan and Hindustan.

RIGHTS OF EQUALITY

The section on rights of equality starts off with the admirable dictum that "the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, or sex." It particularizes against discrimination in trading establishments, including public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; in the use of wells, tanks, roads, and places of public resorts maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public; and in eligibility for public office. To clinch the argument, "untouchability in any form is a abolished, and the imposition of any disability on that account shall be an offence." Thus the progressive element in Hindu society which has campaigned for many years against the biggest blot on the country's fair name now gainstatutory recognition for its objective. Members of the scheduled castes, including Dr. Ambedkar himself (although commonly he is diametrically opposed to Congress policies), took a large part in the Constituent Assembly's debate and were satisfied with its outcome.

World opinion has somewhat naturally seized upon this move to abolish untouchability as the most significant feature of the Fundamental Rights Bill. Indian Opinion, on the other hand, ling conscious of the stigma and anxious to remove it has taken this provision almost for granted. That is because untouchability, while still firmly rooted in the countryside, has steadily lost its hold on the cities. No educated Indian would attempt to justify it today. Politically minded India may be trusted henceforth to enforce the legal sanctions against untouchability to the utmost of its power.

No surprise need be occasioned by a further provision adopted at Delhi without opposition namely, that "no title shall be conferred by the Union and no citizen of the Union shall accept any title from any foreign State." THis is a natural reflection of the nationalist attitude of mind, best exemplified by Pandit Nehru himself, which feels that the British system of conferring title for public services has led to sycophancy and even corruption, both moral and material. It is a sweeping indictment, from which many Britons will dissent. This is, however, entirely a matter for the new India to decide. Although the Union may not confer titles, the popular habit of labelling leaders with such honorifics, as "Mahatma" and "Sardar" will doubtless persist.

Under the heading of "rights of freedom" are grouped freedom of speech, freedom to form associations and unions, and the right to reside and hold property in any part of the Union. These are "subject to public order and morality" and may be exercised "except in a grave emergency declared to be such by the Government of the Union or the Unit concerned, whereby the security of the Union or the Unit, as the case may be, is threatened." In other words the State reserves the power to declare any association illegal-a power which was objected to by the solitary Communist member of the Assembly for obvious reasons. he wanted the power of veto to be restricted to matters concerning the defence of India, but the House insisted on a broader basis. On the manner in which this power is invoked will depends the liberality or otherwise of the future Union.

Another contentious clause establishes " the right of every citizen to reside and settle in any part of the Union, to acquire, hold and dispose of property, and to exercise or carry on any occupation, trade, business or profession." In a country where peasant and tribesman are at the mercy of the bania, or moneylender, unless special steps are taken to prevent the alienation of land and the practice of usury, it is understandable that spokesmen of the agriculturists and aboriginals should have objected to this sweeping licence to acquire property being given to every citizen. The matter was resolved by adding a proviso to impose "such restrictions as may be necessary in the public interest, including the protection of minority groups and tribes." Among the points held over for further consideration, because it raised the issue of conscription for national service was one providing for the prohibition of traffic in human beings and other forms of forced labour, subject to the right of the State to impose compulsory service for public purpose. There was no consensus of opinion on whether the new India should have a conscript or a volunteer army. Assembly members will have to make up their minds on this before they next meet.

RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE

Clauses relating to religion include the right "freely to profess, practise, and propagate religion subject to public order, morality, or health." This raised a controversy. Certain Hindu members who are averse from Christian missionary activity in the country sought to impose a ban on proselytism. The good sense of the House prevailed and even an attempt to prevent the conversion of minors was defeated after Christian members had put up a staunch defence of their right to spread the Gospel. Even so, there were two points relating to religion on which agreement could not be reached. One sought to provide that no person attending any school maintained by or receiving aid from, public funds should be compelled to take part in religious instruction, or attend religious worship in the school. The other laid it down that conversion from one religion to another brought about by coercion or undue influence should not be recognized by lad. Another bone of contention, included under the head of cultural and educational rights, provided that "No minority, whether based on religion, community or language, shall be discriminated against in regard to admission into State educational institutions, nor shall any religious instructions be compulsorily imposed on them." These three matters were referred back for further discussion and possible redrafting.

Notwithstanding these differences, the report on fundamental rights as adopted by the Constituent Assembly contains such assurances against tyranny and totalitarianism as should form the backbone of a liberal State. How far such assurances will be honoured in practice the future will show. That there is often a wide gulf between precept by law-makers and practice by rulers is only too true. Such divergences have been evident in the workings of Indian Provincial self-government, whether under the aegis of Congress or the Muslim League.

Well-wishers of the new India will pin their faith to the fact that members of the Constituent Assembly have generally approached their task in a spirit of seeking to prove themselves worthy of their new-found freedom. The pattern of citizenship will be incorporated in the fabric of the new constitution. Indications are that Indian leaders are seized of the urgency of their task, and will endeavour to produce an agreed constitution by the end of September. It will be probably embody many of the provisions of the Government of India Act of 1935, itself the major constitutional achievement of Parliament between the two World Wars.

EDUCATION IN THE BOMBAY PRESIDENCY Article : The Servent of India - 28th March 1918

The report of the Director of Public Instruction for the quinquennium ended March 1917, which was recently published, furnishes abundant material for thought and reflection. It shows that the tendency towards educational progress is of so pronounced a character that adverse circumstances can check it but to a limited extent. During the first half of this period things were pursuing their normal course. But then came war, followed by stringent circulars ordering retrenchment all round, and it appeared for a time as if education was going to mark time during the continuance of the war. Fortunately Government themselves realised the unwisdom of restricting expenditure on education even in a time of war, and towards the close of this period the stringency of the economy circular was relaxed. The net result is that during this period expenditure on education has increased by Rs. 38,27,000 which has rendered progress possible in a varying degree in all directions.

At present the nation has set its heart on the development of primary education. Everyone will naturally turn to this branch to note what progress has been made. The report is not very satisfactory on this point, for while the increase in the attendance of boys in the secondary stage has been 21 percent, that of boys in primary schools has been only 10.2. What has happened since then, however, the passing of the Elementary Education Bill of the Hon. Mr. Patel, the promise of a more vigorous policy for the spread of primary education held out in the resolution of Government on the report and the realisation of the promise in the budget recently explained by the education member, all give cause for hope and lead one to believe that after all Government have recognised their responsibility and have made up their mind to tackle the problem of universal education in a systematic manner.

These indications of a comprehensive plan methodically worked out are somehow not so conspicuous in university and secondary education. In fact it appears that the stage of trial and experiment has not yet been passed, although some progress can be recorded here also. The College of Commerce, which was founded during this period, falls more naturally under the head of professional than university education proper. But the Gujarat College was taken under their own management by Government, the opening of the Karnatak College was definitely promised-- which promise has since been fulfilled, and the New Poona College was established in Poona by the Shikshana Prasarak Mandali. Thus during the quinquennium there has been an addition of only one second grade college, while the number of students reading in them has increased by 1583 or by 48 percent. This cannot be considered a very satisfactory state of things. The Director himself says : "All the Colleges are full to overflowing and complaints are constantly made regarding the insufficiency of existing accomodation in the college classes and the need of extending it." Since then the Karnatak College has begun work and the Surat College is arranging to do so from June next. But there is no systematic attempt to cope with the larger numbers that are sure to crowd in colleges, which, the Director remarks, "is an indication of the ever-increasing demand in this Presidency for higher education." More Government Colleges, we are inclined to think, are more or less out of the question. They are a very costly affair. The average cost in three Government Colleges works out at Rs. 206-1-5 per student, while the highest cost per student, viz, Rs. 383-10-9 is, to be found the Elphinstone College which again is a Government institution. The D. J. Sind College stands in a category by itself and need not be taken into account for purposes of comparison. Contrast with this the corresponding figure for the Fergusson College, which is an aided institution, and the difference will at once be found to be of a glaring character. The average cost in the Fergusson College is only Rs. 83-3-11. If the lowness of this figure is sought to be explained away on the plea of a large number of students the average of Rs. 105-2-6 in the New Poona College cannot be so accounted for. The number of its students has been limited by the University and stood during 1916-17, at 213. The irresistible inference is that private agency, being far more economical than Government agency and not less efficient, will have to be largely used for meeting "the ever increasing demand" for higher education if the available resources are to be fully utilised and made to yield the highest results.

This conviotion is brought home with greater force in the sphere of secondary education. Government do not propose to open more than one high school for a district, and during the period there was only one addition to the list of Government
high schools. We are not sorry for this decision of Government. Here again the question of cost is an important factor. The cost of educating each pupil in a Government high school Rs. 60-6-3, while that in aided high schools is only Rs. 50-9-1. The latter figure again is too high and does not give a correct idea of the actual
cost in an average high school. In subsidiary Form No.2 all Aided High schools are lumped together. It is necessary to take out from these European and Anglo-Indian high schools in which the average cost per head is Rs. 162-9-1, as also English teaching schools where it is Rs. 51-7-10. When these deductions are made, the average cost per pupil for the 57 aided high schools works out at Rs. 40-3-5 only. For a more accurate calculation a further deduction will have to be made. Some of the Mission high schools are costly, their average cost being more than Rs. 100 per head. Some special schools are even more expensive. For instance, in Bahadur Ji's Parsi Girls' High School at Kirkee the average cost per pupil is Rs. 328-4. Such schools must be classed separately and their average also shown. But even taking
the figures as they have been given above, it will be seen that Government high schools are 50% more expensive than aided high schools, and so for a given amount 50% more students can be educated by private agency than what can be done by Government agency.

From what' has been stated above, it will be clear that it is in the public ,interest to employ private agency for the purpose 01 meeting the ever increasing demands of higher and secondary education. The Hunter Commission of 1882 has definitely
pronounced in favour of such a policy. It was so completely accepted by the authorities of those days that the Government of Lord Reay actually opened negotiations with the Deccan Education Society for the transfer of the Deccan College to that body. What is wanted at this time is not any such wholesale transfer of Government institutions to private bodies, but a definite and deliberate policy of encouraging such bodies and so increase their usefulness. Private, bodies have
also an element of elasticity in their organization, which enables them to extend the scope of their operations when a necessity for it arises. The main difficulty of these bodies is want of funds. The grants-in-aid obtained from Government do not make things easy for them. The scale of grants allowable to such bodies was fixed long ago. Much water has flowed under the bridges since then. New ideas about equipment, methods, training and qualifications of teachers have come to
prevail and have rendered secondary and university education very expensive. The necessity of making larger grants has been felt by Government themselves. The special grants which are latterly paid to high schools and the imperial grants paid to colleges which they are allowed at their option to utilise for current or recurring expenditure clearly prove this. We contend that this is an unsatisfactory procedure. Every educational institution must know beforehand what help it may expect from Government and must be in a position to count upon this as a certainty before it
can undertake any scheme of permanent improvement entailing increased annual expenditure. For this purpose the scale of grants-in-aid to colleges and schools must be revised and made more liberal as soon as possible, so that existing institutions
will be able to increase their efficiency and extend their sphere of work. A liberal scale of grants, both recurring and non-recurring, is. even more necessary for the purpose of facilitating the starting of new institutions conducted by private bodies,
without which it will be impossible to meet the varied educational requirements of the Presidency.

H. G. Limaye