The reason why we have established in this Constitution a political democracy is because we do not want to instal by any means whatsoever a perpetual dictatorship of any particular body of people. While we have established political democracy, it is also the desire that we should lay down a mechanism to enable people to come and capture power. The Constitution also wishes to lay down an ideal before those who would be forming the Govemment. That ideal is economic democracy, whereby, so far as I am concerned, I understand to mean, one man, one vote.’ The question is: Have we got any fixed idea as to how we should bring about economic democracy? There are various ways in which people believe that economic democracy can be brought about, there are those who believe in having a socialistic state as the best form of economic democracy; there are those who believe in having a socialistic state as the best form of economic democracy, there are those who believe in the communistic idea as the most perfect form of economic democracy.
Now, having regard to the fact that these various ways by which economic democracy may be brought about, we have deliberately introduced in language that we have used, in the directive principles, something which is not fixed or rigid. We have left enough room for people of different ways of thinking, with regard to the reaching of the ideal of economic democracy, to strive in their own way, to persuade the fullest opportunity to act in the way in which they want to act.
Sir, that is the reason why the language of the articles in Part-IV is left in the manner in which this Drafting Committee thought it best to leave it. It is no use of giving a fixed, rigid form to something which is not rigid, which is fundamentally changing and must, having regard to the circumstances and the times, keep on changing. It is, therefore, no use saying that the directive principles have no value. In my judgment, the directive principles have a great value, for they lay down that our ideal is economic democracy. Because we did not want merely a parliamentary form of Government to be instituted through the various mechanisms provided in the Constitution, without any direction as to what our economic ideal, as to what our social order ought to be, we deliberately included the Directive Principles in our Constitution. I think, if the friends who are agitated over this question bear in mind what I have said just now that our subject in framing this constitution is really two-fold: (i) to lay down the form of political democracy, and (ii) to lay down that our ideal is economic democracy and also to prescribe that every Government whatever, it is in power, shall strive to bring about economic democracy, much of the misunderstanding under which most members are labouring will disappear.
My friend Mr. Tyagi made an appeal to me to remove the word “strive”, and phrases like that. I think he has misunderstood why we have used the word “strive”, the word “strive” which occurs in the Draft Constitution, in my judgment, is very important, we have used it because our intention is that even when there are circumstances which prevent the Government, or which stand in the way of the Government giving effect to these Directive Principles, they shall, even under hard and unpropitious circumstances, always strive in the fulfilment of these Directives. That is why we have used the word “strive” Otherise, it would be open for any Govemment to say that the circumstances are so bad, that the finances are so inadequate that we cannot even make an effort in the direction in which the Constitution asks us to go. I think my friend Mr. Tyagi will see that the word ‘strive” in this context is of great importance and it would be very wrong to delete it.
As to the rest of the amendments, I am afraid I have to oppose them.
Mr. Vice-President: Only two amendments have been moved: I shall put up them to vote. The first is amendment No. 863 by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad…
The Amendment was negatived.
Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi (Madras: General): Sir, Mr. Kamath must have the leave of the House to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Hussain Imam: The Mover has accepted the amendment.
Mr. Vice-President: Does the House give him leave to withdraw?
Several Honourable Members: Yes.
Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharati: I object to leave being granted..
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: If he wants to withdraw, I have no objection; let him withdraw.
(To be continued)
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings & Speeches, Vol. 13. (pages 351353) 1994, Rs. 190. Govt. of Maharashtra, Bombay. The book may be had from Director, Government Printing. Stationery and Publications, Netaji Subhash Road, Bombay 400 004.
