INSIDE LOK SABHA ef 9 > By . ASOKA MEHTA | | Published by SOCIALIST BOOK CENTRE—Madras 4 Distributors BHARAT PUBLISHERS | TEPPAKULAM, TIRUCHIRAPALLI. S. INDIA. | | tHX B92 M46 > > aw 10. 11. 12. 13. CONTENTS On. Third Amend ment to constitution On Fourth Amendment to constitution On Presidents’ Proclamation on Andhra On Preventive Detention On President’s Address On The Railway Budget—1955 On The Budget—1955 On Foreign Affairs—I On Foreign Affairs—II On Industrial Policy Progress Report On The Nationalisation of Imperial Bank Capitalism Flourishes Pages A 13 24 35 48 60 71 82 - 101 - 118 ~ 127 ~ 141 !970207 “S34 APOLOGY New Delhi \Sth August 1955 On the insistent demand of my friend Sri. V. R. Radhakrishnan of Socialist Book Centre, Madras, I have brought together for publication, a few of the speeches I made in recent months in the Lok Sabha. I hope they contain something of interest to our countrymen, After all speeches in Parliament are’ always addressed to the wider audience outside. ASOKA MEHTAPREFACE We are very glad to present to a wider audience, the speeches of Sri. Asoka Mehta made on the floor of the Lok Sabha. Sri Asoka Mehta is one of the pioneers of the Indian Socialist Movement. He is not only the leader of a major political party and a politician, but an original thinker and a brilliant scholar. His writings which have become classics in their own way constitute an outstanding contribution to the Socialist thought. Commenting on his two books: ‘Democratic Socialism” and “Socialism and Peasantry” a Western Intellectual remarked that they are “the classics of contemporary Socialism.” As a member of the opposition in the Lok Sabha, he has made a mark and his speeches are listened to with great care by the Treasury Benches. On many occasions the ministers have accepted his suggestions. We are presenting this book with full hope and confidence that it will have a good response: We are thankful to Sri S. Vijayalakshmi, M.A., M. Litt, for helping us in our endeavour to publish this book, We are also thankful to Sri. T. K. Rangaswami, Bharat Publishers, Trichy, for taking up the responsibility of printing the book and arranging for its sales. SOCIALIST BOOK CENTRE MADRAS. “THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION I would like to congratulate the seven Members of the Joint Select Committee for the brilliant and lucid minute of dissent that they have given us. I would like to under- score my agréement with the seven weighty arguments that the minute of dissent has placed before us and I would like to put forward a few additional or supplementary arguments. I would like to point out that all Parties other than the Congress Party are today opposed to this amendment: As far as the Congress Party is concerned it is itself divided. The division of the Congress Party is clear from the fact that a large number of States or Governments which are in the hands of the Congress Party are opposed to this amendment. As regards the attitude of the States, what do we find? The biggest province in India, the U. P., has expressed no opinion, Four states are opposed: Assam, Bihar, Bombay and Travancore-Cochin. No replies have’ been received from Madhya pradesh, Mysore and Madras. Andhra has it under consideration. Agreement has been expressed by Madhya Bharat, Orissa, P. E. P. S. U., Saurashtra and West Bengal. These States put together do not have a population of even one fourth of the tota} population of this country. Some of them are small; some of them; I may be permitted to say, are mostly client states of the Central Government. May I invite the attention of the Hon. Minister who moved this amendment sometime back, that in.the course of his observations, he had said: ‘To sum up the reactions of the States. .s.s0«.? Shri A, M. Thomas (Eranakulam): May I point out to the Hon; Member that the Travancore~Cochin Government on * Speech made during the second reading of the Bill6 a previous occasion had accepted the recommendations of the commodity Controls Committee that the Centre may have the powers of control over essential commodities? Shri Asoka Mehta: May I also, point out that the pre- sent Travancore-Cochin Government which is the only. Government which is not controlled by the Congress Party has said. * Regretted inability to agree to the proposals ........’ An Hon. Member: You have the controlling interest. (interruption) Shri Asoka Mehta: ‘Regretted inability to agree to the proposals adding as the State Government would certainly be expected to undertake any legislation to implement the policy of the Centre in the general interest, a transfer of the power to the Centre was not necessary.” The Minister had said that Mysore had shown agree- ment, and that the Travancore-Cochin Government had also shown agreement. We find that Mysore has so fat expressed no opinion on this amendment. Travancore— Cochin has definitely opposed the amendment. May I also point out that this Constitution was drafted under serious economic vicissitudes? The wholesale price index had jumped from 302 to 390. There was a net with- drawal from our foreign exchange to the extent of Rs. 227 crores. While the Constitution was being drafted, the founding fathers had before them the experience of control, de-control and recontrol. In the light of these experiences, they thought it proper to frame a Constitution as it has been framed, providing only transitional and temporary powers, They are sought to be made permanent today.Q 7 it has been argued that unless these powers are taken, it will not be possible for us to look after the organisation of production and growth of raw cotton and the rest of it. I believe that the Government had no such powers so far as raw jute was concerned. May I invite the attention of the Government to the growth of production of raw jute in this country between 1947—48 and 1952—53 on the one hand, and the increase in the production of raw cotton, on the other during the same years? What do we find? In jute which was not controlled from the top in the sense in which the Hon. Mover of the Bill wants to control it today, the increase was to the extent of 300 per cent while cotton production that was completely controlled from the top, increased only 150 per cent. Let it not be said that with- out control it is not possible to bring about development and expansion. It has been argued that in all these commodities that are listed in this amendment, there is the danger either of over-all or lone shortages. If there is over-all shortage that is a special situation for which the necessary provi- sions have been made in the Constitution. If there isa lone shortage in any particular commodity, this very Commodity Controls Committee has pointed out what needs to be done. On pages 58-59 the Committee has pointed out: “It would, therefore, be advantageous to transform gradually the present ‘food administration into a ‘ buffer stock admi- nistration’ wherever feasible so that in the course of time the latter may become a very useful instrument for stabilising the price level in the country protecting both the consumer and the producer against undue fluctuations in prices”8 What is suggested is the creation of a buffer stock administration, and I do not understand why in creating a buffer stock administration, these powers need be taken away from the states. The authors of the minutes of dissent have invited our attention to the progressive pulverisation of States’ power, and I believe they have done‘a signal service by drawing our attention to it: Control of these matters will not be possible unless and until it is extended also to control over crop planning and cultivation: May I invite the attention of the Hon. Mover to the report of the Uttar Pradesh Controls Inquiry Committee. On page 4, as an illustration the case of peas is mentioned. They say ‘The result is that the area under cultiva- tion of peas has been progressively increas- ing during the last five years and in 1950-51 it was 21,00,000 acres as compared to 16,00,000 acres five years ago. Pulses are also freely exported to other states. The overall availability of foodgrains is considerably reduced so far as the consu- mer in the U. P. is concerned. The Export last year of peas exceeded 1,00,000 tons’ ; Therefore, Sir, once you begin to control the produc- tion of foodgrains, you will inevitably have to control crop planning and there will be thus an expanding encroachment on the rights of the States. There will be a progressive erosion of the State powers, Not only is it a question of progressive erosion of State powers, but a much more vital issue is involved in this. There is the danger, there is the possibility of side-stepping of democratic processes. The Government must learn and teach the art of democratic adjustments.§ May I in this connection, invite your attention to 4 memorable statement by an outstanding authority on democratisation of administration? I refer to Mr. David Lilienthal. . He says: : : “This matter of. making a choice availa- ble, which is the duty of leadership, seems to be critically important. There are two ways of going about many of these matters. There for example, isa steep slope which has been denuded of trees by the farmer. He has to make a living. He needs this steep slope to grow the things that will keep his family alive, and so he cuts the trees down and. plants his corn, and the soil is washed off in a few years, and the nation has been robbed of just that much of its capital assets...... Now one. way of going about it is to say, we will pass a law that any.farmer who cuts down, the trees and cultivates a slope steeper than acertain grade. is incapable of farming. He is injuring the community and the nation, and by this law we ‘will take his land away from him and turn it back into forest or meadow,” That is one way.. Then there is the other method of giving the farmer a chance to make a choice; recognizing, that the farmer does not cut down those trees because he enjoys cutting down trees or because he likes to see the soil washed off and destroyed but because he has a problem of feeding his1 family and making a living. Give him 4 choice — a free choice — by making it possible for him to use his land in such a way that he will not only be enabled to support his family but at the same time protect that soil against depredation. This is only one illustration of many of this conviction I have that a man must be given a free choice rather then com- pelling his choice or having supermen make the choice for him”. We, Sir, find here that supermen want to make the choice not only as far individuals are concerned, but as far as States are concerned. Why can we not bring the representatives of the two tegether round a table and see that an agreed formula is hammered out, as the Govern- ment of Travancore-Cochin has suggested? You must give them an opportunity. You must try to carry conviction to them. You must try to carry the representatives of the States with you. You may be able, in the plenitude of your power, to brush aside the States. You may occupy a certain territory of power because of the special rights that you are going to get once this amendment is accepted, but what will be the result? Unless and until you can satisfy the people of the States concerned that justice is being done to them, will you be able to carry through Whatever reforms or whatever administrative changes you want to carry through. Can you afford to bypass the people? After all, if you think that the States are being recalcitrant, please remember that the recalcitrance of tha states will always be reflected in the recalcitrance of the people, and you cannot brush aside the recalcitrance of the people. You must learn, you must educate your people to discover waysn and means of adjustment. That is the very essence, that is the basic art of democracy. May I in this connection point out that we may ignore the moral dimension of the grass roots approach only at our peril? It is an obligation in connection with resources development that the local governmental institutions be strengthened rather than weakened, that they be supple- mented rather than supplanted. I would like to emphasize that the resources of a region include its institutions, particularly its governmental agencies. It has been argued that after all the current powers are sought only as conti- gent powers. That is not the intention of the Hon. Minister. He wants to use these powers. Last time while moving this amendment, he made it very clear that he wants to use these powers. These are not merely contigent powers. They may be called concurrent powers, but they . are going to be used and used in the near future. You may try to bypass,. you may try to side-step democratic forces in this respect, but you will not be able to run away from them. There will be differences of opinion between Ministries themselves. As we know, there have been differences of opinion recently. How are you going to resolve them? Inside a Ministry, inside a department, there might be acute differences of opinion. How are they to be resolved I would not, I do not propose to refer to any incident or any experience in our country, but I may cite as an example the experience from a foreign country. It is pointed out: “There arose consequently a conflict between two agricultural groups, and indeed between two groups within the U. S. Department of Agriculture. To be specific, this conflict between the Ex- tension Service, the Agricultural Adjust- ments Administration and the FarmR Bureau on the one side, and the Farm" Security ‘Administration and the farmers on the other.” I think this kind of conflicts are inevitable. How are they to be resolved? By taking over more powers, by push- ing aside the people with whom adjustments are to be sought, or by learning to sit with them, by making them realise wherever the larger issues of the country are involved? They must learn to arrive at agreements and adjustments. That is the approach, the grass roots app- roach to democracy. If that, approach is given ‘up, the result will be that the arteries of adjustments will harden, and ‘all short-cut adjustments will mean that power will get increasingly concentrated into the hands of the few people at the top. May I and my observations by quoting the wise words of one of the foremost seers of democracy? I refer to thé famous French writer, De Tocqueville : ‘Although a centralised administration can bring together ata given moment, or a given point, all the disposable resources of a people, it injures the re- newal of those resources. It may ensure a victory in the hour of strife, but it gradu- ally relaxes the sinews of strength. It may help admirably the transiént great- ness of a man, but not the durable pros- perity of a nation”. May I therefore appeal to the Mover of the Amend- ment not to get interested; not to get intoxicated by the thought of the greatness of a man, whoever the man may be, but to think in terms of the durable prosperity of the nation? By this amendment you are going to weaken the sinews of strength of our nation. I hope and trust that will not be done.*FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION | I welcome the Bill to amend the Constitution that has been moved by the Prime Minister. While I welcome it, I must make it clear that I am not satisfied with it. The amendment does not go far enough. This particular article has been discussed in this House on more than one occasion. If I am not wrong, this is the third time that this House has been called upon, to consider this article. Why is it that we have to consider it over and over again? I believe; it is because the approach has been wrong, We have not looked at the problem in the way’ in which it needed to be looked. I am afraid, in the amend- ment that is being suggested by the Prime Minister, we have not overcome the inadequacy of the approach in the past. The Prime Minister has spoken on this article not once, not twice, but four or five times; and I have tried to ‘go through the various speeches that he has made ‘on the subject. I find, over and over again, he has maintained that equity in relation to an individual has to be’ subordi- nated to. equity in its relation to the community. He has further argued that the directive principles of State policy represent a dynamic move towards a certain objective while the fundamental rights represent a static standstill. I do not accept that. I do not think that the fundamental tights represent anything static. The fundamental rights, to my mind, are the substance, the core, of all that we desire the State to achieve. After all, the fullness of all that we promise to our countrymen, the richness to which they are to be the heirs is ultimately represented by the fundamental rights. * Speech delivered on 14th March 1955 aie the first reading of the Bill.14 The question is, what do we mean by fundamental rights? I have here a book by a distinguished professor of law, Emeritus professor of Columbia University, Robert L. Hale, who has discussed this question in Freedom through Law. He has argued that fundamental rights have to be conceived as meant to enhance and enlarge the liberties of the people, liberties of the people however; are not fully realised because of economic inequalities. Econamic in- equality has a three-fold aspect. It affects the freedom of men as producers, freedom of men as consumers and free- dom of educational opportunities, If the inequalities are to be corrected, the corrections have to be made in all the three directions. If fundamental rights, the basic liberties of the people, are meant to enable people to tealise happiness, realise fulness and richness of life, to achieye equality, if all these fundamental rights are to be fulfiled and to be adequately realised, then we must see that there will be no political coercion, there must not also be economic coercion of any kind. And, it is in that connec- tion that the distinguished Professor says :— “Economic inequalities, then-inequa- lities in freedom as producer and as consumer-are embodied in unequal legal tights. In assigning and enforcing legal tights to the fruits of transactions, the law is doing more than protect the winnings in the game of production and exchange. It is dealing unequal hands to the players. Further State intervention to alter the distribution of rights and liberties, to the advantage of those whose liberty is most restricted as a result, in part, of state action cannot be properly5 described as ‘statism’ in any obnoxious sense.” Therefore, the question that we have to ask is, do we want to enlarge the liberties of the people, do we want an egalitarian and liberterian society to be created in our country ? If we want to create such a society, then obviously, we must not think in terms of rights of persons, which is merely a juridical expression, but of the liberties of citizens, which deals with individuals, men and women of our country. And we must decide that we prefer to enlarge the liberties of the people, their liberties as producers, as consumers and their liberties for obtaining equal educatio- nal opportunities, and to that end we should not hesitate to curtail property rights. Property right, in the sense in which it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, is conceived as a basic fundamental right. Do we concede that, do we accept that property right is a fundamental right, in effect anterior and superior to other rights; upon which no encroachment whatsoever can take place? Is property to be conceived as a homogenous entity or are we going to distinguish one kind of property from another? In the Czchoslovakian Constitution persona] property, méaning thereby the house a man lives in, the tools with which he works, the income he earns by the sweat of his brow, all this is considered to be personal property which cannot be encroached upon. Of course; the question can be asked whether any guarantee given by a Communist State is worth the paper on which it is written ; that is a different matter. But, it is possible for us tO guarantee personal property without simultaneously guaranteeing the much wider expression of private property. And, if we are going to guarantee Property tight in the wider sense then the result would be in the16 memorable words of the Prime Minister the “haves” will remain “haves” and the “have-nots” will remain ‘“have- nots”, and the changes that we cherish will never be brought about. To this question, Justice Mahajan has given a reply. “It seems to me that our Constitution, subject to certain exceptions, has guaran- teed the fullest protection to private property.” We have considered this article over and over again and this House has always ended by amending to a certain extent this protection to private property but never appro- aching the problem ina fundamental way. What then is the use of the Prime Minister complaining as he did last time in 1951, that somehow we find that the magnificent Constitution that we have framed was later kidnapped and purloined by lawyers? In this amendment, we are once again repeating the conditions whereby our lawyer friends will once again be able to kidnap and purloin the magnificent Constitution that we are fashioning. We are here sitting as architects of this Constitution. It is up to us to make the Constitution fool-proof against the lawyers as far as this aspect is concerned. Property of the people must be sacred and sacrosanct. The Supreme Court must be there to see that the Executive does not encroach upon property of the people. But, what is property? Not big property or large-scale property. I am sure; our able lawyer mem- bers should be able to tell us how to safeguard small property, about which our friend Mr. N. C. Chatterjee on my left is worried, and our friend Professor Hiran Mukerjee on my right is feelingly anxious. But, surely, I do not see any reason why any of us here should be interested in safe- guarding the property of our millionaire friends Mr. Tulsidas1? ahd Mr. Somani, sitting behind me. Their properties teed not be treated as sacrosanct. That distinction is not surely beyond the comprehension of our lawyer friends here. But, I find that the Prime Minister has over and over again tried to make that distinction and has failed. Why have, we to consider this amendment? It is because of certain judicial pronouncements. As far as the judicial pronouncements are concerned, I find that on two things there is complete agreement. As far as the Power of Emi- nent Domain is concerned, we are all agreed that it must be exercised under the authority of law and for a public ' purpose. On that there is no disagreement. Disagreement arises when we consider whether the right of compensation is an inalienable ingredient of the Power of Eminent Domain. There, I find that while we are agreed and it is commonly accepted that the Power of Eminent Domai is dormant in the State and it remains so until it is activised by the Legislature. But, the question is, while activising, is it obligatory for the Legislature to think in terms of compensation? And, there, Justice Mahajan has stated :— © “Public purpose is an essential ingredient in the very definition of the expression Eminent Domain, even though obligation to pay compensation is not a content of the definition but has been added to it by judicial definition.” Compensation is not a content of the concept of Eminent Domain ; it has becn added by judicial definition ; it is something which, surely, this House can take away, Not only that, he proceeds further and says :— “It is indeed like a shadow but yet it is distinct from it and flows from.another source.”18 fs it not possible for us to remove the shadow which flows from another source from the substance with which we are dealing? I ask my friend Mr. Chatterjee; why all this anxiety to cling to the shadow in order to save the substance ? We are not concerned with the shadow, we are concerned with the substance. My learned friend has pointed out to us that, after all, all the rights are not going. You can take away certain rights from the bundle of rights; But, that will not amount to acquisition. That is what the Supreme Court has said. It may beso. But, what do we find? Justice Das has said : “Tf the rights taken away are such as would render the rights left illusory and practically valueless then there would be no question that in effect and substance the property has been taken away.” Where is this line to be drawn as far as big property is concerned? As far as small property is concerned, I think, the thing itself and the rights over the thing can be easily understood. But, as far as big property is concerned, where do we draw the dividing line between the thing and the rights over the thing. On this question, I find, our lawyer friends are not interested in enlightening us. On the contrary they delight in confusing us. I did hope that an eminent lawyer like our friend Mr. Chatterjee would have enlightened us on the subject because Justice Mahajan has said :— “Article 31 deals with the field of Eminent Domain and the whole bounda- ty of the field is demarcated by the article.” Where is the boundary line to be drawn, on what basis is the demarcation line to be drawn? That is what I expec-19 ted my Hon. friend Mr. Chatterjee and Hon. the Prime Minister, also a lawyer, to tell us. But they all want to tun away from this and they all want to leave this to the Supreme Court and then say that thé lawyers have kidnapped and purloined the magnificent Constitution that we have oreated. I feel that because they are lawyers, they are in league with the other lawyers outside and, perhaps» they want to create condition wherein the lawyers can kid- nap and purloin the Constitution in future also! Iam net against lawyers. I want lawyers and I want them to protect our liberties, but the question is this: is it the right of owning big property or is it the liberty of citizens that is to be protected ? What the amendment is trying to do.is to separate the powers of eminent domain from the police power of the State, the.regulatory and other powers. While that is being done, thero is also a saving clause ; certain legislations for social welfare are sought to be excluded from the purview of the courts. It is a long list and I shall not repeat it here. The amendment falls short of the objectives we have -in view. Prof. Wheare’s book. om Modern Constitutions discussing constitutional amendments refers to the primary forces that bring-about constitutiondl amendments; they are said to be two. They are influenced by the economic concepts in a particular society and they are also determi- ned by the need to adjust conflicting interests and opinions, We are today so fortunately placed in this House that the overwhelming majority of the Members are of one mind, and outside the House also there is an overwhelming majority of the people who are of one mind. In Andhra, the people ‘voted for the Congress Party that claims to stand for socialism ; the people voted for the Communist Party which also swears by socialism; they voted for the P. §. P. which likewise stands for socialism, Excepting far20 my friends of the Jan Sangh, I think all our people stand - for socialism, though they may not be clear as to what kind of socialism or which particular pattern they prefer, but there seems to be a remarkable unity in the country that we want socialism and want a Constitution whereby our socialistic objectives can be realised. This amendment - does not permit us, as I will show, to usher in socialism. On the last occasion when Panditji was moving his amend- ment, he said :— “When I think of this article 31; the the whole gamut of pictures comes up before my mind; because the article deals with the abolition of zamindari system and land laws and agrarian reforms.” Why should the gamut of pictures be confined to agrarian reforms? Why should the gamut of pictures exclude the taking over the Sholapur Mills or the clearing of slums which is accepted to be a crime against the public? Why is it that his focus was controlled then and it is expanding now? He is now able to see that slums constitute a crime. When there is an occasion for a textile mill to be taken over for a temporary period for purposes of better management, his focus will have to be enlarged. After some time it may be that the Prime Minister may consider that industries should be taken over and once again the Constitution will have to be amended. .Every time the Prime Minister‘s social conscience pricks him the Constitution is to be amended. My friend Prof. _Mukerjee referred to the belling of the cat. If that expression is to be accepted, that the Prime Minister, who is to be belled, demands that the hole in the wall must be no bigger than the cat! If the cat is big, the whole must grow bigger, but under.no circumstances the whole be out21 of step with the size of the Cat-the social concience of the Prime Minister. Our nation has accepted certain social objectives and it is they; not your limited vision; your rapid social legislation programme that should shape the Constitution. The Constitution should be brought in harmony with the objectives which the Parliament has accepted and the people have approved of. I find that not only the Constitution is not being trimmed and tuned in terms of the socialistic objectives, but a shameful retreat is being registered. Last time when the Prime Minister was speaking on the subject, he said that he would like the whole question of compensation to be made discretionary and not obligatory, the quantum of compensation being left entirely to the exclusive purview of the legislature. - This time that is not what is being done. It is true that the quantum of compensation is left into the hands of the legislature in the case of certain types of properties that are enumerated in the amending article 31-A. It is also assumed in 31 (2) that some rights can be taken over by the Government without compensation being paid, but the fundamental fact remains that for requisitioning property, and the question of acquisition arises in the case of big Properties, we have to pay compensation and the courts will have the last say in the matter. On the last occasion, the other Pagditji, Pandit Pant, had gone further and said : wok “T presume that if at any time this legislature chooses to nationalise industry and take control of it, whether it be all the industries or any particular class of it; such as the textile industry or the mings,22 it will be open to it to pass the law and frame principles for the purpose and those principles will be invulnerable in any court.”” But those principles have proved to be vulnerable. Are we making this power invulnerable now? No, we are not making it invulnerable. If you want to take over the Sholapur Mills merely temporarily for a year or two, you can do, but if you want that the Sholapur Mills should be taken over and should not belong to Morarka, can yo do it now ? Will it be possible for the House to decide that the textile industry be nationalised and that we should pay only rehabilitation compensation to the owners of the industry? Will it be permitted or will it be purloined and kidnapped by Shri Chatterjee and Shri Anthony into. the Supreme Court? Surely the time has come when the Prime Minister must make up his mind whether he wants, -to run with the hare or hunt with the hound. In one breath he talks of socialistic objectives. I read the letter -that the Prime Minister has written to the Presidents of the Provincial Congress Committees. It is an eloquent letter. It is a letter that stirs the blood of those who read it. I found in that letter the idiom of the Prime Minister as it was in 1935 or 1936, but when I find the same person coming here to sponsor the amendment, we get confused. Therefore, my appeal to you is that we must not set up fences round the right of property. Justice Mahajan said that eminent domain is the power to take and the other, regulatory, is the condition for the exercise of that power. Let the legislature decide the condition of taking. Let us not permit the courts to interfere as far as the conditions of taking over the property are concerned. Let the court be the custodian of the liberty of the people. There is a basic distinction between the American approach and the8 fidian approach. The founding fathers of the American Constitution, who lived in the 18th century, thought, that property right was an inherent, ineluctable and inalienable part of man’s right to liberty. It is this concept that has been eroded by the socialist movement in the 19th & 20th centuries and the new understanding that has emerged states that property cannot be considered to be principal ingredient of a person’s liberty. If we want an egalitarian society, we shall have to take a fundamentally radical view of property and it is in this connection that my friend, Prof.. Mukerjee, referred to the famous observation of Proudhon: “Property is theft”. He was not referring to the property of small persons or the property of the worker or artisan of which there was no shouter defender than Proudhon, That obviously is not based upon theft. Proudhon and who dreamt of wide-spread diffusion of property of distributionism railed against big property, Ido not know how far the Communist in Prof. Mukerjee will permit him to travel with Proudhon. He may be afraid of “poverty of philosophy”, for which Marx arraigned Proudhon, but we are more concerned about the philosophy of poverty that Proudhan ably propounded. Therefore, my appeal to you and my appeal to the Joint Committee and to the Prime Minister is: let us not be called upon to consider this amendment over and over again. Let this article not be linked up with the gamut of pictures that the Prime Minister sees before his mind’s eye. Let this article ultimately be linked up with the social objective which our people have accepted. Let us not be called upon to amend this article from time to time and make ourselves ridiculous and undermine the prestige af the Supreme Court. I am most anxious that the prestige of the Supreme Court should not be built up by repeatedly over-ruling the Supreme Court's decisions by amending theij Constitution. That way we are not helping to ¢reate the tight kind of traditions. But we shall be creating the right kind of traditions only when we have amended the Consti- tution in such a fashion that the Constitution becomes a fit instrument of the high and exalted social objectives that we have placed before ourselves. * PRESIDENT’S PROCLAMATION ON ANDHRA I had hoped that the Home Minister in the course of his observations would explain to us why the Proclamation of the President became necessary. Weare told that as far as the dissolution of the Andhra State Ligislature is con- cerned, it has been announced on the advice of the Ministry that has resigned. There is the other part of the Proclama- tion where the administration of that State is to be taken over by the President, As far as dissolution of the Assembly is concerned, I am wholly in favour of it. Not only do I welcome the dis- solution, but my colleagues have been favouring the dissolu- tion of the Assembly for along time. When Mr. Prakasam was a member of our party executive, plenary powers were given to him to decide a suitable policy for Andhra. He was however advised by my executive to work for early elections. We insisted upon was early elections because we felt that the existing Assembly in Andhra did not repre- sent the people in the conditions created after the separa- tion of Andhra Desh. If we had been permitted to have our way, perhaps the elections would have come a year back. But as you are aware, the Prime Minister of this country in his capacity as the Leader of the Congress Party, indulged in and embarked upon politics of piracy. If, in * Speech made on 19th November 1954, 4