02-04-2009, 10:11 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Few Historical Background behind the Constitution Assembly of India
Some Very Important Historical Backgrounds indicate that some thing was
behind the record between our National leader Shri Jawahar Lal Nehru and
Admiral Viscount Mountbatten, who was then elevated as the Lord by British
Majesty. Otherwise, till 18th March, 1947, the British Government had not
accepted the partition of India , while at the same time was also determined
to transfer the powers to Indians not later than June, 1948, with a
flexibility, to within one month.
Some thing happens between 18th March, 1947 and June, 1947 (when Lord Mountbatten declared a scheme of partition),
thus, in July, British Parliament passes the Indian Independence Act, 1947,
thus having advanced the date for transfer of power to 15th August, 1947?
According to one article under heading âDiscovery of Nehruâ by one Mr. T R
Jawahar, alleged about the love affairs between Lady Edwina Mountbatten and
Nehru interalia described in the manner: âSo, was our Jawaharlal set up? One
cannot be faulted for assuming so. The British, realising that it would help
to have a pliable premier ruling their erstwhile colony and also being alive
to the chinks in Nehru's moral armoury, probably unleased the oldest trick
known to humanity, a trick that Lord Indra himself played on Vishwamitra;
and the lonely but romantic Nehru fell hook, line and sinker. In 1946, a
year before Independence , the British government invited Nehru to Malaysia
and Singapore . Over to veteran journalist and political observer, Satya Dev
Narayan, who writes in his book interalia: '....the chance rush of the crowd
in the Red Cross building in Singapore where Edwina as Red Cross chief was
waiting to show her work to the distinguished visitor, her falling down on
the ground in that rush and being promptly and gallantly lifted by Nehru
himself to be carried to safety and quiet where the doctor could go to work:
every little bit looks suspiciously like part of an elaborate plan to hook
the coming man, Nehru.
A carefully contrived plan, with much attention to
timing and finesse in execution. If successful, it would no doubt give
Britain a great deal of advantage during negotiations in the final phases of
transfer of power. It would be a great situation to be in if, of the two
representing their respective sides and facing each other at the conference
table, one was the hooker and the other, the hooked...â and that âThus
Nehru's chivalry became the nation's curse. Edwina's daughter also informs
us that though her mother had many lovers, Nehru was very special. What an
honour for the nation that its top man also topped Edwina's lovers' list!
But why not? It is not often that PMs come calling at your door! And the
daughter adds with a touch of respect: 'My father knew all about my mother
and was inured to it'. And why not, again? Having gotten used to the ways of
his wayward wife, why would Mountbatten bat an eyelid when it came to his
'best friend' Nehru?â and that âHow does it feel, as a nation, to know that
the man it so implicitly trusted with its fate, future and fortune, could be
so easily compromised? Whether it was platonic love or plain adultery, the
nation has paid a stiff price for Nehru's extra-curricular activities!â
In my message dated 30th January, 2009, I have said that Dr. Ambedkar
himself, on 2nd September 1953, has made a statement in the Rajya Sabha
(Parliament) that âPeople always keep on saying to me, so you are the maker
of the Constitution. My answer is I was a hack. What I was asked to, I did
much against my will. I am quite prepared to say that I shall be the first
person to burn it. It does not suit anybody.â In fact, the Constituent
Assembly of India was not at all free to make the Constitution with its free
will; rather it had its own limitations under Section 8 of the Indian
Independence Act, 1947, as was passed by the British Parliament. Whereas,
one of my friends has told me that he was taught by Political Pundits as
well as Professors in the University during the then British Raj that â1919
Act brings in the play of the mechanism of diarchy, while 1935 Act is a Rollâs
Royals Administration in a Bullock Cart Countryâ, and that is how both these
Acts were decried and denounced by all those, who were at the helm of the
affairs, whether it be in the academic world or in the realm of freedom
struggle.
Now the question is whether there is any remotest possibility of
the relationship between aforesaid love affairs of Nehru and Edwina, and
compromise, if any behind the scene? A very important development has to be
kept in mind that may cause some serious thinking about the fact as to how
and why the timing for the constitution of the Constituent Assembly was set
only after the trip of Shri Jawahar Lal Nehru to Malaysia and Singapore was
over.
Because, on 20th February, 1947, the British Prime Minister A. R. Attlee
made a Statement in the House of Common interalia that âHis Majestyâs
Government desire to hand over their responsibility to authorities
established by a constitution approved by all parties in India in accordance
with the Cabinet Mission plan.â, and thereby fixed the date for transfer of
the powers (not freedom to India) stating that âhis Majestyâs Government
wish to make it clear that it is their definite intention to take necessary
steps to effect the transference of the power to responsible Indians by a
date not later than June, 1948.â In the same statement he also declared
about the appointment of Admiral Viscount Mountbatten, that âwho will be
entrusted with the task of transferring to Indian hands responsibility for
the government of British India in a manner that will best ensure the future
happiness and prosperity of India .
On 18th March, 1947, the British Prime Minister A. R. Attlee wrote a letter
to Admiral Viscount Mountbatten, interalia that âIt is the definite
objective of His Majestyâs Government to obtain a unitary Government for the
British India and the Indian states, if possible within the British
Commonwealth, through the medium of a Constituent Assembly, set up and run
in accordance with the Cabinet Missionâs plan, and you should do the utmost
in your power to persuade all parties to work together to this and, and
advise His Majestyâs Government, in the light of developments, as to stop
(or step) that will have to be taken.â
He further wrote: âIt is of course, important that Indian States should
adjust their relations with the authorities to whom it is intended to hand
over power in British India; but as was explicitly sated by the Cabinet
Mission His Majestyâs Government do not intend to hand over their powers and
obligations under paramountcy to any successor Government. It is not
intended to bring paramountcy as a system to a conclusion earlier than the
date of the final transfer of power, but you are authorized, at such time as
you think appropriate, to enter into negotiations with individual States for
adjusting their relation with the Crown.â
Whereas he reminded that âThe date fixed for the transfer of power is a
flexible one to within one month; but you should aim at June 1, 1948, as the
effective date for the transfer of power.â
Some of the provisions of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 provides as
under:-
Section 8. (1) In the case of the new Dominions, the powers of the
Legislature of the Dominion shall, for the purpose of making provision as to
the constitution of the Dominion, be exercisable in the first instance by
the Constituent Assembly of that Dominion, and references in this Act to the
Legislature of the Dominion shall be construed accordingly.
(2) Except in so far as other provision is made by or in accordance with a
law made by the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion under subsection (1) of
this section, each of the new Dominions and all Provinces and other parts
thereof shall be governed as nearly as may be in accordance with the
Government of India Act, 1935; and the provisions of that Act, and of the
orders in Council, rules and other instruments made thereunder, shall, so
far as applicable and subject to any express provisions of this Act, and
with such omissions, additions, adaptations and modifications as may be
specified in orders of the Governor-General under the next succeeding
section, have effect accordingly:
(3) Any provision of the Government of India Act, 1935, which, as applied to
either of the new Dominions by subsection (2) of this section and the orders
therein referred to, operates to limit the power of the legislature of that
Dominion shall, unless and until other provision is made by or in accordance
with a law made by the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion in accordance
with the provisions of sub-section, (1) of this section, have the like
effect as a law of the Legislature of the Dominion limiting for the future
the powers of the Legislature.
Milap Choraria<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some Very Important Historical Backgrounds indicate that some thing was
behind the record between our National leader Shri Jawahar Lal Nehru and
Admiral Viscount Mountbatten, who was then elevated as the Lord by British
Majesty. Otherwise, till 18th March, 1947, the British Government had not
accepted the partition of India , while at the same time was also determined
to transfer the powers to Indians not later than June, 1948, with a
flexibility, to within one month.
Some thing happens between 18th March, 1947 and June, 1947 (when Lord Mountbatten declared a scheme of partition),
thus, in July, British Parliament passes the Indian Independence Act, 1947,
thus having advanced the date for transfer of power to 15th August, 1947?
According to one article under heading âDiscovery of Nehruâ by one Mr. T R
Jawahar, alleged about the love affairs between Lady Edwina Mountbatten and
Nehru interalia described in the manner: âSo, was our Jawaharlal set up? One
cannot be faulted for assuming so. The British, realising that it would help
to have a pliable premier ruling their erstwhile colony and also being alive
to the chinks in Nehru's moral armoury, probably unleased the oldest trick
known to humanity, a trick that Lord Indra himself played on Vishwamitra;
and the lonely but romantic Nehru fell hook, line and sinker. In 1946, a
year before Independence , the British government invited Nehru to Malaysia
and Singapore . Over to veteran journalist and political observer, Satya Dev
Narayan, who writes in his book interalia: '....the chance rush of the crowd
in the Red Cross building in Singapore where Edwina as Red Cross chief was
waiting to show her work to the distinguished visitor, her falling down on
the ground in that rush and being promptly and gallantly lifted by Nehru
himself to be carried to safety and quiet where the doctor could go to work:
every little bit looks suspiciously like part of an elaborate plan to hook
the coming man, Nehru.
A carefully contrived plan, with much attention to
timing and finesse in execution. If successful, it would no doubt give
Britain a great deal of advantage during negotiations in the final phases of
transfer of power. It would be a great situation to be in if, of the two
representing their respective sides and facing each other at the conference
table, one was the hooker and the other, the hooked...â and that âThus
Nehru's chivalry became the nation's curse. Edwina's daughter also informs
us that though her mother had many lovers, Nehru was very special. What an
honour for the nation that its top man also topped Edwina's lovers' list!
But why not? It is not often that PMs come calling at your door! And the
daughter adds with a touch of respect: 'My father knew all about my mother
and was inured to it'. And why not, again? Having gotten used to the ways of
his wayward wife, why would Mountbatten bat an eyelid when it came to his
'best friend' Nehru?â and that âHow does it feel, as a nation, to know that
the man it so implicitly trusted with its fate, future and fortune, could be
so easily compromised? Whether it was platonic love or plain adultery, the
nation has paid a stiff price for Nehru's extra-curricular activities!â
In my message dated 30th January, 2009, I have said that Dr. Ambedkar
himself, on 2nd September 1953, has made a statement in the Rajya Sabha
(Parliament) that âPeople always keep on saying to me, so you are the maker
of the Constitution. My answer is I was a hack. What I was asked to, I did
much against my will. I am quite prepared to say that I shall be the first
person to burn it. It does not suit anybody.â In fact, the Constituent
Assembly of India was not at all free to make the Constitution with its free
will; rather it had its own limitations under Section 8 of the Indian
Independence Act, 1947, as was passed by the British Parliament. Whereas,
one of my friends has told me that he was taught by Political Pundits as
well as Professors in the University during the then British Raj that â1919
Act brings in the play of the mechanism of diarchy, while 1935 Act is a Rollâs
Royals Administration in a Bullock Cart Countryâ, and that is how both these
Acts were decried and denounced by all those, who were at the helm of the
affairs, whether it be in the academic world or in the realm of freedom
struggle.
Now the question is whether there is any remotest possibility of
the relationship between aforesaid love affairs of Nehru and Edwina, and
compromise, if any behind the scene? A very important development has to be
kept in mind that may cause some serious thinking about the fact as to how
and why the timing for the constitution of the Constituent Assembly was set
only after the trip of Shri Jawahar Lal Nehru to Malaysia and Singapore was
over.
Because, on 20th February, 1947, the British Prime Minister A. R. Attlee
made a Statement in the House of Common interalia that âHis Majestyâs
Government desire to hand over their responsibility to authorities
established by a constitution approved by all parties in India in accordance
with the Cabinet Mission plan.â, and thereby fixed the date for transfer of
the powers (not freedom to India) stating that âhis Majestyâs Government
wish to make it clear that it is their definite intention to take necessary
steps to effect the transference of the power to responsible Indians by a
date not later than June, 1948.â In the same statement he also declared
about the appointment of Admiral Viscount Mountbatten, that âwho will be
entrusted with the task of transferring to Indian hands responsibility for
the government of British India in a manner that will best ensure the future
happiness and prosperity of India .
On 18th March, 1947, the British Prime Minister A. R. Attlee wrote a letter
to Admiral Viscount Mountbatten, interalia that âIt is the definite
objective of His Majestyâs Government to obtain a unitary Government for the
British India and the Indian states, if possible within the British
Commonwealth, through the medium of a Constituent Assembly, set up and run
in accordance with the Cabinet Missionâs plan, and you should do the utmost
in your power to persuade all parties to work together to this and, and
advise His Majestyâs Government, in the light of developments, as to stop
(or step) that will have to be taken.â
He further wrote: âIt is of course, important that Indian States should
adjust their relations with the authorities to whom it is intended to hand
over power in British India; but as was explicitly sated by the Cabinet
Mission His Majestyâs Government do not intend to hand over their powers and
obligations under paramountcy to any successor Government. It is not
intended to bring paramountcy as a system to a conclusion earlier than the
date of the final transfer of power, but you are authorized, at such time as
you think appropriate, to enter into negotiations with individual States for
adjusting their relation with the Crown.â
Whereas he reminded that âThe date fixed for the transfer of power is a
flexible one to within one month; but you should aim at June 1, 1948, as the
effective date for the transfer of power.â
Some of the provisions of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 provides as
under:-
Section 8. (1) In the case of the new Dominions, the powers of the
Legislature of the Dominion shall, for the purpose of making provision as to
the constitution of the Dominion, be exercisable in the first instance by
the Constituent Assembly of that Dominion, and references in this Act to the
Legislature of the Dominion shall be construed accordingly.
(2) Except in so far as other provision is made by or in accordance with a
law made by the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion under subsection (1) of
this section, each of the new Dominions and all Provinces and other parts
thereof shall be governed as nearly as may be in accordance with the
Government of India Act, 1935; and the provisions of that Act, and of the
orders in Council, rules and other instruments made thereunder, shall, so
far as applicable and subject to any express provisions of this Act, and
with such omissions, additions, adaptations and modifications as may be
specified in orders of the Governor-General under the next succeeding
section, have effect accordingly:
(3) Any provision of the Government of India Act, 1935, which, as applied to
either of the new Dominions by subsection (2) of this section and the orders
therein referred to, operates to limit the power of the legislature of that
Dominion shall, unless and until other provision is made by or in accordance
with a law made by the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion in accordance
with the provisions of sub-section, (1) of this section, have the like
effect as a law of the Legislature of the Dominion limiting for the future
the powers of the Legislature.
Milap Choraria<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->