By Babasaheb Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1949
last speech given

Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: This is evident from the attention given to the previous work of this Constituent Assembly. That it has been two years eleven months and seventeen days since the time it first met on 9 December 1946. During this time there were a total of seventeen sessions of the Constituent Assembly. In these seventeen sessions, the first six sessions were engaged in passing target-oriented resolutions and considering the reports of committees on Fundamental Rights, Union Constitution, powers of the Union, Provincial Constitution, Minorities and Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes. On the draft of the Constitution in the Seventh, Aalbe, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Sessions

Thought happened. These eleven sessions of the Constituent Assembly took 165 days, out of which the Assembly spent 114 days in considering the Draft Constitution.


The Drafting Committee was elected by the Constituent Assembly on 29 August 1947. Its first meeting was held on 30 August. From 30 August it met for 141 days and during this time she was engaged in drafting the constitution. The original draft of the Constitution, prepared by the Constitutional Consultant to serve for the Drafting Committee, contained 243 Articles and 13 Schedules. The form in which the first draft of the constitution was presented in the Constituent Assembly by the Drafting Committee had 315 articles and 8 schedules. After the end of the debate, the number of articles in the draft constitution increased to 386. In its final form, the draft constitution has 395 articles and 8 schedules. The total number of amendments sent on the draft constitution was about 7635. Out of these, the number of amendments introduced in the House was 2473.

I have mentioned these facts because a 'situation had come when it was said that the House took too much time to complete the business, it was running smoothly and wasting public money. There is a fire in the village and the Kahar is busy dancing, the saying is being fulfilled, it was said. Is this complaint justified in any way? Let us consider the time taken by the Constituent Assemblies of other countries to prepare their constitutions. Take some examples of these. America's conference took place on 25 May 1787 and on 17 September 1787 it finished its work - that is, in four months. The Canadian Convention on the Constitution was held on October 10, 1864, and after taking two years and five months, it was passed as a constitutional law in March 1867. The Convention on the Constitution of Australia was held in March 1891 and nine years later, on 9 July 1900, the constitution took the form of law. The Conference of South Africa was held in October 1908, and a year later, on 20 September 1909, the constitution took the form of law.

It is true that the conferences in America and South Africa have taken longer than we have. But we have not taken more time than Canada has taken and very little time from Australia. Two things should be remembered in making a comparison based on the time spent in this task. One is that the constitutions of America, Canada, South Africa and Australia are much smaller than ours. As I have said, there are 395 articles in our constitution and the residents of America have placed seven articles ★ out of which the first four are divided into sections whose total number is 21, 147 in the Canadian Constitution, 128 in the Australian Constitution and Southern There are 159 articles in the constitution of Africa. The second thing to remember is that the framers of the constitutions of America, Canada, Australia and South Africa did not face the problem of amendments. They were accepted as presented. On the contrary, this Constituent Assembly had to consider the 2473 Amendment. Considering these facts, the allegation of delay seems to me to be baseless.

Rather, this Constituent Assembly should congratulate itself for completing such a great and complex task in such a short time.


Shri Naziruddin Ahmed has considered it his duty to completely condemn the work given by the Drafting Committee. In his opinion, the work done by the Drafting Committee is not only worth not appreciating, but it is definitely below the level it should be. Everyone has the right to express his opinion on the work done by the Drafting Committee and Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed is welcome to form his opinion. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed understands that he has more intelligence than anyone on the drafting committee. The Drafting Committee does not want to object to his claim. On the contrary, if the House considered him worthy of being appointed to the Drafting Committee, the Drafting Committee would have welcomed him after finding him in it. If they did not find any place in the making of the Constitution, then it is certainly not the fault of the Drafting Committee.

It is clear that Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed has coined a new name to express his hatred towards the Drafting Committee. It is a committee to change the subject. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed will surely be pleased with his understanding. But they do not know that there is a difference between shifting with skill and doing without skill. If the Drafting Committee made a diversion, it did not do so without getting full knowledge of the circumstances. He didn't throw his banshee to catch fish by accident. He searched familiar water bodies to find the fish he was after. Going in search of something good is not the same thing as diversion. Although Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed did not mean to say this as a compliment to the Drafting Committee, I accept it as a compliment to the Drafting Committee. If the Drafting Committee had not shown the courage and truth to return the amendments which it thought to be faulty and to replace them with what it thought good, then it would have been severely guilty of not performing the duty and having a sense of false dignity and dignity.

I think If there were any mistakes, I am happy that the Drafting Committee did not hesitate to admit those mistakes and went ahead to rectify them.


I am happy to note that the members of the Constituent Assembly have generally expressed appreciation for the work done by the Drafting Committee except one member. I am sure the Drafting Committee will be pleased to see this genuine acknowledgment which has been expressed in such generous terms. I am filled with so much happiness because of the congratulation showered upon me by the members of this House and by my colleagues in the Drafting Committee that I cannot find words to express my complete gratitude towards them. I did not come to the Constituent Assembly with any greater aspiration than to protect the interests of the Scheduled Castes. I had no idea even in my dreams that I would be invited to take up even bigger tasks. That is why I was very surprised when the House invited me to the Drafting Committee. and when I was even more surprised when I was elected the Chairman of the Drafting Committee. In the drafting committee there were people older than me, better than me and more capable than me like my friend Shri Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayer. I am grateful to the Constituent Assembly and the Drafting Committee that they put so much trust and confidence in me and made me an instrument of theirs and gave me this opportunity to serve the country (Harsha Dhvani).


I am not really in possession of the credit that has been given to me. His officer Shri B. N. There is also Rau who is the Constitutional Counsel for this Constitution and who drafted the Constitution in a rough form for the consideration of the Drafting Committee. Some credit should go to the members of the Drafting Committee who, as I have said, met for 141 days and without their skill to find new threads and without their tolerant and thoughtful ability to different points of view, the task of making this constitution was so successfully completed. Could not happen Most of the credit goes to the main draft writer of this constitution, Shri S. N. Mookerjee. very complex installations

Their ability to put in the simplest and clearest legal language can not be compared with difficulty, nor can their ability to work hard. He was a gift to this meeting. Had it not been for their help, this assembly would have taken many more years to finalize this constitution. The employees working under Mr. Mookerjee should not be forgotten. Because I know how hard they've worked, and how they've worked sometimes even after midnight. I thank them all for their labor and cooperation (Harsha Dhvani). 4


The work of the Drafting Committee would have been very difficult if this Constituent Assembly was just a community of people of different views, like a ragged floor, some black stone, some white and each. The individual or each community considers itself to be a jurist. There was nothing but disturbance. The presence of the Congress party in the meeting completely eliminated the possibility of this disturbance.

And this has led to both order and discipline in the proceedings. It was because of the discipline of the Congress side that the Drafting Committee could conduct this constitution knowing with certainty what would be the fate of each article and each amendment. Therefore, in this assembly, the Congress party deserves the credit for the peaceful operation of the draft constitution.


If the discipline of this side was accepted by all, then the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly would have become very monotonous. If the discipline of the party was strictly followed, then this meeting would have become a meeting of 'Ji Hazoors'. Luckily there were some miscreants. Shri Kamat, Dr. P.S. Deshmukh, Shri Sindhwa, Prof. Saxena and Pandit Thakurdas Bhargava. Along with this, Prof. Of. T. Shah, and Pandit Hridaynath Kunzru should also be mentioned. The questions he raised were very principled, I was not ready to accept his suggestions, this does not reduce the value of his suggestions nor does his service diminish the service which he used to make the proceedings of this meeting interesting. is of. I am grateful to them. if they weren't , I do not get the opportunity which I got to explain the principles enshrined in this Constitution and which was more important than the mechanical act of passing this Constitution.


In the end, Mr. Speaker, I must thank you for handling the proceedings of this House in a very skillful manner. Those who have participated in the proceedings of this meeting cannot forget the generosity and warm-heartedness that you have shown to the members of this assembly. There have been occasions when attempts have been made to block the amendments of the Drafting Committee on a mere terminology basis. Those were very worrying moments for me. I am very grateful to you for the fact that you did not allow legalism to win over the work of making the constitution.


As many copies of this Constitution could be protected, my friends Shri Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayer and Shri Shri. T. T. Krishnamachari. Therefore, I will not say anything about the merits of this Constitution. because I understand that, No matter how good a constitution is, if the people who implement it are bad, it undoubtedly becomes bad. The functioning of the constitution does not entirely depend on the type of constitution. The Constitution can only provide for organs like the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. On which the functioning of these organs of the state depends, it is the people and the political parties established by them which are the means of carrying out their will and policy. Who can say how the people of India and its parties will behave? Will they use constitutional means to achieve their purposes or will they prefer revolutionary means? If they adopt revolutionary means, then no matter how good the constitution is, no angel is needed to say that it will fail. Therefore, it is meaningless to give any decision on this Constitution without any direction as to what kind of attitude the public and the parties will show.


This constitution is criticized mostly from two areas by the communist side and by the socialist side.

Why condemn this constitution? Is it because this constitution is really bad? I dare to say 'no.' The communist parties want a constitution based on the principle of dictatorship of workers, they condemn the constitution because it is based on parliamentary democracy. Socialists want two things. The first thing they want is that if power comes in their hands, they should be given freedom by the constitution to nationalize or socialize all private property without any compensation. Secondly, the socialists want that the Fundamental Rights mentioned in the constitution should be absolute and without any limitation so that if the power comes in the hands of their side, they get complete freedom not only to criticize but also to overturn the state. Go.


These are the main points on the basis of which this Constitution is condemned. I do not say that the principle of parliamentary democracy is the ideal form of political democracy. I do not say that there is no acquisition of property without compensation.

The principle of doing is so sacred that it cannot be disregarded, I do not say that Fundamental Rights can never be absolute and the limits imposed on them can never be lifted. Yes, I must say that the principles enshrined in this Constitution are the views of this present generation and if you consider some exaggeration in this statement, I would say that these are the views of the members of the Constituent Assembly. Then why blame the drafting committee for enshrining them in the constitution? And then I say this, why blame even the members of the Constituent Assembly? The great American politician Jefferson, who did major work in the making of America's constitution, has expressed some very serious thoughts which the constitution makers can never ignore. At one point he said:


"We may regard each generation, as a distinct nation, to put ourselves in some bondage by the will of the majority, but the present generation any subsequent generation, from the inhabitants of another country.

More, can't bind in bondage."


At another site he said:


"The institutions established for the use of the nation cannot be touched or discriminated even to conform to their purposes, because the persons appointed to manage them as trusts for the people Rights in them are assumed to be exercisable; The idea that it is possible to avoid the abuse of a ruler is to be beneficial, but for the nation itself, it is very foolish. Yet our lawyers and priests propagate this principle, and honor it. Say that the base of the previous generation was stronger than us, it had the right to impose laws on us which are immutable to us and in the same way we can make laws for future generations and impose burdens on them which they have no right to change. If yes, then this world is of the dead and life is not life.

I submit that what Jefferson has said is not only true but the absolute truth. There can be no objection to this. If the Constituent Assembly had not followed this principle laid down by Jefferson, then it must have been not only guilty of blame but even condemned. But I ask is he to blame? off course not. For this only the provisions related to the amendment of the constitution have to be tested. By denying the public the right to amend the constitution, as in Canada, or subject to the fulfillment of extraordinary terms and conditions, as in the United States and Australia, this assembly has put its seal of final inertia on the constitution. Not only did he stop himself from doing the work of imposing, but he has provided a very convenient process to amend this constitution. I challenge any critic of this Constitution to prove that any Constituent Assembly anywhere in the world, in the circumstances in which this country is trapped, has made such a convenient procedure for the amendment of the Constitution.

be provided. Those who are dissatisfied with this constitution have to get only two-thirds majority and if they cannot get even two-thirds majority in the Parliament elected by adult suffrage then it cannot be understood. That the general public is supporting them in their discontent. There is only one thing of constitutional meaning which


I want to direct There has been a major complaint that the centralization is too high and the status of the states has been reduced to that of municipalities. It is clear that this view is not only an exaggeration, but it is also based on a misconception about what the Constitution actually seeks. In the matter of mutual relations between the Center and the states, it is necessary to keep in mind the fundamental right on which this relationship depends. This fundamental principle of the federal system of governance is that the division of legislative and executive authority between the center and the states is not done by any law made by the center but by the constitution itself. That's what this constitution does. our constitution  The states are not dependent on the Center in any way for their legislative and executive powers. The position of the Center and the states is similar in this regard. It is difficult to realize how such a constitution can be called centralist. It may be that for the enforcement of legislative and executive authority, the center has been given more area in the constitution than in any other federal constitution. It may be that the residual powers have been given to the center and not to the states. But these are not the main features of the federal system of governance. As I have said, the main thing of the federal system of government is that by the constitution there should be division of legislative and executive authority between the center and the units. This principle is enshrined in our constitution. There can be no illusion in this. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the states have been placed under the Centre. The Center cannot make any change in that division of its own free will. Neither can the judiciary. It is rightly said:


"Courts can differentiate, but they

Nothing else can stay in place. In the form of new arguments they may revise earlier interpretations, new points of view are introduced, to the extent that they can move the line of division around, but there are some barriers which they cannot overcome, of course. They cannot redistribute the powers as assigned to them. They can give a comprehensive plan of the existing powers, but they cannot delegate the power explicitly given to any authority to any other authority.


Therefore, the first charge in relation to centralization which abolishes the federation will not be proved. The second charge is that the Center has to impose on the states.


right to trespass. to this charge


Should be accepted. But these encroaching powers


Because of this, some things should be done before condemning this constitution.


Attention should be given to The first thing is that these encroachers


Powers are not the peacetime form of this constitution. their


Usage and enforcement expressly for emergencies only are limited. The second point is this: could we have barred the Center from giving encroaching power in case of an emergency? Those who do not accept the justification for the granting of these intrusive powers to the Center even in an emergency, seem to have no clear knowledge of the problem at the root of the matter. In the December 1935 issue of the famous magazine “The Round Table”, a writer has given this problem clearly and I need not apologize for quoting the following quote from him. The author says:


"Political systems, ultimately depending on the question to whom or to which authority the citizen should lay allegiance, are a tangle of rights and duties. In peacetime this question does not arise because the law is easily implemented and the individual is subject to certain matters. I go on doing my work in obedience to one authority and in some to another authority, but in times of crisis it may happen that  When there is a conflict in claims of authority and at that point it becomes clear that in reality there cannot be a division of allegiance. This claim of allegiance cannot be decided in this final form by the interpretation of any judiciary. The law must conform to the facts and that is the fault of the law. When all these things are taken away, the only question remains is which authority deserves the residual loyalty of the citizen. Is it a central authority or a constituent state?


The solution of this problem depends on the answer to this question which is the fundamental question on this problem. There can be no doubt that according to the consent of a large section of the public, in an emergency, the residual devotion of the citizen should be towards the center and not towards the constituent state. Because only the center can strive for the public goal and for the general interest of the whole country. This is the evidence in favor of giving certain encroaching powers to the Center to be exercised in emergency and then to be constituted by these emergency powers. What gratitude is bestowed upon the states? Nothing more than this that in an emergency, along with our local interests, the consent and interests of the whole nation should also be considered. Only those people who have not understood the problem can complain about it.


Here I would end my speech. But my mind is so full of thoughts about the future of my country that I feel that I should take this opportunity to express my views on this subject. India will be an independent country on 26 January 1950 (Harsha Dhvani) What will be the result of its independence? Will he be able to defend his freedom or will he lose it again? This is the first thought that comes to my mind. It is not that India was never independent. The point is that once he has lost the freedom, will he lose it again? This is the idea about which I am very concerned about the future. The fact that bothers me a lot is that India has not only once lost its independence, but because of the ungratefulness of some of its own people. And that independence came because of the split. When Muhammad bin Qasim invaded Sindh, the commander of Dahar Raja took a bribe from the agents of Muhammad bin Qasim and refused to fight on behalf of his king. It was Jaichand who invited Muhammad Ghori to attack India and fight with Prithviraj and promised to help him and the Solanki kings. When Shivaji was fighting for the emancipation of the Hindus, other Marhatha Sardars and Rajput kings were fighting on behalf of the Mughal emperors. While the British were engaged in eradicating the Sikh rulers, the chief general of the Sikhs, Gulab Singh, remained silent and did not help in saving the Sikh state. In 1857, when a large part of India declared a war of independence against the British, the Sikhs stood watching the spectacle standing like a mute spectator.


Will this history repeat itself? I am worried about this thought. Due to the fact that, along with our ancient enemies in the form of caste and sect, we are  Many political parties are being formed on the basis of political differences, this concern takes an even more extreme form. Will Indians consider the differences of opinion as superior to the country or will consider the country to be superior to the differences of opinion? I do not accept this. But it is true that if these parties consider the differences of opinion to be superior to the country, then our independence will again be in danger and will probably be lost forever. We should all be strong and protect us from this crisis. We must be determined to defend our freedom from the last drop of our blood. (joyful sound).


India was a democratic country on 26 January 1950.


Will happen. This means that from that day onwards the people in India


For there will be a government of the people by the people. same thought again


enters the brain. of its democratic constitution


what will happen? Will he be able to protect it or will he be able to save it again?


will lose this is the second thought that arises in my mind and


Annoys me like the first thought.


It is not that India does not know democracy.

was. There was a time when India was equipped with republics and even where there were kings, they were either elected or their powers were limited. They did not have any rights. It is not that India was not familiar with Parliament or parliamentary procedure. The study of the Buddhist monk-sangh shows that there was not only a parliament - the sangha was nothing more than a parliament - but all the rules of parliamentary procedure in the modern era, these sanghas were familiar with them. There were rules related to seating arrangement, resolutions, resolutions, quorum, impeachment, counting of votes, ballot by ballot, no-confidence motion, arrangement, first decision, impeachment etc. Although the Buddha applied these rules in the meetings of the Sangha, he must have taken these rules from the rules prevailing in the then political assemblies of the country.


This democratic system was erased from India. Will he destroy this system again? I don't know But in a country like India, where democracy is considered a new thing due to its long unutilized use, it is possible that democracy     The crisis of dictatorship in its place is present. It is quite possible that this nascent democracy may retain its form but in fact replace it with a dictatorship. If an accident occurs, the second possibility is more likely to come true.


What should we do if we want to maintain democracy not only in form but in reality? According to my opinion, the first thing we should do is that for the fulfillment of our social and economic objectives, we should firmly adopt the constitutional methods. This means that we should abandon the ruthless methods of revolution; Adoption of these unconstitutional methods can be justified in many ways when there is no way for the fulfillment of economic and social objectives. But when the path of constitutional methods is open that the adoption of these unconstitutional methods can never be justified. These practices, besides the initiation of anarchy, 

 There is nothing and the sooner they are abandoned, the better it is for us.


The second thing we have to do is to exercise the caution that John Stuart Mill has called for all those who are interested in maintaining democracy, that is, "to lay down at the feet of any great man." Do not cede freedom or entrust it with the powers which would give it the power to destroy its own institutions. There is nothing wrong with great people who have served the country throughout their lives. But there is a limit to gratitude. Ireland The patriot of being grateful, Doniel O'Connell, has rightly said about it that no man loses his honour. No woman can be grateful by losing her being, and no nation can be grateful by losing her freedom. This warning is more necessary for India than for any other country. Because in India Bhakti or whom Bhakti is It is called Marga or Veer Puja, it has such an important place in the politics of India as in any other country.

 is not in politics. Bhakti in religion can be the path to self-salvation. But in politics Bhakti or heroic worship is a sure path to downfall and ultimately to dictatorship.


The third thing we have to do is that we should not be satisfied with political democracy alone. We should also give the form of social democracy to our political democracy. What is meant by social democracy? It refers to the way of life which recognizes liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity should not be understood as a combination of these three as separate items. Together these three form such a combined form that the separation of one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy. Liberty cannot be fundamentally separated from equality, equality cannot be separated from liberty. Nor can liberty or equality be separated from fraternity. Freedom without equality will lead to the dominance of some people over many people. freedom Equality without it will undermine individual enterprise. Without fraternity, liberty and equality cannot take their natural course. A soldier is needed to enforce them. We should start by accepting the fact that there is a complete lack of two things in Indian society. One of these is parity. At the social level, we have a society in our India which is based on the principle of successively fixed inequality, which means the progress of some individuals and the decline of some. At the economic level, we have a society in which there are some people who have immeasurable wealth and there are some who are living in absolute poverty. On 26 January 1950 we are entering a life full of conflicting feelings. We will deal with equality in political life and inequality in social and economic life. In politics we will follow the principle of one vote for one person and one vote for one value. In our social and economic life, because of our social and economic system, we refute the principle of one person's one value. Will stay How long will we go on living a life full of these conflicting feelings? If we keep denying it for a long time, we will put our political democracy in jeopardy. We must eradicate this protest as soon as possible, otherwise those who are suffering from inequality will destroy the very structure of this political democracy which this assembly has worked so hard to build.


Another thing which we lack here is the acknowledgment of the principle of fraternity. What is meant by fraternity? Fraternity refers to the feeling of brotherhood among all Indians - if all Indians are one. It is the principle which gives unity and strength to social life. Its hard to get. How difficult this is can be gauged from the story of James Bryce which he mentions about the United States of America in one of his works on the American Commonwealth, that story is this - I want to say it in the words of Bryce himself : "A few years ago the Protestant Episcopal Church of America was engaged in a revision of its system of worship at its biannual convention. It was considered desirable that a prayer in short sentence prayers should also be introduced to the whole public and a famous New England The priest offered these words 'O God bless our nation.' It raised so many objections that the word had to be dropped and the words 'O God, bless these United States'.


In the United States of America at the time when this incident happened. There was so little solidarity that the people of America did not understand that they were a nation. If the people of the United States of America could not think that they were a nation then  How difficult it is for the people of India to think that they have one nation. I remember the days when the people of India who were interfering in politics used to express their anger at the words "people of India". They wanted more of the words "Indian nation". It is my opinion that by believing that we are a nation, we are enticing ourselves into a great illusion. How can a people divided into thousands of castes be a nation? The sooner we realize that we are not yet a nation in the social and psychological sense of the word nation, the more it will be beneficial for us. Because only after realizing this we will realize the need to make a nation and think seriously about the way and means to achieve this goal. Achieving this goal is very difficult—more difficult than it was in the United States. There was no caste problem in the United States of America. There are castes in India. These castes are the antithesis of nationalism. First of all because they present isolation in social life. They are also anti-nationals for this reason. That generates jealousy and hatred among the mutual castes. But if we really want to be as a nation then we have to overcome all these difficulties. Why fraternity can be true only when there is one nation. Without fraternity the root of equality and liberty would be as deep as the root of the surface of colour.


These are my thoughts about the task before us. Some people don't like it. But this cannot be opposed. That the political power in this country has been in the possession of a few people for a long time and most of the people have been and are not only carrying animals but even sacrificial animals. This monopoly not only deprived them of the opportunity to improve their condition, but it also squeezed out of them that element which can be called the importance of life. These downtrodden classes are troubled by being ruled. They are desperate to rule themselves. In the downtrodden classes, the motivation of this self-realization should not be allowed to take the form of class struggle or class war. This will cause division in the assembly. that day  Indeed it will be doomsday. Because as Abraham Lincoln has rightly said, a meeting in which there is a difference of opinion itself cannot last long. Therefore, the sooner their aspirations are fulfilled, the more it is good for the country, in maintaining its independence and in maintaining its democratic profile. This can happen only when equality and fraternity are established in all parts of life. That's why I put so much emphasis on them.


I don't want to hurt everyone any more. There is no doubt that independence is a matter of joy. But let us not forget that independence has placed great responsibilities on us. Due to independence, we no longer had an excuse to blame the British for any error. If there is an error after that, we cannot blame anyone other than our own. There is a great fear of making mistakes. Time is changing at a very fast pace. People, including the people of our country, new ideas  being affected by. She is getting fed up with the government by the people. It is ready to form a government for the people and is indifferent whether it is a government by the people by the people or not. If we want to preserve this Constitution in which we have tried to uphold the principle of government of the people by the people for the people, then we should resolve that the evils which are in our way and because of which the government for the people has to be done. Do not delay in understanding those evils which are preferred by the people more than the government and do not show hesitation in undertaking to remove those evils. This is the way to serve the country. I am not aware of a better route than this.



Note=:[“Political change must be led by social change and without political power the condition of the oppressed cannot be improved.”


(24/05/1932, Belgaum)]