Speech   given   by BABASAHEB    Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar in the resolution of the Constituent Assembly on 
17th December 1946

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bengal: General): I express my gratitude to you, Sir, for inviting me to speak on this 

motion. I must admit that I was surprised to receive your invitation. Twenty-two members are above me 

in the list and that's why I used to think that even if I get a chance to speak, I will get it tomorrow. I 

would also have preferred that I had a chance to speak tomorrow because today I have come without 

any preparation. I wanted to make a detailed statement on this occasion and I wanted to prepare for 

that. Apart from this, you have given 10 minutes for the speakers.

14Time has been set. In the midst of all these inconveniences, I do not understand how to properly 

speak on the motion presented. Well, as far as possible... I will express my opinion on this briefly.

Chairman, keeping in view the debate which is going on since yesterday, this motion can be divided into 

two parts. There is one part on which there is no dispute and the other is controversial. There is no 

dispute on the part of the motion containing the 5th and 7th paras. In these legs, the goals of the future 

legislation of the country have been highlighted. The resolution has been introduced by Pt. Jawaharlal 

Nehru, who is known as a socialist; But I must admit that it disappointed me the most, though it is not 

controversial.

I hoped that he would go farther than he has gone in this path of motion. As a student of history, I 

would have preferred that this part was not included in the proposal. Reading the resolution reminds us 

of the declaration which the French Legislative Council has given to the human

15declared in the name of Declaration of Rights. I think it is absolutely correct for me to say that even 

after 450 years have passed, the said declaration and the principles laid down therein are ingrained in 

the minds of the people. I would say that it has not only entered the minds of the new light men of the 

civilized countries of the world, but also in a country like India, which is so fanatical and archaic in 

thought and social life, hardly anyone will find their usefulness. Do not approve To reiterate these 

points, as has been done in the motion, is merely a display of erudition. This principle is pervasive in our 

ideology or attitude.

Therefore to declare that these are part of our theory is absolutely unnecessary. There are many other 

flaws in this proposal. I see that though rights have been discussed in this part of the motion, no remedy 

has been given for their protection. We all know that rights are of no importance if there is no system to 

protect them so that when rights are violated, people can defend them.

16Can you Such treatments are absolutely lacking in this proposal. There is also no mention of this 

general principle that the life and property of a citizen shall not be abducted unless the law permits it 

after a thorough investigation. The Fundamental Rights mentioned in the resolution have also been 

placed under law and morality, surely the executive will decide what is law and morality, one 

management may have one decision and another's. . We do not know with certainty what will happen 

to these fundamental rights if they are left to the will of the administration. Social, economic and 

political, the system of justice has also been laid in the resolution. If there is any reality in the motion, 

there is some truth in it and I have no doubt about its veracity because it has been moved by the 

honorable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, then I hope that there should have been some provision in it by 

which the State It becomes possible for him to provide social, economic and political justice.

17And with this thought, I would have expected that the resolution would say clearly, that social, 

economic and political justice can be provided. Industries and land will be nationalized in the country. I 

do not understand how it will be possible for any future government to provide social, economic and 

political justice unless the country's economy is socialist. So though personally I have no objection to the 

embodiment of these principles. Still, the offer is disappointing to me. Well, having said this much, I end 

this matter here.

Now I come to the first part of the motion, which consists of the first four paragraphs. Seeing the debate 

in the House, I said that this issue has become controversial. The whole controversy centered on the 

word 'republic'. There is a whole controversy on this sentence of paragraph four, "All power, all rights 

will be from the people", so what Dr. Jayakar said yesterday that in the absence of the Muslim League, it 

would not be appropriate that the assembly be in this position.

18Consider the proposal, there is a whole controversy on that. There is no doubt in my mind about the 

future development of this country and its social, economic and political structure. I know that today we 

are divided in all respects politically, economically and socially. Today our country is divided into many 

fighters. And I will even admit that I am probably one of the leaders of such a fighting party. But Sir, in 

spite of all these things, I firmly believe that no power in the world can stop this country from being 

united when the time and circumstances are favourable. (Happy-sounding) Despite the difference of 

caste and religion, we will be one in some way or the other, I have no doubt about that. (Happy-

sounding) I have no hesitation in saying that although the Muslim League is doing a terrible movement 

for the partition of India today, but one day or the other, the Muslims themselves will come to the 

senses and they will begin to understand that there is a joint for them too. India is more welfare. (tumul 

sound)

19So as far as our goal is concerned, none of us should have any doubts. Our difficulty is not, what will 

be our future? Our difficulty is how to mobilize our today's vast but mismatched population to make a 

joint decision and take such a path that we all become one. Our difficulty is not about iti but about 

meaning. It is clear what our goal is. But the problem is how to get started. Therefore, Sir, I think itwould be the greatest politicization of the majority party to agree to all, to persuade every section of 

our country that we should all follow the same path. Please give some concessions to remove the basic 

and misconception of the people who are feeling confused in walking with us today. Inspired by this 

feeling, I am doing this alap. We should stop raising such slogans which scare people. To remove the 

prejudiced perception of his opponents

20Give them some concessions for this, so that they will willingly walk with us on the path on which, 

after walking some distance, we will reach the destination of our unity. If I am supporting Dr. Jayakar's 

amendment here, it is only for the purpose that we all understand that this is not a legal question. 

Whether we are right or wrong, whether the path we are taking is consistent with our legal rights, 

whether it is in accordance with the statement of 16 May or 6 December, leave all these things aside. 

Our problem is so deep that legal rights will not solve it. This is not a legal problem at all. We should try 

something other than legal considerations so that those people who are not involved, get involved. We 

make it possible for them to come here, that is my prayer.

During the debate, two such questions were raised which bothered me so much that I have noted them 

down on paper. One question I think was raised by my friend, the Prime Minister of Bihar, who spoke in 

the meeting yesterday. You said that this proposal should be given to the Muslim League in the 

Legislative Council.

21How can I stop joining? Today my friend Dr. Shyamaprasad Mookerjee presented another question 

whether this proposal is against the plan of the Ministerial delegation? I think these are very serious 

questions and they need to be answered and clearly answered. Whether this proposal has been 

presented with a calm mind or has been made by chance, but I do believe that it will result in the 

Muslim League being left out, even if this motion is in the sense of this result. has not been created. In 

this connection I will draw your attention to paragraph 3 of the motion which I think is very important 

and necessary. In this paragraph there is a picture of the future legislation of India. I do not know what 

the mover means. But I believe that when passed, this proposal will be mandated in a way for the 

Legislative Council to legislate in accordance with paragraph 3 of it. What does paragraph 3 say? It says 

that there will be two different state systems in this country, one for the Mukhtar provinces, the 

princely states or other territories which are Indian

22want to join the union. These own Mukhtar territories will get all the rights. They will also have 

residuary rights. There will be a Union Government over those own Mukhtar Territories, under whose 

authority there will be some subjects, on which the Union Government will have the right to make laws 

and govern. There is no mention of factionalism in this part of the proposal. This faction is an 

intermediate organization between the federal government and the constituents. In view of the 

statement of the Cabinet Mission or the Wardha resolution of the Congress, I confess that I myself am 

surprised that the idea of factionalism is not mentioned in the resolution. Personally, I do not like the 

idea of factionalization of provinces. (joy-sound) I want a strong and united centre, even stronger thanthe one which has been created according to the Act of 1935. (joy-sound) But, Sir, these wishes and 

opinions have no bearing on the situation. We have come a long way. I would say that the Congress 

itself agreed to dismantle a strong center, to disintegrate a strong center that had been in power for 150 

years.

23and which, I can say, was a thing of admiration, honor and well-being for me. But when we have given 

up that position, when we have admitted ourselves that we do not want a strong centre, when we have 

accepted that there should be an intermediate state system of confederation between the Union 

Government and the provinces, I I want to know why factionalism is not mentioned in para 3 of the 

resolution? I know that the Congress, the Muslim League and the Emperor's government all differ on the 

meaning of the factional clause of the plan. But I have always understood that the Congress has 

accepted that if the provinces of different factions agree to form their own sub-federation, then the 

Congress has no objection to this arrangement. If someone tells me that I am wrong to think so, I will 

accept my mistake. I believe that I am right in understanding the ideology of the Congress party. I would 

like to ask that on the basis of which the proposer and his party had accepted the idea of the faction of 

the provinces or their sub-confederation, the mover finally did that in that motion.

24Why is it not cited? Why is the mention of an intermediate federation kept at bay in this resolution? I 

don't get any answer. That is why the question asked by the Prime Minister of Bihar and Dr. Shyama 

Prasad Mookerjee to the assembly that how this resolution is contrary to the statement of 16 May and 

how does it prevent the League from coming to the Legislative Council, I will say that in response to your 

this. The Muslim League will certainly take advantage of the third paragraph of the resolution and will 

show justification for its absence. Chairman, yesterday my friend Dr. Jayakar presented his side in some 

legal way to postpone the debate on this question, the basis of his argument was that we have the right 

to pass this motion. He read out some part of the statement of the delegation of ministers which is 

related to the working of this council. He was of the view that the method adopted by the Council to 

take immediate decision on this proposal is contrary to the method given in the plan. I want to put this 

point before the House in another way. I don't want to ask you that you should offer this

25• Have the right to pass in haste or not. It is possible That you have this right, but what I do not want 

to ask you, is it would be wise and ethical for you to pass this resolution? Right is one thing and wisdom 

is another. I would like the House to consider this matter from a different point of view. He should not 

consider it from the point of view of whether he has the right to pass this motion or not. But considering 

whether it would be wise to pass it now, would it be a matter of morality? I would say that doing so is 

contrary to wisdom and morality. I suggest that one more effort should be made to resolve the dispute 

between Congress and Muslim League. This matter is so serious, so important that it cannot be decided 

on the basis of reputation of one party or the other. Here the question of deciding the fate of the nation 

should be of no value to the pride of leaders, parties and sects. There, the fate of the nation should be 

kept paramount. I cannot support Dr. Jayakar's amendment on this ground alone.

26I have been that with this the Legislative Council will do its work in an organized manner and will 

know the reaction of the Muslim League before it starts, but also because we should know very well that 

if we act in haste, then what will be the decision of our future. I do not know what is the map in the 

mind of the Congress, which has a strong majority in this House. I do not have this divine power to know 

what they are thinking? I do not know what their tactics and fighting skills are. But when I set my mind 

on this present issue, based on an outsider, I see only three ways by which we can decide our future. 

One way is for one party to surrender to the will of the other party. The second way is that we should 

come to an agreement by exchange of ideas and the third way is to fight openly. Sir, I have also been 

hearing on behalf of some members of the Council that they are ready for war. I will definitely accept 

this. I shudder at the thought that any person in this country

27Think that by war he will solve the political problem of the country. I don't know how many people in 

the country support this idea. Many people support this idea and I think many people support it because 

they believe that they will have this war with the British. If this war, which is in the minds of the people, 

had been confined to a limited range and confined to the British only, I would not have objected to this 

skill, to this tactic. But do you think that this war will be only against the British? I have no hesitation in 

saying this and I want to say clearly in front of the assembly that if there is a war in the country and its 

relation is with our present problem, then this war will not be with the British, it will be with the 

Muslims. . Rather it will be worse than that and it will be a war with the combined power of the Muslims 

and the British. I do not understand how this potential war will be different from the horrors I have 

imagined. I would like to read out to the assembly an excerpt from that famous oratory by Mahamana 

Brooke.

Which he had given in Parliament in relation to reconciliation with America. I believe it may have some 

bearing on the purpose of the meeting. You know that the British were trying to conquer the rebellious 

colonies of America and keep them under their control against their will. This is what Brook said about 

abandoning the idea of conquering those colonies:

“Sir Chairman, first of all allow me to say that mere use of force is never permanent. It can be used to 

suppress someone for some time, but the need to press again cannot be removed from him. That caste 

can never be ruled which always needs to be conquered."

“My second objection is that the result of the use of force is uncertain. Terror does not always arise 

from the use of force. If we always carry our weapons, then how is this victory? If you fail in the use of 

force, then you have no means left with you.

29If you fail to reconcile sweetly, the means of using force remain in your hands, but if you lose in the 

use of force, then there is no other room for compromise. Rights and power are sometimes gained by 

showing mercy, but you cannot beg for authority if you are defeated in the use of force.”

“My further objection against the use of force is that in trying to achieve the goal by it, you weaken and 

weaken your goal itself. What do you get if you are victorious in the use of force? Whatever you find, it 

is often worthless, dilapidated and ruined in connection with the war. Surely you don't fight to get it."

This is my serious warning and it would be dangerous to ignore it. If there is a thought in one's mind that 

by use of force, by war, because the use of force is war... Hindu-Muslim problem should be solved so 

that

30By suppressing the Muslims and getting them to get a law which was not made with their consent, 

then the country will be stuck in such a situation that it will have to be always engaged in winning the 

Muslims. Winning once won't end the work of victory. I don't want to take any more of your time. Once 

again I conclude my speech by referring to Work's statement. Work has said somewhere that "It is easy 

to give power, but it is difficult to give wisdom." Let us prove by our conduct that if this Council has 

unjustly taken supreme power by force, it will use that power wisely. This is the only way through which we can take all sections of the country along. There is no other way by which we can find unity. We should have no doubt about this.



Note=:[ part 2 will shortly released on this website]