Debate in the constituent assembly on RKBA

[penpusher]

Cottage Cheese,

This might interest you

http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol5p6.htm

Scroll down to item No.9(Arms,Ammunition and Explosives)

penpusher

[mundaire]

penpusher,

Thank you for pointing me to an excellent online resource!

Did a search on the site and came up with the debate that took place in the constituent assembly on the question of adding the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a fundamental right. Very revealing....

For those interested, the debate is at:

http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol7p17a.htm

http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol7p18a.htm

http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol7p18b.htm

Cheers!
Abhijeet

[mehulkamdar]

Superb resource, penpusher and thanks, Abhijeet, for posting the specific link. The late Ananthasayanam Ayyangar was a complete moron, an arrogant moral dictator who often tried to be more English than the English themselves. It was interesting to note that he was responsible for this right not becoming a part of the constitution. The man probably was one of those who hailed the defeat of nationalist forces in 1857. It is a pity that his writ was able to overrule the very fine thoughts of those would have incorporated the freedom to own guns in our constitution.

Thanks again and I shall use these to debate with the anti gun NAzis, especially the demand of Mahatma Gandhi to the Colonial government asking for the right to own arms.

[Mack The Knife]

CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME VII

Wednesday, the 1st December 1948


(7) Nothing in sub-clause (h) of the said clause shallaffect the operation of any existing law, or prevent theState from making any law, imposing, in the interests ofpublic order, peace and tranquillity, restrictions on theexercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause.'"

Sir, I feel a little pardonable pride in moving this amendment before the House today. Considering as I do thatit puts an end or brings to an end one phase of ourignominious past, the past of more than a hundred years, and in view of the importance of this matter involved in the amendment, may I appeal to you, Sir, to give me a littlelatitude in the matter of time, because I want to put thecase in its entirety before the House? And may I also make apersonal request to Dr. Ambedkar or whoever it may be thatwill reply on behalf of the Drafting Committee, to pay closeattention to what is going out in the House? Yesterday wefound at the fag end of the day Dr. Ambedkar--perhaps he wasa bit fagged out and tired--I felt that he had not followedthe debate on titles.

Mr. Vice-President: I will not allow you to make anyreference to what happened yesterday.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Before I come to the amendmentitself may I say a word as to an important omission whichhas been made before article 13? I find from the Report of the Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee over which theHonourable Sardar Patel presided, the rights from 13 upto 18have been titled or designated as the Rights of Freedom.This sub-title `Rights of Freedom' has been omitted from thedraft as presented to the Assembly now. In this report whichI am reading--Report of the Committee--First Series fromDecember 1946 to July 1947--the sub-title is `Rights ofFreedom' just before we come to article 13.

Then, Sir, I come to the amendment itself. It is

commonknowledge to all of us who have lived and worked in Indiaduring the last thirty years or more that this has been auniversal demand emanating from all sections of thepopulation, firstly as a protest against the degrading andhumiliating Arms Act passed by the Brit ish Government in thelast century, and secondly, Sir, as a guarantee of the rightof self-defence. This demand has been embodied in variousCongress Resolutions during the last two decades. The mostimportant Resolution and most historic, the most momentouswas the Resolution on Fundamental Rights passed at Karachi.I read, Sir, from that Resolution the relevant extracts:

"This Congress is of opinion that to enable the massesto appreciate what Swaraj as conceived by the Congress willmean to them, it is desirable to state the position of theCongress in a manner easily understood by them. In order toend the exploitation of the masses, political freedom mustinclude real economic freedom of the starving millions. TheCongress, therefore, declares that any constitution.

Mark these words--any constitution.

* * * which may be agreed to on its behalf, shouldprovide or enable the Swaraj Government to provide for thefollowing......"

and various fundamental rights are enumerated, among them being this one--

"Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms inaccordance with Regulations and reservations made in thatbehalf."

I find, Sir, from this list of Fundamental Rights, adoptedat the Karachi session of the Congress, almost all of themhave been incorporated in this Draft Constitution, exceptthis one, and this is a very serious omission.

I might also make an observation about this amendment,that I am in a very good company, because amendment No. 443which is similar to my amendment has been tabled by theGeneral Secretaries of the Congress--Shri Shankar Rao Deoand Acharya Jugal Kishore.

Mr. Vice-President: Do you suggest that it is the workof the Congress only? I thought it is the co-operative workof all the parties.

Shri H. V. Kamath: But, Sir, all will agree that thedominant party in this House is the Congress Party, and ifthis party is not going to stand by its past professions, ifit is going to prove false to its past, and not implementits resolution of the past, what has that party come to? If the fundamental idea of this resolution passed at Karachi isto be given the go-by, I ask this House, shall we not fallin the estimation of the people of the country? Sir, thisdemand has not been a mere demand. I very well remember that in Nagpur in 1923 or 1924 there was a Satyagraha movement against theArms Act and this Satyagraha movement attracted Satyagrahisfrom all over-India. That went on for six months, and theCongress put its seal of approval on this Satyagrahamovement against the Arms Act. Today we may say thatconditions have changed and we do not want this sort ofthing to be incorporated in our fundamental rights. But,Sir, I will come to that argument a little later.

I can appreciate the force of the argument that thisabsolute right should not be conceded today. Perhaps thereis a lurking fear in the minds of those in power that theright may be abused. For that reason I have given thisproviso in conformity with and in line with the otherprovisos which have been embodied in this article. I ampersonally not very much in favour of these elaborateprovisos. Here again, I would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar to pages 21 and 29 of thisReport of the Committees' First Series. On page 21, we havethe Report of the Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee presidedover by the Honourable sardar Patel, and later on the samereport was discussed in the Assembly and modifications weremade in that, and the elaborate provisos which appeared in the original report of the Fundamental Rights Committee donot find a place in the resolution on the report which wasadopted by the Constituent Assembly. This perhaps needs anexplanation from Dr. Ambedkar.

Reverting to the subject matter of the amendment. Ihave already said that I do not want to make this

rightabsolute. That is why I have tabled this proviso, imposingrestrictions in the interests of public order, peace andtranquillity. It may be said that saboteurs and otherelements are abroad in the country and these may abuse thisprivilege and take advantage of this privilege conferredupon the ordinary citizen. But may I tell the House thatsaboteurs and other evil elements, villains and criminalshave managed and will always manage to get arms, Arms Act orno Arms Act; and it is the law-abiding citizen who hasalways suffered in the bargain, and it is he who has to beprotected against these elements. The history of the lasttwelve months has proved this to us most unmistakably, thatthose who suffer in these criminal riots and disturbancesare not the violent elements or the saboteurs, but the law-abiding citizens, and these have to be protected.

Again, the argument may be put forward that we shouldincorporate only such rights about which there is fear thatthey might be denied to the citizen. But if we examine thisargument a little closely, and also this article, in thelight of this argument, we will find that rights like freemovement throughout India; freedom to reside and settle inany part of India, and such other rights about which thereis no doubt or fear that they will be denied, have beenincorporated in this article. But this one right, to keepand bear arms has not found a place in this article. If thisvery diluted proposal of mine, if even this very abridgedfreedom to bear arms is not acceptable to the House, I amafraid it will create a most unfortunate impression on ourcountrymen that the Government does not trust the people,that the Government has no faith in the people, that theGovernment is afraid of the people. It is all right. Sir,for Ministers of Government to say, "We are here to protectyou". But, with security guards outside their bungalows, it is very well for them to put forward this plea. But theordinary citizen has no armed guard about him, no guardsstanding outside his house. If the Government wishes toconvey the impression to the people that the Government hasno faith in them, that it is afraid of them, if that is theattitude of the Government, then it is welcome to say so. Itwill prove to the people that you are not a populargovernment, that you are a government which has no faith in the people. If you are a popular government, this is theleast that you can do today to put an end to this ignominyof the past one hundred years.

It may be argued also that the Congress and MahatmaGandhi and our leaders have taught us to defend ourselves byAhimsa, and not by Himsa, by non-violence and not byviolence. But, Sir, may I, in all humility remind the Housethat Mahatma Gandhi used to say, "Resist, defend, non-violently, if possible, but violently, if necessary. What Ihate is cowardice." And this doctrine, Sir, has beenpropagated recently by the Honourable Sardar Patel himselfwho has been going about the country asking the people neverto run away, never to be cowards, but to resist violently ifnecessary, not to run away from the assassin, from thehooligan, from the criminal. Defend yourself by all meansand at all costs. I find my honourable Friend Mr. ShankarRao Deo laughing in his seat. He is welcome to smile orlaugh but I may tell him that he laughs best who laughslast. He has tabled an amendment here. I do not know whetherhe is serious about it. In the end I will only say that ifwe of the Congress party who are in a major ity desire toprove true to our past, if we have the desire in us toimplement all the resolutions that we have adopted in thepast, if we do not want to live with the lie in our soul, Iappeal to the House to accept this amendment and put an endto one of the most disgraceful phases of our ignominiouspast of over a hundred years.

[Mack The Knife]

CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME VII

Thursday, the 2nd December 1948


Mr. Vice-President: Maulana Hasrat Mohani (Cheers) I amglad the House recognises the excellent services rendered byMaulana Hasrat Mohani to this country. He was the first tostand for total independence of our Mother-Land.

Maulana Hasrat Mohani (United Provinces: Muslim): *[Mr.Vice-President, when I rose to speak, my first impulse wasto support whole-heartedly the amendment moved by Mr. Kamathand even now I have come here with that idea. In the laterspeeches and amendments, one amendment has been moved by Mr.Muhammad Ismail of Madras and I give my full support to it.Besides, I also support the amendment of Mr. K. T. Shah. Mr.Muhammad Ismail in the second part of his amendment has mademention of personal liberty. Mr. K.T. Shah's amendment isalso of

similar nature. I shall speak at the end about hisamendment. First of all, I would like to give full supportto Mr. Kamath's amendment. Mr. Kamath has said that everyone should have the right to bear arms. This is a testamendment. If Dr. Ambedkar and his committee are honest,then surely they ought to accept this section and include itin the article at once. If he wavers or raises any objectionas I know he is capable of doing, as Dr. Ambedkar's legalabilities are established, and if he wishes, he can turnnight into day and day into night and can prove itconclusively,--then I would like to tell him that this is atest amendment and, if you do not include it, it would meanthat your tendency is the same as that of the Brit ishGovernment. You know what the Brit ishers had done. They hadpromulgated the Arms Act in India. The result was that allthe inhabitants of Hindustan were kept as imbeciles. If youalso have the same design, then it is a different matter.But if there is any national Government and an IndianGovernment, then there is no reason why you should depriveanybody of this right. If you too will forge an Arms Act andwill deprive the people of this right, then I would say thatyour attitude and way of doing things is much worse thanthat of the Brit ishers. It will be much worse. The Arms Act,enforced by the Brit ish Government, was applicable to oneand all with the exception of the ruling class. We wereunder the impression that under our own Government thisrestriction will be removed. Unfortunately at present herewe have

[Mack The Knife]

CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME VII

Thursday, the 2nd December 1948


Then my friend, Mr. Kamath wanted that we should havethe right to bear arms and that this right should be put in the Fundamental Rights. It is true that for a long time theCongress has been from year to year passing resolutions thatwe must have the right to bear arms. The situation haschanged now. We were then slaves and wanted to equipourselves sufficiently so that in case of need we can usethe arms for getting out of the foreign yoke. But, today in the civilised world I should like to ask my honourableFriend if he feels that everybody should be allowed to fighteven to defend himself. Except in extreme circumstances noforce should be used. Even when force has to be used, itmust be concentrated in the State. The State it is that muststand between man and man and citizen and citizen when theywant to fight. No individual citizen ought to be allowed toattack another. Very often the right to bear arms is abused.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Not even in self-defence?

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: Very often defence isoffence in the hands of strong young men whose blood is verywarm like that of my friend. Mr. Kamath's defence very oftenmeans offence.

Shri H. V. Kamath: I strongly protest against thatremark, Sir.

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: I am sorry, Sir.

Mr. Vice-President: He has expressed his regret.

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: I have the greatestregard for my young friend and his youthful enthusiasm.

So far as the communal point is concerned, there is anamendment here which requires it to be included as a fundamental right. I am afraid it is

not possible to do so. There is provision made in the PenalCode under sections 153 and 155-A for the purpose. That is ample.

[cottage cheese]

Cottage Cheese,

This might interest you

http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol5p6.htm

Scroll down to item No.9(Arms,Ammunition and Explosives)

penpusher

Hi penpusher, thats quite a find. Thank you. You are Indeed one of those good souls that know how best to exploit the power of internet...I'm not one of them. Never thought our founding fathers gave the subject even a casual thought. Great resource.

[penpusher]

I think we should thank Abhijeet for putting up the relevant links.Was tired by the time I reached this and had thought of exploring it at a later stage.Might have forgotten about it altogether.

penpusher

[TC]

Bravo gentlemen...Abhijeet I really appreciate the effort you have given. And penpusher thanks for giving this topic the boost it needed...

TC

[mundaire]

What I found really revealing (and galling), is that while without a shred of doubt the politicians of those days were a much much more upright and moral bunch - even they could not resist the temptation of going back on their (own party's) Karachi declaration of putting in place the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a fundamental right of every citizen!

When they were fighting the establishment (colonial rule), they seem to have been driven by high moral principles and their speeches and writings consistently held Independence from colonial rule also included civil liberties and personal freedoms as the goal (that Indians were fighting for).

BUT once they became part of the establishment, once they themselves became the "rulers" this seems to have changed almost immediately... I was earlier under the impression that this change took place over a period of time, with the consistent decline of the quality of people in public life that we have seen here.

But obviously this was not the case, since the proposal for RKBA was shot down, and in particular the statement made by Dr. Ambedkar as to why the drafting committee had omitted it from the constitution... it becomes increasingly clear, that once in power, the very same freedom fighters who held civil liberties and personal freedoms as a higher moral principle - something sacrosanct... seem to have done an immediate about turn and become of the opinion that "the people" need to be protected from themselves by "the state"...

[penpusher]

Abhijeet,

I was earlier under the impression that this change took place over a period of time, with the consistent decline of the quality of people in public life that we have seen here

This is a misconception held by a vast majority.Good that you have realised the truth.The decline had set in by 1947, a process that had started much earlier.Much of what you see now is a result of what was in place by the 1950's

About the framers of the Indian Constitution.Did they not have the originality of thought to write something that was more in keeping with the needs of the country.The Indian Constitution is one of the largest works of plagiarism, ever.Somewhat like the INSAS Both don't function properly.

If you notice,the fears of some of the members of the Assembly about the suspension of Civil Liberties during the imposition of an Emergecy came true .The framers of the Indian Constitution appear to have been idealists,intellectuals and thinkers who seemed to have been completely divorced from reality.The few who were there, seem to have been ignored.


penpusher

[TC]

Couldnt agree more. Moreover our founding fathers had the ready excuse called -- "communal riots". Its a fact that licenced weapons were extensively used during the riots. Its a different question though as to who were responsible.

So Long

TC

[eljefe]

I see a lot of 'legal ammo' being assembled...Hopefully we shall go on the offensive soon?
Trust penpusher and Abhijeet to be the total resource persons
best
Axx