RESOLUTION PASSED AT A.I.C.C. MEETING, DELHI March 16, 1937

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09415777229, 094055338

E-mail- [e-mail];[e-mail]

 

 

RESOLUTION PASSED AT A.I.C.C. MEETING, DELHI March 16, 1937

 

 

The All-India Congress Committee records its high appreciation of the magnificent response of the country to the call of the Congress during the recent elections and the approval by the electorate of the Congress policy and programme. The Congress entered these elections with its objective of independence and its total rejection of the new Constitution; and the demand for a Constituent Assembly to frame India’s Constitution. The declared Congress policy was to combat the new Act and end it. The electorate has, in an overwhelming majority, set its seal of approval on this policy and programme, and the new Act, therefore, stands condemned and utterly rejected by the people through the self-same democratic process which has been invoked by the British Government, and the people have further declared that they desire to frame their own constitution, based on national independence, through the medium of a Constituent Assembly elected by adult franchise. This Committee, therefore, demands on behalf of the people of India that the new Constitution be withdrawn. In the event of the British Government still persisting with the new Constitution in defiance of the declared will of the people, the All-India Congress Committee desire to impress upon all Congress members of the Legislatures that their work inside and outside the Legislatures must be based on the fundamental Congress policy of combating the new Constitution and seeking to end it, a policy on the basis of which they sought the suffrage of the electorate and won their overwhelming victory in elections. That policy must inevitably lead to deadlocks with the British Government and bring out still further the inherent antagonism between British Imperialism and Indian Nationalism and expose the autocratic nature of the new Constitution.

 

THE BACKGROUND

 

While the British Governments’ reform as proposed in the Government of India Act (1935) had been totally rejected by the Bombay Congress session, at the Working Committee meeting held at Allahabad in April, 1936, the members differed widely in their views on the subject of office-acceptance. In the absence of a consensus, it was decided to review the matter after the elections in February, 1937. When the results of the elections were announced, the Congress had the majority of seats in five Provinces, namely, Madras, the United Provinces, the Central Provinces, Bihar and Orissa. It was the biggest single Party in four Provinces, namely, Bombay, Bengal, Assam and North-West Frontier Province. In the Legislative Assemblies of Sind and the Punjab, the Congress was in a minority. The following extract from the The History of the Indian National Congress, shows the Party position in various Assemblies:

TOTAL NO. OF SEATS IN THE LEGISLATIVE SEATS WON BY THE PROVINCE ASSEMBLY CONGRESS

Madras 215 159 Bihar 152 98 Bengal 250 54 C. P. 112 70 Bombay 175 86 U. P. 228 134 Punjab 175 18 N.W.F.P 50 19 Sind 60 7 Assam 108 33 Orissa 60 36 The following is extracted from the resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee in Madras on March 10, 1937: “The Tamil Nadu Congress Committee is convinced on good grounds that the people of this Province, who have expressed their unqualified confidence in the Congress leadership, are strongly and definitely in favour of the Congress Party accepting ministerial responsibilities with a view to carrying out the policy of the Congress and the programme laid down in the Congress manifesto, and that they will be extremely disappointed if any other decision is adopted. “The Provincial Congress Committee is of the opinion that accepting the ministerial offices by the Congress in Legislatures will strengthen the Congress Party and develop the sanctions necessary for achieving the Congress goal, by creating the psychology of confidence between the masses and the forces of repression that have been hitherto employed against them by the bureaucracy.” “The Provincial Congress Committee therefore is clearly of the opinion that in all the Provinces where Congressmen are in majorities in Provincial Legislatures, so as to enable them to function as stable Ministries without having to depend upon doubtful non-Congress groups, the Congressmen should accept ministerial offices on behalf of the Party.” In his speech on the A.I.C.C. resolution, C. Rajagopalachari said: “Let us not distrust each other. Do not think we are hankering after Jobs. When they went to the Governor they had to tell him what they proposed to do and ask him if he would use his special powers. If the Governor refused to give an answer, they would come back. If he said he would use them, then also as self-respecting men they would come back; but if he said he would not use them, they would take his words at their face value. If later he broke those words, they could come out.” Jawaharlal Nehru said that “though he also continued the opposition he eventually agreed again in deference to the wishes of Mahatma Gandhi and with a view to keeping up solidarity, which, in his view, was essential to fight the new Constitution.” The A.I.C.C. then “took up consideration of the draft of the oath which every Congress Legislator will be required to take affirming allegiance to Congress and the country on the first day of the National Convention Session.” The draft prepared by Jawaharlal Nehru and revised by Gandhiji, read: “I, Member of this All-India Convention, pledge myself to the service of India and to work in the Legislatures and outside for the independence of India and the ending of the exploitation and poverty of her people. “I pledge myself to work under the discipline of the Congress for the furtherance of Congress ideals and objectives to the end that India may be free and independent and her millions freed from the heavy burdens they suffer from.” Pattabhi Sitaramayya explains thus the question of “assurances”: “Apart from the question of the academic and theoretical issues involved in this affair, it would be just as well to study in detail the significance of the demands made by the Congress that the Governors shall not use their special powers of interference or set aside the advice of Ministers in regard to the constitutional activities. These special powers relate to certain groups, interests and areas. The groups are the minorities, the interests are the vested interests of the British and the areas are the excluded and the semi-excluded areas in British India, and the Indian States. By this demand it is meant that the Governors should only act like the Governors in the Provinces of Australia (Section 51). They should not have the power to dismiss Ministers at their pleasure, that the salaries should be fixed as desired by the leader of the House (Section 50), that they should not preside over the Council of Ministers, that they should not interfere or make Ordinances (Section 55-88), or Acts on grounds of menace to peace and tranquility, that they had nothing to do with the appointment of Advocate-General (Section 56), or with the making of the police rules: (Section 57) with violent crimes ( ” 59) with the framing of rules of business allocating the duties of Ministers ( ” 62) dissolving the Assembly ( ” 74) introduction of Bills ( ” 75) assenting to Bills  ( ” 78) inclusion of extra amounts of expenditure in the budget ( ” 82) introducing a Bill or an amendment to a Bill increasing or imposing any tax or borrowing money except on the recommendation of Ministers ( ” 84) making rules for legislative procedure with the consultation of the Speaker ( ” 86) interference with any Bill as trenching upon Governor’s special charge ( ” 88) Governor’s Ordinances ( ” 90) Governor’s Acts ( ” 92) Excluded Areas ( ” 258) the privileges of Services.”