Patrick Dodson: 'No takes you nowhere', National Press Club speech before Voice referendum - 2023

11 October 2023, (from Broome videolink), National Press Club, Canberra, Australia

But what drives me is the ongoing injustice that I see, the out of home placements of our kids, the high levels of incarceration, the high levels of suicide that we see amongst our young people. The awful living conditions and poverty that I see, the lack of hope that I see in the streets in my own hometown, in Broome, the awfully frustrating changes that are needed in the criminal justice system and the so-called benefits that we should be enjoying are not being delivered. And that's what drives me. So we need to change. We need to have an effective voice to the Parliament. We need to have recognition as the First Peoples. You can't live in your own country and not be recognised. And that's the challenge for us as Australians. After the vote on October the 14th, people are going to have to look in the mirror and say, what have we done? And why have we done what we did? And where's it going to take us?

And we can look backwards and we can look at the history. I won't go back to Captain Cook and his instructions, but I'll go back to the Day of Mourning 1938, when Mr. Cooper and Ferguson and Patton and Pearl Gibbs and many others, Sir Doug Nicholls and others, all gathered at Latreuse and threw a wreath into the ocean at that time, in acknowledgement of the way that Aboriginal people were being treated by the settlers. But out of that came the positive request that Mr. Cooper put to the Prime Minister Lyons — that there ought to be someone in the federal parliament that looked after the affairs of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. That never happened, of course, because in 1938 there was no clear head of power that the Commonwealth had any responsibility for the Aboriginal people. That came in '67 when the Australian people voted overwhelmingly in support of a change to our constitution that made it clear that the Commonwealth could make laws for the Aboriginal people, including every other race of people under Section 51 (xxvi).

So what drives me is the need for us to acknowledge the Aboriginal peoples as the First Peoples. Not that they have special privileges, but there are injustices that have to be fixed, as a consequence of the settlement that has taken place and the way in which that settlement has happened.

We know from our high court, our own High Court in Australia, that made it clear that the legal fiction of Terra Nullius was a lie, deliberately constructed to dispossess and displace the Aboriginal people, and enable governments of the day to use us as the play tools for their particular purposes.

Now, what drives me is to stop that nonsense, to give the Aboriginal people their voice so that they can also take responsibility for the direction of the future. And we're seeing that some of that direction is to be participants in the society.

This is not about separatism, this is not about elitism. It's not about special privileges. It's about being able to navigate the course under our direction and under our judgement and under our responsibilities and our accountabilities. That's what's being asked for. And we ask the Australian people, the decent good people in this country — and that's all Australians, I'm not separating anyone out here — all Australian people, to support the simple proposition, a very humble proposition, to create the recognition of the Aboriginal people in the Constitution and to give them an instrument, a voice, a body through which they can say to the parliament and to the executive what the concerns are and what the ways forward are, for us to go.

Because we're bogged down in a culdesac of going nowhere at the moment. We know that from the Closing the Gap statistics and all the other social indicators, we're going nowhere. And the No campaign wants us to stay there. We can't afford to stay there because that doesn't take the country forward. It doesn't redress the serious problems that the Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander peoples live under every day of the week.

Anna Henderson
A question about Deaths in Custody Royal Commission

Senator Patrick Dodson
[Dodson attempts to answer this diversionary question , then gets back to it]
But today, we're not talking about the Royal Commission. Today, we're talking about the referendum. Today we're talking about a vote that the Australian people will cast a very important vote, the most significant vote they're going to make for a very long time on this matter. And that vote will determine what we as a nation are going to stand for. What are we going to stand for in relation to the First Peoples of this country? And how you cast your vote is terribly important. And then on the day after, have a look in the mirror and ask yourself, how's this going to impact your kids and yourself going forward? Are we going to go forward? Are we going to go backwards? Or are we going to cop more of the same? Are the Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander people going to be at the table? Or are they going to be picking up the crumbs as we have been for the last 200 years? So are we going to be at the table making decisions, or picking up crumbs that fall off the table of those that make decisions about us

Anna Henderson:
When we travel around the country. Speaking to people who are undecided, one of the key cut through messages that they have taken in from this campaign is lack of detail. 'We don't know', they say, 'what we are voting on'. Do you think it would've been easier if draught legislation could have been put forward? And can you explain that decision-making process and why there isn't more detail behind the question and the pages of information that have been provided so far?

Senator Patrick Dodson:
Well, the constitution is about principle. It's about principles that parliaments or governments use to make legislation upon. And if their legislation is not acceptable to the public, or some section of the public, they have a right to challenge that in the court. Now, you don't put detail in the Constitution. And so what we are talking about in this referendum is putting a principle, the principle of recognising the Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first peoples, and then a principle that allows them to have a voice that makes recommendations. It doesn't bind the Parliament, it doesn't control the funds, it doesn't set up the programmes. It simply gives advice to the executive and to the parliament on the better ways to do things with the public funds that are put towards programmes and other factors.

Now, if you want to walk away from that, then you're left with the hands of the politicians making the decisions. You're left with the bureaucrats determining and deciding how the lives of Aboriginal people are going to be controlled. And you're left to the whim and fancies of the greatest lobbyists around the country that want to determine how their futures are going to be lived out in this country.

Anna Henderson:
The debate and the tenor of debate has been divisive, at times racist, and it has caused a lot of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who've stepped forward to promote a yes campaign personal hardship because of the way they've been treated in the public discourse. You've been watching all of that. What do you make of it?

Senator Patrick Dodson:
Well, it saddens me. It seriously does sadden me that that division and acrimony has crept into the debate. But what further worries me is this goes to the very fabric of our civil exchanges as a democratic nation. This is not just about the Aboriginal referendum here. This is about the nature of our civic society. This is about how the polity of our country is governed and run, and this will affect us, into the future, as the modus operandi of what and who is accountable in the way they conduct public discourse. And that's the bigger worry. And most people haven't woken up to that as yet, I don't think, because it's so obfuscated in the process.

But it does worry me that there's no baseline here. This is run through social media. You can say anything. It's deemed to be truth. It seen to be of value. There's no weighting of the arguments. There's no real analysis of the arguments. There's no historical dimension, there's no acceptance of history. There's no acknowledgement of the legacy that history has created. There are consequences from colonisation. There are serious consequences.

Anna Henderson:
Well, let's address that because at the National Press Club, it was the Shadow Minister for indigenous Australians Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who said on that platform she didn't think there were negative impacts from colonisation. What's your response to her view?

Senator Patrick Dodson:
Well, I look to the serious social dislocation on many of the social indicators that Aboriginal people now sit in. Now, if we were in the promised land that some people might want to suggest we're in, then why are we having such high rates of suicides? Why are we having so many of our kids being taken away and put into out of home care? Why is there so much domestic violence and internal violence within our societies? Why are we living in poverty? Why are we still suffering from mental health problems? And why are our kids the victims of drug and alcohol opportunities that society offers? So we're not in the Garden of Eden here. These are the consequences of how we came to be colonised and they have to be dealt with. And so the benefits that have come through civilization, or through colonisation ... are well and good, they're good things. No one's denying them. But there are legacy issues, and responsibility and accountability issues, for how you've taken someone else's country, and subjugated them to the policies that you have. Assimilation, control, management domination, determination of their futures, taking kids away, stolen generations, all of those things have consequences from the first point of taking their lands and subjugating them to the policies of government — to achieve the objective, which is the benefits that the society now enjoys.

Anna Henderson:
When the National Party came out very clearly and said they would be campaigning for a No vote, and then the Liberal Party followed and said very clearly they would be campaigning for a No vote. With your deep understanding of the history of constitutional change in this country, at that point in the process, did you ever think it would be better to hold back and not proceed with this referendum now,

Senator Patrick Dodson:
I paused for a moment because I thought, well, yes, that'd be something to do. But then I said, well, this question of recognition goes back well before my time. It goes back to the leaders that I've admired, Vincent Lingiari, the Mr. Coopers, Mr. Ferguson, Patten, Pearl Gibbs, Doug Nicholls, the Pilbara Strikers. It goes back a long way, of struggle for recognition. And I've been party to, and I've had the privilege to be on committees where we've tried to grapple with this. I chaired the Reconciliation Council for six years of its existence, trying to find common ground. I worked with the wonderful. deceased now, Rick Farley — trying to find common ground between aboriginal people and pastoralists and many other industry groups, miners and others.

So the importance of recognising the First Peoples in this country is significant for the nation. It's a significant matter for the nation, not just for the Aboriginal people. And that's what people are going to have to ask themselves on the 15th of October, Have we dealt with this legacy issue of denying the First Peoples of this country or have we actually owned up to it, and have we acknowledged that? And therefore, we're not going to bequeath, we're not going to hand that legacy onto our future generations. We're going to put a stop to that lie, and we're going to set down a new foundation upon which we can build

Anna Henderson:
At this point in time, looking at the polls over a long period now and the trend which suggests that this referendum is very likely to end in a No vote, what is your reaction to that and what hope do you see over the next couple of days of actually changing minds?

Senator Patrick Dodson:
Well, we've got a section in the Constitution now, which sets up the process that we're going through, the referendum process — that is the majority of voters in a majority of states. I'll wait until the Australian people make their mind and their wishes clear. I'm not going to be ruled by polls, If we want to be governed by polls and why would we have a government? We just run a poll poll straw and decide how we're going to work and live. Now, I think the Australian people and there are many of them, that are still to vote, and I'd encourage them to vote Yes in this referendum. There's nothing to fear here. There's only good to come out of this. There's a vision to come out of this and there's hope to come out of this. So the truth of our integrity as a nation is what's at stake here, the truth of that.

And we will need to face up to that on the 15th of October, once we know what the outcome is. I'm confident that we are able to get sufficient votes and a sufficient number of the states to get us across the line. I don't believe in the polls. I was in the Opposition when Bill Shorten was the leader and we thought we were going to win government. And of course, we got the biggest hiding possible and we never went anywhere. So polls tell you lies and don't believe them. If you're fearful about the confusion, vote Yes. Don't vote No because No takes you nowhere.

Mitch McConnell: -'President Trump is practically and morally responsible', Acquittal of Trump, Second Impeachment - 2021

14 February 2021, Washington DC, USA

January 6th was a disgrace.

American citizens attacked their own government. They used terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of democratic business they did not like.

Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the Senate floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering the Vice President.

They did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he'd lost an election.

Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty.

The House accused the former President of, quote, 'incitement.' That is a specific term from the criminal law.

Let me put that to the side for one moment and reiterate something I said weeks ago: There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day.

The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their President.

And their having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth.

The issue is not only the President's intemperate language on January 6th.

It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate urged 'trial by combat.'

It was also the entire manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret coup by our now-President.

I defended the President's right to bring any complaints to our legal system. The legal system spoke. The Electoral College spoke. As I stood up and said clearly at the time, the election was settled.

But that reality just opened a new chapter of even wilder and more unfounded claims.

The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things.

Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally.

This was different.

This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.

The unconscionable behavior did not end when the violence began.

Whatever our ex-President claims he thought might happen that day... whatever reaction he says he meant to produce... by that afternoon, he was watching the same live television as the rest of the world.

A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name. These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags, and screaming their loyalty to him.

It was obvious that only President Trump could end this.

Former aides publicly begged him to do so. Loyal allies frantically called the Administration.

But the President did not act swiftly. He did not do his job. He didn't take steps so federal law could be faithfully executed, and order restored.

Instead, according to public reports, he watched television happily as the chaos unfolded. He kept pressing his scheme to overturn the election!

Even after it was clear to any reasonable observer that Vice President Pence was in danger... even as the mob carrying Trump banners was beating cops and breaching perimeters... the President sent a further tweet attacking his Vice President.

Predictably and foreseeably under the circumstances, members of the mob seemed to interpret this as further inspiration to lawlessness and violence.

Later, even when the President did halfheartedly begin calling for peace, he did not call right away for the riot to end. He did not tell the mob to depart until even later.

And even then, with police officers bleeding and broken glass covering Capitol floors, he kept repeating election lies and praising the criminals.

In recent weeks, our ex-President's associates have tried to use the 74 million Americans who voted to re-elect him as a kind of human shield against criticism.

Anyone who decries his awful behavior is accused of insulting millions of voters.

That is an absurd deflection.

74 million Americans did not invade the Capitol. Several hundred rioters did.

And 74 million Americans did not engineer the campaign of disinformation and rage that provoked it.

One person did.

I have made my view of this episode very plain.

But our system of government gave the Senate a specific task. The Constitution gives us a particular role.

This body is not invited to act as the nation's overarching moral tribunal.

We are not free to work backward from whether the accused party might personally deserve some kind of punishment.

Justice Joseph Story was our nation's first great constitutional scholar. As he explained nearly 200 years ago, the process of impeachment and conviction is a narrow tool for a narrow purpose.

Story explained this limited tool exists to "secure the state against gross official misdemeanors." That is, to protect the country from government officers.

If President Trump were still in office, I would have carefully considered whether the House managers proved their specific charge.

By the strict criminal standard, the President's speech probably was not incitement.

However, in the context of impeachment, the Senate might have decided this was acceptable shorthand for the reckless actions that preceded the riot.

But in this case, that question is moot. Because former President Trump is constitutionally not eligible for conviction.

There is no doubt this is a very close question. Donald Trump was the President when the House voted, though not when the House chose to deliver the papers.

Brilliant scholars argue both sides of the jurisdictional question. The text is legitimately ambiguous. I respect my colleagues who have reached either conclusion.

But after intense reflection, I believe the best constitutional reading shows that Article II, Section 4 exhausts the set of persons who can legitimately be impeached, tried, or convicted. The President, Vice President, and civil officers.

We have no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen.

Here is Article II, Section 4:
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Now, everyone basically agrees that the second half of that sentence exhausts the legitimate grounds for conviction.

The debates around the Constitution's framing make that clear. Congress cannot convict for reasons besides those.

It therefore follows that the list of persons in that same sentence is also exhaustive. There is no reason why one list would be exhaustive but the other would not.

Article II, Section 4 must limit both why impeachment and conviction can occur... and to whom.

If this provision does not limit the impeachment and conviction powers, then it has no limits at all.

The House's 'sole power of Impeachment' and the Senate's 'sole Power to try all Impeachments' would create an unlimited circular logic, empowering Congress to ban any private citizen from federal office.

This is an incredible claim. But it is the argument the House Managers seemed to make. One Manager said the House and Senate have 'absolute, unqualified... jurisdictional power.'

That was very honest. Because there is no limiting principle in the constitutional text that would empower the Senate to convict former officers that would not also let them convict and disqualify any private citizen.

An absurd end result to which no one subscribes.

Article II, Section 4 must have force. It tells us the President, Vice President, and civil officers may be impeached and convicted. Donald Trump is no longer the president.

Likewise, the provision states that officers subject to impeachment and conviction 'shall be removed from Office' if convicted.

Shall.

As Justice Story explained, 'the Senate, [upon] conviction, [is] bound, in all cases, to enter a judgment of removal from office.' Removal is mandatory upon conviction.

Clearly, he explained, that mandatory sentence cannot be applied to somebody who has left office.

The entire process revolves around removal. If removal becomes impossible, conviction becomes insensible.

In one light, it certainly does seem counterintuitive that an officeholder can elude Senate conviction by resignation or expiration of term.

But this just underscores that impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for American justice.

Impeachment, conviction, and removal are a specific intra-governmental safety valve. It is not the criminal justice system, where individual accountability is the paramount goal.

Indeed, Justice Story specifically reminded that while former officials were not eligible for impeachment or conviction, they were "still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice."

We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.

I believe the Senate was right not to grab power the Constitution does not give us.

And the Senate was right not to entertain some light-speed sham process to try to outrun the loss of jurisdiction.

It took both sides more than a week just to produce their pre-trial briefs. Speaker Pelosi's own scheduling decisions conceded what President Biden publicly confirmed: A Senate verdict before Inauguration Day was never possible.

This has been a dispiriting time. But the Senate has done our duty. The framers' firewall held up again.

On January 6th, we returned to our posts and certified the election, uncowed.

And since then, we resisted the clamor to defy our own constitutional guardrails in hot pursuit of a particular outcome.

We refused to continue a cycle of recklessness by straining our own constitutional boundaries in response.

The Senate's decision does not condone anything that happened on or before that terrible day.

It simply shows that Senators did what the former President failed to do:

We put our constitutional duty first.

Babasaheb Ambedkar: 'Why is the idea of Union completely affected from this Resolution?', Anti-Partition Speech to parliament on Constitution - 1949

17 December 1946, Constituent Assembly, Delhi, India

Mr. Chairman, I am indeed very grateful to you for having called me to speak on the Resolution. I must however, confess that your invitation has come to me as a surprise. I thought that as there were some 20 or 22 people ahead of me, my turn, if it did come at all, would come tomorrow. I would have preferred, that as today I have come without any preparation whatsoever. I would have liked to prepare myself, as I had intended to make a full statement on an occasion of this sort. Besides you have fixed a time limit of 10 minutes. Placed lunder these limitation, I do not know how I could do justice to the Resolution before us. I shall however do my best to condense in as few words as possible what I think about the matter.

…….Now I come to the first part of the Resolution, which includes the first four paragraphs. As I said from the debate that has gone on in the House, this has become a matter of controversy. The controversy seems to be centred on the use of the word ‘Republic’, it is centred on the sentence occurring in paragraph 4 “the sovereignty is derived from the people “. Thereby it arises from the point made by my friend Dr. Jayakar yesterday that in the absence of the Muslim League it would not be proper for this Assembly to proceed to deal with this Resolution. Now, Sir, I have got not the slightest doubt in my mind as to the future evolution and the ultimate shape of the social, political and economic structure of this great country. I know today we are divided politically, socially, and economically. We are a group of warring camps and I may go even to the extent of confessing that I am probably one of the leaders of such a camp. But, Sir, with all this, I am quite convinced that given time and circumstance nothing in the world will prevent this country from becoming one. (Applause): With all our castes and creeds I have hot the slightest hesitation that we shall in some form be a united people (cheers). I have no hesitation in saying that not withstanding the agitation of the Muslim League for partition of India some day enough light would dawn upon the Muslims themselves and they too will begin to thin that a United India is better even for them(Loud cheers and applause).

So far as the ultimate goal is concerned, I think none of us need have any apprehensions. None of us need have any doubt. Our difficulty is not about the ultimate future. Our difficulty is how to make the heterogeneous mass that we have today take a decision in common and march on the co-operative way which leads us to unity. Our difficulty is not with regard to the ultimate, our difficulty is with regard to the beginning. Mr. Chairman, therefore, I should have thought that in order to make a thought, in order to induce every party, every section in this country to take on to road it would be an act of greatest statesmanship for the majority party even to make a concession to the prejudices of people who are not prepared to march together and it is for that, that I propose to make this appeal. Let us leave aside slogans, let us even make a concession to the prejudices of our opponents, bring them in, so that they may willingly join with us on marching upon that road, which as I said, if we walk long enough, must necessarily lead us to unity. If I, therefore, from this place support Dr. Jayakar’s amendment, it is because I want all of us to realise that whether we are right or wrong, whether the position that we take in consonance with out legal rights, whether that agrees with the Statement of May 16th or December 6th, leave all that aside. This is too big a question to be treated as a matter of legal rights. It is not a legal question at all. We should leave aside all legal considerations and make some attempt, whereby those who ate not prepared to come, will come. Let us make it possible for them to come, that is my appeal.

In the course of the debate that took place, there were two questions which were raised, which struck me so well that I took the trouble of taking them down on a note paper . The one question was, I think, by my friend, the Prime Minister of Bihar who spoke yesterday in this Assembly. He said, how can this Resolution prevent the league from coming into the Constituent Assembly ? Today my friend, Dr. Syama Prasad Mookherjee, asked another question. Is this Resolution in consistent with the Cabinet Mission proposed. Sir, I think they are very important questions and they ought to be answered and answered category . I do maintain that this Resolution whether it is intended to bring about the result or not, whether it is a result of cold calculation or whether it is a mere matter of accident is bound to have the result of keeping the Muslim League out. In this connection, I should like to invite your attention to paragraph 3 of the Resolution, which I think is very significant and very important. Paragraph 3 envisages the future Constitution of India. I do not know what is the intention of the mover of the Resolution. But I take it that after this Resolution is passed, it will act as a sort of a directive to the Constituent assembly to frame a Constitution in terms of para 3 of the Resolution. What does paragraph 3 speak of ? Paragraph 3 says that in this country there shall be two different sets of polity, one at the bottom, autonomous Provinces or the States or such other areas as care to join a United India. These autonomous units will have full power. They will have also residuary powers. At the top, over the Provincial Units, there will be a Union Government, having certain subjects for legislation, for execution and for administration. As I read this part of the Resolution, I do not find any reference to the idea of grouping, and intermediary structure between the Union on the one hand and the provinces on the other. Reading this para, in the light of the Cabinet mission’s Statement or reading it even in the light of the Resolution passed by the Congress at its Wardha session, I must confess that I am a great deal surprised at the absence of any reference to the idea of grouping (hear, hear). I like strong united centre, (hear, hear ) much stronger than the Centre we had created under the Government of India Act, 1935. But, Sir, these opinions, these wishes have no bearing on the situation at all. We have travelled a long road. The Congress Party, for reasons best known of itself consented, if I may use that expression, to the dismantling of a strong Centre which had been created in this country as a result of 150 years of administration which I must say , was to me a matter of great admiration and respect. But having given up that position, having said that we do not want a strong centre, and having accepted that there must be or should be an intermediate polity, a sub-federation between the Union Government and the Provinces I would like to know why there is no reference in para 3 to the idea of grouping. I quite understand that the Congress Party, the Muslim League and His Majesty’s Government are not ‘ad idem’ on the interpretation of the clause relating to grouping. But I always thought that, I am prepared to stand correct if it is shown that I am wrong, at least it was agreed by the Congress Party that if the Provinces which are place within different groups consent to form a Union or Sub-federation, the Congress would have no objection to that proposal. I believe I am correct in interpreting the mind of the Congress Party. The question I ask is this. Why did not the Mover of this Resolution make reference to the idea of a Union of Provinces or grouping of Provinces on the terms on which he and his party was prepared to accept it ? Why is the idea of Union completely affected from this Resolution ?. I find no answer. None whatever.

I therefore say in answer to the two questions which have been posed here in this Assembly by the Prime Minister of Bihar and Dr. Syama Prasad Mookherjee as to how this Resolution is inconsistent with the statement of May 16th or how this Resolutions going to prevent the Muslim League from entering this Constituent Assembly, that here is para 3 which the Muslim League is bound to take advantage of and justify its continued abstention. Sir, my friend Dr. Jayakar, yesterday, in arguing his case for postponing a decision on this issue put his case, if I may say so, without offence to him, somewhat in a legalistic manner. The basis of his argument was, have you the right to do so ? He read out certain portions from the Statement of the Cabinet Mission which related to the procedural part of the Constituent Assembly and his contention was that the procedure that this Constituent Assembly was adopting in deciding upon this Resolution straightaway was inconsistent with the procedure that was laid down in that paper. Sir, I like to put the matter in a somewhat different way. The way, I like to put it is this, I am not asking you to consider whether you have the right to pass this Resolution straightaway or not. It may be that you have the right to do so. The question I am asking is this. Is it prudent for you to do so ? Is it wise for you to do so ? Power is one thing; wisdom is quite a different thing and I want this House to consider this matter from the point of view, namely, whether it would be wise, whether it would be statesmanlike, whether it would be prudent to do so at this stage. The answer that I give is that it would not be prudent, it would not be wise. I suggest that another attempt may be made to bring about a solution of the dispute between the Congress and the Muslim League. This subject is so vital, so important that I am sure it could never be decided on the mere basis of dignity of one party or the dignity of another party. When deciding the destinies of nations, dignities of people, dignities of leaders and dignities of parties ought to count for nothing. The destiny of the country ought to count for nothing. The destiny of the country ought to count for everything. It is because I feel that it would in the interest not only of this Constituent Assembly so that it may function as one whole, so that it may have the reaction of the Muslim League before it proceeds to decision that I support Dr. Jayakar’s amendment-we must also consider what is going to happen with regard to the future, if we act precipitately. I do not know what plans Congress Party, which holds this House in its possession, has in its mind ? I have no power of divination to know what they are thinking about. What are their tactics, what is their strategy, I do not know. But applying my mind as an outsider to the issue that has arisen, it seems to me there are only three ways by which the future will be decided. Either there shall have to be surrender by the one party to the wishes of the other-that is one way. The other way would be what I call a negotiated peace and the third way would be open war. Sir, I have been hearing from certain members of the Constituent Assembly that they are prepared to go to war. I must confess that I am appalled at the ideal that anybody in this country should think of solving the political problems of this country by the method of war. I do not know how many people in this country support that idea. A good many perhaps do and the reason why I think they do, is because most of them at any rate a great many of them, believe that the war that they are thinking of, would be a war on the British. Well, Sir, if the war that is contemplated, that is in the minds of people, can be localised, circumscribed , so that it will not be more than a war on the British, I probably may not have much objection to that sort of strategy. But will it be a war on the British only? I have no hesitation and I do want to place before this House in the clearest terms possible that if was comes in this country and if that was has any relation to the issue with which we are confronted today, it will not be a war on the British. It will be a war on the Muslims. It will be a war on the Muslims of which is probably worse, it will be a war on a combination of the British and Muslims. I cannot see how this contemplated war be of the sort different from what I fear it will be. Sir, I like to read to the House a passage from Burke’s great speech on Conciliation with America. I believe this may have some effect upon the temper of this House. The British people as you know were trying to conquer the rebellious colonies of the United States, and bring them under their subjection contrary to their wishes. In repelling this idea of conquering the colonies this is what Burke said :



First, Sir permit me to observe, that the use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again; and a nation is not governed which is perpetually to be conquered. “My next objection is its uncertainty. Terror is not always the effect of force and an armament is not a victory. If you do not succeed, you are without resource for, conciliation failing, force remains; but, force failing, no further hope of reconciliation is left. Power and authority are sometimes brought by kindness; but they can never be begged as alms by an impoverished and defeated violence…



A further objection to force is that you impair the object by your very endeavours to preserve it. The thing you fought for is not the thing which you recover; but depreciated, sunk, wasted and consumed in the contest.



These are weighty words which it would be perilous to ignore. If there is anybody who has in his mind the project of solving the Hindu-Muslim problem by force, which is another name of solving it by war, in order that the Muslims may be subjugated and made to surrender to the Constitution that might be prepared without their consent, this country would be involved perpetually conquering them. The conquest would not be one and for ever. I do not wish to take more time than I have taken and I will conclude by again referring to Burke. Burke has said somewhere that it is easy to give power, it is difficult to give wisdom. Let us prove by our conduct that if this Assembly has arrogated to itself governing powers it is prepared to exercise them with wisdom. That is the only way by which we can carry with us all sections of the country. There is no other way that can lead us to unity. Let us have no doubt on that point.(Speech concludes)