So far.

As the ultimate goal is concerned. I think none of us. Need have any apprehensions. None of us need have any doubt
. But my fear. Which I must express clearly. Is this. Our difficulty, as I said, is not about the ultimate future. Our diff
iculty is. How to make. The heterogeneous mass. That we have today. Take a decision in common. And margin a co
operative way. On that road. Which is bound to lead us to unity. Our difficulty is not with regard to the ultimate. Ou
r difficulties with regard to the beginning. Mr chairman Deborah. I should have thought. That in order to make a star
t. In order to induce. Every Party,Every exception. In this country. It would be the 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 the. That I propose to make this appeal. Let us leave aside slogan. Let us leave aside words which fright
en people. Let us even make concession to the prejudices. Of our opponents. Bring them in. So that they may willing
ly join with us. On marching upon that road. Which, as I said. If we walk long enough. Must. Necessarily. Lead us to
unity. And if I refer from this place. Superb Dr jakers manvan . It is because. I want all of us to realize. That whethe
r we are right or wrong. Whether the position that we take is consolance. With our legal rights. Whether that accords
with the statement of May 16 no,it is December 16. Leave all that to say. This is too big a question to be reduced to t
he position of mearly legality. It is not a legal point. I said, leave us find all these considerations. And make summer
time. Whereby those who are not prepared to come. Welcome. Let US make it possible for them to come. That is bio
py. In the course of a debate. That took place. There were two questions which were raised. And which struck me so
well. That I took the trouble of taking them down on a note paper. The one question was. It was last I think by my fri
end. The prime minister of Bihar who spoke yesterday in this ascent. He said. How can this resolution. Prevent the le
ague. From coming into the constituent assembly. Today. My friend Dr Shyam Prasad Mukherjee ask another questi
on. Is this resolution. Inconsistent. With the cabinet missions proposal. Ah sir, I think they were very important quest
ions. And as they are there, I think ought to be answered. The answer categorical. I do maintain. They have disresol
ution. Whether it is intended to bring about the result or not. Whether it is a result of cold calculation. Or maybe it is
a mere matter of accident. Is bound to have the result. Of keeping the Muslim League out. And I'm substantial what I
said. So I invite your attention. To paragraph 3 in the resolution. Which I think is very significant. And very importa
nt. Paragraph 3. In which is. The future constitution. Of India. I do not know. What is the intention of the mover of t
he resolution. But I take it. That it is a sort of after this resolution is passed. It will act in a sort of a directive. To the
constituent assembly. To frame the constitution in terms of paragraph 3 of the resolution. What does paragraph 3 spe
ak of. Paragraph 3 says. That in this country. There shall be. Two different sets. Quality. 1 at the bottom. The autono
mous provinces. Out of the state. Or such other areas is care to join. A United India. These are tournament series. Wi
ll have. Full powers. They will have also residually powers. At the top. And over the provincial units. There will be.
A union government. Having certain subjects. For legislation. For execution and for administration. So as I read this
part of the resolution. I do not find any reference. To the idea of grouping. An intermediate structure structure. Betw
een the union, on the one hand. And the provinces on the other. Now reading this paragraph. In the light. Of the cabi
net missions statement. Or reading it even in the light of the resolution passed. By the Congress at this varada sessio
n. I must confess. That I am a great deal. Surprised. At the absence of any reference. To the idea of the grouping of t
he provinces. So far as I'm personally any concerned. I do not like the idea of ruring. I like. A strong United Center.
Much stronger. Then the center we had created. And in the government of India act of 1935. But Sir. These opinions
, These wishes, Have no bearing on the situation at all. We have travel. A long road. The Congress Party. For the rea
sons best known to itself. Consented. If I may use the expression. To the dismantling. Of a strong center. Which had
grown into this country as a result of 150 years of administration . And which,I must say. Was to me. A matter of gre
at admiration. And respect. But having given up that position. Having said that. We do not want a strong center. And
having accepted. That the are must be. Or should be. An intermediate quality. Is some federation. Between the unio
n government and the provinces. I like to know. Why there is no reference. In paragraph 3, to the idea of grouping. I
quite understand. There's a Congress Party. The Muslim league. And his majesty's government. Is not add idom. On
the interpretation of that particular idea about grouping. But I always thought. And I will be prepared to stand correct
ed if he's shown that I am wrong. That at least it was agreed by the Congress Party. That is the provinces. Were to be
within the different groups. Consent. To form a union or a sub federation, the Congress would have no objection to t
hat propose. I believe I'm correct. In interpreting the mind of the Congress Party. So the question that I asked. Is this.
Why did not. The mover of this resolution. Make reference. To the idea of having a union of the provinces or a grou
p of provinces. On the terms on which. He and his party was prepared to accept. Why is the idea of union completely
faced. From this resolution. I find no answer.