Nehru바카라�s Intolerance Towards Mookerjee Choked Free Speech In India: Jaitley

The country바카라�s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru바카라�s 바카라�intolerance바카라� to criticism from a Cabinet colleague triggered the opening Constitutional amendment that prohibited free speech if it 바카라�adversely impacts friendly relations with foreign states바카라�바카라�a law that paradoxically stemmed from an exhortation for a united India, Union minister Arun Jaitley said on Friday.

It was his resentment over industry minister Syama Prasad Mookerjee바카라�s appeals for an 바카라�Akhand Bharat바카라� amid the 1950 Delhi Pact which sought to guarantee minorities in nascent India and Pakistan their rights that led Pt Nehru to change of legislation which hindered 바카라�free speech바카라� that is a part of the 바카라�basic structure of the Constitution바카라�, Jaitley noted on social media, describing the incident as a 바카라�forgotten chapter바카라� in India바카라�s post-Independence history.

바카라�If an amendment dilutes it (free speech) through an unreasonable restriction, it will be liable for challenge on the ground of violation of the basic structure (of the Constitution),바카라� according to the Facebook post, made on the 117th birth anniversary of Mookerjee who went on to found the Bharatiya Jana Sangh which in 1980 became the BJP of which Jaitley, 65, is a senior leader.

The bilateral agreement, also called the Nehru-Liaquat Pact (Liaquat Ali Khan being Nehru바카라�s Pakistani counterpart), on April 8, 1950, prompted Dr Mookerjee, a representative of the Hindu Mahasabha he led for three years from 1943, to resign from the Cabinet in protest. The Calcutta-born leader took further strengthened his public position against pact by speaking 바카라�extensively바카라� against it in Parliament and outside, reiterating that it went against his philosophy of 바카라�Akhand Bharat바카라� that meant Undivided India, Jaitley recalled.

바카라�Pt Nehru over-reacted to Dr Mookerjee바카라�s criticism바카라�, as the 바카라�Akhand Bharat바카라� was, for the PM, 바카라�an invitation to conflict since the country could not be reunited other than by war.바카라� Nehru advised his deputy, Vallabhbai Patel, to consider action against Dr Mookerjee. 바카라�After consultation with Constitutional experts, Sardar Patel바카라�s opinion was that he could not prevent Dr Mookerjee from propagating his idea of 바카라�Akhand Bharat바카라� under the Constitution바카라� and that it would require a Constitutional amendment if the PM wanted an end to the matter.

바카라�Dr Mookerjee, on the contrary, claimed that Pakistan wanted a war and was already at war with us, having captured a part of our legitimate territory of Jammu and Kashmir,바카라� says Jaitley. Thus, 바카라�to suggest that his speeches on 바카라�Akhand Bharat바카라� would lead to a war was not acceptable.바카라�

Thus, in 1951, an amendment Bill on this was introduced in Parliament, which as a central assembly was duplicating earlier as a Constituent Assembly, notes Jaitley, who holds the finance portfolio in the present Narendra Modi ministry. The Facebook post, hailing Dr Mookerjee as an eminent parliamentarian and statesman, notes that he formed the Jana Sangh 바카라�as an alternative ideological pole바카라� in 1950 when Pt Nehru바카라�s Congress was the country바카라�s dominant political party.  바카라�Today, the BJP has replaced the Congress as the key ideological pole in Indian politics.바카라�

As for the pertinent Constitutional amendment, its circumstances have been discussed in detail in a book brought out last year, Jaitley pointed out. Republic of Rhetoric 바카라� Free Speech and the Constitution of India, by lawyer Abhinav Chandrachud, 바카라�traces the history of the entire debate on free speech from the Constituent Assembly till the publication of the book바카라�.

The amendment Bill, Jaitley noted, was referred to the Select Committee of Parliament, of which the PM 바카라�himself became a member바카라�. Its report, submitted within a week along with a note of dissent, was debated in the Lok Sabha on May 29, 1951. The Bill was eventually passed and became a part of the Indian Constitution despite opposition from 바카라�several senior members such as H.V. Kamath, Acharya Kripalani and Naziruddin Ahmad바카라� besides Dr Mookerjee.

바카라�They argued that such a provision does not exist in any Constitution in the world.  It was too widely worded and could even prevent a legitimate debate of foreign policy issues. It was argued that the Constitution had been in force for only sixteen months and it may not be prudent to bring a hurried Constitution amendment,바카라� says Jaitley. 바카라�But Pt Nehru was determined to go ahead. His principal response was if you criticise a head of a State or a foreign State, that country may launch a war against us.  This would adversely impact India바카라�s sovereignty.바카라�

According to Jaitley, Pt Nehru argued that 바카라�we cannot imperil the sovereignty of the whole nation in the name of some fancied freedom which puts an end to all freedoms바카라�. Dr Mookerjee countered that 바카라�such a widely-worded amendment could prevent a legitimate debate on issues pending with Pakistan, not merely on the treatment of minorities or what was happening in Jammu and Kashmir; it would also prevent us from commenting on issues relating to evacuee property.바카라�

Jaitley바카라�s post ridicules the very idea of the amendment, noting that the 바카라�world is consistently changing바카라� and so are the international alignments. 바카라�Erstwhile opponents become allies or vice versa바카라�. Governments can be cautioned or appreciated for the course they follow.  They can even be criticised,바카라� he added. 바카라�In the absence of debate and even criticism, there would be only one opinion expressed which is detrimental to a democracy.바카라�