What was the C.R. Formula in the Constitutional History of India ? Why it was not adopted ?

-

 

 C.R.Formula 1944

C.R. Formula was given by the INC Leader Chakravati Rajagopalachari. He was also known by the name Raja ji that is why this formula is also popular by the name “Rajaji’s Formula”.

Who was Raja Ji ?

1. He was an Indian Statesman, writer, lawyer and independence activist.

2. He served as a Governor of West Bengal from 1947 to 1948.    

3. After this he served as Governor-General of India from 1948 to 1950.

4. After this he served as Union Home Minister of India from 1951 to 1952 and also the Chief Minister of Madras State from 1952 to 1954.

Why the CR Formula was made?

Starting from the August Offer from the year 1940, there were many efforts made by the British Government in relation to the Indian Constitutional advancement.

But every effort made by the British Government in this direction was failed due to the disagreement between the political parties of India.

The differences between Indian National Congress and Indian Muslim League were quite visible in this regard.

All these facts lead to deadlock situation in India

In fact, during the Second World War, Lord Linlithgow, the then Viceroy of India gave statement that if Indians are really serious for the Constitutional settlement for India, then they should first settle the differences between the Muslim League and INC.

Why there was Political Deadlock between INC and Muslim League? 

The basic reason for the political deadlock between INC and Muslim League was the demand of separate State- “Pakistan” by Muslim League and non-acceptance of this demand by the INC under the fear of division of Indian Union into two parts i.e. India and Pakistan.

So, in order to end this deadlock between INC and Muslim League, C. Rajagopalachari came up with the CR Formula in the year 1944.

This was an attempt by C. Rajagopalachari to carve out a middle path between these two major political parties.

What were the proposals suggested in C.R. Formula?

Following were some proposals suggested in the C.R.Formula.

1. A Commission would be formed which will be responsible for conducting the plebiscite in the Muslim Majority areas, to decide ( based on voting) whether people in these areas wanted a separate country or not. This means that the proposed commission will first identify the Muslim Majority areas in the United India and will then conduct the plebiscite.

2. In case, a separate country is formed based on Plebiscite, then both the countries India and newly formed “Pakistan” will have to do a joint agreement and form a common centre for defence, communication and commerce.

3. C.R. Formula will be implemented only after British Government transfers the power to India.

      So at the end after reading the above three proposals of Raja ji, it can be said that it was for the very first time in the Constitutional History of India that INC had agreed to some extent the demand of the Muslim League to form a separate country for the Muslims.

At a glance, this formula seems to be a good and it was also expected that the political deadlock between the Muslim League and INC would comes to an end by this Formula.

But what was the response of various political parties and groups in relation to C.R. Formula?

Response of Muslim League

Gandhi Ji met Mr. Jinnah in September, 1944, for a settlement on the basis of this formula. But Mr. Jinnah rejected this Formula as he had the following objections in relation to the proposals contained in C.R.Formula.

1. Mr. Jinnah was not ready with the way plebiscite was proposed to be conducted.

As per the proposal all the people living in the identified Muslim Majority areas were allowed to vote. Whereas according to Mr. Jinnah only Muslim population were to be allowed to cast the vote and Hindus, Sikhs, Christians living in the said Muslim Majority Areas should not be allowed to vote in the proposed Plebiscite.

2. Jinnah was also not ready to accept the idea of Common Centre between these 2 countries.

 

 


 

Response of Sikh Community

In Muslim Majority areas i.e. in NWFP (North West Frontier Province) Sikhs were in large number but were not in majority in any of the districts. So, Sikh Community knew that plebiscite would result in a separate country.

Response of Hindu Mahasabha

The Hindu Mahasabha was also opposing C.R.Formula as it was beyond their imagination why the Muslim League’s demand could be taken so seriously.

So in this C.R.Formula was also not adopted.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nature, History, Scheme and Scope of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

-
Image
                        Introduction to The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.Lecture No.1                                                                                                        Classifications of Laws                         Laws can be divided into the two groups i.e.      1.  Substantives Laws :- Substantantive Laws are those laws which determine the rights and liabilities of the parties.          2.  Adjective or Procedural Laws :- Procedural Laws are those laws which prescribe the practice, procedure and machinery of those rights and liabilities.        The efficiency of substantive laws, to a great extent depends upon the quality of procedural laws. Unless the procedure is simple, expeditious and inexpensive, substantive laws, however good are bound to fail in achieving their objects and reaching the goal.              It is the procedural laws which put life into the substantive laws by providing a remedy and implements the well known maxim  ubi jus ibi remedium   wh
Read more

Definition Part of The Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Section 2 , Code, Decree and Decree Holder

-
Image
                                                                                                                                 DEFINITIONS                                                                ( Section  2)             Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 deals with the definitions of various expressions used in the Code. The definition provides the meaning of the words used in the statute so as to avoid any uncertainty. A word which is defined in the Code shall bear the same meaning everywhere it appears in the Code provided that the context remains the same.          In  Ramesh Mehta Vs. Sanwal Chand Singhvi AIR 2004 SC 2258,  it was held by the Supreme Court that a definition is not to be read in isolation. It must be read in the context of the phrases which would define it.        The definitions provided in Section 2 of the Code opens with the words "  In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context ." It means that the defin
Read more

Section 19: Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movable

-
Image
  Section 19: Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movable ·         This Section 19 of CPC clarifies the place of institution of suits in case the wrong is alleged to be done by the defendant to as to person or movable property of the plaintiff and the intends to take compensation for that wrong from the defendant. ·         Section 19 deals with a situation wherein the cause of action arises at one place and the defendant resides or carries on business or personally work for gain at another place. ·         The cause of action arises at the place where the wrong is done . ·         Section 19 provides that in such cases, two courts shall be competent to entertain and try the suit for compensation: a . the court within whose local limits of jurisdiction the wrong is done. b . the court within whose local limits of jurisdiction the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. ·         This section also grants option to the plaintiff
Read more