Constituent Assembly Debates
Constituent Assembly Debate On 9 November, 1948
 
 

 
  CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME VII 
 



 Tuesday, the 9th November, 1948
 


The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at 
Ten of the Clock, Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee) in the Chair.

 


Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee): I take it as the unanimous desire 
of the House that the general discussion on the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar's 
motion should be concluded to-day. I have noticed endless repetitions of the 
same arguments and I appeal to those who will speak to-day that they will 
avoid issues which have been already dealt with.

 


Shri R. Sankar (Travancore): Sir, I must at the very outset congratulate the 
framers of the Draft Constitution on the very efficient manner in which they 
have executed their duty; and I must particularly congratulate Dr. Ambedkar on 
the very lucid and able exposition of the principles of theDraft Constitution 
that he gave us by his brilliant speech.I do not propose to go into the 
details of the Draft Constitution but will content myself with dealing with 
one or two aspects of it. I think the most salient features ofthe Draft 
Constitution are a very strong Centre and rather weak but homogeneous Units. 
Dr. Ambedkar made a fervent appeal to the representatives of the States to 
take up such an attitude as to make it possible for all the States and the 
provinces to follow the same line, and in course of time to establish 
homogeneous units of the Federation without any distinction between the States 
and the provinces. But I think there are certain things which differentiate 
the States among themselves, and the States as a class and the provinces. 
There are some which are very well advanced and others which are not only not 
so well advanced but are really backward. There are States in which literacy 
is less than 5 per cent. There are States in which literacy is more than 50 
per cent. There are States which levy income-tax.There are others which do not 
levy income-tax at all. In fact, there is such a great difference between the 
States amongst themselves than between some of the States and the provinces 
that it is very difficult to find much in common between the States and the 
provinces as they are constituted at present. For an example of a State which 
is advanced, I might take the case of Travancore, which I have the honour to 
represent. Travancore is, I think, one of the most advanced States in the 
whole of India. In certain respects she is ahead even of the provinces. She 
has been able to work herself up to the present position on account of the 
fact that all her revenue resources had been tapped for along time and the 
Rulers had tried to develop the State fromvery early times. To-day, she is one 
of the most highly advanced industrial areas in all India. More than 50 
percent. of her people are literate. Though a small State with an extent of 
only 7662 square miles, she has a revenue of nearly Rs. 9 crores. She spends 
about Rs. 2 crores on education now, more than half a crore on medicine and 
public health and as much on village uplift; and in other nation-building 
activities she spends very large sums. But if this Draft Constitution becomes 
law tomorrow, what is going to be the fate of this State? That is what 
concerns the people of the States as a whole and the people of Travancore in 
particular. Our customs revenue is nearly Rs. 1 1/2 crores. Our revenue from 
income-tax is nearly Rs. 2 crores and other federal items will come to nearly 
another crore. In other words, about 45 per cent of the income of the State 
will be central revenue from the day this Draft Constitution becomes law. The 
result would be that a State like Travancore will not be able to maintain,much 
less improve upon her present administrative efficiency. The States people now 
look at this picture more or less from this angle. The Princes, who were till 
now the stumbling block, have most of them decided to introduce responsible 
government in their realms, and the Ruler ofTravancore has made no reservation 
whatever in this respect.The people are now anxious how they

 


will be in a position to carry on the administrative functions of the State at 
least as it was carried on under the old irresponsible regime. I believe the 
Honourable Members of this House will see that it is a very hard case for a 
state like Travancore. Unless there be some provision by which a sort of 
fiscal autonomy is allowed to a state like mine it will be simply impossible 
for the State to maintain the high level of development ithas been maintaining 
till to-day. The people after the long struggle are looking forward to the 
present responsible governments in the States to find a solution for 
thehundreds of problems, especially economic problems, that they are faced 
with, and if the States, instead of being ina better position, are in a worse 
position from tomorrow,they will certainly find it impossible to do anything 
and to solve any problem that they face. This aspect has to beborne in mind 
when this Draft is considered by this Body.

 


Another thing about which I would like to speak one word is the linguistic 
affair. There appears to be very much enthusiasm on the part of Honourable 
Members from the North whose mother tongue is Hindi or Urdu to force it all of 
a sudden upon others who scarcely understand a syllable of it now. Though much 
work has been done in the field of propagating the national language, 
Hindi-Hindustani, in theSouth, if you go out to the villages you will find 
that not even 1 per cent of the population knows Hindi. Even if you take such 
an educationally advanced State as Travancore and another State which is 
educationally far advanced - Cochin - ,not even 1 per cent of the population 
can even today understand either Hindi or Urdu. I would therefore request the 
members who are very enthusiastic about this thing - this common national 
language to wait for a time, to give an opportunity to the people of the South 
and the East to get themselves sufficiently acquainted with it. Hindi, 
ofcourse, is in favour everywhere. Only some time - probably a decade or two - 
will have to be allowed. In the meanwhile,English must continue to enjoy the 
position it does to-day.If that be done, I think there will be none from any 
part ofIndia who will stand in the way of Hindi being recognised as the 
national language of India.

 


As my time is up, I close with these remarks.

 


Shri M. Thirumala Rao (Madras: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, as a new 
recruit to this Constitution-making body, I seek the indulgence of the House 
for the few remarks I have the privilege of making here presently.

 


We are now on the eve of great changes and we have been endowed with the power 
of shaping our future in a manner that suits our genius and tradition. Of 
course the past 150years of Brit ish rule has made an indelible impression on 
the Constitution that has been presented to us. I do not want to go into the 
details of the Constitution. I want to deal only with one aspect of it, viz., 
whether this country should remain a part of the Brit ish Common wealth of 
Nations.

 


Sir, the Objectives Resolution has clearly laid down that the basis of our 
State should be a complete Sovereign Independent Republic. I feel, Sir, that 
in the present set-up of world affairs, it is but meet that India should from 
the very first make an attempt to stand on her own legs and show that we are 
capable of developing our own institutions on the lines best suited to us. No 
doubt, Brit ish statesmen and all those people who are accustomed to be 
imperialists are looking askance at us wondering whether we will cut ourselves 
away from the Brit ish Empire. It is too late in the day to think of having 
any constitutional ties with the word 'Empire' which smacks so much of a 
feeling that had been engendered in the past. But one thing necessary is that 
we should not excite any jealousy on the part of powers like Russia or America 
by permanently tying ourselves to the apron strings of Brit ish Imperialism or 
Brit ishCommonwealth.

 


Now, whatever one may say, the balance of power is yet influencing world 
affairs; and India, strategically situated as she

 


is in the Indian Ocean, midway between the Pacific and the Atlantic and the 
Mediterranean, has a special responsibility and an important role in 
maintaining world peace. Though we are a young nation, with very ill-equipped 
defences, it must be our duty to see that we estrange nobody in the world with 
regard to our position in international affairs. As such, if we make it plain 
that complete sovereign independence is our ideal and also the practical basis 
on which we are building up our Constitution, we may not estrange people like 
the Americans in the future.

 


In spite of all the tall talk that has been indulged in with regard to the 
Anglo-American Bloc, an under current of jealousy still persists in America 
against the Brit ish Empire. But they have realised - even Republican papers 
in America have realised - that they must make a little sacrifice of their 
trade monopoly in order to strengthen India and build up a bulwark against the 
forces that are now sweeping the East from Russia. From that point of view I 
feel that we must have complete Republican and independent sovereignty in our 
Constitution and from that point of view,we may command some respect and also 
some assistance from countries which seek our help and co-operation in the 
near future.

 


With regard to other matters, we must borrow a lesson from the Australian and 
Canadian Constitutions where the provinces and Centre have evolved a sort of 
relationship which is still the bone of contention in their law courts.The 
recent instance in Australia where Nationalisation of Banking was attempted is 
an example: the Centre wanted to nationalise the banks but the provinces 
resisted. So also in our future development, the relationship between the 
provinces and the Centre has to be evolved in the best interests of the 
country. We require no doubt a strong Centre, but a strong Centre should not 
mean weak provinces.The provinces also should be equally strong to enable them 
to perform their multifarious duties and to develop schemes.They should be 
left with sufficient financial resources to discharge their duties and 
contribute to the strength of the Centre.

 


With regard to Defence, we have been unfortunately split up by the 
machinations of Brit ish diplomacy. Whether it is Pakistan or India, India is 
one and indivisible as far as the defence of the country is concerned; 
Pakistan, which is separated on the north-east and north-west by long 
stretches of the Indian Union territory, is much too small to defend herself 
and will have to co-ordinate her defences with India. Our frontiers lie much 
further than Pakistan;our eastern frontier lies much beyond Assam and if we 
are to integrate these, we will have to keep the States well-knit and to enter 
into a sort of alliance with Pakistan by enclosing it within a 
super-federation of this federation.

 


Sir, I visualise a day when it will be impossible for the new States to remain 
as separate entities for long.There was wisdom in the proposal that these two 
States could combine for certain purposes like international trade,currency 
and defence. I will not rule out the possibility of such a combination in the 
near future, in the next decade,if we are to develop our Constitution on 
proper lines.

 


One more point, Sir. We have been talking too much of a secular State. What is 
meant by a secular State? I understand that a secular State may not allow 
religion to play a very important part to the exclusion of other activities of 
the State. But we must make it clear that the ancient traditions and culture 
of this country will be fully protected and developed by the Constitution and 
through the Constitution.

 


Mr. Vice-President, I see that my time is up. With your permission I will 
conclude in another minute.

 


Wherever you go, to the Mother of Parliaments or to other Brit ish 
Institutions, you find invariably the Church associated with them, with their 
universities, with their Parliament, with their Courts of Law and so on. 
Although Ido not want to impose our religion in our institutions to that 
extent, I do plead that we

 


should protect our culture,our peculiar national characteristics and 
traditions. These should be protected by the Constitution. We should not 
forget, wherever we go, that we are not a hybrid nation or a disproportioned 
mixture of several cultures, but that wehave a culture and a Government and a 
civilization of our own. This should be reflected in our Constitution.

 


Shri Raj Bahadur (United State of Matsya): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I have 
sought this opportunity from you to speak during the discussion of the Draft 
Constitution, only because I felt impelled by a sense of duty that I should 
draw the attention of this august Assembly to two problems which I think are 
really constituting a grave danger to our newly-won freedom and to the unity 
and integrity of theNation. I hope and wish that this Assembly, in order to 
safeguard the new and the nascent blossom of our freedom would provide 
adequate safeguards and provisions in the constitution for the protection of 
the Nation and of our hard-won liberty from two great perils. These 
perils,indeed, are too grave to be ignored. The perils I mean are the evils of 
"provincialism" and "communalism" which, inspite of the 
"supreme sacrifice", have yet not been laid quite low. By this 
"supreme sacrifice" I mean the martyrdom of the Father of our 
Nation. For the time being it appears that the demon of communalism has been 
definitely laid low,but even so I was a little painfully surprised when 
yesterday honourable Members like Mr. Ismail and Mr.Lari........

 


Nawab Muhammad Ismail Khan (United Provinces: Muslim):On a point of 
information. I never spoke yesterday.

 


Shri Raj Bahadur: Some of the Members of this House referred to the provision 
of proportionate representation and separate electorates. I mean to say Sir 
that, if we went to protect our freedom, we shall have to provide in 
ourConstitution that just as we have said that there shall beno evil of 
"untouchability" in our body politic, so also we shall have to see 
that these tendencies, these idiosyncrasies which have been responsible for 
the vivisection of our mother-land shall not raise their ugly heads again. If 
I say this, it is because even to-day when we are finding that the effects of 
partition are still troubling our body politic, when we are not yet free from 
the evils of partition, there are people and forces in the country which are 
still trying to revive and perpetuate communal politics. It is absolutely 
necessary for us to see when we frame our Constitution that these evil forces 
do not imperil our freedom.

 


I may also say that there is another peril from which our country may suffer 
and that is "feudalism" that is still rampant in some of the States 
of Rajputana. Owing to the sagacity of our States' Minister, the problem of 
the States has been squarely dealt with, but may I still submit that the 
people in the various States of Rajputana are still under the thumb of these 
feudal landlords? The Jagirdari system is still there and the poor kisans for 
whom we have been clamouring for freedom are still not breathing the air of 
freedom. The reactionary tendencies of these Jagirdars are still there and so 
I hope that, just as the problem of the States has been squarely dealt with, 
the problem of these feudal landlords will also be dealt with squarely and 
solved.

 


When I talk of feudalism, that naturally takes me tothe problem of the States. 
In introducing the Draft Constitution which has been placed before us by the 
Honourable the Law Minister for discussion and consideration, he (the Law 
Minister) spoke of a dual polity.But in this Constitution, I find that there 
is a "triplepolity" provided therein, in as much as the States are 
allowed to have constitutions different from the constitution for the 
provinces. We see that the States are allowed to maintain their own separate 
armies. We see also that their Constitutions would be devised and adopted by 
their own separate Constituent Assemblies. They have also been allowed to have 
their own separate judiciary and the people of the States will not be

 


allowed to appeal to theSupreme Court even in defence of their Fundamental 
Rights.These things, separate armies, separate ConstituentAssemblies and 
separate judiciary, are things which cause great concern to us, the people who 
have come from theStates, and I feel that it is high time that this 
disparity,this incongruity between the various units of the Indian Union is 
done away with. I would submit, Sir, that it can be safely assumed that the 
Princes just as they have relinquished their powers for the sake of the 
nation, so also would they favour the bringing of the States on a par with the 
provinces for the sake of the unification of the country. I feel that it will 
also be possible for the provision relating to Rajpramukhs to be made 
analogous to that of the Governors. They may have the same powers as the 
Governors in the different provinces, but I would support definitely my friend 
Mr. Vyas in his appeal that the rightof being elected to the high office of 
governorship may be conceded to the ordinary man in the street also. I do not 
see any reason why the office or the high post of a Governor should be 
restricted only to the Princes and depend only ontheir choice in the case of 
the States.

 


Then I may also respectfully refer to another factor which has lately come to 
light in our body politic and that is about the criticism that we see being 
levelled these days against our Ministers in almost all the provinces. That 
criticism may not have any justification behind it but still the criticism is 
there that our Ministers are not following the Gandhian ideals in their life, 
that they are travelling by aeroplanes, maintaining stately houses and so on 
and so forth. So I feel that in the Constitution there should be a provision 
giving a code of conduct for our Ministers so that we may not in future find, 
when history gives its verdict onus, that we have failed in our duty.

 


Lastly, I would beg to submit, Sir, that the provision for a Council of States 
in the Constitution seems to me to be redundant because an upper House has 
always acted as a dead weight upon the progress of the people. This smacks of 
a slavish imitation of the West and is quite unnecessary.

 


I hope these suggestions of mine will be considered bythe House in due course.

 


Prof. N. G. Ranga (Madras: General): Mr. Vice-President, I am sorry to find 
that the Members of the Drafting Committee have completely forgotten the very 
fundamental thing that was really responsible for bringing this Constituent 
Assembly into existence and for giving them this chance of drafting this 
Constitution for India. One would have thought that it would be their 
elementary duty to have suggested to us that this Constitution is being framed 
by the Constituent Assembly which has been brought into existence by the 
labours of the countless martyrs and freedom fighters in this country guided 
and led by MahatmaGandhi, but not a word has been said in regard to 
thismatter. Therefore I suggest that we should make it clear that this 
Constituent Assembly comes into existence after India has attained freedom 
under the inspiring leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, the Father ofour Nation, and 
that we are grateful for the unremitting struggle of the countless men and 
women to regain the right of independence for our nation. This is the least 
that we can possibly say in appreciation of the services rendered by these 
martyrs in our freedom struggle, and I hope the Housewill make the necessary 
amendment later on in this Draft.

 


Next, Sir, I am most unhappy that Dr. Ambedkar should have said what he has 
said about the village panchayats. All the democratic tradition of our country 
has been lost on him. If he had only known the achievements of the village 
panchayats in Southern India over a period of a millennium,he would certainly 
not have said those things. If he had cared to study Indian history with as 
much care as he seems to have devoted to the history of other countries, he 
certainly would not have ventured those remarks. I wish to remind the House, 
Sir, of the necessity for

 


providing as many political institutions as possible in order to enable our 
villagers to gain as much experience in democratic institutions as possible in 
order to be able to discharge their responsibilities through adult suffrage in 
the new democracy that we are going to establish. Without this foundation 
stone of village panchayats in our country, how would it be possible for our 
masses to play their rightful part in our democracy? Sir, do we want 
centralisation of administration or decentralisation? Mahatma Gandhi 
haspleaded over a period of thirty years for decentralisation.We as 
Congressmen are committed to decentralisation. Indeed all the world is to-day 
in favour of decentralisation. If we want on the other hand centralisation, I 
wish to warn this House that would only lead to Sovietisation 
andtotalitarianism and not democracy. Therefore, Sir, I am notin favour of the 
so-called slogan of a strong Centre. TheCentre is bound to be strong, is bound 
to grow more and morestrong also on the lines of modern industrial 
developmentand economic conditions. Therefore, it is superfluous,indeed 
dangerous to proceed with this initial effort to makethe Centre specially 
strong. In the Objectives Resolutionthat we passed in the beginning we wanted 
provinces to havethe residual powers, but within a short period of two 
yearspublic opinion rather has been interpreted by those draftersto have swung 
to the other extreme, to complete centralisation at the Centre and 
strengthening the Centre over much.

 


I am certainly not in favour of having so many subjectsas concurrent subjects. 
As Mr. Santhanam has rightly put itthe other day, what you consider to be a 
concurrent subject today is likely to become an entirely federal subject 
inanother five or ten years. Therefore, although I am quiteready to leave the 
residual powers to the CentralGovernment, I certainly do not want the 
provinces to beweakened as this Draft Constitution seeks to do.

 


Sir, one of the most important consequences of over-centralisation and the 
strengthening of the CentralGovernment would be handing over power not to the 
CentralGovernment, but to the Central Secretariat. From thechaprassi or the 
duffadar at the Central secretariat to theSecretary there, each one of them 
will consider himself tobe a much more important person than the Premier of 
aprovince and the Prime Ministers of the provinces would beobliged to go about 
from office to office at the Centre inorder to get any sort of attention at 
all from the Centre.We know in parliamentary life how difficult it is 
forministers to have complete control over all that is beingdone by these 
various Secretaries at the Secretariat. Underthese circumstances, it is highly 
dangerous indeed toenslave these Provincial Governments and place them at 
themercy of the Central Secretariat and the Central bureaucracy.

 


Sir, I am certainly in favour of redistribution of ourprovinces, but in view 
of the fact that the President of theConstituent Assembly has appointed a 
Linguistic Commissionto enquire into the possibility of establishing 
theseprovinces, I do think that any detailed discussion in thisHouse is not in 
order, when the particular matter, beforethey make their report, is subjudice; 
whether it is the top-most leaders of our country, the Prime Minister or 
theDeputy Prime Minister or any humble Member of this House - it is certainly 
subjudice for any one today to express anyopinion for or against the 
redistribution of provinces on alinguistic basis until this Commission 
expresses its ownopinion. Therefore, I do not wish to say anything 
more,although I have certainly very much to say in favour ofthese linguistic 
provinces.

 


What are to be our ideals? We have stated some of ourideals here in the 
Fundamental Rights chapter as well as inthe directives. But is it not 
necessary that we should makeit perfectly clear in one of these directives 
that it is theduty of the State to establish village panchayats in 
everyvillage or for every group of villages in order to help ourvillagers to 
gain training in self-government and

 


also toattain village autonomy in social, economic and politicalmatters, so 
that they will become the foundation stone forthe top structure of our 
Constitution?

 


Next, Sir, I do not want this distinction to be madebetween the provinces and 
the so-called Indian States. Whyshould it be that the Indian provinces should 
be degradedinto a kind of District Board status while these India.States would 
be given so much special power and favours? Whyshould these Indian States be 
allowed to have their ownseparate Constituent Assemblies and formulate their 
ownseparate constitutions? Either we should have very powerfulstates including 
the Indian States and the provinces or weshould have weak provinces and weak 
States just as is beingproposed in this Constitution. I am certainly not in 
favourof weak provinces or weak States; I am in favour of strongStates and 
therefore, I suggest that my honourable friendsfrom the Indian States also 
should pool their resources withus and then agree that all the provinces as 
well as theIndian States should be placed on the same footing and theyshould 
be made as strong as possible.

 


Sir, in these objectives, nothing has been said aboutall those people who are 
living in our villages. There issomething here said about the industrial 
workers. Theindustrial workers, unfortunate as they are, seem to be muchless 
unfortunate than the rural people. It is high time,Sir, that we pay some 
attention to this aspect also in ourvillages. Certainly the Bombay Resolution 
of the IndianNational Congress of August 1942 lays special stress uponthe 
toilers in the fields, in factories and elsewhere. Butno such mention is made 
here; special mention is made onlyof industrial workers. I suggest. therefore, 
that whateverwe want to do must be for the benefit of all those people inthe 
villages, in the towns, in the fields, in the factoriesand elsewhere.

 


Sir, in regard to the minorities, I am certainly not infavour of the 
reservations so far as the great Muslimcommunity is concerned; they certainly 
cannot claim anylonger to be such a helpless community as to be in need 
ofthese. One of those friends have come forward to say thatthey do not want to 
have these reservations.

 


I am not in favour of second Chambers, in the provincesespecially. These 
second Chambers will only retard progress.Some people seem to think that some 
check like this shouldbe put in there; it will only give a special premium 
toconservatism and therefore we should not have it.

 


Then there were some friends who said that thisConstitution should be turned 
into a sort of rigid pole. Iam not in favour of rigid poles; I am in favour of 
aflexible Constitution. If it had been found necessary withinthe last two 
years to swing from one side to the other,leaving the residuary powers to the 
provinces or keepingthem with the Centre, then how much more it would be 
necessary in the next ten years for us to try to make the necessary 
constitutional changes in our own Constitution in the light of the experience 
that we would be gaining. So far we havenot gained any experience. Our 
Constitutional Adviser hasgone all over the world, he has consulted other 
statementand he has come back and suggested so many amendments. We donot know 
how many times we are going to amend our ownconstitution within the next ten 
years after thisconstitution is accepted and our new legislatures come 
intoexistence. Therefore, I welcome the suggestion made by theHonourable Prime 
Minister yesterday that we should try tomake our constitution as flexible as 
possible and also tomake it easier within the first ten years at least to 
makethe necessary constitutional amendments to our own constitution.

 


Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar (Madras: General): Sir,objections of 
fundamental importance have been raised to theDraft Constitution as it has 
emerged from the DraftingCommittee. I agree that there is nothing 
characteristic inthis Constitution reflecting our ancient culture or 
ourtraditions. It is true that it is a patch work of some ofthe old 
constitutions of the west, - not even some of

 


themodern constitutions of the west, - with a replica of theGovernment of 
India Act, 1935. It is true that they havebeen brought together and put into a 
whole. Dr. Ambedkar isnot responsible for this; we alone have been responsible 
forthis character of the Constitution. We have not thought thatwe must imprint 
upon this a new characteristic which willbring back to our memories our 
ancient culture. It is moreour fault than the fault of Dr. Ambedkar.

 


It is no doubt true that Dr. Ambedkar gave an analysisof the several 
provisions of the Constitution, andunfortunately emphasised certain aspects of 
it, and gave hisown views upon village republics, village autonomy 
anddemocracy. He could have spared us and spared the Assembly acontroversy 
over these issues. Sir, left to myself, I wouldlike very much that this 
Constitution must be based uponautonomous village republics. Democracy is not 
worthanything if once in a blue moon individuals are broughttogether for one 
common purpose, merely electing X, Y and Zto this Assembly or that Assembly 
and thereafter disperse.That is the present state of India today. People in 
thevillages have had absolutely no opportunity to trainthemselves for 
democracy. They have not sharedresponsibility with anybody; they are 
absolutelyirresponsible. That was the view that was taken and that wasthe 
purpose of the Brit ish who ruled us for 150 years. Theydestroyed the elements 
of our freedom, of our decentralisedeconomy and the village republics that we 
had. They wantedto centralise the Government and concentrated all power inthe 
Governor General and ultimately in the Brit ishParliament. It was in that view 
that they took steps to seethat the villages did not govern themselves. We 
must seethat the village is the unit for the social fabric that weare going to 
build. In the village itself, I would like thatthe family should be the unit, 
though for all-India purpose,the individual must be taken as the unit for 
voting. Thevillage must be reconstructed on these lines; otherwise, itwill be 
a conglomeration of individuals, without any commonpurpose, occasionally 
meeting and dispersing, without anopportunity to come together and 
rehabilitate themselvesboth economically and politically.

 


But, as we are situated today, is it at all possibleimmediately to base our 
Constitution on village republics? Iagree this ought to be our objective. But 
where are theserepublics? They have to be brought into existence. As it is,we 
cannot have a better Constitution than the one that hasbeen placed before us 
on the model of some WesternConstitutions. Therefore, I would advise that in 
thedirectives, a clause must be added, which would insist uponthe various 
Governments that may come into existence infuture to establish village 
panchayats, give them political autonomy and also economic independence in 
their own way tomanage their own affairs. Later on, a time will come when 
onthe basis of these republics or autonomous panchayats afuture 
Constitutionmay be built. I agree with our Leader, the Prime Minister,who 
spoke yesterday that this Constitution may be kept in atransitional form for a 
period of five years, so that in thelight of whatever experience we may gather 
in this period, afuture Assembly which may be elected on the basis of 
adultsuffrage may re-draft our Constitution or amend or alter it.With that 
safeguard, I would urge upon this Assembly toaccept the Constitution as it has 
been placed before us bythe Drafting Committee and finalise it.

 


There is another criticism that has been levelled, - andaccording to me, it is 
a more serious one, - against thisConstitution. To the man in the street, 
political democracyis worth nothing unless it is followed by 
economicdemocracy. In the Fundamental Rights, the right to speak,the right to 
address Assemblies, the right to write as onelikes, all these have been 
guaranteed; but the right to livehas not been guaranteed. Food and clothing 
are essentials ofhuman existence. Where is a single word in the 
Constitutionthat a man shall be fed and clothed by the State? The

 


Statemust provide the means of livelihood for every one. Russiahas addressed 
itself to this problem and has concerneditself with the growing of food and 
the feeding of everycitizen of the country by nationalising the means 
ofproduction. In England, the Government cannot be in thesaddle even for a 
single day if it allows even a singlecitizen to die of starvation. We have not 
yet taken anylesson from the 35 lakhs of people who died three or fouryears 
ago during the Bengal famine. Are we to perpetuatethis tragedy? Is there a 
single word in the Constitutionthat imposes on the future Governments the 
obligation to seethat nobody in India dies of starvation? What is the good 
ofsaying that every man shall have education, every man shallhave political 
rights, and so on and so forth, unless he hasthe wherewithal to live? In 
England, either the Governmentmust provide every citizen with employment or 
give him dolesso that nobody will die of starvation. It is verydisappointing 
to see that we have not introduced a similarprovision in this Constitution. I 
would urge upon thisAssembly that even now it is not too late, and that 
thatmust be our first concern; the other things may stand overif necessary.

 


There is another important matter to be considered andprovided for. Otherwise 
India may be engulfed in a war orinternal unrest. Now war clouds are 
thickening. There aretwo ideologies fighting for power, fighting for 
thesupremacy of the world. On one side, there is the politicaldemocracy of the 
West; but there is the economicdictatorship of America. We do not want 
economicdictatorship at all; but we do want democracy. In Russia,there is no 
political democracy; but there is economicdemocracy. The two powers are 
striving for the mastery ofthe world; on account of this a war may come at any 
time. Isthere anything here in this Constitution to say that westand for 
economic democracy along with political democracy?There is a vague reference 
in the Objectives Resolution thatthere shall be social justice and economic 
justice. Economicjustice may mean anything or may not mean anything. I 
wouldurge, here and now, that steps should be taken to make itimpossible for 
any future Government to give away the meansof production to private agencies. 
We have seen what privateagencies mean. So far as cloth is concerned, within a 
shorttime of the removal of controls, prices went up. Why shouldwe not take 
charge of all the mills and produce thenecessary cloth? Even in the matter of 
food, in spite of allthe exertions of this Government as well as the 
previousGovernment, are we able to grow sufficient quantity of foodand 
distribute it in the country? I would therefore say, thetime has come in this 
country when we must make a departure.We should not follow the economic 
dictatorship of the Westor the political dictatorship of Russia. In between, 
we musthave both political democracy as well as economic democracy.If we have 
to stand out as the protectors of Asia, or chalkout a newline and avoid all 
wars in the future, this alone can saveus. Let us not be complacent. Communism 
is spreading. In thenorth there is communism; it has come to our very 
shores.China has been practically swallowed up by the communists.And likewise 
Indo-china. Burma is also in the grip of thecommunists. I do not know to whom 
I could attribute thesabotage of telephonic communications in Calcutta. 
Iunderstand that there is a movement there to destroy thewater works and 
destroy the power house also. There is arumour afloat that in Delhi itself, 
there is going to be astrike in the Water-works Department as also in 
theElectricity department. Unless we make up our minds to haveeconomic 
democracy in this country and provide for it in the Constitution, we may not 
be able to prevent the on-rush of communism in our land.

 


The next important matter for which provision should bemade is the effective 
consolidation of our country as earlyas possible. I was really surprised to 
hear the words of myfriend Mr. Hanumanthaiya yesterday. The people in the 
Stateswere anxious to fall in line with the rest

 


of India. Theywanted to get rid of the Rulers; we helped them; when oncethey 
regained freedom, they want to supersede these Rulersand become the rulers in 
their own States. Big States andsmall want to be separated from the rest of 
India. Whyshould not they adopt this Constitution which is framed forthe 
provinces also?

 


Shri K. Hanumanthaiya (Mysore): On a point of personalexplanation, Sir, I 
never claimed any separate status orindependence for any of the States.

 


Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: There is a view thatso far as the States are 
convened, if they merge in Indiathey will lose the peculiar privilege of 
having PrimeMinisters in their small places. That is a disadvantage theyhave, 
I agree, but it is better to fall in line with therest of India. Why should 
they not adopt the position in therest of India and why should they reserve 
all the subjectsfor themselves and give only three or four subjects?

 


(At this stage Mr. Vice-President rang the bell.)

 


In the case of a Bill there is no question of time.Strangely enough you have 
imposed a time restriction.

 


Mr. Vice-President: You must set an example to others.

 


Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: I will accept what yousay; there will be 
ample opportunities and I shall clear upthis matter later.

 


Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhari: (Assam: General): Sir, Iam deeply grateful to you 
for having given me thisopportunity of participating in this debate of 
momentousimportance but before I proceed, I should like to pay myshare of 
tribute to the Members of the Drafting Committee,its worthy President and 
above all, our ConstitutionalAdviser whose services to our poor Province, 
Assam, in theheyday of his youth are still remembered with affection 
andgratitude.

 


Nevertheless, I must say that this Draft does not claimperfection and there 
are faults of omission and commissionto which I must refer in the course of my 
speech. The firstand foremost question which strikes me that this Houseshould 
consider is whether they want to retain the State ofAssam in the first 
schedule of this Constitution Act. Theposition has become somewhat difficult 
now, and you mustonce for all decide and provide in this Constitutionmeasures 
which would enable Assam to be retained in India. Irefer to the lamentable 
neglect to make any provision forfinances so far as my province is concerned. 
It has beenstated in the report that for five years the status quo 
mustcontinue, which means that Assam at the end of five yearswill cease to 
exist as any province of importance. Sir, Imust just go into a little detail. 
Atthe present moment there is a deficit of one crore rupees inthat province 
and the total revenue of the provinceincluding what is obtained from the 
Government of India isto the tune of four crores only and already the 
expenditurehas gone up to five crores. If you have to maintain theminimum 
standard of administration of an Indian province, atleast an expenditure of 
eight crores is necessary. Fromwhere is this amount to come? We have said and 
urged even inthe olden days that we must get a share of the petrol andkerosene 
excise duty, and a share of the export duty on tea;but nothing has been so far 
done even though the conditionsare so desperate. The Drafting Committee does 
not make anyexception in the case of the special condition of thatprovince. 
Sir, we have gone to the maximum capacity oftaxation. Our rate of taxation is 
far more excessive thanany other province and we tax ourselves at the rate of 
4.3whereas the rest of the provinces tax themselves at the rateof 4.9. We had 
started levying tax on agricultural incomelong before the rest of the 
provinces and we had taxedourselves for amusement and luxuries long before 
others andeven now our conditions are so desperate as this, and Iwould appeal 
to this House that if you really want to retainAssam in India, you must make 
some special financialprovision for her and you must pay some special 
attention,otherwise that province will become bankrupt. India is onebody 
politic and if one finger of that India is rotten, thewhole India will rot in 
the long

 


run. If you allow Assam tobe ruined now, you will see that you will have to 
sufferultimately for that.

 


I would like to refer to another point, and that iswith regard to Article 149. 
Curiously enough, I find an amendment has been suggested which if given effect 
to willlay down a very dangerous principle, the principle ofconverting a 
general population into an absolute minority. Irefer to the amendment which 
had been suggested by theDrafting Committee and which says:

 


"That in clause (3) of article 149, after the words'save in the case of 
the autonomous districts of Assam' thewords 'and in case of constituencies 
having seats reservedfor the purposes of article 294 of this Constituted' 
besubstituted."

 


If this is given effect to, it will mean that allcommunities with reserved 
seats will have constituency ofless than 1 lakh population whereas the general 
populationmust be restricted to constituencies having only 1 lakhpopulation. 
This will mean additional weightage being givento reserved seats which is not 
claimed or asked for by anyof the communities. The proportion of the 
population in theprovince is as follows:

 


Hill tribes ... 18 per cent.

 


Muslim ... 17 per cent.

 


Scheduled castes ... 4 per cent.

 


General 34 per cent.

 


Where have you seen in a province where the generalpopulation is 34 per cent 
out of a total of 74 per cent thatspecial weightages have to be given to 
communities rangingbetween 18 and 17 per cent of the total population? And 
yetif this is accepted it will mean that the general populationwill have to 
give up some of their seats and will get lessthan what they are entitled to on 
the basis of population.This is a dangerous principle, and though it refers 
only toone province it will create a situation in which the generalpopulation 
will be converted into a minority and weightagegiven to other people for whom 
seats have been reserved. Ofcourse the proposition which I make will not 
affect thetribal population at all because they will have theirautonomous 
districts. I certainly see that there arecomplications in the case of reserved 
seats if youadopt the formula of one lakh representation; but the bestthing to 
be done in this matter would be to make anexception in the case of Assam in 
regard to having aconstituency for a lakh of people.

 


I will refer to one other act of omission. In the Draft Constitution there is 
no mention of women. I think thepeculiar composition of the Drafting Committee 
whichconsisted of people who have no domestic relations withwomen made them 
nervous about touching on that point. Inthis House there has been no mention 
of a specialconstituency for women. I know there are Members here whohave 
unbounded faith in the chivalry of men and who considerthat they will be quite 
competent to get seats even thoughno special constituency is reserved for 
them. But outsidethis House that is not the feeling. Women generally havelost 
faith in the chivalry of men. The young men of to-daydo not show respect to 
them even in the trams and buses.

 


Mr. Vice-President: The Honourable Member has reachedhis time limit.

 


Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: Sir, on a point oforder, I do not find in the 
rules any provision for a time-limit in respect of Bills of this kind.

 


Mr. Vice-President: That was done with the consent ofthe House. First it was 
10 minutes, then it was extended to15 minutes, and then to 20, and again it 
was brought down to10 minutes.

 


Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhari: Sir, from my experience asa parliamentarian and a 
man of the world I think it would bewise to provide for a women's 
constituency. When a womanasks for something, as we know, it is easy to get it 
andgive it to her; but when she does not ask for anything inparticular it 
becomes very difficult to find out what shewants. If you give them a special 
constituency they can havetheir scramble and fight there among themselves 
withoutcoming into the general constituency. Otherwise we may attimes feel 
weak and yield in their favour and give themseats which they are not entitled 
to.

 


Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal:

 


General): Sir, themain features of the Draft Constitution embody theprinciples 
of a democratic federation and as such should winthe approbation of all. At 
the same time there are certainmatters which I feel are not quite explicit or 
in whichchanges are required, if this constitution is to conform tothose 
ideals which actuated India during its many years ofstruggle and which are 
embodied in the Objectives Resolutionto which our Prime Minister referred 
yesterday. Sir, I agreewith my Honourable friend Dr. Ambedkar that it is the 
spiritin which we are able to work it, that will make all thedifference, 
Again, whatever constitution we may draw up to-day, it will not be possible 
for us to foretell how it willfit in with our requirements in its actual 
working and withthe inherent genius of our race. It is therefore 
quiteessential, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, that the Constitution at 
present should be flexible. I thinkamendments of the Constitution should be by 
simple majorityfor the next ten years so that there may be opportunitiesfor 
adoptions and modifications in the light of experience.

 


Turning to the citizenship clause, I think there shouldbe a categorical 
statement in it about a single uniformcitizenship with equal rights and 
privileges. As rightsinvolve responsibilities, so it is necessary that 
theobligations of citizenship should also be enumerated in thisClause.

 


With regard to Fundamental Rights, equal rights havebeen prescribed. Quite 
rightly, it has been laid down thatthe State shall not discriminate against 
any citizen ongrounds of religion, race or sex. But in view of conditionsin 
this country and in view of some of the opinionsexpressed by thepublic - and 
the last speaker's chivalry touched us deeply - Ithink it is necessary to have 
an explicit provision thatsocial laws of marriage and inheritance of the 
differentcommunities shall not also have any disabilities attached tothem on 
grounds of caste or sex. It is of course true thatthe right of equality 
includes this but there may be different interpretations and much confusion 
and I thereforeappeal to the House to have a proviso to explain this.

 


I will not repeat what my Honourable friend ShriAnanthasayanam Ayyangar said 
but I do feel that in regard tothe economic rights of the common man there is 
a lacuna.Although I agree that the provision "that no person shall 
bedeprived of his property save by the authority of the law"is alright, I 
do not at the same time see why underjusticiable rights one should have the 
second part of thisclause which goes into details about compensations 
whenproperty is taken by the State for public purposes inaccordance with law. 
Surely if there is any need for puttingthis into the Constitution it should be 
under directives andnot under rights which are justiciable and enforceable 
incourts of law. It is not right that we should commit thefuture to the 
economic structure of the present.

 


Turning to education, which I consider to be one of themost fundamental of 
rights, I feel there is a greatinadequacy. I do not want to repeat what other 
speakers havesaid, but I would appeal to the House to include a provisowhereby 
a definite proportion of the budget is allotted for this purpose. This is 
nothing very new; it is already therein the Constitution of China which says:

 


"Educational appropriations shall set apart not lessthan 15 per cent of 
the total amount of the budget of theCentral Government and not less than 30 
per cent of thetotal amount of the provincial, district and municipalbudgets 
respectively." If we are to progress and prosper Isuggest that in the 
matter of the two nation-buildingservices of education and public health there 
should be someprovision in the Constitution of the type that is there inthe 
Chinese Constitution.

 


With regard to the reservation of seats for minoritieswe have not of course in 
a secular State provided forseparate electorates, but I do not see why we 
should havereservation of seats for minorities. It is psychologicallywrong to 
lay down, as it has been laid down, that after tenyears the

 


right shall lapse unless extended by amendment. Iam sure that if this 
privilege is conceded now there will bea clamour for its extension. It is not 
fair to theseminorities; it is not self-respecting for them. If the Housewants 
to ensure representation for minorities I wouldsuggest multiple constituencies 
which cumulative voting.Some speakers have suggested proportional 
representation bysingle transferable vote. I think that is a 
difficultprocedure particularly for India and I would not recommendit. But I 
think that multiple constituencies with cumulativevoting has a great deal to 
recommend it. In the first place,it will give much better representation not 
only to theseminorities without creating a separatist tendency. The 
lastspeaker Sri Rohini Chaudhuri the erstwhile champion anddefender of women 
who is against removing their socialdisabilities spoke about special 
electorates for women. Allalong the women of India have been against 
reservation ofseats or special electorates. Before the 1935 Act came in wewere 
against it and put forward our views in no uncertainterms, but it was forced 
upon us; and to-day, in spite ofthe chivalry of the previous speaker, Indian 
women will nottolerate any such reservations in the Constitution. I willnot 
repeat what others have said about village panchayats. Ifeel that freed from 
the shackles of ignorance andsuperstition, the panchayatof the Gandhian 
village will certainly be the backbone ofthe structure of this country's 
Constitution. I do not thinkthere is anything in the Constitution that can bar 
it.

 


Coming to the allocation of powers between the unitsand the Centre, I think we 
must approach this subjectdispassionately. There is a great deal to be said 
for givingas much provincial autonomy as possible. At the same time,where a 
country has a tremendous leeway to make up,particularly in the nation-building 
services, the unifyingforce must be strong and the Centre should be given 
somepower of a supervisory and coordinating character, in regardto both 
Education and Health. I do not think the provincesshould be crippled by taking 
away from them certainfinancial securities. They should at least be given 60 
percent of the income-tax according to the recommendations ofthe expert 
committee, 35 per cent on the basis ofcollection, 20 per cent on the basis of 
population and 5 percent for hard cases. This is a very good recommendation 
andI hope this House will agree to embody it in the Constitution. I also feel 
that a Financial Commission shouldbe set up immediately and not after five 
years.

 


Before I conclude, I wish to say something aboutlinguistic provinces. Unity 
must be our watchword to-day andit is a fatal mistake to allow realignment of 
provincialboundaries on a linguistic basis at this juncture of ourcountry's 
history. It has already led to much bitterness andstrife and will lead to 
more. There is no justice or logicif such a thing is allowed in one part of 
the country andnot in others. For instance if you allow a province 
ofMaharashtra to be formed, naturally there will be otherparts which will want 
it. There is in Bengal a feeling ofgreat bitterness that she who has 
sacrificed part of herterritories so that the transfer of power could take 
placeshould be denied her rights, now. It was because of thepolitical 
expediency of the Brit ish and to suit the purposesof an alien Government that 
Bengal was forcibly deprived ofmuch of its territory when the movement for the 
freedom ofIndia started here. I do not subscribe to the theory that weshould 
have a reallocation on a linguistic basis at thistime. If it is to be done at 
all it should be done after tenyears when passions have subsided. In any case, 
foradministrative purposes there is no need for a linguisticrealignment. 
Linguistic minorities in every province shouldhave a guarantee that they will 
be given education in theirmother tongue. I would urge that the Linguistic 
BoundaryCommission should stop work or in any case it should be putoff for ten 
years. I repeat that the overridingconsideration is that of unity, if we want

 


that India shouldbe strong and prosperous and should take its rightful placein 
the comity of nations.

 


The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta (C.P. andBerar: General): Sir, it 
has been said that the language ofthe Union should be simple Hindustani, that 
the language ofthe Constitution, the language on which we shall frame ourlaws, 
should be Hindustani. I was in search of this simpleHindustani. I could not 
find it in C.P. I could not find itin the law books. I could not find it even 
in the officialproceedings of this August House. The official proceedingsof 
this House are published in three languages: EnglishHindi and Urdu. I read 
English, I read Hindi and I got readUrdu with the idea that I might be able to 
find what theycall simple Hindustani. I could not find it. Urdu was Urduand 
Hindi was Hindi. There was no such thing as simpleHindustani. I thought that I 
might find it in thenewspapers. 'The Tej', Limited, the Jubilee of which 
wascelebrated the other day, publishes news in two languages,one in Hindi 
called 'the Vijay' and the other in Urdu,called 'the Tej'. I compared the 
languages of these twoalso. I could not find simple Hindustani. I would not 
wastethe time of the Honourable House byreading from these publications. I 
have got a copy of'Vijay' in my hand. It is all Hindi in 'Vijay' and all 
Urduin 'Tej'. I found two books, elementary text in Delhi mayhave simple 
Hindustani. I found two books, elementary text-books in Geometry (rekhaganit). 
I could not find simpleHindustani in them also. I also looked at the 
ElementaryArithmetic books and also Elementary Geography. I could notfind 
there what they call simple Hindustani. They were alleither Urdu or Hindi. I 
shall give you a few illustrations.Now, Sir, in elementary arithmetic 
multiplication we call (gunan) in Hindi. It is called (zarab) in Urdu. 
Multiplicand is (gunya) in Hindi, while it is (mazarab) in Urdu.Multiplier is 
(gunak) in Hindi and it is (mazarbafi) inUrdu. Product is (gunanfal) in Hindi, 
while it is (hasil-i-zarab) in Urdu. Divisor is (bhajak) in Hindi. It is 
(maksum-i-lah) in Urdu. Dividend is (bhajya) in Hindi. It is(maksum) in Urdu. 
Quotient is (bhajanphal). It is (kharf-i-kismat) in Urdu. L.C.M. (laghuttam 
samapvartya) in Hindi. It is (zuazaf-i-aqual) in Urdu.

 


I can multiply illustrations. I now take up elementarygeometry. Radius is 
(trijya) in Hindi. It is (nisfakutur) inUrdu. Isosceles triangle is 
(samadvibahu tribhuj) in Hindi.It is (musallas-musvai-ul-sakin) in Urdu. 
Equilateraltriangle is (samatribahu tribhuj) in Hindi. It is 
(musallas-musavi-ul-zila) in Urdu Right-angled Isosceles triangle is(samakon 
samadvibahu tribhuj) in Hindi. while it is(musallas musavius-saquan 
quamuzzavia) in Urdu.

 


I can quote hundreds of such illustrations. I could not findsimple Hindustani 
even in these elementary text-books. Ifelt somewhat puzzled when ladies and 
gentleman loudlyproclaim that they can have simple Hindustani for our laws.It 
is only in the bazaar that I could find simpleHindustani. When we cannot have 
simple Hindustani even inthe elementary school-books, how can our laws be made 
in it?I have done, Sir.

 


Shri Mahavir Tyagi (United Provinces: General): I thankyou very much, Sir, I 
have been waiting for the last threedays to speak on this Draft Constitution. 
I am glad you havepermitted me to speak for a few minutes.

 


I must start by thanking and congratulating theDrafting Committee for the high 
level of legal language andphraseology which they have used in the Draft from 
beginningto end. I do not want to criticise the Drafting Committee.They have 
done their work very efficiently. They havecollected together bits of the 
principles of Constitutionthat we lay before them in irregular instalments, 
and havegiven us a complete picture for our review.

 


Sir, when we sat for the first time to draw a pictureof the Constitution of 
India, we had a blank canvas apaceand many of us did not actually know which 
side to startfrom and what colour to fill. It is all due to the abilityof 
these talented lawyers that we have now got a completepicture to look

 


at. When you wish to judge an artist's work,you should take the opinion of a 
layman. If it appeals tothe layman, it must be good. That is my criterion. 
Thelawyers have finished their work and the complete picture isbefore us. I, 
as a layman, want to put before you my ideasabout it. The circumstances have 
changed from what they werewhen this work was entrusted to the Drafting 
Committee. It is very unfortunate that, in the history of India, the lampwhich 
lit our hearts with pleasures of freedom was put outsuddenly and we were 
steeped in sorrow. Then again,populations have changed and the whole face of 
the countryhas changed. The ideology also has changed to a greatextent. Now to 
give that old picture on the canvas will bemaking the picture a back number. 
We must keep in mind todaythe present environments, the present conditions and 
thegrowing ideologies. So, Sir, we must examine the picture inthe light which 
gave us freedom. In fact, we must examine itfrom the point of view of 
Gandhiji, through his eyes. Hiseyes are not with us, but still there are 
persons in thisHouse who have the glimpse of his eyes. We can all 
recollectwhat Gandhiji thought about Swaraj. It must not be forgottenthat this 
Constituent Assembly is the fruit of the labour ofthose who worked day and 
night for about thirty years intheir attempt to win freedom. it is their 
achievement. It isthey who should have given us the Constitution. They 
aloneare competent to draw up the Constitution. The Constitutionshould have 
been the work of revolutionaries alone. Butsince this Assembly has been 
constituted by the Brit ish, wecannot think of the other possibilities and it 
could not bepurely a Gandhian Constitution altogether. I admit this. Butagain, 
we are in the majority and we should see to it thatthe Gandhian outlook does 
not vanish from the country sosoon after his death.

 


In this Constitution, I must confess, I am very muchdisappointed. I see 
nothing Gandhian in this Constitution.It is not the fault of the Drafting 
Committee. It is our ownfault. When we decided upon the principles of 
thisConstitution we gave them certain basic principles to workupon. But 
conditions have since changed. When we decidedabout the representation of 
communities, language and othercontroversial matters we had to reckon with the 
reaction ourdecisions would have in Pakistan. Now the situation hastotally 
changed. Pakistan has been freed of its minorityproblems altogether; there 
those problems have vanished.Here also the thorny and the horny ones have 
migrated awayfrom India; those who fought us under one pretence or theother 
have forsaken their mother-country and have gone overto the other side, and 
have adopted a step-mother. We havewith us now only those Muslims, Sikhs and 
others who want aunited India. India is united today and therefore the 
Constitution must be suitable to the present set-up ofthings.

 


So, Sir, from the Gandhian point of view when I look atthis picture, I find 
one thing very prominently lacking.Gandhiji had always been keen on total 
prohibition in thecountry, but the Constitution does not say a word about 
it.Our promises to the electorate on this issue have beenfulfilled only in 
Madras and in some other provinces.Gandhiji was anxious that in India as a 
whole there shouldbe complete prohibition. I would suggest that this idea 
ofGandhiji should be taken in before we sign thisConstitution.

 


Then, Sir, Gandhiji was very keen on cottage industriesto be organised on the 
basis of self sufficiency. This itemhad a top priority in his 'constructive 
programme'. Herethis is also lacking. I am an orthodox Gandhite and surely Iam 
not a socialist and so I do not want to wipe away all thebig industries. In 
the context of things to-day, the variousindustries in the country are very 
helpful, but if and whenthey are to be abolished, they should be abolished en 
masse.You cannot bring in socialism by stages, by socialising oneindustry 
after another. When socialism comes, it shouldcover everything, all at a time. 
If total socialism comesall of a sudden, there will be no loss

 


to anybody, becausethe loss sustained by anybody on one count will be made 
upon the other count, because all property becomes absolutelya socialised 
property. To say in the Draft Constitution thatpeople shall not be deprived of 
their property withoutadequate compensation means that India will ever belong 
tothe vested interests. To-day there is not even a blade ofgrass which does 
not belong to somebody or the other. Thereis not even one particle of sand 
which does not belong tosomebody or the other. According to this Constitution, 
ifthe future generations want to socialise all property andall means of 
production, then every particle of sand andevery blade of grass will have to 
be compensated for. I wantto know, wherewith will they compensate this total 
wealth:it would all be in the hands of individuals who will 
demandcompensation. So, compensation will be impossible. Gandhijihad said that 
the wealthy should consider themselves only ascustodians of wealth. He never 
went to the extent to whichwe are going in this Draft Constitution. I 
therefore tellyou, Sir, that before we sign this Constitution, we shouldsee 
that we do not sow seeds of a bloody revolution inIndia. Only if revolution is 
meant to be avoided we shouldlet the door remain open for coming generations, 
if theyever so desire, to socialise all vested interests and allmeans of 
production in the country. If we shut the door aswe have done against future 
socialisation, by our Article24(2), I submit, the youth of India will rise and 
knock atthe door and smash it and the result would be a bloodyrevolution. 
(cheers). Therefore, Sir, I would plead that weshould scrap this sub-clause 
altogether and make it possiblein future for the Parliament to socialise all 
property andall means of production without being compensated for. It isalso a 
sort of mistake, Sir, to say that we are a sovereignbody. I do not think we 
are a sovereign body in the sense inwhich a Constituent Assembly should be. 
The sovereignty thatwe enjoy is the sovereignty that the Brit ish enjoyed 
inIndia: It is a transferred sovereignty. Real sovereigntywill belong only to 
the Parliament which comes after theintroduction of adult franchise. That 
Parliament musttherefore be more morally and constitutionally competentthan us 
to decide issues of this nature.

 


I then come to the question of minorities. I am sorrythat Dr. Ambedkar made 
the statement that minorities are anexplosive force which if it erupts can 
blow up the wholefabric of the State. I say that these minorities can 
donothing of the sort. The reason is simple-they are notfactual, they are a 
mere fiction having no existence. Ithrow them a challenge. They have no right 
to be separatelyrepresented here. Whom will they represent? The fiction 
ofminorities was a Brit ish creation. The Scheduled Castes arenot a minority 
at all, simply because a few castes of thepoorer classes have been enumerated 
together in a schedule,they have become a "scheduled minority". This 
minority is amere paper minority. It is being perpetuated now becausesome of 
the opportunist families among them want to reservetheir seats in the 
legislatures. Those people who tookpleasure in calling themselves a minority 
have migrated awayfrom here. It is only those who believe in one State 
thatremain. Therefore, Sir, there is no minority now and thereshould not be 
any provision for minority representationhere, because this has proved ruinous 
to the so calledminorities themselves. Take the Muslims. I hadseen in Dehra 
Dun personally, and I know what theirreactions are. The are an absolutely 
demoralised people to-day. Even the ordinary rights of citizenship they are 
notmorally free to enjoy. They are so cowardly to-day that theycannot stand 
erect in India because of the wrong lead theyhad followed in the past. 
Therefore, Sir, I would ask theScheduled Castes, the Sikhs, the Muslims and 
the otherminorities and for the matter of that even Hindus not to askfor any 
kind of reservations for them. We are a secularState. We cannot give any 
recognition or weightage to anyreligious group of individuals. I

 


could understand theirclaims as majority or minority if they, had belonged 
todifferent races. Beliefs or creeds are a purely individualaffair. I also 
refute Dr. Ambedkar's claim that the majorityin India is "basically a 
communal majority". The majorityparty is Congress, which is purely 
political.

 


Then, Sir, a word about the villages. Dr. Ambedkar saidthat he was happy that 
the "Drafting Committee has notaccommodated the village". He 
characterised it as "a sink oflocalism and a den of communalism". It 
is these sinks ofslavery that were facing all sorts of repression in 
thefreedom struggle. When these sinks of slavery that werebeing charred, burnt 
and tortured in Chimoor, the pyramidsof freedom were applying grease on the 
back of theBrit ishers. Unless I raise my voice against the remarkswhich Dr. 
Ambedkar has made against villages, I cannot facemy village people. Dr. 
Ambedkar does not know what amount ofsacrifice the villagers have undergone in 
the struggle forfreedom. I submit, Sir, that villagers should be given 
theirdue share in the governance of the country. If they are notgiven their 
due share, I submit that they are bound to reactto this. I thank you, Sir.

 


B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur (Madras: Muslim): Sir, I amvery thankful to you for 
giving me this opportunity to speaka few words on this motion. In the first 
place, I would justlike to refer to the question of language. When I 
firstentered this august body, I felt myself to be under a verygreat 
disability that I was not able to follow theproceedings that were going on. 
Then I found that a veryconsiderable section of this House was in the 
sameunfortunate position as myself and the idea struck me thatthe Constituent 
Assembly, which is going to determine thedestinies of millions of this country 
for ever, isconducting the proceedings in a manner which does not bringcredit 
either to this Assembly or to the nation. We havebeen going on speaking about 
very important and vitalsubjects without every one of us understanding each 
other.That is really a very unfortunate position. I raised my cryagainst it, 
but I must say that I did not succeed. Even nowthe disability continues, even 
though to a lesser extent andI am glad that, at any rate, there was some 
abatement in thematter of the extent to which that disability is suffered by 
us.

 


Now, Sir, in the Draft Constitution, provision is madethat the official 
language shall be Hindi and English. Isubmit, Sir, that this also will create 
an anomaly. No doubtprovision is made that arrangements may be made for 
givingthe substance of all the speeches of one language in theother language, 
but to what extent and what is the method tobe employed for that, it is yet to 
be provided for. Isubmit, Sir, that it is very necessary that for 
somereasonable period, it may be ten years, it may be fifteenyears,-that is a 
matter of detail-there should be aprovision that the official language should 
continue to beEnglish. We have no reason to hate the English language. Asa 
matter of fact we ought to be grateful to the culture thatwe have imbibed from 
that language, In fact for a great dealof our agitation for freedom and the 
freedom that we haveobtained large contribution has been made bythe English 
language and by the culture which we imbibedfrom that language. Therefore, I 
do not think that there isanything which we should hate in that language; 
andparticularly, when we have attained our freedom, we areentitled to adopt 
the best from any nation from any part ofthe earth. I shall also say that 
there is no proprietorshipin language. The English language cannot be claimed 
by theEnglishman as their own with any exclusive right forthemselves nor can 
we claim Hindi as the exclusive languagefor ourselves. There are several 
languages in the world andtherefore we are entitled to use every language. So 
we areentitled to use the English language and we must adopt ituntil we are in 
a position to have one national languageknown to the generality of the public 
of this country. Untilthat position is attained, we must continue English as 
theofficial

 


language so that every one who assembles in theParliament may understand each 
other. Of course, there maybe some stray cases in which the representatives 
may not beacquainted with English, but a very large majority of themwill be 
acquainted with English and there fore, I submit,Sir, that the English 
language must continue to be theofficial language at least for fifteen years, 
by which timethe nation may be prepared to have a national language 
forthemselves.

 


Now, Sir, coming to the question as to what thatnational language should be, 
that is a matter to be decidedby this august body. I must say at the very 
outset that I amnot acquainted either with Hindi language or with Urdulanguage 
or with Hindustani. Therefore, I am taking adispassionate view of the matter. 
It is very difficult tosay that it is possible for the people of this country 
tolearn Hindi overnight. No doubt we must have a nationallanguage, but we must 
prepare the nation for it by makingprovision for their learning that language. 
Now if Hindi isto be made compulsorily the official language, the questionwill 
arise in the elections by adult franchise thatknowledge of Hindi should be the 
primary qualification of acandidate for election. I think it will be 
detrimental tothe interests of the country, if that happens, and theknowledge 
of Hindi becomes the criterion in electing their representatives.

 


I do not want to dwell more on the subject as the timeat my disposal is very 
short. I would only submit this. Mysuggestion is that this august body should 
decide in favourof Hindustani for no other reason than the fact that it isthe 
solemn testament of Mahatma Gandhi, the father of thenation. He was one who 
was well acquainted with thiscontroversy about these languages and he knew 
what thenation was and it is after mature consideration that greatman has 
suggested that Hindustani with the Devnagari scriptand the Perisan script 
should be the official language and Ihope that this august body will really 
revere the memory ofthat great man by deciding on Hindustani with Devanagari 
andUrdu script as the official language.

 


Now, Sir, if we do not abide by his advice, the worldmight say that after all 
the devotion and reverence we showto Mahatmaji is a lip-reverence and a 
lip-respect and it isnot deeper than that. Let us not give occasion to the 
worldto say that our reverence for Gandhiji is only lip-respect.Let us not 
allow ourselves to be accused of the grave chargethat soon after the death of 
Mahatmaji his views and wisheswere buried nine fathoms deep. At least for the 
sake of hismemory, I appeal to you, Sir, and to all the Members of thisbody to 
vote upon Hindustani as the official language.

 


Now, Sir, I would just like to deal with anotherquestion, and that question is 
about the freedom of person.Recently we have heard so much about the power 
ofpromulgating ordinances that is being exercised by thevarious Governments. 
Particularly I am fully aware of thecircumstances under which the Ordinance 
rule was enforced inthe Madras Presidency. The legislature was in session. 
Allon a sudden, it is prorogued one evening and the nextmorning there comes 
this bomb of an Ordinance, even takingaway the powers of theHigh Court to 
issue writ of Habeas Corpus under section 491of the Criminal Procedure Code. I 
refer to this fact inorder to show that if the power of making an Ordinance 
ispreserved, there is every likelihood of the power beingabused and the 
liberty of the subject being dealt with in avery reckless way. In pursuance of 
these Ordinances,hundreds and thousands of innocent people were arrested 
andkept in custody as if they were chattel, without their evenbeing told what 
the charge against them was and why theywere detained even as required by the 
very Public SafetyAct. In this connection, I would only request this House 
tosee that the powers of the High Court are not in any waytaken away with 
reference to saving the liberty of thesubject. Neither the legislature nor the 
Government shouldbe allowed to pass any law or Ordinance which takes away 
thepower of the High Court to

 


protect the liberty of thesubject. That is a very fundamental point. We were 
cryinghoarse when the Brit ishers were ruling that they werekeeping in custody 
persons without bringing them to trial. Isay this is a sacred right and it 
must be provided in theFundamental Rights that no man, to whatever religion, 
or towhatever political creed he may belong, shall be arrested ordetained 
except after trial by a court of law. This is asacred right of which a citizen 
should not be deprived. It is said emergencies may arise; even when 
emergencies arise,there must be power in the High Court to see that the man 
isbrought to trial and he must be kept in detention only afterproper trial. No 
power should be given either to make anylaws or to make any Ordinance to 
enable the Legislature orthe Government to deprive the citizens of their 
personalliberty without his being brought to trial before a court oflaw. I 
would therefore request this Assembly to see thatprovision is made in the 
Fundamental Rights that the libertyof every subject is protected and no man 
should beincarcerated without being brought to trial before a courtof law.

 


One word more, Sir, and that is about the salary of theHigh Court Judges. This 
morning when the memorandumsubmitted by the Chief Justice of the Federal Court 
and ofthe Chief Justices of the various High Courts was circulatedto us, I 
realised on going through that memorandum that theyhave made out a very good 
case for maintaining the presentsalaries. The salaries were fixed about 70 
years ago. Afterthat, everything has gone only in favour of retaining it 
andall circumstances are against reducing the salaries. Thepurchasing power of 
the Rupee has gone down; income-tax hasbeen increased; modern life has become 
more costly. In orderto maintain their dignity and to keep the Judges 
beyondtemptation, it is very necessary that the present salary ofthe High 
Court Judges should be maintained, without beingreduced.

 


Just one minute more, Sir. I shall just mention thepoint. I have maintained 
that the only way of protecting therights of the minorities is by giving 
separate electorates.I do not want to develop the point further. I know 
thematter has been discussed in this House before and the Housewas against it. 
I know the House will be against it evennow. I am giving my honest feeling 
that it is the only rightway of protecting the rights of minorities and I 
wouldappeal to the House to consider the questiondispassionately. If for any 
reason that is not practicable,and if the House thinks that it cannot agree to 
that,reservation is absolutely necessary. I do not want to gointo the reasons. 
In any case reservation of seats has to beretained. Election by proportional 
representation by thesingle transferable vote, or the creation of 
multipleconstituencies with cumulative voting, may be some of theother 
remedies. I would only say that separate electoratesis the proper remedy and 
the right method of givingprotection to the minorities. In any case, if that 
is notpracticable, reservation must be there, or in any case, theothermethods 
may be tried. Election by proportionalrepresentation by single transferable 
vote will be a rathercomplicated method; otherwise, I would have preferred 
that.

 


I thank you, Sir.

 


Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi: (Madras: General): Mr.Vice-President, Sir, 
coming almost at the fag end of thediscussions, I do not think I have anything 
novel or new totraverse. However, I felt I should discharge my duty bygiving 
certain views of mine.

 


Dr. Ambedkar deserves the congratulations of this Housefor the learned and 
brilliant exposition of the Draft Constitution. No congratulations are due to 
him for theprovisions in the Draft for the simple reason they are nothis. 
Honourable Members may remember that most of theclauses in the Draft 
Constitution were discussed, debatedand decided upon in this House. Only a 
very few matters wereleft over for incorporation by the Drafting Committee. 
TheHouse, however, would tender its thanks for his labours inputting them in 
order.

 


I am sorry, Sir, that Dr.

 


Ambedkar should have gone outof his way to make certain references and 
observations whichare not in consonance with the wishes or the spirit of 
theHouse, in regard to his references to the villages, and hisreference to the 
character of the majority and'constitutional morality'. Honourable Members 
have referredto the question of villages. I only wish to add this: Hesays: 
"I am glad that the Draft has discarded the villageand adopted the 
individual as its unit." I would like to askhim where is the individual 
apart from the villages. When hesays that the villages have been discarded and 
theindividual has been taken into consideration, he hasconveniently forgotten 
that the individuals constitute thevillage; and they number about ninety per 
cent of thepopulation, who are the voters.

 


There is another matter which has been referred to byhim; that is in regard to 
the character of the majority. Hesays, "the minorities have loyally 
accepted the rule of themajority which is basically a communal majority and 
not apolitical majority." I do not know what he has at the backof his 
mind. There was only one party which functioned onthe political plane and on 
the Governmental plane, theIndian National Congress, which was entirely a 
non-communalorganisation and a political party. And yet Dr. Ambedkarsays it is 
'basically a communal majority', which is nottrue in fact. I must say it is 
wrong, mischievous andmisleading. I want to touch upon four points, viz., the 
formof Government, the minority question, the language questionand adult 
franchise and elections. I know with the limitedtime at my disposal I cannot 
develop those points at anylength. However, I would like to touch upon certain 
aspectsof the matter.

 


The Draft Constitution, Dr. Ambedkar said, is federalin composition. A careful 
reader of the whole Constitutionwould find that it is more unitary than 
federal. If I am toexpress my idea in terms of percentage, I am inclined 
tothink it is 75 per cent unitary and 25 per cent federal.Many Honourable 
Members spoke strongly on the need for astrong Centre. I do not think there 
was any need for thiskind of over-emphasis, for it is an obvious thing that 
theCentre ought to be strong, particularly in the peculiarcontext of the 
circumstances prevailing in the country. But I am afraid they are overdoing 
it. I fee a strong Centredoes not, and need not necessarily mean a weak 
province. Anattempt seems to be made and I find there is a tendency 
toover-burden the Centre and there is a tendency towards over-centralisation. 
I am glad Dr. Ambedkar has given a kind ofwarning. I am inclined to think that 
in actual working ofthe Constitution this course of takingmore powers over to 
the Centre will be a fruitful source offriction. After all let it be 
remembered the strength of thechain is in its weakest link and the provinces 
should not beconsidered as a rival Governmental organization. The Centreis 
trying to chew more than it can digest. I find in thetransitory provision 
there is an attempt for the first fiveyears to take over even the provincial 
subjects. It is forthe House to decide how far we can allow that.

 


Sir, coming to the minority question I am very happy tofind that members 
belonging to the minority community arenow coming round to the view that it is 
no good to have thiskind of communal electorate even though in a diluted form 
inthe form of a joint electorate. I am happy that Begam AizazRasul has 
discarded this and does not want the separateelectorate. Mr. Karimuddin also 
said the same thing but hewanted what is known as proportional representation 
throughsingle transferable voting system. I am sorry to say that it is an 
attempt to come by the backdoor or side windows whatis denied by the front 
door. This is not very proper and thesuggestion that it may be done by 
proportionalrepresentation is absolutely unworkable and 
impractical,particularly in general elections where large masses of menand 
women who happen to be illiterates are concerned.Honourable Members may know 
that in that system the voterhas to put numbers as 1, 2, 3 etc.

 


against the names ofcandidates and it is very difficult and impracticable 
andtherefore it is no good; and as Dr. Ambedkar said theminorities must trust 
the majority. There is one fundamentalfact to be remembered. I am glad Mr. 
Tyagi emphasized that.Community should not be made the basis of civic rights. 
Thatis a fundamental principle that we must remember. In asecular State the 
right to representation is only the rightto represent a territory in which all 
communities live andif a member is representing in the Assembly, he has 
theright to speak on behalf of all those living in theterritory, of all 
communities and classes, men or women.That should be the idea with which we 
must function. I musttake this opportunity of expressing my great appreciation 
ofsome minority communities who have been nationalisticthroughout and who have 
not clamoured for special provisionsonly on the basis of birth or community. I 
refer to thatcommunity to which you, Sir, Mr. Vice-president, have thehonour 
to belong. I have had opportunities of coming inclose contact with Christian 
friends and throughout theyhave not demanded any kind of separate electorate 
or specialprovisions, and I am happy over that. If some members ofminority 
community now do not want reservation,. I may notgive all credit to them as 
they are only making a virtue ofnecessity - this great Christian community 
have never askedfor special considerations. They have all along been of 
theview that special electorates are no good and after all wemust all live 
together and I am glad the Parsee communityalso had not wanted this special 
representation.

 


Then Sir, one Honourable Member wanted reservation inservices. I should think 
though it is not undilutednationalism, we must for some time to come give 
themreservation in services also. But one thing you must haveclearly in mind. 
There must be a time limit for all thesepeace or compromise moves and you must 
make it clear thatafter the lapse of a certain specified period all 
thesespecial provisions must go. I particularly support Mrs.Renuka Ray's 
suggestion that the last portion in Article 306where it is stated that after 
10 years this may be continuedmay be removed. We must give our view 
emphatically anddefinitely that it is only as a necessary evil that we 
aretolerating reservations on communal basis.

 


I want to say something on the language question. Muchtrouble arises on 
account of not properly defining what isexactly meant by national language. 
There is no doubtwhatever that India must have a national language but youmust 
remember that India is not entirely a country with onelanguage existingat 
present, and I am glad to find that the Draft Constitution has steered clear 
of all these controversies.They have simply said in Article 99 that in 
"Parliamentbusiness shall be transacted in English or Hindi". That 
isall. I do not think that the House need go into thisquestion at present, as 
our Prime Minister said, of decidingupon a National language here and now. If 
at all we musthave, let us have a language for the Central Government andthen 
it must be made clear beyond a shadow of doubt that inthe provinces the 
provincial languages and respectiveregional provincial languages shall be the 
official languagefor the territories comprised in the province. If that 
pointis made clear beyond a shadow of doubt, much of the heat andmuch of the 
controversy will disappear. Let it be definitelyunderstood that the regional 
language shall be both, in thelegislatures and in the High Courts of the 
Provinces.

 


Sir, I have only one point more if you will give me twomore minutes. That is 
regarding the election under adultfranchise. Much doubt and apprehension is 
entertained in theminds of big constitutional experts like Mr T. R.Venkatarama 
Sastry of Madras about the efficacy of adultsuffrage; but it is decided and we 
cannot go back on it. Butthe most important point that I want to emphasize is 
thatthe elected representatives must truly reflect the will ofthe people. 
Unfortunately, Honourable Members know howelections are conducted. Today we

 


find from the papers anHonourable Member of this Constituent Assembly went to 
pollto cast his vote at an election. He is told: "Your vote isalready 
cast." That is nothing surprising. That is happeningon a large scale 
everywhere. I stood for election in 1937and in two or three elections I was 
personally interested. Iknew actually twice the actual number of votes were 
notpolled correctly. Some arrangement must be devised by whichthis sort of 
corruption at elections must be stopped. I havea suggestion and I shall place 
it before this House forconsideration and leave it at that. Every voter must 
begiven what is known as an identity card. The identity cardmay contain - it 
is a matter of detail what the identity markshould be. I would very much like 
a photo of the voter to beput in a card which he might carry. In the post 
office weare given what is known as identity cards on a payment ofRe. 1. Our 
photo is put there and wherever we go we cancarry it. If such a system or 
something similar to it isdone, the voter must first present this identity 
card and onpresenting it he will be given the ballot paper and then hewill 
exercise his vote. I am prepared to discuss thedetails. This arrangement will 
be a great boon. If thissuggestion is taken up and put in the appropriate 
place, Ihave no doubt that the elected representatives would reflectthe true 
will of the people.

 


Shri Kishorimohan Tripathi (C. P. and Berar States):Mr. Vice-President, Sir, 
there has been sufficientdiscussion of the Draft Constitution and I have been 
verycarefully listening to the criticisms. There have been twotypes of 
criticisms. Some of the critics have criticizedthemselves rather than the 
Drafting Committee. They tookcertain decisions and all those decisions were 
embodied bythe Drafting Committee and where the Drafting Committeewanted to 
make its own suggestions it underlined the Draftand has tried amply to draw 
the attention of the House tothe suggestions and changes that it wanted to 
make. Criticshave criticised and in doing so, they have indirectlycriticised 
their own decision. There has been another typeto criticism which has gone 
rather astray and critics havetried to bring in things which we need not 
discuss whilediscussing the constitution of a country. I would not now gointo 
the details of the Constitution, into the nature of the Constitution, into the 
economic or other provisions of the Constitution. Much has been said on those 
issues. But Itried to find out the place of the Chattisgarh States in theDraft 
Constitution; I looked into the Schedule enumeratingthe various units of 
administration and found their namesnowhere: whereas as a matter of fact the 
administration ofthese States has been integrated withthat of C. P. and 
administrative units, - Districts, - havebeen carved out of these States. I do 
not know why theseStates have not been treated as a part and parcel of 
theprovince of C. P. in the Draft Constitution. I would requestfor this 
change; and when I say so I however do not want tosay that as a result of this 
integration the people havefelt something very advantageous. In the transitory 
stage ofintegration, there have been a lot of difficulties topeople. They 
have, in fact, suffered. Their conditions havebecome rather worse, but I 
believe, - and believe honestly - that all those are only passing phases and 
they will go andin the long run these small States when merged andintegrated 
with C. P. would derive their own benefit. Theyare not in a position to form a 
Union in any way; they havenot got sufficient economic and other resources to 
developthemselves and therefore in no case should they be treatedseparately.

 


Secondly, I will draw the attention of the House to thenecessity of including 
co-ordination of agriculturaldevelopment and planning in respect of food, its 
procurementand distribution, in the Union list as a Central subject.When I say 
so, I want to draw the attention of the House tothe reply the Honourable 
Minister for Agriculture gave whilereplying to questions in the House when 
functioning as theAssembly that for want of

 


proper provision or power it isnot possible for the Centre to deal effectively 
with thequestion of agricultural development of the country. When wethink of 
the reconstruction of the economy of India, thefirst and foremost thing that 
should strike our attention isthe agricultural economy in India. If you want a 
planneddevelopment in India including agricultural economy, it isessential 
that agriculture - its development and planning - should find a place in the 
Union List rather than in theProvincial List. The food problem in India is 
very grave. It is going to be a serious problem for years to come and wehave 
been spending most of our dollar and other exchange ingetting imports of food 
from foreign countries and this haswithheld and will be withholding our 
industrial developmentto a large extent. It is therefore very essential that 
acountry-wide planning to develop agriculture to an extentwhere we can be 
self-sufficient in the matter of food shouldbe treated as essential. I would 
therefore request theDrafting Committee to take into consideration 
thissuggestion of mine and place the co-ordination ofagricultural development 
as a Central subject. I am surethat the attention of the Drafting Committee 
has also beendrawn to this subject by the Ministry of Agriculture also.

 


Then, I come to the question of India and herrelationship to the Commonwealth. 
This question has yet beenleft undecided although references in the papers and 
in thespeeches of Members have been made to it. I for one wouldlike that India 
must declare herself an IndependentSovereign Republic. We should make no 
mention of ourassociation with the Commonwealth in any part of the 
Constitution itself. Having declared herself a free andindependent nation, 
India should then go to seek herassociation with one bloc or the other; but 
jumping from thepresent position of a Dominion to the relationship of 
theCommonwealth will inevitably mean that we are going toremain still a 
dependent country, dependent to theCommonwealth and the King of England.

 


Taking next the question of election in villages, muchhas been said about 
villages. There has been very sharpcriticism of the view expressed by Dr. 
Ambedkar when he saidthat "the villages are dens of ignorance". 
There has beenruthless criticism. I know this criticism is because of agenuine 
feeling on the part of the House. The House desires that the villages should 
come forward and play their fullpart in the national reconstruction. Since the 
desire is very genuine, I would request the House to detail out the election 
procedure in the Constitution itself. While giving adult franchise to every 
citizen of India, the eligibility for election to legislatures should be 
restricted to such persons as neither pay income-tax nor hold land in excess 
of 100 acres. That, I am sure, would bring in most of the villagers to the 
legislatures and they will be able to play their best role.

 


I now come to the question of the linguistic provinces. It is said in 
examining this question that there distribution of provinces is essential only 
on the ground of language. That is a wrong theory to my mind. A province 
should be formed or carved out of India, bearing in mind its economic 
resourcefulness, so that it could give full opportunity of growth to every 
citizen in it. The discussion of linguistic provinces, the appointment of a 
Commission to consider the question only on the basis of language, has already 
created a sort of wild feeling in the country and even in the political 
parties this tendency has taken place. I heard the other day that the States 
of manipur, Tripura and a district of Cachar are demanding themselves to be a 
separate province in the Congress body. There are other small unions who 
desire to continue to be separate units. This is very harmful to the nation 
and must be prevented.

 


Then coming to the question of language, I am one who wants that Hindi should 
be accepted as the national language of India, but when I say so I do not mean 
the Hindi which wefind in the translation of the Draft Constitution.

 



 


Mr. Vice-President: The Honourable Member has already exceeded his time.

 


Shri Kishorimohan Tripathi: Well, Sir, as I have no time, I close with these 
few words. I support the motion moved by Dr. Ambedkar.

 


Shri Vishwambhar Dayal Tripathi (United Provinces:General): Sir, it is with a 
certain amount of hesitation that I am going to speak before you in English. 
It appears that a sort of misunderstanding has been created amongst a section 
of our Friends, particularly those from Southern India, that we speak in Hindi 
because we want to shut them off from our own ideas. I must assure them that 
it is not a fact. The real fact is - and I want to say so quite frankly - that 
we can express our ideas ten times better in Hindi than in English. This is he 
only reason why some of us always speak in Hindi. But in deference to the 
wishes of those friends I am going to speak in English.

 


To come directly to the subject matter, it has been a formality with almost 
all the speakers to congratulate the Members of the Drafting Committee and its 
Chairman on the labour they have put in and also on the merits of the 
Constitution. I would not undergo that formality. There is no doubt, of 
course, that they have put in a good deal of labour and have placed before us 
a complete picture of a Constitution on the principles that we laid down in 
this Constituent Assembly. I am also aware that there is a good deal of merit 
in the draft Constitution. They have no doubt thoroughly studied the 
constitutions of different countries and have tried to make a choice out of 
them and to adapt those constitutions to the needs of this country. This is 
the chief merit of this Draft Constitution. In one word, it is an 'orthodox' 
Constitution.

 


But along with its merits we have also to see as to what are the defects or 
demerits and omissions in this Draft Constitution. We should then try to 
remove those defects andomissions.

 


Before I point out these glaring defects and seriousomissions, I would like to 
draw your attention to certainobservations made by the Mover of the Draft 
Constitution. Iwould not go into unnecessary details, because those pointshave 
been effectively dealt with by a number of previousspeakers. But I cannot 
refrain from making certainobservations. The one thing - and to me it appears 
veryobjectionable - which I wish to reply to is Dr. Ambedkar'sremark that the 
Indian soil is not suited to democracy. I donot know how my friend has read 
the history of India. I ammyself a student of history and also of politics and 
I cansay with definiteness that democracy flourishedin India much before 
Greece or any other country in theworld. The entire western world has taken 
democratic ideasfrom Greece and it is generally regarded that Greece was 
thecountry where democracy first of all flourished. But I sayand I can prove 
it to the hilt that democracy flourished inIndia much earlier than in Greece. 
I shall not go into thefacts and figures, yet I would draw his attention to 
two orthree points with regard to this matter. He might remember,as I know he 
has read history and he is also a scholar ofSanskrit, that even during the 
time of Buddha, democracyflourished in India. It is an oft-quoted phrase which 
I wantto repeat here and it is this: that certain traders wentfrom northern 
India to the south. The King of southern Indiaasked them as to who was the 
ruler of norther India. Theyreplied: "Deva, Kechiddesha Ganaadhinah 
Kechid Rajaadhina"It means: some of the countries in the north are 
governed asrepublics, while there are others which are governed by kings.

 


Then, coming down to the period of Alexander, we findthat the historians of 
Alexander have praised very much thecity-states of northern India which were 
governed ondemocratic lines as republics. There is no doubt that lateron the 
course of political development was arrested forsometime on account of 
invasions from outside. Yet we findthat the same democracy continued to 
function in ourvillages under the name of village republics. This, theMover 
himself has admitted in his address. It is

 


veryunfortunate that he should have made such remarks as are notborne out by 
the facts of history.