Vol. 13 · pages 356–360

SECTION FOUR Clausewise Discussion 15th November 1948 to 8th January 1949

Note The discussion on the Articles of the Draft Constitution Commenced on 15th November 1948. The amendments adopted by the House were those which Dr. Ambedkar had accepted. These amendments are incorporated here Some of the amendments were not accepted by Dr. Ambedkar initially, but no detailed explanations were furnished. Some of these amendments are mentioned. But later, during the discussion on each Article, Dr. Ambedkar explained elaborately why he accepted particular amendments and why the others were not accepted. The amendments thus rejected were large enough. Their inclusion would have made the volume bulky and they are not for this reason included. The amendments adopted by the Assembly are given in detail. These accepted amendments along with Dr. Ambedkar’s explanation, ‘nay help the reader to understand the import of the Article. This volume is mainly concerned with Dr. Ambedkar’s work which incorporates everything he said in the Assembly and which finds place in the Debates. Comments and criticism by the Hon’ble Members are included where they are relevant to elucidate and appreciate the views of Dr. Ambedkar and which are related to the specific context and situation.—Editor. 325DRAFT CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 1 *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah.† My objections, stated briefly, are two. In the first place the Constitution, as I stated in my opening speech in support of the motion I made before the House, is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State. It is not a mechanism whereby particular members of particular parties are installed in office. What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to lime and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether. If you stale in the Constitution that the social organisation of the State shall lake a particular form, you are, in my judgment, taking away the liberty of the people to decide what should be the social organisation in which they wish to live. It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the Socialist organisation of society is better than the Capitalist organisation of society. But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation which might be better than the socialist organisation of today or of tomorrow. I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves. This is one reason why the amendment should be opposed. The second reason is that the amendment is purely superfluous. My Honourable Friend, Prof. Shah, does not seem to have taken into account the fact that apart from the Fundamental Rights, which we have embodied in the Constitution, we have also introduced other sections which deal with directive principles of State policy. If my Honourable friend were to read the Articles contained in Part IV, he will find that both the Legislature as well as the Executive have been placed by this Constitution under certain definite obligations as to the form of their policy. Now, to read only Article 31, which deals with this matter : It says ; “The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing— (i) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood ; *CAD. (Official Report). Vol. VIII, 15th November 1948, pp. 401-02. †Amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah is placed offer Dr. Ambedkar’s speech. 326 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

(ii) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good ; (iii) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment; (iv) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women :............” There are some other items more or less in the same strain. What I would like to ask Professor Shah is this : If these directive principles to which I have drawn attention are not socialistic in their direction and in their content, I fail to understand what more socialism can be. Therefore my submission is that these socialist principles are already embodied in our Constitution and it is unnecessary to accept this amendment. ***** [The amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah as under was put to vote.] *Mr. Vice-President : The question is : “That in clause (1) of Article 1 after the words ‘shall be a’ the words ‘Secular, Federal, Socialist’ be inserted.” The motion was negatived. Mr. Vice-President: I want to make one thing clear. After the reply has been given by Dr. Ambedkar, I shall not permit any further discussion. I have made a mistake once. I am not going to repeat it. ( Laughter). Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur (Madras : Muslim) : Mr. VicePresident, Sir, I move : “That in clause (1) of article 1, for the word ‘States’ the word ‘provinces’ be substituted.” You, Sir. will remember that when Dr. Ambedkar moved the motion for the consideration of this Draft Constitution, when he was dealing with the form of Government, he stated that............... Mr. Vice-President : We do not want a discussion of this nature. I appeal to the Honourable Member to speak only if he has something new to say. ***** *Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur : If Dr. Ambedkar says that the word “Union” was used not with any great significance, there is no reason why we should not use the correct word “Federation”, but if on the other hand the word “Union” was used with a purpose so that in course of time this federal form of government may be converted into a unitary form of government, then it is for this House now to *CAD, Vol. VII, 15th November 1948, p. 403. †CAD, (Official Report). Vol. VIII, 15th November 1948, p. 404. 327DRAFT CONSTITUTION