Vol. 13 · pages 371–375

made to the President by a majority of the representatives of the territory in the Legislature of the State, or a resolution in that behalf passed by the Legislature of any State whose boundaries or name will be affected by the proposal contained in the Bill. Here again, it was represented that there might be a small minority which felt very strongly that its position will not be safeguarded unless the boundary of the State were changed and that particular minority was permitted to join their brothers in the other State, and consequently if these brothers remained there, action would be completely paralysed. Consequently, we propose now in the amended draft, to delete (i) and (ii) of (a) and also (b) of the original draft. These have been split up into two parts, (a) and also (b). (a) deals with reorganisation of territory in so far as it affects the States in Part I, that is to say. Provinces and, (b) of the new amendment relates to what are now called Indian States. The main difference between the new sub-clauses (a) and (b) of my amendment is this : In the case of (a), that is to say, reorganisation of territories of States falling in Part I, all that is necessary is consultation. Consent is not required. All that the President is called upon to do is to be satisfied, before making the recommendation, that their wishes have been consulted. With regard to (b), the provision is that there shall be consent. The distinction, as I said, is based upon the fact that, so far as we are at present concerned, the position of the Provinces is different from the position of the States. The States are sovereign States and the provinces are not sovereign States. Consequently, the Government need not be bound to require the consent of the provinces to change their boundaries ; while in the case of the Indian States, it is appropriate, in view of the fact that sovereignty remains with them that their consent should be obtained. As regards the amendment moved by Prof. Shah, I do not see much difference between my amendment as contained in sub-clause (a) of the new proviso and his. He says that the discussion shall be initiated in the States. My sub-clause (a) of the proviso also provides that the States shall be consulted. I have not the least doubt about it that the method of consulting, which the President will adopt, will be to ask either the Prime Minister or the Governor to table a resolution which 338 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

may be discussed in the particular State legislature which may be affected, so that ultimately the initiation will be by the local legislature and not by the Parliament at all. I therefore submit that the amendment of Professor Shah is really unnecessary. The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : ......But, unfortunately, in his enthusiasm for what he calls the principle, he has tabled an amendment which altogether defeats his object. I therefore suggest that the amendment should be rejected and the proposition moved by Dr. Ambedkar should be accepted. ***** Mr. Vice-President : Let us hear what Mr. Sidhwa has to say. We will certainly take up the amendments to which Mr. Kamath has drawn attention. Shri R. K. Sidhwa : I do not accept the arguments advanced by Mr. Santhanam against the amendment moved by Professor Shah....... ......Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment is very clear and comprehensive....... I therefore commend the amendment of Dr. Ambedkar to the House. [Amendment of Naziruddin Ahmed was not moved.] *Mr. Vice-President : Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru. Pandit Hirday nath Kunzru (United Provinces : General) : Mr. Vice-President, I beg to move: “that in the amendment of Dr. Ambedkar as just moved, for the words ‘the previous consent’ the words ‘the views’ and for the words ‘has been’ the words ‘have been’ be substituted respectively.” [This was followed by speech and discussion.] †Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhari (Assam : General) : Sir, it is my misfortune to have to oppose the amendments moved by the two stalwart members of this House, namely, Prof. Shah and Pandit Kunzru. I oppose them not because I like them less, but because I like Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment more, as it meets the present situation very well....... ***** †Shri R. K. Sidhwa (C. P. Berar : General) : ......... I would like Dr. Ambedkar to enlighten the House as to why this difference has been made between States and Provinces...... *CAD, (Official Report), Vol. VII, 17th November 1948, p. 441. †Ibid., p. 446. ‡Ibid. pp. 456-59. 339DRAFT CONSTITUTION

With these observations, I support the amendment strongly and I hope Dr. Ambedkar will clear the point why a differentiation has been made in the case of the States, why he has stated that the views of the legislature should be ascertained in the case of the provinces, whereas in the case of the States he has stated that their previous consent should be obtained. Mr. Vice-President : Dr. Ambedkar. An Honourable Member : The question be now put, Sir. Maulana Hasrat Mohani : (United Provinces : Muslim) : Sir, I rise to a point of order. Dr. Ambedkar has only moved an amendment and therefore, I submit, he has not got any right of reply. I have got a ruling of this House in which it is said definitely...... Shri R. K. Sidhwa : I understand the whole article is under discussion. If the article is under discussion, Dr. Ambedkar has a right of reply. Maulana Hasrat Mohani : Dr. Ambedkar has already spoken ; he has no right to make any further speech. Mr. Vice-President : Please address the Chair. Maulana Hasrat Mohani : Sir, I beg to point out, that the Ruling says—I am quoting from the printed proceedings of this House—the mover of an amendment has no right of reply. He cannot make a second speech. Mr. Vice-President: I hold that the Article as well as the amendment are under discussion. Dr. Ambedkar. The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta (C.P. & Berar : General) : Sir, the mover has a right of reply. Mr. Vice-President : That makes my position stronger. The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta : What I mean to say, Sir ......... I submit that every mover of an amendment has got a right of reply. Mr. Vice-President: You do not object to Dr. Ambedkar replying ? The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta : Not only do I not object, but I want to establish this practice that the mover of an amendment has a right of reply, because our rules differ widely from the rules that have been framed for the legislative side. Mr. Vice-President: We shall decide that later on alter Dr. Ambedkar has made his reply. 340 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Shri Lakshminarayan Sahu (Orissa : General) : Sir, there is an amendment in my name. Mr. Vice-President: Kindly take your seat, Mr. Sahu. Dr. Ambedkar. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : The amendment moved by my friend Mr. Kunzru is an amendment which carries a great deal of my sympathy but unfortunately in the circumstances in which we stand. I am not in a position to accept the same. The arguments urged by my friend in supporting his amendment was that what I had stated originally in moving my amendment was inconsistent with some of the other clauses or articles contained in the Constitution. He said that the plea I had urged in justification of the distinction between the provinces and the States in the matter of the provisions contained in article 3 was inconsistent with Articles 226, 230 and 294. Now my submission is this that there is no inconsistency whatever in the plea I have urged in supporting a distinction between the provinces and the States and the various articles to which he has made reference. With regard to Article 226 which gives power to the Central Legislature to pass legislation on matters included in Provincial list, my submission is this that that authority will be exercised by Parliament by virtue of a Resolution passed by two-third majority of the Upper Legislature. He will realize that the Upper House or Council of States will include representatives of the States as much as the representatives of the Provinces. They will undoubtedly participate in the proceedings of that particular Resolution which seeks to confer power upon Parliament to legislate on the matters included in that Resolution. Consequently it is hardly fair to say that Article 226 automatically usurps the sovereignty of the Indian States. It is really a measure which confers sovereignty by a special resolution passed by the Upper Chamber in which the States are fully represented. That is therefore no illustration of inconsistency at all. With regard to Article 230, my submission is also the same. My learned friend will remember that the Indian States apart from what they do after the Constitution is passed have at any rate for the present, acceded on the basis of three subjects and one of the subjects is Foreign Affairs. Obviously implementation of the treaty is nothing but an exercise of the power conferred upon the Central Parliament for implementation of the treaty which is the subject matter covered by Foreign Affairs. Therefore that again cannot be said to be an usurpation of their sovereignty rights. 341DRAFT CONSTITUTION

With regard to 294 which deals with the extension of the provisions of the protection of minorities in Indian States, that undoubtedly may appear for the moment to be a sort of encroachement of their sovereignty but it is nothing of the kind. It is merely one of the proposals which we shall be making to the Indian States that when they seek admission to the Indian Union they will have to accept Article 294. I might say that this extension was made by the Drafting Committee because the Drafting Committee heard that the Constituent Assemblies of some of the Indian States were making provisions in this regard so diverse and so alarming that the Drafting Committee thought it best to lay down what sort of arrangements for minority protection the Union Government will accept and what it will not accept. Now, Sir, with regard to this question of differentiation between the Indian States and the Provinces of British India a great lot has been said, and I quite realise that the House is terribly excited over the distinction that the Constitution seeks to make but I should like to tell the house two things. One is this that we are at the present moment bound by the terms of agreement arrived at between the two Negotiating Committees, one appointed by the Indian Constituent Assembly representing the British provinces and the other of representatives nominated by the Indian States for the purpose of arriving at certain basis for drafting a common Constitution which would cover both parts. Now I do not wish to go into the details of the reports made by the Negotiating Committees but if my Honourable Friend Pandit Kunzru would refresh his mind by going over the report of that Committee, he will find that here is a distinct provision that nothing in the Negotiating Committee Report will be understood to permit the Indian Union to encroach upon the territories of the Indian States. My submission is, if that is an understanding—I do not mean to say a contract or agreement— arrived at between the two parties, at this stage we would do well in respecting that understanding. I would like to point out another tiling,—another article in the Constitution to which I am sorry to say my Friend Mr. Kunzru has made no reference—that is Article 212 which is a very important article and I should like to explain what exactly are the possibilities provided by the Indian Draft Constitution with regard to the Indian States. Honourable members must have seen that Article 3 provides for the admission of the Indian States 342 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES