Vol. 13 · pages 376–380

on the basis of such Instrument of Accession as may be executed by the Indian States in favour of the Indian Union. When a State as such is coming into the Indian Union, its position vis-a-vis the Central Government and vis-a-vis the provinces would and must be regulated by the terms contained in the Instrument of Accession but the Instrument of Accession is not the only method of bringing the Indian States into the Indian Constitution. There is another and a very important article in the Constitution which is 212. 212 provides that any Ruler of an Indian State may transfer the whole of his sovereignty to the Indian Union with respect to his particular State. When the whole of the sovereignty is transferred under the provisions of 212, the territory of that particular ruler becomes so to say the territory of India, with complete sovereignty vested in the Indian Union. Power is then given under Article 212 so that that particular territory the sovereignty over which has been fully transferred by the ruler to the Indian Union can then be governed as a province of India in which case Part II of the Constitution which defines the Constitution of the Indian provinces will automatically apply to that Indian State or it may be administered as a Centrally Administered area ; so that the President and the Central Parliament will have the fullest authority to devise any form of administration for that particular territory. Consequently my submission to the House is that there is no necessity—if I may use an expression—to be hysterical over this subject. If we have a little patience I have not the least doubt about it that our minister for the Indian States, who has done so much to reduce the chaos that existed before we started on the making of our Constitution, will exercise the de facto of paramountcy which the Union Government has obtained and reduce the chaos further and bring about an order either by inducing the Indian States to accept the same provisions which we have applied to Indian States or to follow the provisions of section 212 and surrender to us complete sovereignty so that the Indian Union may be able to deal with the Indian States in the same way in which it is able to deal with the provinces. For the present I submit we shall be acting wisely by respecting the agreement which has been arrived at by the two Negotiating Committees and following it up until by further agreement we are in a position to change the basis rather with goodwill peace and honour to both sides. Sir, I oppose the amendment ( Cheers). 343DRAFT CONSTITUTION

Mr. Vice-President : I shall now put Amendment No. 150, as modified by the amendment of Pandit H. N. Kunzru to vote. ( Interruptions). Kindly permit me to conduct the proceedings in the manner I wish it to be conducted. ***** *Mr. Vice-President: I am going to give my ruling. Under the Rules of the House I am not aware that there is anything which gives a right to the mover of an amendment to give a reply. If I asked Dr. Ambedkar to give a reply it was because he was asked certain questions and I thought it right and proper and fair that he should be given an opportunity of explaining his position. That is my ruling. Now I shall put Pandit Kunzru’s amendment to the vote. [The motion was negatived. The motion of Dr. Ambedkar alone was adopted.] ***** †Mr. Vice-President : It seems to me that the amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah, as well as the next set of amendments up to No. 175 fall through alter the acceptance of Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment. (Amendment No. 176 was not moved.) ......That finishes Article 3. Is there anyone who wishes to discuss the Article as a whole ? Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (West Bengal : General) : What will be the position if the Honourable member is allowed to speak on the Article as a whole ? Will Dr. Ambedkar be called upon to reply to that again ? Mr. Vice-President : Most certainly not. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : That whole article has not yet been disposed of and Dr. Ambedkar has so far replied only to the amendment and not to the whole article. Mr. Vice-President : We shall listen to the Honourable member and if he traverses old ground, we shall ask him to desist. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : Therefore, Dr. Ambedkar is not entitled to reply as a right ? Mr. Vice-President : No. Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar (Madras : General) : That is hypothetical. It does not arise. ***** *CAD, (Official-Report), Vol. VII. 18th November 1948, p. 461. †Ibid., p. 462. 344 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

*Mr. Vice-President : The question is : “That Article 3, as amended, form part of the Constitution.” The Motion was adopted. ARTICLE 4 ***** Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (Bengal : Muslim) : Sir, I beg to move : “That the words ‘of this Constitution’ he deleted in clause (1) of article 4 and throughout the Draft Constitution wherever the said words occur in the same context; and a now definition (bb) he inserted in clause (1) of article 303 :— ‘(bb) “article” means article of this Constitution’.” [This was followed by speech.] ***** Mr. Vice-President : The Honourable Member may move all his amendments to Article 4, one after the other up to amendment No. 181 on the order paper, and be as brief as possible. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I move: “That in clause (1) of article 4, for the words ‘article 2 or article 3’, the words and figures ‘ article 2 or 3’, be substituted.” I submit that the word ‘article’ need not be repealed as it is done in clause (1) and, in fact in many places in this Draft Constitution. Then I move: “That in clause (1) of article 4, for the winds and figures ‘article 2 or article 3’, the word and figure ‘article 3’ he substituted.” I move next : “That in clause (1) of article 4, for the words ‘shall contain such provisions for’, the words ‘shall also provide for’ he substituted.” This is very simple amendment. I now move my last amendment to this article : “That in clause (2) of article 4, for the words ‘for the purposes of’, the words ‘within the meaning of’ be substituted.” This is only a verbal amendment. ***** Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur (madras : Muslim) : Sir, I move amendment No. 184 : “That in clause (2) of article 4. for the words ‘ for the purposes of article 304’, the words ‘under article 304’ be substituted.” The retention of the existing words will lead to some sort of complication. Therefore we should substitute the words ‘under article 304’. Shri H. V. Kamath : Mr. Vice-President, by your leave, I shall make a very brief observation on amendment No. 177 of my Honourable *CAD, (Official Report), Vol. VII. 18th November 1948, pp. 465-66. 345DRAFT CONSTITUTION

friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. Before you call upon Dr. Ambedkar to reply, may I request him, in case he holds that amendment No. 177 should be rejected, to give us some reasons for his opposition and not merely repeat the trite formula ‘I oppose this amendment’ ?...... ......In conclusion I repeat my request to Dr. Ambedkar not to merely repeat the formula ‘I oppose’, but give reasons as to why he does so. Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhari : I have come to the rostrum to honour my friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed by opposing this amendment (Laughter)....... ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I did not think that this was a matter which required any speech from me, but as Mr. Kamath has expressed a desire that I must not merely negative the amendment but should offer an explanation as to why I was not prepared to accept the amendments suggested by my Honourable Friend, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, I have come here to make my explanation. I think it will be agreed that in mailers of this sort, which relate merely to phraseology and not to the substance of the article itself, it cannot be staled that it is a matter of principle at all. It is a mere matter of precedent how different Constitutions have used language in matters which are analogous. My submission is that in the language we have used we are absolutely covered by precedent with regard to the question of repeating the phrase “of this Constitution”. My friend, Mr. Kamath, stated that he has examined several constitutions such as that of Australia and of some other countries but did not find this phrase “of this Constitution” contained therein. I am sorry that he did not extend his researches to the Irish Constitution. If he had, he would have found that the phraseology used in the Draft Constitution is the same as is used in the Irish Constitution. For his reference, I would like to draw his attention to Article 19 of the Irish Constitution, article 27, sub-clause (4), article 32 and article 46, sub-clause (5) where he will find that, wherever the word “article” occurs, it is followed by the phrase “of this Constitution”. I may also point out to Mr. Kamath that in this respect we have also followed the phraseology contained in the Government of India Act 1935. I am sorry I have not had the time to examine all the sections of the Government of India Act but I have just, fortunately for myself, found one section which is 142-A where similar phraseology has been *CAD, (Official Report). Vol. VII. 18th November 1948. pp. 467-68. 346 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

used. So far therefore as the first part of the amendment moved by my Honourable friend, Mr. Naziruddin, is concerned, my submission is that we have not acted in any eccentric manner but that whatever phraseology we have used is covered by the Constitutions of other countries as well. With regard to his second amendment that we should not repeat the word “article” alter the word “or” and that we should merely say, “article 2 or 3”, my submission is again the same. There again we have followed well known Constitutions and if my friend will examine them, he will find that similar phraseology occurs elsewhere also. For his information, I would ask him to refer to section 69, sub-clause (3), of the Government of India Act. The word used there is “paragraph”. It says, “paragraph (d) or paragraph (e)”. It does not merely say, “paragraph (d) or (e)”. Therefore this can hardly be a matter of debate or a matter of difference of opinion so far as the principle is concerned. It is a mere matter of precedent and the question to be asked is : Have we done something which is not covered by precedent ? And my submission is this, that whatever we have done in the matter of using phraseology is covered by precedent and therefore, there can be no objection to any clause as it stands in the draft. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Then what about clause (2) of Article 4 ? I think there should be a short notice amendment to use the words “of this Constitution” in clause (2) in order to make the draft clear. Mr. Vice-President: We cannot create a bad precedent by admitting a short notice amendment. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I cannot accept it, Sir. Mr. Vice-President : In that case, I shall put the amendments to vote one by one. [All the amendments of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed were negatived and clause (1) and clause (2) of Article 4 stood part of the Constitution.] ***** ARTICLE 28 *Mr. Vice-President : The next amendment stands in the name of Mr. Kamath, No. 838. Are you moving amendment No. 838 ? Shri H. V. Kamath : Mr. Vice-President, I move : “That in the heading under Part IV for the word ‘Directive’, the word ‘Fundamental’ to substituted.” *CAD, (Official Report), Vol. VII. 19th November 1948. p. 474. 347DRAFT CONSTITUTION