Vol. 13 · pages 381–385

Sir, while moving this amendment for the consideration or” my Honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar and of the House, I would like to advance only two reasons for the same....... ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : Sir, I am sorry I cannot accept either of the two amendments.† Mr. Kamath’s amendment is really incorporated in the phraseology as it now stands ; the word “Fundamental” occurs, as Mr. Kamath will find, in the very first Article of this part. Therefore his object that these principles should be treated as fundamental is already achieved by the wording of this Article. With regard to the word “directive” I think it is necessary and important that the word should be retained because it is to be understood that in enacting this part of the Constitution the Constituent Assembly, as I said, is giving certain directions to the future legislature and the future executive to show in what manner they are to exercise the legislative and the executive power which they will have. If the word “directive” is omitted I am afraid the intention of the Constituent Assembly in enacting this part will fail in its purpose. Surely, as some have said, it is not the intention to introduce in this part these principles as mere pious declarations. It is the intention of the Assembly that in future both the legislature and the executive should not merely pay lip service to these principles enacted in this part, but that they should be made the basis of all executive and legislative action that may be taken hereafter in the matter of the governance of the country. I therefore submit that both the words “fundamental” and “directive” are necessary and should be ratained. [The motion of Mr. Kamath was negatived.] Shri H. V. Kamath : Sir, I beg leave of the House to withdraw my amendment. The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn. Mr. Vice-President : We shall now take up amendment Nos. 841 to 846. The movers will kindly move them one after another and then there will be a discussion. Amendment No. 841 is a negative one and therefore it is ruled out of order. *CAD, (Official Report). Vol. VII, 19th November 1948, p. 476. †This amendment of Mr. Kamath included No. 838 and 840. 348 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Since the Member concerned is not here, Amendment No. 842 falls Through. Amendment Nos. 843 to 846—Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I shall be moving Nos. 843, 844 and 846. I shall not be moving No. 845. Sir, I move. “That in article 28. the words ‘unless the context otherwise requires’ be omitted.” “That in article 28, for the word ‘requires’. the word ‘indicates’ be substituted.” “That in article 28, for the words ‘the State’. the word ‘State’ be substituted.” [This was followed by Mr. Ahmed’s speech.] ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I oppose the amendments of my Friend, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. The words “the State” in Article 28 have been used deliberately. In this Constitution, the word “State” has been used in two different senses. It is used as the collective entity, either representing the Centre or the Province, both of winch in certain parts of the Constitution are spoken of as “State”. But the word used there is in a collective sense. Here the words “the State” are used both in a collective sense as well as in the distributive sense. If my friend were to refer to part III, which begins with Article 7 of the Constitution, he will see in what sense the word “State” is used. In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, “the State” includes the Government and the Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India. So that, so far as the Directive Principles are concerned, even a village panchayat or a district or local board would be a State also. In order to distinguish the sense in which we have used the word we have thought it desirable to speak of ‘State’ and also ‘the State’. Honourable Members will find this distinction also made in Article 12 of the Constitution. There we say : “No title shall be conferred by the State ; “No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State.” There we do not use the words “the State”; but in the first part we use the words ‘the State’. We do not want any of the authorities, either of the Centre or of the provinces, to confer any title upon any individual. That being the distinction, the House will realise that the retention of the words ‘the State’ in Article 28 is in consonance with *CAD. (Official Report), Vol. VII, 19th November 1948, pp. 477-78 349DRAFT CONSTITUTION

the practice we have adopted in drafting this Constitution. Mr. Vice-President : I shall now put these three amendments to vote. [All the amendments of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad were negatived. Article 28 was added to the Constitution.] ***** [All the amendments to article 29 were negatived and the article was adopted.] ARTICLE 30 *Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : ......Sir, I beg to move: “That in article 30, the words ‘strive to’ be omitted.” ***** †Shri H. V. Kamath : Sir I move amendment No. 870 : “That in article 30, the word “The” occurring before the words “national life” be deleted.” Sir, I was rather reluctant to give notice of this amendment, considering that it is or a minor character; but somehow the word ‘the’ jarred upon my ear and ultimately I decided to send it on. I am not so presumpous as to advise my learned Friend Dr. Ambedkar or his wise colleagues of the Drafting Committee on matters of language ; but I do hope that in this case, the word ‘the’ jars upon their ears as much as it does on mine, and it does violence to the laws of euphony. So I request him to omit it. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I accept the amendment. Mr. Vice-President : No 871 not moved. Now the Article is open for general discussion. ***** †Shri Mohanlal Gautam : Is the discussion going to be closed now ? Mr. Vice-President : I have given a reasonable time for discussion, both for and against the amendments. Shri Mohanlal Gautam : Will you please permit me to speak ? Mr. Vice-President : I maintain that we have had a reasonable amount of time—merely an hour—for discussion and Dr. Ambedkar should now address the House. ***** *CAD, (Official Report). Vol. VII, 19th November 1948, p.487. †Ibid., pp. 487-88. ‡Ibid., p. 493. 350 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, I see that there is a great deal of misunderstanding as to the real provisions in the Constitution in the minds of those members of the House who are interested in this kind of directive principles. It is quite possible that the misunderstanding or rather inadequate understanding is due to the fact that I myself in my opening speech in support of the motion that I made, did not refer to this aspect of the question. That was because, not that I did not wish to place this matter before the House in a clear-cut fashion, but my speech had already become so large that I did not venture to make it more tiresome than I had already done ; but I think it is desirable that I should take a few minutes of the House in order to explain what I regard as the fundamental position taken in the Constitution. As I stated, our Constitution as a piece of mechanism lays down what is called parliamentary democracy. By parliamentary democracy we mean ‘one man, one vote’. We also mean that every Government shall be on the anvil, both in its daily affairs and also at the end of a certain period when the voters and the electorate will be given an opportunity to assess the work done by the Government. The reason why we have established in this Constitution a political democracy is because we do not want to instal by any means whatsoever a perpetual dictatorship of any particular body of people. While we have established political democracy, it is also the desire that we should lay down as our ideal economic democracy. We do not want merely to lay down a mechanism to enable people to come and capture power. The Constitution also wishes to lay down an ideal before those who would be forming the Government. That ideal is economic democracy, whereby, so far as I am concerned, I understand to mean, ‘one man, one vote’. The question is : Have we got any fixed idea as to how we should bring about economic democracy ? There are various ways in which people believe that economic democracy can be brought about ; there are those who believe in having a socialistic state as the best form of economic democracy ; there are those who believe in having a socialistic state as the best form of economic democracy ; there are those who believe in the communistic idea as the most perfect form of economic democracy. *CAD, (Official Report), Vol. VII, 22nd November 1948. p.p 494-95. 351DRAFT CONSTITUTION

Now, having regard to the fact that these various ways by which economic democracy may be brought about, we have deliberately introduced in language that we have used, in the directive principles, something which is not fixed or rigid. We have left enough room for people of different ways of thinking, with regard to the reaching of the ideal of economic democracy, to strive in their own way, to persuade the electorate that it is the best way of reaching economic democracy, the fullest opportunity to act in the way in which they want to act. Sir, that is the reason why the language of the articles in Part IV is left in the manner in which this Drafting Committee thought it best to leave it. It is no use giving a fixed, rigid form to something which is not rigid, which is fundamentally changing and must, having regard to the circumstances and the times, keep on changing. It is, therefore, no use saying that the directive principles have no value. In my judgment, the directive principles have a great value, for they lay down that our ideal is economic democracy. Because we did not want merely a parliamentary form of Government to be instituted through the various mechanisms provided in the Constitution, without any direction as to what our economic ideal, as to what our social order ought to be, we deliberately included the Directive Principles in our Constitution. I think, if the friends who are agitated over this question bear in mind what I have said just now that our object in framing this Constitution is really two-fold : (i) to lay down the form of political democracy, and (ii) to lay down that our ideal is economic democracy and also to prescribe that every Government whatever, it is in power, shall strive to bring about economic democracy, much of the misunderstanding under which most members are labouring will disappear. My friend Mr. Tyagi made an appeal to me to remove the word ‘strive’, and phrases like that. I think he has misunderstood why we have used the word ‘strive’. The word ‘strive’ which occurs in the Draft Constitution, in my judgment, is very important. We have used it because our intention is that even when there are circumstances which prevent the Government, or which stand in the way of the Government giving effect to these Directive Principles, they shall, even under hard and unpropitious circumstances, always strive in the fulfilment of these Directives. That is why we have used the word ‘strive’. Otherwise, it would be open for any Government to say that the circumstances 352 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES