Vol. 13 · pages 391–395

Sir, I need not say that the bulk of the working population consists of agricultural workers. Mr. Vice-President : This is out of order. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, as there is a considerable amount of feeling that the Directive Principles should make some reference to cottage industries, I am agreeable in principle to introduce in article 34 some words to give effect to the wishes of the Members of this House. I am therefore prepared to accept the amendment moved by my friend Mr. Ramalingam Chettiar, subject to the substitution of one or two words. One substitution that I would like to make is this. After the words “cottage industries on” I would like to add the words “individual or”. I would like to substitute his word ‘lines’ by the word ‘basis ‘. So that the amendment would read as follows : “And in particular the State shall endeavour to promote cottage industries on individual or co-operative basis in rural areas.” That, I think, would meet the wishes of most of the Members who are particularly interested in the subject. I may also add that I am quite agreeable to accept the amendment moved by Mr. Nagappa that the word ‘agricultural’ be added after the word ‘industrial’. Vice-President : That was not allowed. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I have no objection if you allow that. I think Mr. Nagappa’s suggestion that agricultural labour is as important as industrial labour and should not be merely referred to by the word ‘otherwise’ has some substance in it. However, it is a matter of ruling and it is for you to decide. Shri T. A. Ramalingam Chettiar : I accept Dr. Ambedkar’s amendments. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : (Madras :General) : Sir, may I suggest that we may stop with the word collage industries and omit the rest. Why do you want the words ‘on individual or co-operative basis’ ? There is no point in adding these words unless you want to lay special emphasis on co-operative basis. I would like these words ‘on individual or co-operative basis’ to be omitted. Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : May I explain, Sir ? I find among the Members who are interested in the subject, there are two 358 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

divisions : one division believes in cottage industries solely on a cooperative basis ; the other division believes that there should be cottage industries without any such limitation. In order to satisfy both sides. I have used this phraseology deliberately, which, I am sure, will satisfy both views that have been expressed. Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar : (Madras : General) : I do not want to speak. Mr. Vice-President : I think we have discussed this matter sufficiently. We shall pass on to the actual voting. Shri Mahavir Tyagi : In the hope that this will all be done on the basis of self-sufficiency, I accept the amendment to my amendment as finally proposed by Dr. Ambedkar and in that case I shall have to withdraw mine. The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn. Shri Amiyo Kumar Ghosh : Sir, I want to know whether ‘agricultural workers’ have been included or not. Mr. Vice-President: It has not been included but I am quite prepared to go back on my ruling provided the House as a whole, without any dissention, accepts the suggestion of Dr. Ambedkar. Honourable Members : Yes. Mr. Vice-President : Then I shall put the amendment of Shri Ramalingam Chettiar as amended by Dr. Ambedkar to the vote. The amendment, as amended, was adopted. The amendment, as further modified by Mr. Nagappa was adopted. Article 34, as amended, was added to the Constitution. ***** ARTICLE 35 *Mr. Vice-President : Now, we come to article 35. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I have to request you to allow this article to stand over for the present. Mr. Vice-President : This article is allowed to stand over for consideration later. Is it agreed to by the House ? Honourable Members : Yes. *CAD. (Official Report). Vol. VII. 23rd November 1948, p. 538. 359DRAFT CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 36 ***** Pandit Lakshmi Kanta maitra : (West Bengal: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir I beg to move: “That in article 36, the words ‘Every citizen is entitled to free primary education and’ be deleted.” Sir, I will strictly obey the injunction given by you regarding curtailment of speeches. I will put in half a dozen sentences to explain the purpose of this amendment. If this amendment is accepted by the House, as I hope it will be, then the article will read as follows : “The State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years.” ...... ***** Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : (West Bengal : Muslim) : Sir, I beg to move : “That in article 36, for the word ‘education’, the words ‘primary education’ be substituted.” ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I accept the amendment proposed by my friend, Mr. Maitra, which suggests the deletion of the words “every citizen is entitled to free primary education and”. But I am not prepared to accept the amendment of my Friend, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. He seems to think that the objective of the rest of the clause in article 36 is restricted to free primary education. But that is not so. The clause as it stands after the amendment is that every child shall be kept in an educational institution under training until the child is of 14 years. If my Honourable Friend, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad had referred to article 18, which forms pan of the Fundamental Rights, he would have noticed that a provision is made in article 18 to forbid any child being employed below the age of 14. Obviously, if the child is not to be employed below the age of 14, the child must be kept occupied in some educational institution. That is the object of article 36, and that is why I say the word “primary” is quite inappropriate in that particular clause, and I therefore oppose his amendment. [The motion of Pandit Maitra was adopted. The motion of Naziruddin Ahmad was negatived.] Article 36, as amended, was added to the Constitution. *CAD, (Official Report), Vol. VII, 22nd November 1948, p. 538. †Ibid., 540 360 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

ARTICLE 35 *Mr. Mohamad Ismail Sahib (Madras : Muslim) : Sir, I move that the following proviso be added to article 35 : “Provided that any group, section or community of people shall not be obliged to give up its own personal law in case it has such a law.” ***** †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I am afraid I cannot accept the amendments which have been moved to this article. In dealing with this matter, I do not propose to touch on the merits of the question as to whether this country should have a Civil Code or it should not. That is a matter which I think has been dealt with sufficiently for the occasion by my Friend, Mr. Munshi, as well as by Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar. When the amendments to certain fundamental rights are moved, it would be possible for me to make a full statement on this subject, and I therefore do not propose to deal with it here. My friend, Mr. Hussain Imam, in rising to support the amendments, asked whether it was possible and desirable to have a uniform Code of laws for a country so vast as this is. Now I must confess that I was very much surprised at that statements, for the simple reason that we have in this country a uniform code of laws covering almost every aspect of human relationship. We have a uniform and complete Criminal Code operating throughout country, which is contained in the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code. We have the Law of Transfer of Property, which deals with property relations and which is operative throughout the country. Then there are the Negotiable Instruments Acts ; and I can cite innumerable enactments which would prove that this country has practically a Civil Code, uniform in its content and applicable to the whole of the country. The only province the Civil Law has not been able to invade so far is Marriage and Succession. It is this little corner which we have not been able to invade so far and it is the intention of those who desire to have article 35 as part of the Constitution to bring about that change. Therefore, the argument whether we should attempt such a tiling seems to me somewhat misplaced for the simple reason that we have, as a matter of fact, covered the whole lot of the field which is covered by a uniform Civil Code in this country. It is therefore too late now to ask the question whether we could do it. As I say, we have already done it. *CAD. Vol. VII, 23rd November 1948, p. 540. †Ibid., p. 550. 361DRAFT CONSTITUTION

Coming to the amendments, there are only two observations which I would like to make. My first observation would be to state that members who put forth these amendments say that the Muslim personal law, so far as this country was concerned, was immutable and uniform through the whole of India. Now I wish to challenge that statement. I think most of my friends who have spoken on this amendment have quite forgotten that up to 1935 the North-West Frontier Province was not subject to the Shariat Law. It followed the Hindu Law in the matter of succession and in other matters, so much so that it was in 1939 that the Central Legislature had to come into the Held and to abrogate the application of the Hindu Law to the Muslims of the North-West Frontier Province and to apply the Shariat Law to them. That is not all. My Honourable friends have forgotten, that, apart from the Northwest Frontier Province, up till 1937 in the rest of India, in various parts, such as the United Provinces, the Central Provinces and Bombay, the Muslims to a large extent were governed by the Hindu Law in the matter of succession. In order to bring them on the plane of uniformity with regard to the other Muslims who observed the Shariat Law, the Legislature had to intervene in 1937 and to pass an enactment applying the Shariat Law to the rest of India. I am also informed by my friend, Shri Karunakara Menon, that in North Malbar the Marumakkathayam Law applied to all—not only to Hindus but also to Muslims. It is to be remembered that the Marumakkathayam Law is a Matriarchal form of law and not a Partriarchal form of law. The Mussulmans, therefore, in North Malbar were up to now following the Marumakkathayam law. It is therefore no use making a categorical statement that the Muslim law has been an immutable law which they have been following from ancient times. That law as such was not applicable in certain parts and it has been made applicable ten years ago. Therefore if it was found necessary that for the purpose of evolving a single civil code applicable to all citizens irrespective of their religion, certain portions of the Hindu Law, not because they were contained in Hindu Law but because they were found to be the most suitable, were incorporated into the new civil code projected by article 35, I am quite certain that it would not be open to any Muslim to say that the farmers of the civil code had done great violence to the sentiments of the Muslim community. 362 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES