Vol. 13 · pages 406–410

Mr. Vice-President : Yes. I would request you all to bear in mind that we have to go to the fundamentals and not to technicalities. Shri R. K. Sidhwa (C. P. and Berar: General) : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I am very glad that Dr. Ambedkar has moved this amendment and that at this late stage better counsels and sense have prevailed.... The motion was adopted. Article 39-A was added to the Constitution. ***** *Mr. Mohd. Tahir (Bihar : Muslim) : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg to move : That after article 39, the following new article be inserted and the rest of the articles be renumbered :— “40. It shall he the duty of the State to protect, safeguard arid preserve the places of worship such as Gurdwaras, Churches, Temples, Mosques including the graveyards and burning ghats.” ***** †The Honourable Dr. B R. Ambedkar : Sir, I not accept the amendment. Mr. Vice-President : I will now put the amendment to vote. The amendment was negatived. ***** THE ARTICLE 40 ‡Mr. Vice-President : No. 1018. Dr. Ambedkar. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I understand Mr. Kamath is moving an amendment. Shri H. V. Kamath : I shall be moving my amendment after Dr. Ambedkar has moved his. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “that for the existing article 40, the following be substituted :— “40. The State shall— (a) promote international peace and security ; (b) seek to maintain just and honourable relations between nations ; and (c) endeavour to sustain respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised people with one another.” Sir, this, amendment merely simplifies the original article 40 and divides it into certain parts separating each idea front the other so that any one who reads the article will get a clear and complete idea of what is exactly intended to be covered by article 40. The propositions *CAD. Vol. VII, 25th November 1948, p. 593. †Ibid., p. 594. ‡Ibid., p. 595. 373DRAFT CONSTITUTION

contained in this new article are so simple that it seems to be super-arrogation to try to explain them to the House by any lenghty speech. Sir, I move. Mr. Vice-President : There are certain amendments to this which I am calling out. No. 74 Mr. Sarwate. Shri V. S. Sarwate (United States of Gwalior-Indore-Malwa-Madhya Bharat). Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg to move an amendment to this amendment. My amendment stands thus : “That in amendment No. 1018 of the list of amendments, in article 40, after the words “The State shall” and lie fore sub-clause (a), this new clause he inserted and the existing clause be renumbered accordingly :— (a) foster truthfulness, justice, and sense of duty in the citizens.” ***** *Shri H. V. Kamath : …………Sir, I move— “That in amendment 1018 of the list of Amendments in article 40, after the word, ‘shall’ the words ‘ endeavour to ‘ be inserted, in clause (b) the wods ‘seek to’ be deleted in clause (c) the words ‘endeavour to ‘ be deleted.” Mr Vice-President : The question is that for the existing article 40, the following be substituted :— So that if this amendment be accepted by the House the amendment of the Drafting Committee will read as follows :— “40. The State shall endeavour to— (a) promote international peace and security ; (b) maintain just and honourable relations between nations ; (c) foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised people with one another, and (d) encourage the settlement of international disputes by arbitration.” This amendment seek only a slight structural change in the amendment brought forward by Dr. Ambedkar so as to bring out or indicate the directive character of the principle embodied in article 40 ………. ***** †Mr. President : Mr. Ayyangar, will you move it formally ? Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar : Sir, I move that in the amendment of Dr. Ambedkar, at the end add the following sub-clause :— “and (d) to encourage the settlement of international disputes by arbitration.” The motion was adopted. ‡The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir I accept Mr. Kamath’s three amendmednts. I accept Dr. Subbarayan’s amendment and I accept the amendment moved by my Honourable friend, Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar. I do not accept any other amendment. The motion was negatived. *CAD, Vol. VII, 25th November 1948. p. 596. †Ibid., pp. 595 ‡Ibid., p. 604. 374 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

ARTICLE 7 The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That the following words be added at the end of article 7 :— ‘or under the control of the Government of India’.” Sir, this amendment was thought necessary because apart from the territories which form part of India, there may be other territories which may not form part of India, but may none-the-less be under the control of the Government of India. There are many cases occurring now in international affairs where territories are handed over to other countries for the purposes of administration either under a mandate or trusteeship. I think it is desirable that there ought to be no discrimination so far as the citizens of India and the residents of those mandated or trusteeship territories are concerned in fundamental rights. It is therefore desirable that this amendment should be made so that the principle of Fundamental Rights may be extended to the residents of those territories as well. ***** †Mr. Vice-President : I would request Dr. Ambedkar to enlighten us about the points raised here by Mr. Ali Baig. We are laymen and we would like to hear him. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, I must confess that although I had concentrated my attention on the speech of my friend who moved this amendment, I have not been able to follow what exactly he wanted to know. If his amendment is to delete the whole of article 7, I can very easily explain to him why this article must stand as part of the Constitution. The object of the Fundamental Rights is two-fold. First, that every citizen must be in a position to claim those rights. Secondly, they must be binding upon every authority—I shall presently explain what the word “authority” means—upon every authority which has got either the power to make laws or the power to have discretion vested in it. Therefore, it is quite clear that if the Fundamental Rights are to be clear, then they must be binding not only upon the Central Government, they must not only be binding upon the Provincial Government, they must not only be binding upon the Government established in the Indian States, they must also be binding upon District Local Boards, Municipalities, even village panchayats and taluk boards, in fact, every authority which has been created by law and which has got certain power to make laws, to make rules, or make by-laws. *CAD, Vol. VII. 25th November 1948, p. 607. †Ibid., 610. 375DRAFT CONSTITUTION

If that proposition is accepted—and I do not see anyone who cares for Fundamental Rights can object to such a universal obligation being imposed upon every authority created by law—then, what are we to do to make our intention clear ? There are two ways of doing it. One way is to use a composite phrase such as “the State”, as we have done in article 7 ; or, to keep on repeating every time, “the Central Government, the Provincial Government, the State Government, the Municipality, the Local Board, the Port Trust, or any other authority”. It seems to me not only most cumbersome but stupid to keep on repeating this phraseology every time we have to make a reference to some authority. The wisest course is to have this comprehensive phrase and to economise in words. I hope that my friend will now understand why we have used the word “State” in this article and why this article must stand as part of this Constitution. Mr. Vice-President: I will now put tins amendment to the vote. First of all, we have amendment No. 21 of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, which is an amendment to amendment No. 246. The question is : “That with reference to amendment No. 246 of the List of Amendments, in article 7 the words” and all local or other authorities, within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India “he deleted.” The motion was negatived. Mr. Vice-President : The next amendment is No. 246 moved by Dr. Ambedkar. The question is : that the following words be added at the end of article 7 : “or under the control of the Government of India.” The motion was adopted. [Two more amendments were negatived.] Article 7, as amended, was added to the Constitution. ***** ARTICLE 8 ***** *Mr. Vice-President : We have a quarter of an hour more. We can resume discussion of article 8 of the Draft Constitution. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (West Bengal : General) : We may adjourn now. Mr. Vice-President : Our time is valuable. We should not waste a quarter of an hour. *CAD, Vol. VII, 26th November 1948, p. 640. 376 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That for clause (3) of Article 8, the following he substituted :— ‘(3) In this article— (a) the expression ‘law’ includes any ordinance, order, bye-law. rule, regulation, notification, custom, or usage having the force of law in the territory of India or any part thereof; (b) the expression ‘laws in force’ includes laws passed or made by a Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.” Sir, the reason for bringing in this amendment is this : It will be noticed that in article 8 there are two expressions which occur. In sub-clause (1) of article 8, there occurs the phrase “laws in force”, while in sub-clause (2) the words “any law” occur. In the original draft as submitted to this House, all that was done was to give the definition of the term “law” in sub-clause (3). The term “laws in force” was not defined. This amendment seeks to make good that lacuna. What we have done is to split sub-clause (3) into two parts (a) and (b). (a) contains the definition of the term “law” as embodied in the original sub-clause (3), and (b) gives the definition of the expression “laws in force” which occurs in sub-clause (1) of article 8. I do not think that any more explanation is necessary. ***** *Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Sir, before I move my amendment, I beg to point out that as a comprehensive amendment has been moved by the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar, I think the present amendment should be suitably adapted to apply to that amendment. I wish to move the second part of it only. Mr. Vice-President : First of all, find out whether he accepts it or not. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Unless I argue the matter, he will not accept it. I think. Sir, this amendment will have to be accepted. I beg to move : That in amendment No. 260 which has been moved by Dr. Ambedkar, the words “custom or usage having the force of law in the territory of India or any part thereof be deleted. Mr. Vice-President : How can you add to that amendment without giving notice ? It is out of order. You can only make a suggestion. *CAD. Vol. VII. 26th November 1948, p. 641. 377DRAFT CONSTITUTION