Vol. 13 · pages 416–420

particularly to the position of the untouchables and he said that in regard to these acts which prevent the untouchables from sharing equally the privileges enjoyed by the general public, we will not be successful in achieving our purpose unless these acts, preventing them from using places of public resort, were made offences. There is no doubt that there is no difference of opinion between him and other Members of this House in this matter because all of us desire that this unfortunate class should be entitled to the same privileges as members of the other communities without any let or hindrance from anybody. But he will see that that purpose is carried out entirely by the provisions contained in article 11 which specifically deals with untouchability : instead of leaving it to Parliament or to the State to make it a crime, the article itself declares that any such interference with their rights shall be treated as an offence punishable by law. If his view is that there should be a provision in the Constitution dealing generally with acts which interfere with the provisions contained in article 9, I would like to draw his attention to article 27 in the Constitution which places an obligation on Parliament to make laws declaring such interferences to be offences punishable by law. The reason why such power is given to Parliament is because it is felt that any offence which deals with the Fundamental rights should be uniform throughout the territory of India, which would not be the case if this power was left to the different States and Provinces to regulate as they like. My submission therefore is that, so far as this point is concerned, the Constitution contains ample provision and nothing more is really necessary. With regard to amendment No. 323 moved by Professor K. T. Shah, the object of which is to add “Scheduled Castes” and “Scheduled Tribes” along with women and children, I am afraid it may have just the opposite effect. The object which all of us have in mind is that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes should not be segregated from the general public. For instance, none of us, I think, would like that a separate school should be established for the Scheduled Castes when there is a general school in the village open to the children of the entire community. If these words are added, it will probably give a handle for a State to say, “Well, we are making special provision for the Scheduled Castes”. To my mind they can safely say so by taking shelter under the article 383DRAFT CONSTITUTION

if it is amended in the manner the Professor wants it. I therefore think that it is not a desirable amendment. Then I come to my Friend Mr. Nagappa. He has asked me to explain some of the words which have been used in this article. His first question was whether “shop” included laundry and shaving saloon. Well, so far as I am concerned, I have not the least doubt that the word ‘ shop ‘ does include laundry and shaving place. To define the word ‘shop’ in the most generic term one can think of is to state that ‘shop’ is a place where the owner is prepared to offer his service to anybody who is prepared to go there seeking his service. A laundryman therefore would be a man sitting in his shop offering to serve the public in a particular respect, namely, wash the dirty clothes of a customer. Similarly, the owner of a shaving saloon would be sitting there offering his service for any person who enters his saloon. The Honourable Shri B. G. Kher (Bombay : General) : Does it include the offices of a doctor and a lawyer 7 The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Certainly it will include anybody who offers his services. I am using it in a generic sense. I should like to point out therefore that the word ‘shop’ used here is not used in the limited sense of permitting entry. It is used in the larger sense of requiring the services if the terms of service are agreed to. The second question put to me was whether ‘place of public resort’ includes burial grounds. I should have thought that very few people would be interested in the burial ground, because nobody would care to know what happens to him after he is dead. But, as my Friend Mr. Nagappa is interested in the point should say that I have no doubt that a place of public resort would include a burial ground subject to the fact that such a burial ground is maintained wholly or partly out of public funds. Where there are no burial grounds maintained by a municipality, local board or taluka board or Provincial Government or village panchayat, nobody of course has any right, because there is no public place about which anybody can make a claim for entry. But if there is a burial ground maintained by the State out of State funds, then obviously every person would have every right to have his body buried or cremated therein. 384 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Then my Friend asked me whether ponds are included in tanks. The answer is categorically in the affirmative. A tank is a larger thing which must include a pond. The other question that he asked me was whether rivers, streams, canals and water sources would be open to the untouchables. Wells, rivers, streams and canals no doubt would not come under article 9 ; but they would certainly be covered by the provisions of article 11 which make any interference with the rights of an untouchable for equal treatment with the members of the other communities an offence. Therefore my answer to my Friend Mr. Nagappa is that he need have no fears with regard to the use of rivers, streams, canals, etc., because it is perfectly possible for the Parliament to make any law under Article 11 to remove any such disability if found. Shri S. Nagappa : What about the courses of water ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I cannot add anything to the article at this stage. But I have no doubt that any action necessary with regard to rivers and canals could be legitimately and adequately taken under article 11. Shri R. K. Sidhwa : What about the interpretation of the word ‘public’ ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : My Friend Mr. Sidhwa read out some definition from the Indian Penal Code of the word ‘public’ and said that the word ‘public’ there was used in a very limited sense as belonging to a class. I should like to draw his attention to the fact that the word ‘public’ is used here in a special sense. A place is a place of public resort provided it is maintained wholly or partly out of State funds. It has nothing to do with the definition given in the Indian Penal Code. Shri Mahavir Tyagi (united Provinces : General) : May I know what is to happen to the amendments which have been declared by you as verbal amendments ? Among them I fear there are some which really aim at making a substantial change in the meaning of the clause or article concerned. Mr. Vice-President : In that matter I am the sole judge. You have given me discretionary power and I propose to exercise that power in my own way. 385DRAFT CONSTITUTION

Shri Mahavir Tyagi : I want information. I do not dispute your judgment or your right, I only want to know whether the sense of the House will be accommodated in regard to the amendments ruled out or whether such amendments will be considered by the Drafting Committee or some other body ? My suggestion is that you will be doing well the House if you will kindly appoint a small sub-committee which will go into these verbal amendments and find out whether some of them at least aim at effecting a change in the meaning of the clause concerned. I do not dispute what you said. They are out of order because you have ruled them as such. But even commas and fullstops have some value. My only request is that ... Mr. Vice-President: May I suggest a better way which might appeal to you, a way which is better than the appointment of a sub-committee ? Those who think that their amendments are of some substance may I am sure due consideration will be shown to them. Shri Mahavir Tyagi : Now I am satisfied, Sir. Mr. Mohd. Tahir : As the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar has answered my points to my satisfaction with regard to amendment No. 315,1 ask for leave to withdraw it. The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn. Mr. Vice-President : Now I will put the rest of the amendments to the vote of the House. Dr. Ambedkar has accepted the first one. [Following amendments were adopted as per suggesting Dr. Ambedkar.] (1) “That for amendment No. 276 in the List of Amendments, the following be substituted ‘That the second para, of clause (1) of article 9 be numbered as new clause (1a), and the words ‘In particular’ in the new use so formed, be deleted. ***** Mr. Vice-President ; The next one is No. 280 which, I understand Dr. Ambedkar has accepted. The question is : (2) No- 280— “That in article 9, after the word ‘sex’ wherever it occurs, the words ‘place of birth’ be inserted.” (3) No- 286—(by Mr. C. Subramaniam). “That in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of article 9. after the words ‘ restaurants, hotels ‘the words’ Dharamsalas, Musafirkhanas be inserted.” (4) No. 303—(by Mr. Guptanath Singh). “That in sub-clause (b) of the second paragraph of clause (1) of article 9, after the words ‘wells, tanks’ the words ‘bathing ghats’ be inserted.” 386 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

(5) No. 314— “That in sub-clause (b) of the second paragraph of clause (1) of article 9, for the words ‘the revenues of the State’ the words ‘State funds’ be substituted.” [Rest of the amendments were negatived.] Article 9, as amended, was added to the Constitution. ARTICLE 10 *Mr. Vice-President: Shall we pass on to the next article, new article 9-A ? The amendments here are in the form of Directive Principles. I disallow them. Then we go to article 10. Shri T. T. Krishnamachari (Madras : General) : I think the idea is to hold this over. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I request you to hold this article over. Mr. Vice-President : Then we may go to the next article, 10-A. (Amendment No. 369 was not moved.) ARTICLE 11 ***** †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Amedkar : I cannot accept the amendment of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. Mr. Vice-President : Dr. Ambedkar, do you wish to reply to Mr. Shah’s suggestion 7 The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : No. The Vice-President : I now put amendment No. 372 to vote. The question is : “That for article 11, the following article be substituted:— ‘11. No one shall on account of his religion or caste be treated or regarded as an ‘untouchable’ ; and its observance in any form may be made punishable by law’.” [This amendment of Mr. Nazaruddin was negatived.] Article 11 was adopted and added to the Constitution. Honourable Members : “Mahatma Gandhi ki Jai”. [Six members spoke on this Article. Dr. Ambedkar did not make any speech.] ARTICLE 11-A AND B ***** Mr. Z. H. Lari (United Provinces : Muslim) : Mr. Vice-President, *CAD, Vol. VII, 29th November 1948, pp. 664. †Ibid., 30th November 1948, p. 669. 387DRAFT CONSTITUTION