Vol. 13 · pages 421–425

I move: “That after article U the following new article be inserted:-— ‘II-A- Imprisonment for debt is abolished. 11-B. Capital punishment except for sedition involving use of violence is abolished’.” Sir, the two clauses are distinct and consequently when considering and adopting them it is not necessary for the House to accept both simultaneously or to reject both. It is open to the House to accept one and not to accept the other or to accept both. Mr. Vice-President : Why not move that separately ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : I do not accept the amendment. Mr. Vice-President : I shall put the amendment to vote. The amendment was negatived. ARTICLE 10 Mr. Vice President : We can now go back to Article No. 10. The motion before the House is : That Article 10 form part of the Constitution. ***** ‡Shri H. V. Kamath : On a point of clarification, Sir, may I know from my Honourable Friend, Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar whether the words here expressed” any State for the time being specified in the First Schedule” applies to all the four parts of the First Schedule ? The first Schedule consists of four parts. Three parts refer to the States and the last part refers to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands ; and we have already adopted article 1 which states in sub-clause (2) that “the States shall mean the States for the time being specified in Parts I, II and III of the First Schedule. May I know from him whether” any State for the time being specified in the First Schedule “means all the States and territories comprised in all the four parts of the First Schedule ? In that case the language of this amendment will have to be modified. It will have to read” under any State or territory in the first four parts I, II, III and IV of the First Schedule, “and if you want to retain only the word ‘State’ then it will be ‘under any State specified in Parts I, II and III of the First Schedule.’ *CAD, Vol. VII, 30th November 1948, p. 672. †Ibid., 672. ‡Ibid., 678. 388 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It is quite obvious that we have not specified parts. We have merely said ‘First Schedule’ and First Schedule includes all the States in the First Schedule. Shri H. V. Kamath : Article 1 says ‘the States included for the time being specified in Parts I, II and III of the First Schedule.’ The territories comprised in Part IV is not a State according to our Constitution. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : There should be no attempt to make any distinction at all. Shri H. V. Kamath : If my point is unanswerable, I have nothing to say. Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar : If you only refer to the First Schedule, you will find that Part I refers to the territories known immediately before the commencement of this Constitution as the Governor’s Provinces. Part II deals with the territories known immediately before the commencement of this Constitution as the Chief Commissioners’ provinces of Delhi, Ajmer-Merwara and so on. Part III deals with Indian States. All these three categories are referred to and described as ‘States’ in Article 1. Part IV of Schedule 1 are Andamans and Nicobar Islands. These are not States but territories. ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I am going to say at the outset, before I deal with the specific questions that have been raised in the course of debate, that I cannot accept amendment No. 334 moved by Mr. Misra ; nor can I accept the two amendments moved by my friend, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, Nos. 336 and 337. I am prepared to accept the amendment of Mr. Imam No. 338, as amended by amendment No. 77 moved by Mr. Ananthasaynam Ayyangar. I am also prepared to accept the amendment of Mr. Kapoor, viz.. No. 340, as amended by amendments Nos. 81 and 82 moved by my friends Mr. Munshi and Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar. I do not think that I am called upon to say anything with regard to amendments Nos. 334, 336 and 337. Such observations, therefore, as I shall make in the course of my speech will be confined to the question of residence about which there has been so much debate and the use of the word “backward” in clause (3) of article 10. My friend Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari, has twitted the Drafting Committee that the *CAD, Vol. VII, 30th November 1948, pp. 699-702. 389DRAFT CONSTITUTION

Drafting Committee, prohably in the interests of some members of that Committee, instead of producing a Constitution, have produced a paradise for lawyers. I am not prepared to say that this Constitution will not give rise to questions which will involve legal interpretation or judicial interpretation. In fact, I would like to ask Mr. Krishnamachari if he can point out to me any instance of any Constitution in the world which has not been a paradise for lawyers. I would particularly ask him to refer to the vast storehouse of law reports with regard to the Constitution of the United States, Canada and other countries. I am therefore not ashamed at all if this Constitution hereafter for purposes of interpretation is required to be taken to the Federal Court. That is the fate of every Constitution and every Drafting Committee. I shall therefore not labour that point at all. Now, with regard to the question of residence. The matter is really very simple and I cannot understand why so intelligent a person as my friend Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari should have failed to understand the basic purpose of that amendment. Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: For the same reason as my Honourable friend had for omitting to put that word originally in the article. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I did not quite follow. I shall explain the purpose of this amendment. (It is the feeling of many persons in this House that, since we have established a common citizenship throughout India, irrespective of the local jurisdiction of the provinces and the Indian States, it is only a concomitant thing that residence should not be required for holding a particular post in a particular State because, in so far as you make residence a qualification, you are really subtracting from the value of a common citizenship which we have established by this Constitution or which we propose to establish by this Constitution. Therefore in my judgment, the argument that residence should not be a qualification to hold appointments under the State is a perfectly valid and a perfectly sound argument.) At the same time, it must be realised that you cannot allow people who are flying from one province to another, from one State to another as mere birds of passage without any roots, without any connection with that particular province, just to come, apply for posts and, so to say, take the plums and walk away. Therefore, some limitation is necessary. It was found, when this matter was investigated, that already today in 390 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

very many provinces rules have been framed by the provincial governments prescribing a certain period of residence as a qualification for a post in that particular province. Therefore the proposal in the amendment that, although as a general rule residence should not be a qualification, yet some exception might be made, is not quite out of the ordinary. We are merely following the practice which has been already established in the various provinces. However, what we found was that while different provinces were laying down a certain period as a qualifying period for posts, the periods varied considerably. Some provinces said that a person must be actually domiciled. What that means, one does not know. Others have fixed ten years, some seven years and so on. It was therefore felt that, while it might be desirable to fix a period as a qualifying test, that qualifying test should be uniform throughout India. Consequently, if that object is to be achieved, viz., that the qualifying residential period should be uniform, that object can be achieved only by giving the power to Parliament and not giving it to the local units, whether provinces or States. That is the underlying purpose of this amendment putting down residence as a qualification. With regard to the point raised by my friend, Mr. Kamath, I do not propose to deal with it because it has already been dealt with by Mr. Munshi and also by another friend. They told him why the language as it now stands in the amendment is perfectly in accord with the other provisions of this Constitution. Now, Sir, to come to the other question which has been agitating the members of this House, viz., the use of the word “backward” in clause (3) of article 10. I should like to begin by making some general observations so that members might be in a position to understand the exact import, the significance and the necessity for using the word “backward” in this particular clause. If members were to try and exchange their views on this subject, they will find that there are three points of view which it is necessary for us to reconcile if we are to produce a workable proposition which will be accepted by all. Of the three points of view, the first is that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens. It is the desire of many Members of this House that every individual who is qualified for a particular post should be free to apply for that post, to sit for examinations and to have his qualifications tested so as to determine whether he is fit for the post 391DRAFT CONSTITUTION

or not and that there ought to be no limitations, there ought to be no hindrance in the operation of this principle of equality of opportunity. Another view mostly shared by a section of the House is that, if this principle is to be operative—and it ought to be operative in their judgment to its fullest extent—there ought to he no reservations of any sort for any class or community at all, that all citizens, if they are qualified, should be placed on the same footing of equality so far as the public services are concerned. That is the second point of view we have. Then we have quite a massive opinion which insists that, although theoretically it is good to have the principle that there shall be equality of opportunity, there must at the same time be a provision made for the entry of certain communities which have so far been outside the administration. As I said, the Drafting Committee had to produce a formula which would reconcile these three points of view, firstly, that there shall be equality of opportunity, secondly that there shall be reservations in favour of certain communities which have not so far had a ‘proper look-in’ so to say into the administration. If Honourable members will bear these facts in mind—the three principles, we had to reconcile,—they will see that no better formula could be produced than the one that is embodied in sub-clause (3) of article 10 of the Constitution ; they will find that the view of those who believe and hold that there shall be equality of opportunity, has been embodied in sub-clause (1) of Article 10. It is a generic principle. At the same time, as I said, we had to reconcile this formula with the demand made by certain communities that the administration which has now—for historical reasons—been controlled by one community or a few communities, that situation should disappear and that the others also must have an opportunity of getting into the public services. Supposing, for instance, we were to concede in full the demand of those communities who have not been so far employed in the public services to the fullest extent, what would really happen is, we shall be completely destroying the first proposition upon which we are all agreed, namely, that there shall be an equality of opportunity. Let me give an illustration. Supposing, for instance, reservations were made for a community or a collection of communities, the total of which came to something like 70 per cent of the total posts under the State and only 30 per cent are retained as the unreserved. Could anybody say that the reservation of 392 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES