Vol. 13 · pages 436–440

will be in a position to feel that the article with the amendments introduced therein has emerged in a form which is generally satisfactory. My explanation as to the importance of article 8, my amendment to the phrase “existing laws” and the introduction of the word “reasonable” remove, in my judgement, the faults which were pointed out by Honourable members when they spoke on this article, and I think the speeches made by my friends, Professor Shibban Lal Saksena and Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari and Mr. Algu Rai Shastri, will convince the House that the article as it now stands with the amendments should find no difficulty in being accepted and therefore I do not want to add anything to what my friends have said in support of this article. In fact I find considerable difficulty to improve upon the arguments used in their speeches in support of this article. I will therefore take up the other points. Most of them have also been dealt with by my friend, Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar and if, Sir, you had not called upon me, I would have said that his speech may be taken as my speech, because he has dealt with all the points which I have noted down. Now, the only point which I had noted down to which I had thought of making some reference in the course of my reply was the point made by my friend, Professor K. T. Shah, that the Fundamental Rights do not speak of the freedom of the press. The reply given by my friend, Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, in my judgment is a complete reply. The press is merely another way of stating an individual or a citizen. The press has no special rights which are not to be given or which are not to be exercised by the citizen in his individual capacity. The editor of a press or the manager are all citizens and therefore when they choose to write in newspapers, they are merely exercising their right of expression, and in my judgment therefore no special mention is necessary of the freedom of the press at all. Now, with regard to the question of bearing arms about which my friend Mr. Kamath was so terribly excited, I think the position that we have taken is very clear. It is quite true and everyone knows that the Congress Party had been agitating that there should be right to bear arms. Nobody can deny that. That is history. At the same time I think the House should not forget the fact that the circumstances when such resolutions were passed by the Congress no longer exist. 403DRAFT CONSTITUTION

Shri H. V. Kamath : A very handy argument. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It is because the British Government had refused to allow Indians to bear arms, not on the ground of peace and order, but on the ground that a subject people should not have the right to bear arms against an alien government so that they could organise themselves to overthrow the Government, and consequently the basic considerations on which these resolutions were passed in my judgment have vanished. Under the present circumstances, I personally myself cannot conceive how it would be possible for the State to carry on its administration if every individual had the right to go into the market and purchase all sorts of instruments of attack without any let or hindrance from the State. Shri H. V. Kamath : On a point of clarification, Sir, the proviso is there restricting that right. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : The proviso does what ? What does the proviso say ? What the proviso can do is to regulate, and the term ‘regulation’ has been judicially interpreted as prescribing the conditions, but the conditions can never be such as to completely abrogate the right of the citizen to bear arms. Therefore regulation by itself will not prevent a citizen who wants to exercise the right to bear arms from having them. I question very much the policy of giving all citizens indiscriminately any such fundamental right. For instance, if Mr. Kamath’s proposition was accepted, that every citizen should have the fundamental right to bear arms, it would be open for thousands and thousands of citizens who are today described as criminal tribes to bear arms. It would be open to all sorts of people who are habitual criminals to claim the right to possess arms. You cannot say that under the proviso a man shall not be entitled to bear arms because he belongs to a particular class. Shri H. V. Kamath : If Dr. Ambedkar understands the proviso fully and clearly, he will sec that such will not be the effect of my amendment. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I cannot yield now. I have not got much time left. I am explaining the position that has been taken by the Drafting Committee. The point is that it is not possible to allow this indiscriminate right. On the other hand my submission is that so far as bearing of arms is concerned, what we ought to insist upon is not the right of an individual to bear arms but his duty to bear arms. 404 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

(An Honourable Member: Hear, hear. ) In fact, what we ought to secure is that when an emergency arises, when there is a war, when there is insurrection, when the stability and security of the State is endangered, the State shall be entitled to call upon every citizen to bear arms in defence of the State. That is the proposition that we ought to initiate and that position we have completely safeguarded by the proviso to article 17. Shri H. V. Kamath : (rose to interrupt). Mr. Vice-President: You do not interrupt, Mr. Kamath. You cannot say that I have not given you sufficient latitude. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Coming to the question of saving personal law, I think this matter was very completely and very sufficiently discussed and debated at the time when we discussed one of the Directive Principles of this Constitution which enjoins the State to seek or to strive to bring about a uniform civil code and I do not think it is necessary to make any further reference to it, but I should like to say this that, if such a saving clause was introduced into the Constitution, it would disable the legislatures in India from enacting any social measure whatsoever. The religious conceptions in this country are so vast that they cover every aspect of life, from birth to death. There is nothing which is not religion and if personal law is to be saved, I am sure about it that in social matters we will come to a standstill. I do not think it is possible to accept a position of that sort. There is nothing extraordinary in saying that we ought to strive hereafter to limit the definition of religion in such a manner that we shall not extend beyond beliefs and such rituals as may be connected with ceremonials which are essentially religious. It is not necessary that the sort of laws, for instance, laws relating to tenancy or laws relating to succession, should be governed by religion. In Europe there is Christianity, but Christianity does not mean that the Christians all over the world or in any part of Europe where they live, shall have a uniform system of law of inheritance. No such tiling exists. I personally do not understand why religion should be given this vast, expansive jurisdiction so as to cover the whole of life and to prevent the legislature from encroaching upon that field. After all, what are we having this liberty for ? We are having this liberty in order to reform our social system, which is so full of inequities, so full of inequalities, discrimi405DRAFT CONSTITUTION

nations and other things, which conflict with our fundamental rights. It is, therefore, quite impossible for anybody to conceive that the personal law shall be excluded from the jurisdiction of the State. Having said that I should also like to point out that all that the State is claiming in his matter is a power to legislate. There is no obligation upon the State to do away with personal laws. It is only giving a power. Therefore, no one need be apprehensive of the fact that if the State has the power, the State will immediately proceed to execute or enforce that power in a manner that may be found to be objectionable by the Muslims or by the Christians or by any other Community in India. We must all remember—including Members of the Muslim community who have spoken on this subject, though one can appreciate their feelings very well—that sovereignty is always limited, no matter even if you assert that it is unlimited, because sovereignly in the exercise of that power must reconcile itself to the sentiments of different communities. No Government can exercise its power in such a manner as to provoke the Muslim community to rise in rebellion. I think it would be a mad Government if it did so. But that is a matter which relates to the exercise of the power and not to the power itself. Now, Sir, my friend, Mr. Jaipal Singh asked me certain questions about the Adibasis. I thought that that was a question which could have been very properly raised when we were discussing the Fifth and the Sixth Schedules, but as he has raised them and as he has asked me particularly to give him some explanation of the difficulties that he had found, I am dealing with the matter at this stage. The House will realize what is the position we have laid down in the Draft Constitution with regard to the Adibasis. We have two categories of areas,— scheduled areas and tribal areas. The tribal areas are areas which relate only to the province of Assam, while the scheduled areas are areas which are scattered in provinces other than Assam. They are really a different name for what we used in the Government of India Act as ‘partially excluded areas’. There is nothing beyond that. Now the scheduled tribes live in both, that is, in the scheduled areas as well as in the tribal areas and the difference between the position of the scheduled tribes in scheduled areas and scheduled tribes in tribal areas is this : In the case of the scheduled tribes in the scheduled areas, they are governed by the provisions contained in paragraph V of the Fifth 406 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Schedule. According to that Schedule, the ordinary law passed by Parliament or by the local legislature applies automatically unless the Governor declares that that law or part of that law shall not apply. In the case of the scheduled tribes in tribal areas, the position is a little different. There the law made by Parliament or the law made by the local legislature of Assam shall not apply unless the Governor extends that law to the tribal area. In the one case it applies unless excluded and in the other case, it does not apply unless extended. That is the position. Now, coming to the question of the scheduled tribes and as to why I substituted the word “scheduled” for the word “aboriginal”, the explanation is this. As I said, the word “scheduled tribe” has a fixed meaning, because it enumerates the tribes, as you will see in the two Schedules. Well, the word “Adibasi” is really a general term which has no specific legal de jure connotation, something like the Untouchables, it is a general term. Anybody may include anybody in the term ‘untouchable’. It has no definite legal connotation. That is why in the Government of India Act of 1935, it was felt necessary to give the word ‘untouchable’ some legal connotation and the only way it was found feasible to do it was to enumerate the communities which in different parts and in different areas were regarded by the local people as satisfying the test of untouchability. The same question may arise with regard to Adibasis. Who are the Adibasis ? And the question will be relevant, because by this Constitution, we are conferring certain privileges, certain rights on these Adibasis. In order that, if the matter was taken to a court of law, there should be a precise definition as to who are these Adibasis, it was decided to invent, so to say, another category or another term to be called ‘Scheduled tribes’ and to enumerate the Adibasis under that head. Now I think my friend, Mr. Jaipal Singh, if he were to take the several communities which are now generally described as Adibasis and compare the communities which are listed under the head of scheduled tribes, he will find that there is hardly a case where a community which is generally recognised as Adibasis is not included in the Schedule. I think, here and there, a mistake might have occurred and a community which is not an Adibasi community may have been included. It may be that a community which is really an Adibasi community has not been included, but if there is 407DRAFT CONSTITUTION