Vol. 13 · pages 451–455

Shri H. V. Kamath : May I ask whether it will be enough if Dr. Ambedkar says : “I oppose, I have nothing to say”. I should think that in fairness to the House, he should reply to the points raised in the amendments and during the debate. Mr. Vice-President : I am afraid we cannot compel Dr. Ambedkar to give reasons for rejecting the various amendments. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal : Muslim) : Mr. Vice-President, may I say that amendment No. 609 which has been accepted by the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar is a mere verbal amendment 7 Mr. Vice-President : It will be recorded in the proceedings. We shall now consider the amendments one by one. [Following amendment was accepted by Dr. Ambedkar and was adopted by the House. In all 12 amendments were negatived and one was withdrawn.] “That in clause (2) of article 19 for the word “preclude” the word “prevent” be substituted.” The amendment was adopted. ***** *Mr. Vice-President : The question is : “That in sub-claue (b) of clause (2) of article 19 for the words “any class or section “the words” all classes and sections ‘ he substituted.” Have you accepted it. Dr. Ambedkar 7 The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes, Sir. Mr. Vice-President : The amendment has been accepted by Dr. Ambedkar. The amendment was adopted. [Article 19 as amended by Amendments Nos. 596 and 609 was adopted and added to the Constitution.] ARTICLE 14 (Continued) ***** †Mr. Vice-President : We shall go back to Article 14. So far as I remember—I am sorry I have mislaid my notes—in article 14 there were a number of amendments which were put to the vote one after the other, and that only two amendments were being considered, when, for reasons already known to the House, we postponed their consideration. One was amendment No. 512 moved by Kazi Syed Karimuddin, and the other was a suggestion—am I right in saying that it was a suggestion made by Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari ? Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari, will you please enlighten me ? Was it a suggestion or was it a short notice amendment ? *CAD, Vol. VII, 6th December 1948, p. 839. † Ibid., p. 840. 418 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : It was a short notice amendment. Mr. Vice-President : It was a short notice amendment admitted by me. These two only remained to be put to the vote. ***** *Mr. Vice-President : We come to Mr. Krishnamachari’s amendment which was accepted by Dr. Ambedkar. Shri H. V. Kamath : Is it necessary to say that Dr. Ambedkar has accepted or rejected everytime ? Mr. Vice-President : Sometimes it is necessary. Not always. I now put the amendment to vote. The question is : “That in clause 2 of article 14 after the word ‘shall he’ the words ‘ prosecuted and ‘be inserted.” The amendment wass adopted. Article 14, as amended was added to the Constitution. ***** ARTICLE 15 (Contd.) †Mr. Vice President (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee): We can now resume general discussion on article 15. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : Sir, May I request you to allow this matter to stand over for a little while ? Mr. Vice-President : Is that the wish of the House ? Honourable Members : Yes. ARTICLE 20 Mr. Vice-President : Then we can go to the next article, that is article 20. The motion before the House is : “That article 20 form part of the Constitution”. I have got a series of amendments which I shall read over. Amendment No. 613 is disallowed as it has the effect of a negative vote. Nos. 614 and 616 are almost identical ; No. 614 may be moved. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That in the beginning of article 20, the words ‘Subject to public order, morality and health’ be inserted.” Sir, it was just an omission. Honourable Members will see that these words also govern article 19 ; as a matter of fact they should also have governed article 20 because it is not the purpose to give absolute rights *CAD, Vol. VII, 6th December 1948, p. 842. †Ibid., 7th December 1948. p. 859. 419DRAFT CONSTITUTION

in these matters relating to religion. The State may reserve to itself the right to regulate all these institutions and their affairs whenever public order, morality or health require it. Mr. Vice-President : I can put amendment No. 616 to the vote if it is to be pressed. Has any Member anything to say on the matter ? ***** (Amendment No. 616 was not moved.) *Mr. Tajamul Husain : “Every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right— (a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes ;” These are the exact words in the article. I want these words to remain where they are. I do not want these words to be deleted. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I have nothing to say. Mr. Vice-President : I will now put the amendments, one by one, to vote. The question is : “That in the beginning of article 20. the words “Subject to public order, morality and health”, be inserted.” The amendment was adopted. [Four other amendments were negatived.] Article 20, as amended, was added to the Constitution. NEW ARTICLE 20-A †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I do not accept amendment No. 632 or amendment No. 633. Shri H. J. Khandekar (C. P. and Berar : General) : Sir, I want to speak. Mr. Vice-President : I am afraid it is too late. I shall now put the amendments to the vote. [Both the following amendments were negatived.] (1) “That in article 21. after the word “which” the words “wholly or partly” be inserted.” (2) “That in article 21, for the words “the proceeds of which are “the words” on any income which is “be substituted.” Article 21 was added to the Constitution. ARTICLE 22 †Mr. Vice-President : Amendment No. 645 standing in the name of Dr. Ambedkar. *CAD, Vol. VII. 7th December 1948, p. 863. †Ibid., p. 866. ‡Ibid., p. 871. 420 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move: “That in clause (1) of article 22, the words “by the State” he omitted.” The object of this amendment is to remove a possibility of doubt that might arise. If the words “by the State” remain in the draft as it now stands, it might be construed that this article permits institutions other than the State to give religious instruction. The underlying principle of this article is that no institution which is maintained wholly out of State funds shall be used for the purpose of religious instruction irrespective of the question whether the religious instruction is given by the Slate or by any other body. ***** *Mr. Vice-President : Much as I would like to accommodate other members, for whose opinions I have great respect, I find we have already had a number of speakers. Twelve amendments have to be put to vote. Nine amendments have been moved and I think six speakers have already spoken. I feel this article has been discussed sufficiently. I now call on Dr. Ambedkar to speak. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (West Bengal : General) : Sir, I want to get one or two points cleared. I am not going to make a speech. I want only to get one or two points explained. Mr. Vice-President : I have already given my ruling. I cannot allow any further speeches, especially as you and I belong lo the same Province. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : Belonging to the same province has nothing lo do with this. I only wanted lo have clarification on one point. Mr. Vice-President : My decision is final, Panditji. Dr. Ambedkar. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, out of the amendments that have been moved, I can persuade myself to accept only amendment No. 661 moved by Mr. Kapoor to omit sub-clause (3) from the article, and I am sorry that I cannot accept the other amendments. It is perhaps, desirable, in view of the multiplicity of views that have been expressed on the floor of the House to explain at some length as to what this article proposes to do. Taking the various amendments that have been moved, it is clear that there are three different points of view. There is one point of view which is represented by my friend Mr. Ismail who comes from Madras. In his opinion, there ought to be *CAD. Vol. VII. 7th December 1948. pp. 882-86 421DRAFT CONSTITUTION

no bar for religious instruction being given. The only limitation which he advocates is that nobody should be compelled to attend them. If I have understood him correctly, that is the view he stands for. We have another view which is represented by my friend Mr. Man and Mr. Tajamul Husain. According to them, there ought to be no religious instruction at all, not even in institutions which are educational. Then there is the third point of view and it has been expressed by Prof. K. T. Shah, who says that not only no religious instruction should be permitted in institutions which are wholly maintained out of State funds, but no religious instruction should be permitted even in educational institutions which are partly maintained out of State funds. Now, I take the liberty of saying that the draft as it stands, strikes the mean, which I hope will be acceptable to the House. There are three reasons, in my judgment, which militate against the acceptance of the view advocated by my friend Mr. Ismail, namely that there ought to be no ban on religious instructions, rather that religious instructions should be provided ; and I shall state those reasons very briefly. The first reason is this. We have accepted the proposition which is embodied in article 21, that public funds raised by taxes shall not be utilised for the benefit of any particular community. For instance, if we permitted any particular religious instruction, say, if a school established by a District or Local Board gives religious instructions, on the ground that the majority of the students studying in that school are Hindus, the effect would be that such action would militate against the provisions contained in article 21. The District Board would be making a levy on every person residing within the area of that District Board. It would have a general tax and if religious instruction given in the District or Local Board was confined to the children of the majority community, it would be an abuse of article 21, because the Muslim community children or the children of any other community who do not care to attend these religious instructions given in the schools would be none-the-less compelled by the action of the District Local Board to contribute to the District Local Board funds. The second difficulty is much more real than the first, namely the multiplicity of religions we have in this country. For instance, take a city like Bombay which contains a heterogeneous population believing in different creeds. Suppose for instance, there was a school in the City of Bombay maintained by the Municipality. Obviously, such a school 422 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES