Vol. 13 · pages 456–460

would contain children of the Hindus believing in the Hindu religion, there will be pupils belonging to the Christian community, Zoroastrian community, or to the Jewish community. It one went further, and I think it would be desirable to go further than this, the Hindus again would be divided into several varieties ; there would be Sanatani Hindus, Vedic Hindus believing in the Vedic religion, there would be the Buddhists, there would be the Jains—even amongst Hindus there would be the Shivites, there would be the Vaishnavites. Is the educational institution to be required to treat all these children on a footing of equality and to provide religious instruction in all the denominations ? It seems to me that to assign such a task to the State would be to ask it to do the impossible. The third tiling which I would like to mention in this connection is that unfortunately the religions which prevail in this country are not merely non-social ; so far as their mutual relations are concerned they are anti-social, one religion claiming that its teachings constitute the only right path for salvation, that all other religions are wrong. The Muslims believe that anyone who does not believe in the dogma of Islam is a *Kafir not entitled to brotherly treatment with the Muslims. The Christians have a similar belief. In view of this, it seems to me that we should be considerably disturbing the peaceful atmosphere of an institution if these controversies with regard to the truthful character or” any particular religion and the erroneous character of the other were brought into juxtaposition in the school itself. I therefore say that in laying down in article 22 (1) that in State institutions there shall be no religious instruction, we have in my judgment travelled the path of complete safety. Now, with regard to the second clause I think it has not been sufficiently well-understood. We have tried to reconcile the claim of a community which has started educational institutions for the advancement of its own children either in education or in cultural matters, to permit to give religious instruction in such institutions, notwithstanding the fact that it receives certain aid from the State. The State, of course, is free to give aid, is free not to give aid ; the only limitation we have placed is this, that the State shall not debar the institution from claiming aid under its grant-in-aid code merely on the ground that it is run and maintained by a community and not maintained by a public body. We * Misprinted in the original as ‘Fakir’. 423DRAFT CONSTITUTION

have there provided also a further qualification, that while it is free to give religious instruction in the institution and the grant made by the State shall not be a bar to the giving of such instruction, it shall not give instruction to, or make it compulsory upon, the children belonging to other communities unless and until they obtain the consent of the parents of those children. That, I think, is a salutary provision. It performs two functions . . . . . . . Shri H. V. Kamath : On a point of clarification, what about institutions and schools run by a community or a minority for its own pupils—not a school where all communities are mixed but a school run by the community for its own pupils ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : If my Friend Mr. Kamath will read the other article he will see that once an institution, whether maintained by the community or not. gets a grant, the condition is that it shall keep the school open to all communities. That provision he has not read. Therefore, by sub-clause (2) we are really achieving two purposes. One is that we are permitting a community which has established its institutions for the advancement of its religious or its cultural life, to give such instruction in the school. We have also provided that children of other communities who attend that school shall not be compelled to attend such religious instructions which undoubtedly and obviously must be the instruction in the religion of that particular community, unless the parents consent to it. As I say, we have achieved this double purpose and those who want religious instruction to be given are free to establish their institutions and claim aid from the State, give religious instruction, but shall not be in a position to force that religious instruction on other communities. It is therefore not proper to say that by this article we have altogether barred religious instruction. Religious instruction has been left free to be taught and given by each community according to its aims and objects subject to certain conditions. All that is baaed is this, that the Stale in the institutions maintained by it wholly out of public funds, shall not be free to give religious instruction. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : May I put the Honourable Member one question 7 There is, for instance, an educational institution wholly managed by the Government, like the Sanskrit College, Calcutta. There the Vedas are taught, Smrithis are taught, the Gita is taught, the 424 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Upanishads are taught. Similarly in several parts of Bengal there are Sanskrit Institutions where instructions in these subjects are given. You provide in article 22 (1) that no religious instruction can be given by an institution wholly maintained out of State funds. These are absolutely maintained by State funds. My point is, would it be interpreted that the teaching of Vedas, or Smrithis, or Shastras, or Upanishads conies within the meaning of a religious instruction ? In that case all these institutions will have to be closed down. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Well, I do not know exactly the character of the institutions to which my Friend Mr. Maitra has made reference and it is therefore quite difficult for me. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : Take for instance the teaching of Gita, Upanishads, the Vedas and things like that in Government Sanskrit Colleges and schools. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : My own view is this, that religious instruction is to be distinguished from research or study. Those are quite different things. Religious instruction means this. For instance, so far as the Islam religion is concerned, it means that you believe in one God, that you believe that Paigambar the Prophet is the last Prophet and so on, in other words, what we call “dogma”. A dogma is quite different from study. Mr. Vice-President : May I interpose for one minute ? As Inspector of Colleges for the Calcutta University, I used to inspect the Sanskrit College, where as Pandit Maitra is aware, students have to study not only the University course but books outside it in Sanskrit literature and in fact Sanskrit sacred books, but this was never regarded as religious instruction ; it was regarded as a course in culture. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : My point is this. It is not a question of research. It is a mere instruction in religion or religious branches of study. I ask whether lecturing on Gita and Upanishads would be considered as giving religious instruction ? Expounding Upanishads is not a matter of research. Mr. Vice-President: It is a question of teaching students and I know at least one instance where there was a Muslim student in the Sanskrit College. 425DRAFT CONSTITUTION

Shri H. V. Kamath : On a point of clarification, does my friend Dr. Ambedkar contend that in schools run by a community exclusively for pupils of that community only, religious education should not be compulsory ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It is left to them. It is left to the community to make it compulsory or not. All that we do is to lay down that that community will not have the right to make it compulsory for children of communities which do not belong to the community which runs the school. Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : The way in which you have explained the word “religious instruction” should find a place in the Constitution. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I think the courts will decide when the matter comes up before them. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The Honourable Member has proposed to accept the deletion of clause (3). It is an explanatory note. I would ask if its deletion will rule out the application of the principle contained therein even apart from the deletion. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Well, the view that I take is this, that clause (3) is really unnecessary. It relates to a school maintained by a community. After school hours, the community may be free to make use of it as it likes. There ought to be no provision at all in the Constitution. Now, Sir, there is one other point to which I would like to make reference and that is the point made by Prof. K. T. Shah that the proviso permits the State to continue to give religious instruction in institutions the trusteeship of which the State has accepted. I do not think really that there is much substance in the point raised by Prof. Shah. I think he will realise that there have been cases where institutions in the early part of the history of this country have been established with the object of giving religious instruction and for some reason they were unable to have people to manage them and they were taken over by the State as a trustee for them. Now, it is obvious that when you accept a trust you must fulfil that trust in all respects. If the State has already taken over these institutions and placed itself in the position of trustee, then obviously you cannot say to the Government that notwithstanding the fact that you were giving religious instruction in these institutions, hereafter you shall not give such instruction. I think that would be not 426 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

only permitting the State but forcing it to commit a breach of trust. In order therefore to have the situation clear, we thought it was desirable and necessary to introduce the proviso, which to some extent undoubtedly is not in consonance with the original proposition contained in sub-clause (1) of article 20. I hope, Sir, the House will find that the article as it now stands is satisfactory and may be accepted. Mr. Vice-President : I am now putting the amendments to vote one after another. [In all, 12 amendments were negatived. Only one amendment of Mr. Kapoor as shown below was accepted by Dr. Ambedkar and was adopted.] The question is : “That clause (3) of article 22 be omitted.” [Article 22 as amended was adopted and added to the Constitution.] ARTICLE 22A (New Article) *Prof. K. T. Shah : Sir, I beg to move : “That after article 22, the following new article he inserted :— ‘22-A. All privileges, immunities or exemptions of heads of religious organisations shall be abolished’.” ***** †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, the amendment probably is quite laudable in its object but I do not know whether the amendment is necessary at all. In the first place all these titles and so on which religious dignitaries have cannot be hereafter conferred by the State because we have already included in the fundamental rights that no title shall be conferred and obviously no such title can be conferred by the State. Secondly, as my Honourable Friend is aware perhaps, no suit can lie merely for the enforcement of a certain title which a man chooses to give himself. If a certain man calls himself a Sankaracharya and another person refuses to call him a Sankaracharya no right of suit can lie. It has been made completely clear in Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code that no suit can lie merely for the enforcement of what you might call a dignity. Of course if the dignity carries with it some emoluments or properly of some sort, that is a different matter, but mere dignity cannot be a ground of action it all. *CAD, Vol. VII, 7th December 1948, p. 8X8. †Ibid. , p. 891. 427DRAFT CONSTITUTION