Vol. 13 · pages 461–465

With regard to the amenities which perhaps some of them enjoy, it is certtainly within the power of the executive and the legislature to withdraw them. It is quite true, as my Honourable Friend Mr. Chaudhari said, that in some cases summons are sent by the magistrate. In other cases when the man concerned occupies a bigger position in life, instead of sending summons, he sends a letter. Some persons, when appearing in courts, are made to stand while some other persons are offered a chair. All these are matters of dignity which are entirely within the purview of the legislature and the government. If there was any anomaly or discrepancy or disparity shown between a citizen and a citizen, it is certainly open both to the legislature and the executive to remove those anomalies. I therefore think that the amendment is quite unnecessary. [The motion of Prof, Shah was negatived.] ***** ARTICLE 23 (Contd.) *Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee): We shall now resume discussion of article 23 to which two amendments have been moved. Amendment No. 677 relates to national language and script and is therefore postponed. Amendments Nos. 678,679, 680 and 681 (1st part) are to be considered together as they are of similar import. I can allow No. 678 to be moved. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : Sir, I move— “That in clause (1) of article 23, for the words “script and culture” the words “script or culture” be substituted.” The only change is from and ‘to’ ‘or’ and the necessity of the change is so obvious that I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything regarding the same. ***** †Mr. Vice-President : Amendment No. 679. Shri H. V. Kamath (C.P. & Berar: General): I have been forestalled by Dr. Ambedkar. So, I do not move No. 679. Mr. Vice-President : Do you wish to press No. 680 ? Mohamed Ismail Sahib (Madras : Muslim) : Yes. Mr. Vice-President : Do you wish that 681 first part should be put to vote ? Prof. K. T. Shah (Bihar : General) : First part is covered by Dr. Ambedkar’s amendmednt. But I would like to move the second part. *CAD. Vol. VII, 8th December 1948. p. 895. † Ibid., p. 895. 428 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

***** *Shri Jaipal Singh (Bihar : General) : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I have great pleasure in welcoming this article, more so as it has been suitably amended by Dr. Ambedkar, and I hope his amendment will be accepted by the House. Sir, to me this article seems to open a new era for India.... ***** †Mr. Vice-President : Dr. Ambedkar. Prof. Shibhan Lal Saksena (United Provinces : General) : Sir. I have to say something, and Mr. Vice-President : I cannot allow the discussion to be prolonged any longer, and my decision is final in this matter. Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: To allow some people and not to allow others is not proper. Mr. Vice-President : I know it is considered improper. Dr. Ambedkar. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, of the amendments which have been moved to article 23, I can accept amendment No. 26 to amendment No. 687 by Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava. I am also prepared to accept amendment No. 31 to amendment No. 690, also moved by Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava. Of the other amendments which have been moved I think there are only two that I need reply to, they are, No. 676 by Mr. Lari and amendment No. 714 also by Mr. Lari. I think it would be desirable, if in the course of my reply I separate the questions which have arisen out of these two amendments. Amendment No. 676 deals with cultural rights of the minorities, while the other amendment. No. 714, raises the question whether a minority should not have the Fundamental Right embodied in the Constitution for receiving education in the primary stage in the mother tongue. With regard to the first question, my Friend, Mr. Lari, as well as my Friend, Maulana Hasrat Mohani, both of them, charged the Drafting Committee for having altered the original proposition contained in the Fundamental Right as was passed by this House. It is quite true that the language of paragraph 18 of the Fundamental Rights Committee has been altered by the Drafting Committee, but I have no hesitation *CAD. Vol. VII, 8th December 1948, p. 907. † Ibid. pp. 922-25. 429DRAFT CONSTITUTION

in saying that the Drafting Committee in altering the language had sufficient justification. The first point that I would like to submit to the House as to why the Drafting Committee thought it necessary to alter the language of paragraph 18 of the Fundamental Rights is this. On reading the paragraph contained in the original Fundamental Rights, it will be noticed that the term “minority” was used therein not in the technical sense of the word “minority” as we have been accustomed to use it for the purposes of certain political safeguards such as representation in the Legislature, representation in the services and so on. The word is used not merely to indicate the minority in the technical sense of the word, it is also used to cover minorities which are not minorities in the technical sense, but which are nonetheless minorities in the cultural and linguistic sense. For instance, for the purposes of this article 23, if a certain number of people from Madras came and settled in Bombay for certain purposes, they would be, although not a minority in the technical sense, cultural minorities. Similarly, if a certain number of Maharashtrians went from Maharashtra and settled in Bengal, although they may not be minorities in the technical sense, they would be cultural and linguistic minorities in Bengal. The article intends to give protection in the matter of culture, language and script not only to a minority technically, but also to a minority in the wider sense of the terms as I have explained just now. That is the reason why we dropped the word “minority” because we felt that the word might be interpreted in the narrow sense of the term, when the intention of this House, when it passed article 18, was to use the word “minority” in a much wider sense, so as to give cultural protection to those who were technically not minorities but minorities nonetheless. It was felt that this protection was necessary for the simple reason that people who go from one province to another and settle there, do not settle there permanently. They do not uproot themselves from the province from which they have migrated, but they keep their connections. They go back to their province for the purpose of marriage. They go back to their province for various other purposes, and if this protection was not given to them when they were subject to the local Legislature and the local Legislature were to deny them the opportunity of conserving their culture, it would be very difficult for these cultural minorities to 430 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

go back to their province and to get themselves assimilated to the original population to which they belonged. In order to meet the situation of migration from one province to another, we felt it was desirable that such a provision should be incorporated in the Constitution. I think another thing which has to be borne in mind in reading article 23 is that it does not impose any obligation or burden upon the State. It does not say that, when for instance the Madras people come to Bombay, the Bombay Government shall be required by law to finance any project of giving education either in Tamil language or in Andhra language or any other language. There is no burden cast upon the State. The only limitation that is imposed by article 23 is that if there is a cultural minority which wants to preserve its language, its script and its culture, the State shall not by law impose upon it any other culture which may be either local or otherwise. Therefore this article really is to be read in a much wider sense and does not apply only to what I call the technical minorities as we use it in our Constitution. That is the reason why we eliminated the word “minority” from the original clause. But while omitting this word “minority” I think my Friend, Mr. Lari forgot to see that we have very greatly improved upon the protection such as was given in the original article as it stood in the Fundamental Rights. The original article as it stood in the Fundamental Rights only cast a sort of duty upon the State that the State shall protect their culture, their script and their language. The original article had not given any Fundamental Right to these various communities. It only imposed the duty and added a clause that while the State may have the right to impose limitations upon these rights of language, culture and script, the State shall not make any law which may be called oppressive, not that the State had no right-to make a law affecting these matters, but that the law shall not be oppressive. Now, I am sure about it that the protection granted in the original article was very insecure. It depended upon the goodwill of the State. The present situation as you find it stated in article 23 is that we have converted that into a Fundamental Right, so that if a State made any law which was inconsistent with the provisions of this article, then that much of the law would be invalid by virtue of article 8 which we have already passed. 431DRAFT CONSTITUTION

My Friend, Mr. Lari and the Maulana will therefore see that there has been from their point of view a greater improvement than what was found in the original article. Certainly there has been no deterioration in the position at all as a result of the change made by the Drafting Committee. Coming to the other question, namely, whether this Constitution should not embody expressly in so many terms, that I he right to receive education in the mother tongue is a Fundamental Right: Let me say one thing and that is that I do not think that there can be any dispute between reasonably-minded people that if primary education is to be of any service and is to be a reality it will have to be given in the mother tongue of the child. Otherwise primary education would be valueless and meaningless. There is no dispute, I am sure, about it and in saying that I do not think it necessary for me to obtain the authority of the Government to which I belong. It is such a universally accepted proposition and it is so reasonable that there cannot be any dispute on the principle of it at all. The question is whether we should incorporate it in the law or in the Constitution. I must frankly say that I find some difficulty in putting this matter into a specific article of the Constitution. It is true, as my Honourable Friend Pandit Kunzru observed, that the difficulty that might be felt in administering such a Fundamental Right is to some extent mitigated or obviated by the amendment moved by my Friend Mr. Karimuddin viz., that such a principle should become operative in the case a substantial number of such students were available. I would like to draw the attention of my friend Mr. Karimuddin that his amendment does not really solve the difficulty, which stands in the way of his accepting the principle. First, who is to determine what is a substantial number ? Let me give an illustration. Supposing the matter is to be left to the Executive, as it must be, and the Executive made a regulation that unless there were 49 per cent of such children seeking education in a primary school, then and then only it will be regarded as a substantial number. Will that satisfy him if such an authority was left with the Executive ? Then supposing you make this matter a justiciable matter, is it undoubtedly would be when you are introducing it as a Fundamental Right and no Fundamental Right is fundamental unless it is justiciable, is it proper, is it desirable that the question whether in any particular school a 432 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES