Vol. 13 · pages 51–55

18 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES worded by Mr. Munshi was adopted, viz., that no child below the age of 18 shall be converted it would follow that children who are orphans, who have no legal guardians, cannot have any kind of religious instruction. I am sure that this is not the result which this House would be happy to contemplate. Therefore, such a class of subjects shall have to be excepted from the operation of the amendment proposed by Mr. Munshi. Then, I come to the other class, viz., children with parents and guardians. They may fall into two categories. For the sake of clarity it might be desirable to consider their cases separately ; the first is this: where children are converted with the knowledge and consent of their guardians and parents. The second case is that of children of parents who have become converts. It does seem to me that there ought to be a prohibition upon the conversion of minor children with legal guardians, where the conversion takes place without the consent and knowledge of the legal guardians. That, I think, is a very legitimate proposition. No missionary who wants to convert a child which is under the lawful guardianship of some person, who according to the law of guardianship is entitled to regulate and control the religious faith of that particular child, ought to deprive that person or guardian of the right of having notice and having knowledge that the child is being converted to another faith. That, I think, is a simple proposition to which there can be no objection. But when we come to the other case, viz., where parents are converted and we have to consider the case of their children, then I think we come across what I might say a very hard rock. If you are going to say that, although parents may be converted because they are majors and above the age of 18, minors below the age of 18, although they are their children, are not to be converted with the parent, the question that we have to consider is, what arrangement are we going to make with regard to the children ? Suppose, a parent is converted to Christianity. Suppose a child of such a parent dies. The parent, having been brought up in the Christian faith, gives the Christian burial to the dead child. Is that act on the part of the parent in giving a Christian burial to the child, to be regarded as an offence in law ? Take another case. Suppose a parent who has become converted has a daughter. He marries that daughter according to Christian rites. What is to be the consequence of that marriage ? What is to be the effect of that marriage ? Is that marriage legal or not legal ?

19INTERIM REPORT ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS If you do not want that the children should be converted, you have to make some other kind of law with regard to guardianship in order to prevent the parents from exercising their rights to influence and shape the religious life of their children. Sir, I would like to ask whether it would be possible for this House to accept that a child of five, for instance, ought to be separated from his parents merely because the parents have adopted Christianity, or some religion which was not originally theirs. I refer to these difficulties in order to show that it is those difficulties which faced the Fundamental Rights Committee, the Minorities Committee and the Advisory Committee and which led them to reject this proposition. It was, because we realised, that the acceptance of the proposition, namely, that a person shall not be converted below the age of 18, would lead to many disruptions, to so many evil consequences, that we thought it would be better to drop the whole thing altogether ( Hear, hear). The mere fact that we have made no such reference in clause 17 of the Fundamental Rights does not in my judgment prevent the legislature when it becomes operative from making any law in order to regulate this matter. My submission, therefore, is that the reference back of this clause to a committee for further consideration is not going to produce any better result. I have no objection to the matter being further examined by persons who feel differently about it, but I do like to say that all the three Committees have given their best attention to the subject. I have therefore, come to the conclusion that having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the best way would be to drop the clause altogether. I have no objection to a provision being made that children who have legal and lawful guardians should not be converted without the knowledge and notice of the parents. That, I think, ought to suffice in the case. ***** [The clause was referred back to the Advisory Committee. —Ed.] CLAUSE 18—CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS *The Hon’ble Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel : I move clause 18 now. “(1) Minorities in every Unit shall be protected in respect of their languages, script and culture, and no laws or regulations may be enacted that may operate oppressively or prejudicially in this respect. (2) No minority whether based on religion, community or language shall be discriminated against in regard to the admission into State educational institutions, nor shall any religious instruction be compulsory on them. (3) (a) All minorities whether based on religion, community or language shall be free in any Unit to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. *CAD, Vol. III, 1st May 1947, p. 503.

20 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (b) The State shall not, while providing State aid to schools, discriminate against schools under the management of minorities whether based on religion, community or language.” I move this clause for the acceptance of the House. Shri Mohanlal Saksena (United Provinces : General) : Sir, with your permission, I would like to move that this clause be referred back to the Advisory Committee for reconsideration. There are certain aspects which require reconsideration, and, on the whole, I think it would be much better that this whole clause be referred to the Advisory Committee for their reconsideration. Mr. President : Mr. Mohanlal Saksena has moved that this clause also be referred back to the Advisory Committee for further consideration. ***** *Mr. K. M. Munshi : I move that sub-clause (2) of clause 18 be referred back to the Advisory Committee. It was the general sense of many of the members that this clause should be reconsidered in the light of discussion that took place. †Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. President, Sir, I confess that I am considerably surprised at these amendments—both by Mr. Munshi as well as Mr. Tyagi. They have, I submit, given no reason why this clause 18 should be referred back to the Committee. The only reason in support of this proposal—one can sense—is that the rights of minorities should be relative, that is to say, we must wait and see what rights the minorities are given by the Pakistan Assembly before we determine the rights we want to give to the minorities in the Hindustan area. Now, Sir, with all deference, I must deprecate any such idea. Rights of minorities should be absolute rights. They should not be subject to any consideration as to what another party may like to do to minorities within its jurisdiction. If we find that certain minorities in which we are interested and which are within the jurisdiction of another State have not got the same rights which we have given to minorities in our territory, it would be open for the State to take up the matter in a diplomatic manner and see that the wrongs are rectified. But no matter what others do, I think we ought to do what is right in our own judgement and personally I think that the rights which are indicated in clause 18 are rights which every minority, irrespective of any other consideration is entitled to claim. The first right that we have given is the right to use their language, their script and their culture. We have stated that “there shall be no discrimination on the ground of religion, language, etc.” in the matter *CAD, Vol. III. 1st May 1947, p. 504. †Ibid., pp. 507-8.

21REPORT OF THE UNION CONSTITUTION COMMITTEE of admission into State educational institutions. We have said that “no minority shall be precluded from establishing any educational institution which such minority may wish to establish”. It is also stated there that whenever a State decides to provide aid to schools or other educational institutions maintained by the minority, they shall not discriminate in the matter of giving grant on the basis of religion, community or language. Sir, I cannot understand how there can be any objection to these rights which have been indicated in clause 18. At any rate, nobody who has supported the motion that this may be referred back to the Committee has advanced any argument that either these rights are in excess of what a minority ought to have or are such that a minority ought not to have them. Therefore, it seems to me a great pity that the labours of three Committees which have evolved these provisions should be so brusquely set aside simply because for some reasons people want that this matter should be referred back to the Committee. I do not know what objection my friend Mr. Munshi has to sub-clause (2) as it stands, but if it is necessary that this sub-clause may be referred back to the Committee, I certainly would raise no objection. That sub-clause may be referred back because I understand that we have limited this matter to State educational institutions and we have said nothing about those which are only State-aided. If that point needs to be further clarified the matter may be referred back, but, because there may be something to be said in favour of the reference back of sub-clause (2) I do not see that the same logic could be extended to the whole of the clause. I submit therefore that the clause as it stands, should be passed, barring sub-clause (2) which may, if necessary, be referred back to the Committee for consideration. ***** *Mr. President : Now, there are two clauses that had been referred to a committee of five. We may now take them up one by one. The new clause 3 may now be moved. Report of the Union Constitution Committee Clause 3 Mr. K. M. Munshi : I move that the following clause be substituted for the original clause :— “Every person both in the Union and subject to its jurisdiction, every person either of whose parents was at the time of such person’s birth, a citizen of *CAD. Vol. III. 2nd May 1947, p. 526.

22 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the Union, and every person naturalised in the union shall be a citizen of the Union. Further provision regarding the acquisition and termination of Union citizenship may be made by the law of the Union.” The reasons have already been given fully in the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee. I have nothing to add to it. Sri K. Santhanam : Sir, I move that the following be added at the end of the first paragraph of this clause: “Every person born or naturalised in India before the commencement of the Union and subject to its jurisdiction shall be a citizen of the Union.” ***** *Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : Mr. President, Sir, I think there can be no doubt that the point raised by Mr. Santhanam is a point of great importance and we have to take this matter seriously. The difficulty that has arisen will be seen easily if one reads the very first sentence of the clause as drafted by the Committee. The draft says, “every person born in the Union”. Obviously that has reference to future, those who will be born in the Union after the Union is formed. The question is this. What is going to be the position of people who are born in India, but who are born before the Union has come into being ? In my judgment, in order to cover that case, we shall have to introduce another clause. I am not suggesting an amendment, I am putting forth an idea. The new clause shall have to be something like this : “All persons born in India, as defined in the General Clauses Act and who are residing in the Union and subject to the jurisdiction of the Union shall be citizens of the Union.” I think that a clause somewhat on these lines is necessary and it will cover the case of people who are born in India, who will be the subjects of the Union, when the Union comes into being. Without this clause, large numbers of people will be denationalised. They will have no nationality at all. I, therefore, suggest that it may be as well to send the whole clause back for further consideration. Mr. President : A suggestion has been made that the whole clause be held over for further consideration. Mr. R. K. Sidhwa : This is not a matter for lawyers only. This question has a bearing on every ordinary person. Mr. President : The Advisory Committee will be free to consider it, and if it so feels, it can put forward any suggestions at the next sitting. (Clause 3 was held over).