Vol. 13 · pages 511–515

theology there is anything concrete, it is “Brahma”, “Vishnu”, “Mahesh”, “Siva”, “Sakti”. There are things which are accepted by Hindus as forces which govern the world. It seems to me, that it would have been very difficult for the Drafting Committee to have proceeded upon this basis and to have introduced phraseology which would have required several underlinings—God, below that Siva, below that Vishnu, below that Brahma, below that Sakti and so on and so on. It is because of this embarrassment that we left the situation blank, as you will find in the Drafting Committee. Shri A. V. Thakkar [United State of Kathiawar (Saurashtra) ] : But there is one above all. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I am, however, quite happy that this amendment has been introduced. Now, some Members have raised objections to the amendment. They are afraid that the introduction of the word God in the Constitution is going to alter the nature of what has been proclaimed to be a secular State. In my judgment, the introduction of the word God does not raise that question at all. The reason why the word God is introduced is a very simple one. The Constitution lays down certain obligations upon the President. Those obligations are obviously divisible into two categories, obligations for which there is legal sanction and legal punishment provided, and there are obligations for which there are no legal rules provided, nor any punishment is provided. Consequently, in every constitution this question always arises. What is to be the sanction of such duties, such obligations, as have been imposed upon a particular functionary for which it is not possible by law to provide a criminal sanction, a penalty ? It is obvious that unless and until we decide or we believe that these moral duties for which there is no criminal or legal sanction are not mere pious platitudes, we must provide some kind of sanction. To some people God is a sanction. They think if they take a vow in the name of God, God being the governing force of the Universe, as well as of their individual lives, that oath in the name of God provides the sanction which is necessary for the fulfilment of obligations which are purely moral and for which there is no sanction provided. There are people who believe that their conscience is enough of a sanction. They do not need God, an external force, as a sentinel or 478 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

a watchman to act by their side. They think a solemn affirmation coming out of their conscience is quite enough of a sanction. If honourable Members have read the history of this matter which is embodied in the struggle between Mr. Bradlaugh and the House of Commons, they will realize that as early as 1880 or so, Mr. Bradlaugh insisted that he was a perfectly moral being, that his conscience was quite active, and that if he took the oath his conscience was enough of a sanction for him to keep him within the traces, so to say. After a long long struggle in the House of Commons, in which on one occasion Mr. Bradlaugh was almost beaten to death by the Sergeant-at-Arms for trying to sit in the House of Commons and taking part in its proceedings without taking the oath to which he raised objection. Mr. Gladstone ultimately had to yield and to provide an additional or alternative form which is called solemn affirmation. Therefore the issue that is involved in this amendment has nothing to do with the character of the State. Whether it is a secular or a religious State is a matter quite outside the bounds of the issue raised. The only question raised is whether we ought not to provide some kind of a sanction for the moral obligation we impose on the President. If the President thinks that God is a mentor and that unless he takes an oath in the name of God he will not be true to the duties he assumes, I think we ought to give him the liberty to swear in the name of God. If there is another person with whom God is not his mentor, we ought to give him the liberty to affirm and carry on the duties on the basis of that affirmation. I therefore submit that the amendment is a good one and I am prepared to accept it. Mr. Vice-President : You have nothing to say on the amendments moved by Mr. Karimuddin and Prof. Shah’? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : No, Sir. [Amendment moved by T. T. Krishnamachari as mentioned before was adopted.] ***** Mr. Vice-President : The next amendment to be put to the vote is No. 1146. But this is identical with Mr. Mahavir Tyagi’s amendment and if Mr. Kamath agrees I shall put this one to the vote. Shri H. V. Kamath : I have no objection to Mr. Tyagi’s amendment, as there is a mere verbal difference between his and mine. 479DRAFT CONSTITUTION

Mr. Vice-President : Then I shall put Mr. Tyagi’s amendment, which is an amendment to amendment No. 1146, to vote. Shri H. V. Kamath : No, Sir. My amendment as amended by Mr. Tyagi should be put to the vote. Mr. Vice-President : Yes, yes ; that is understood, I did not know that you were such a stickler for forms ; You break so many forms systematically ! The question is : “That in article 49 for the words ‘do solemnly affirm (or swear)’, the following be substituted :— swear in t he name of God'do '."solemnly affirm The amendment was adopted. Article 49, as amended, was adopted and added to the Constitution. ***** *Mr. Vice-President: Amendment Nos. 1166, 1167, 1168 and 1169 are of similar import. Amendment No. 1167 may be moved. It stands in the name of Dr. Ambedkar. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : Sir, I move : “That in sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of article 50, for the words ‘supported by’ the words ‘passed by a majority of’ be substituted.” Mr. Vice-President : Amendment No. 1166 standing in the names of Mr. Mohd. Tahir and Saiyid Jafar Imam. Mr. Mohd. Tahir : I want to discuss it. My amendment is quite different from Dr. Ambedkar’s. They are not the same. Mr. Vice-President : It can be put to the vote. You can take part in the general discussion and make your point then. That will be much better, I think. ***** †Mr. Vice-President : ...Amendment No. 1177 may be moved. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I beg to move : “That in clause (4) of article 50. for the words ‘passed, supported by’ the words ‘passed by a majority of’ be substituted.” ***** ‡The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, of the many amendments winch have been moved to this article, I can accept only two. One is No. 1158 moved by my Friend, Mr. Gupte *CAD, Vol. VII, 28th December 1948. p. 1065. †Ibid p. 1067. ‡Ibid., pp. 1070-82. 480 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

providing of fourteen days’ notice for the discussion of a motion to impeach the President. The second amendment which I am prepared to accept is amendment No. 1160 moved by my Friend Mr. Deo, as amended by Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari. I think the original provision in the Draft Constitution did not lay down sufficient number of members as a condition precedent for the initiation of the motion. I think the change provided by the amendment is for the better and I am therefore prepared to accept it. Now, Sir, I come to the other amendments which I am sorry to say I have not been able to accept but which I think call for a reply. The amendments which call for a reply are the amendments moved by Prof. K.T. Shah Nos. 1151, 1171, 1173, 1176 and 1186. Sir, the amendments which have been moved by Prof. K. T. Shah refer to two questions. The first is the scheme of impeachment which has been laid down in the Draft Constitution and the second relates to the right of the President to appear and defend through a lawyer before the House which is investigating the charge against the President. So far as the second amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah is concerned, I do not see that there is any necessity for any such amendment at all; because Prof. Shah referred to the article—I think it is sub-clause (4) or (3),—it makes ample provision for permitting the President not only to appear before the investigating House, but also to be represented by any other person, namely, a lawyer. All that Prof. K. T. Shah has done is to separate this particular part of that clause and to put it as sub-clause (3) (a) in order to make it an independent proposition by itself. I do not think that there is any such necessity for the device that he has adopted. Now, I come to the first part, namely, the drawbacks which he has shown in the scheme of impeachment provided in the Draft Constitution. Before I proceed to reply to his points, I think it is desirable that the House should have before it a clear picture of the provisions of the scheme embodied in the Draft Constitution. Any one who analyses this article will find that it embodies four, different propositions. Firstly, the motion for impeachment may be initiated in either House, either in the Council of States or in the House of the People. Secondly, such motion must have the support of a required number of members. Thirdly, the House which has passed the motion for investigation shall not be entitled to investigate the charge. And 481DRAFT CONSTITUTION

fourthly, that the House which has investigated the charge, if it finds the President guilty must do so by a majority of two-thirds. These are the four propositions which have been embodied in this particular article. Now Prof. Shah’s proposition is that the Upper House should have nothing to do with the impeachment of the President and that the jurisdiction to impeach the President, to investigate and to come to its own conclusions must be solely vested in the House of the People. I have not been able to understand the reasons why Prof. K. T. Shah thinks that the Lower House is in a special way entitled to have this jurisdiction vested in it. After all the trial of the President or his impeachment is intended to see that the dignity, honour and the rectitude of the office is maintained by the person who is holding that particular office. Obviously, the honour, the dignity and the rectitude of that office is not merely a matter of concern to the Lower House, it is equally a matter of concern for the Upper House as well. I do not, therefore, understand why the Upper Chamber which, as I said, is equally interested in seeing that the President conducts himself in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution should be ousted from investigating or entertaining a charge of any breach of conduct on the part of the President in his integrity and it is equally concerned as the House of the People. Prof. K. T. Shah felt so sure about the correctness of his proposition that he said in the course of his argument that only those who have been slavishly copying the other constitutions would have the courage to oppose his amendments. I do not mind the dig which he has had at the Drafting Committee. As I said in my opening address, the Drafting Committee in the interests of this country has not been afraid of borrowing from other constitutions wherever they have felt that the other constitutions have contained some better provisions than we could ourselves devise. But I thought Prof. K. T. Shah forgot that if there was any person, so far as I am able to see, who has practised slavish imitation of the Constitution of the United States, I cannot point to any other individual except Prof. Shah. ( Laughter). I thought his whole scheme which was just a substitute for the scheme of Government embodied in the Draft Constitution was bodily borrowed with commas and semi-colons from the United States Constitution, and when he was defeated on his main proposition, his worship of the United States Constitution has been so profound, so 482 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES