Vol. 13 · pages 556–560

Mr. Vice-President: The question is’: “That article 66 stand part of the constitution.” The motion was adopted. Article 66 was added to the constitution. ARTICLE 67 Mr. Vice-President: We next come to article 67. The motion: is : “That article 67 form part of the Constitution.” Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi (Madras : General): Mr. Vice- President, I have an humble suggestion to make in the matter of procedure when we deal with this article. You will be pleased to see that this article relates to the composition of the Houses of Parliament, the two Houses, namely, the Council of states and the House of the People. It contains nine clauses, and I would suggest that in the interest of clarity of discussion, this article may be split up into three parts : one relating to the composition of the council of states—clauses (1) to (4); clauses (5) to (7) relate to the composition of the House of the People, clauses (8) and (9) are consequential, relating to both the Houses, regarding the census and the effect on the enumeration of the census. I talked this matter over with Dr. Ambedkar and he himself said that he had marked it like that in his book, and that he proposed to make certain changes of transposition during the third reading. It may not be therefore quite possible straightway to split it at present, but I would request you to have all the amendments to the Council of States, clauses (1) to (4), taken together and discussions may be concentrated regarding them first, and the article may be kept open for amendments. After the discussion is over, you may put the whole clause together. All this I suggest in the interest of clarity so that when Honourable Members deaf with the Council of States they may confine their discussion on it and later on they may concentrate their discussion on the part of the article relating to, the House of the People. Mr. Vice-President: Have you anything to say, Dr. Ambedkar, regarding this matter, namely, the suggestion of Mr. Bharathi ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I am quite agreeable to the suggestion for the purpose of facilitating discussion. Mr. Vice-President: Then we can take up the amendments in their particular order. ***** 523DRAFT CONSTITUTION

*The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move: “That for clause (1) of article 67, the following be substituted : ‘(1) The Council of States shall consist of not more than two hundred and fifty members of whom— (a) twelve members shall be nominated by the President in the manner provided in clause (2) of this article; and (b) the remainder shall be representatives of the States.’ ” The only important tiling is that the number fifteen has been brought down to twelve. (Amendment Nos. 1371, 1373 and 1374 were not moved.) ***** † Mr. Vice-President : There are three amendments which may be considered together, amendments numbers 1371, 1373 and 1374. Of these, the first seems to be the most comprehensive and may be moved. Amendments Nos. 1371, 1373 and 1374 were not moved. Amendments Nos. 1375 and 1376. Amendment No. 1375 may be moved. Amendment No. 1376 is idential with amendment No. 1375, so I am not going to put it to vote. Amendment No. 1375, Dr. Ambedkar. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg to move: “That the proviso to clause (1) of article 67 be deleted.” With your permission, Sir, may I also move amendment No. 1378 ? It is in substitution of this proviso. Mr. Vice-President: Yes. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I beg to move: “That the following new clause be added after clause (1) of article 67 : ‘(1a) The allocation of seats to representatives of the States in the Council of States shall be in accordance with the provisions in that behalf contained in Schedule III-B.’ “ ***** ‡Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1380 standing in the name of Dr. Ambedkar. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I move : “That for clause (2) of article 67, the following be substituted : ‘(2) The members to be nominated by the President under sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of this article shall consist of persons having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of such matters as the following, namely : Letters, art, science and social services.’ ” *CAD, Vol. VII, 3rd January 1949, p. 1202. † Ibid., p. 1205. ‡ Ibid., p. 1211. 524 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

*Mr. Vice-President: Dr. Ambedkar. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, I am agreeable to amendments Nos. 1369, 1375, 1378, 1380, 1400 and 1403. With regard to the last two amendments (Nos. 1400 and 1403) those are also covered by an amendment moved by Mr. Mahboob Ali baig. It is amendment No. 1407. I would have been glad to accept that amendment but unfortunately, on examining the text of that amendment, I find that it does not fit in with the generality of the language used in clause (3) of article 67. That is the only reason why I prefer to accept amendment No. 1403, because the language fits in properly with the language of the article. With regard to the other amendments, I think there are only three which call for special consideration. One is an amendment by Mr. Kunhiraman. The aim and object ....... † Mr. Vice-President: It was not moved. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Then I do not think I need say anything about it. There remain only two—one is the amendment of Mr. Kunzru. He was very naturally considerably agitated over the proviso which stood in the Draft Constitution and which provided for the 40 per cent representation to representatives of the States. I think it is desirable that I should celar the ground and explain what exactly was the reason why this proviso was introduced and what is the present position. It is quite true that in the Government of India Act, it was provided that although the States population formed one-quarter of the total population of India as it then stood in the Lower House, the States got representation which was one-third of the total and in the council of States they got two-fifths representation which was 40 per cent. That is not one origin as to why this proviso was introduced in the Draft Constitution. I should therefore like to go back and give the history of this clause. Members of the House will remember that this House had appointed a Committee known as the Union Powers Committee. That Committee recommended a general rule of representation, both for people in British India as well as people in the Indian States and the rule was this : That there should be one seat for every million up to five millions, plus *CAD, Vol. VII, 3rd January 1949, pp. 1225-28. †Dots in the original debates indicate interruption. 525DRAFT CONSTITUTION

one seat for every additonal two millions. As I said, this was to be a rule to be applicable both to the provinces as well as the States. But when the report of the Union Powers Committee came before the Constituent Assembly for consideration, it was found that the representatives of the States had moved a large number of amendments to this part of the report of the Union Powers Committee. Great many negotiations took place between the representatives of Indian provinces and the representatives of the Indian States. Consequently, if honourable Members will refer to the debates of the Constituent Assembly for 31st July 1947, my friend and colleague, Mr. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, who moved the adoption of the report of the Union Powers Committee, moved an amendment that the States representation shall not exceed 40 per cent. Now that rule had to be adopted or introduced in the Draft Constitution. So far as I have been able to examine the proceedings, I believe that this proviso of granting the States 40 per cent representation was introduced not so much with the aim of giving them weightage but because the number of States was so many that it would not have been possible to give representation to every State who wanted to enter the Union unless the total of the representation granted to the States had been enormously increased. It is in order to bring them within the Union that this proviso was introduced. We find now that the situation has completely changed. Some States have merged among themselves and formed a larger Union. Some States have been integrated in British Indian provinces, and a few States only have remained in their single individual character. On account of this change, it has not become as necessary as it was in the original State of affairs to enlarge the representation granted to the States, because those areas which are now being integrated in the British Indian provinces do not need separate representation. They will be represented through the provinces. Similarly, the States which have merged would not need separate representation each for itself. The totality of representation granted to the merged States would be the representation which would be shared by every single unit which originally stood aloof. Consequently, in the amendment which I have introduced, and which speaks of Schedule 3-A, which unfortunatly is not before the House, but will be introduced as an amendment when we come to the schedules, what is proposed to be done is this : 526 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

We have removed this 40 per cent ratio granted to the States and there will be equality of representation in the Upper Chamber, both to the Indian States us well as to the Provinces, and I am in a position to give some figures, which although they are not exact for the moment, are sufficient to give a picture of what is likely to be the contents of Schedule 3-A. According to Schedule 3-A, the Provinces will have 141 seats. The Chief Commissioners’ Provinces will have two and the States will have seventy altogether. Consequently, the total of elected members to the Upper Chamber will be 213. Add to that twelve nominated seats; That would bring the total to 225. Our clause, as amended, says that the total strength of the Council of States shall not exceed 250. You will thus see that the allocation of seats which it is proposed to make in Schedule 3-A satisfies two conditions, in the first place it removes? weightage and secondly, it brings the total of the House within the maximum that has been prescribed by the amendment that I have made, I think the House will find that this is a very satisfactory position. Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru : May I ask my honourable Friend whether the Staes in Part III of the first Schedule have been represented in accordance with their population?, The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Yes, everybody will now. get population ratio. Then I come to the second amendment—No. 1377 by Prof. K.T. Shah. Prof. K. T. Shah proposes that there should be a council pf the representatives of agriculture, industry, commerce and other special interests created by statute. It will be a permanent body of people. The States shall be required to give them salaries, allowances, and the duty of this council, as proposed by Prof. K. T. Shah, is that it shall have the statutory duty of giving advice to Government, and the Government will have the statutory obligation of consulting this body, and it shall not be permissible for the Government, I take it, to introduce any measure which, on the face of it, does not bear the endorsement that the statutory body has been consulted with regard to the contents of that Bill. I believe that is the purpose of Prof. K. T. Shah’s amendment. There are various objections to this. In the first place anyone who has held any portfolio in the Government of India or in the Provincial 527DRAFT CONSTITUTION