Vol. 13 · pages 566–570

this House to revise any part of the clauses contained in this draft constitution and while it is open to this House to revise any agreement that has been arrived at between the majority and the minority, this result ought not to be brought about either by surprise or by what I may call, a side-wind. It had better be done directly and it seems to me that the proper procedure for effecting a change in articles 292 and 293 would be to leave the matter to the wishes of the different minorities themselves. If any particular minority represented in this House said that it did not want any reservation, then it would be open to the House to remove the name of that particular minority from the provisions of article 292. If any particular minority preferred that although it did not get a cent per cent deal, namely, did not get a separate electorate, but that what it has got in the form of reservation of seats is better than having nothing, then I think it would be just and proper that the minority should be permitted to retain what the Constituent Assembly has already given to it. Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava : But there was no agreement about reservation of seats among the communities and a number of amendments were moved by several Members for separate electorates and so on, but they were all voted down. There was no agreement at all in regard to these matters. The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : I was only saying that it may be taken away, not by force, but by consent. That is my proposition, and therefore, I submit that this proportional representation is really taking away by the back-door what has already been granted to the minorities by this agreement, because proportional representation will not give to the minorities what they wanted, namely, a definite quota. It might give them a voice in the election of their representatives. Whether the minorities will be prepared to give up their quota system and prefer to have a mere voice in the election of their representatives, I submit, in fairness ought to be left to them. For these reasons, Sir, I am not prepared to accept the amendment of Mr. Karimuddin. Mr. Vice-President: I shall now put the amendments, one by one, to the vote of the House. Shri H. J. Khandekar : On a point of information, Sir, may I ask Dr. Ambedkar, what about the preceding census. He has not said anything when he amended article 35 the other day. About the preceding 533DRAFT CONSTITUTION

census, is he prepared to amend it by saying ‘the latest census’ ? Mr. Vice-President : Mr. Khandekar may come to the rostrum and speak. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I have accepted the amendment of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad as amended by him and as amended by Shri Bhargava. [In all 8 amendments were negatived. Following amendments were adopted.] 1 “ That in sub-clause (a) of clause (5) of article 67, for the words ‘representatives of the people of the territories of the states directly chosen by the voters’, the words ‘members directly elected by the voters in the States’ be substituted.” 2 “ That in sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of article 67, the words ‘of India’ be deleted.” 3 “ That the proviso to sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of article 67 be deleted.” 4 “ That with reference to amendment No. 1434 of the List of amendments, in sub-clause (c) of clause (5) of article 67, for the words ‘ members to be elected at any time for ‘, the words ‘representatives allotted to’ be substituted.” 5 “ That in sub-clause (c) of clause (5) of article 67, for the words ‘last preceding census’ the words ‘last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published’ be substituted.” 6 “ That in clause (7) of article 67, for the word ‘may’ the word ‘shall’, for the word ‘territories’ the words ‘the territories’ and for the words ‘other than States’ the words ‘directly governed by the centre on the same basis as in the case of states which are constituent parts of the Union’ be substituted respectively.” 7 “That with reference to amendment No. 1450 of the List of amendments, after clause (8) of article 67, the following new proviso be inserted :— ‘Provided that such readjustment shall not affect representation to the House of the People until the dissolution of the then existing House’.” 8 “That to article 67, the following new clause (10) be added :— ‘(10) The election to the House of the People shall be in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of a single transferable vote.” Article 67, as amended, was added to the Constitution. ***** ARTICLE 147-A *Mr. Vice-President : Dr. Ambedkar will reply to the amendment. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : Sir, I oppose the amendment, and all that I need say is this, that the basic principle of the amendment is so fundamentally opposed to the basic principles on which the Draft Constitution is based, that I think it is almost impossible now to accept any such proposal. Mr. Vice-President : I am now going to put the amendment to vote. The question is : “That before article 14X, the following new article 147-A be added :— “147-A. The legislature of every state shall be wholy separate from independent of Executive or the Judiciary in the State’. [This amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah was negatived.] * CAD, Vol. VII, 6th January 1949, p. 1304. 534 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

ARTICLE 148 Mr. Vice-President : There is an amendment to this amendment—No. 46 of List 11, standing in the name of Dr. Ambedkar. Is the Honourable Member going to move it 7 *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move: “That for amendment No. 2231 of the List of Amendments, the following be substituted:— ‘That in sub-clause(a) of clause (1) of article 148, after the words ‘in the states of’ the words ‘Madras, Bombay, West Bengal, the United Provinces, Bihar and East Punjab’ be inserted’.” Sir, I should like to state to the House that the question of whether to have a second chamber in the provinces or not was discussed by the Provincial Constitution Committee, which was appointed by this House. The decision of that Committee was that this was a matter which should be left to the decision of each province concerned. If any particular province decided to have a second chamber it should be allowed to have a second chamber : and if any particular province did not want a second chamber, a second chamber should not be imposed upon it. In order to carry out this recommendation of the Provincial Constitution Committee it was decided that the Members in the Constituent Assembly, representing the different provinces should meet and come to a decision on this issue. The Members of the different provinces represented in this Assembly therefore met in groups of their own to decide this question and as a result of the deliberations carried on by the Members it was reported to the office that the provinces which are mentioned in my amendment agree to have a second chamber for their provinces. The only provinces which decided not to have a second chamber are the C. P. & Berar, Assam and Orissa. My amendment gives effect to the results of the deliberations of the representatives of the different provinces in accordance with the recommendation of the Provincial constitution committee. Sir, I move: ***** †Mr. Vice-President: Dr. Ambedkar. Shri H. V. Kamath (C.P. & Berar: General) : Mr. Vice-President Mr. Vice-President: Mr. Kamath comes from the C. P. which has no upper chamber. (Laughter.) Shri H. V. Kamath : That is exactly. Sir, why I would like to speak. *CAD, Vol. VII, 6th January 1949, p. 1309. † Ibid., pp. 1316-17. 535DRAFT CONSTITUTION

Mr. Vice-President : I think the point has been sufficiently discussed. Some four more Honourable Members would probably like to speak, but we have already spent one and a half hours, and we have to make a definite progress every day. I offer my apologies to those gentlemen who have been disappointed; that is all I can offer in the present circumstances. Dr. Ambedkar. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I regret I cannot accept any of the amendments that have been moved to this particular article. I find from the speeches that have been made that there is not the same amount of unanimity in favour of the principle of having a second chamber in the different provinces. I am not surprised at the views that have been expressed in this House against second chambers. Ever since the French Constituent Assembly met, there has been consistently a view which is opposed to second chambers. I do not think the view of those who are opposed to second chambers can be better put than in the words of Abbe Seiyes. His criticism was two-fold. He said that if the upper House agreed with the lower one, then it was superfluous. If it did not agree with the lower House, it was a mischievous body and we ought not to entertain it. (Laughter). The first part of the criticism of Abbe Seiyes is undoubtedly valid, because it is so obvious. But nobody has so far agreed with the second part of the criticism of Abbe Seiyes. Even the French nation has not accepted that view; they too have consistently maintained the principle of having a second chamber. Now, speaking for myself, I cannot say that I am very strongly prepossessed in favour of a second Chamber. To me, it is like the Curate’s egg-good only in parts. (Laughter.) All that we are doing by this Constitution is to introduce the second chamber purely as an experimental measure. We have not by the draft Constitution, given the second chamber a permanent place, we have not made it a permanent part of our Constitution. It is a purely experimental measure, as I said, and there is sufficient provision in the present article 304 for getting rid of the second chamber. If, when we come to discuss the merits of article 304 which deals with the abolition of the second chamber, Honourable Members think that some of the provisions contained in article 304 ought to be further relaxed so that the process of getting rid of the second chamber may be facilitated. Speaking for myself, I should raise no difficulty (Hear, Hear), and I therefore suggest to the House, as a sort of compromise, that this article may be allowed to be retained in the Constitution. 536 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Mr. Vice-President : I am now going to put the amendments to vote, one by one. The question is— “That for amendment No. 2231 of the List of Amendments, the following be substituted :— “That in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of article 148, after the words ‘in the State of’ the words ‘Madras, Bombay, West bengal, the United Provinces, Bihar and East Punjab’ be inserted.’ ” [The amendment of Dr. Ambedkar was adopted. Two more amendments were negatived.] Article 148, as amended, was adopted and added to the constitution. ARTICLE 149 *Mr. Vice-President: Then we come to article 149. ...Amendment No. 2241 may be moved. It stands in the name of Dr. Ambedkar. An Honourable Member: It is not being moved. (Voices: ‘member not in the House’ (Laughter.) Mr. Vice-President : (Seeing the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar coming into the Chamber) Honourable Members are at perfect liberty to go out to take a cup of coffee or have a smoke. They will kindly realise the difficulties of those who are accustomed to both these types of relaxation. Honourable Members will agree that Dr. Ambedkar is entitled to relaxation of that sort. The Chair has nothing to do but to listen to the debates, but Dr. Ambedkar has to listen to the debates and reply. (Laughter.) ***** †Mr. Vice-President : ...Shall we now go on to amendment No. 2250, standing in the name of Dr. Ambedkar ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Not moving. Mr. Vice-President: In that case amendment No. 59 in List III, falls through. ***** ‡The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I beg to move: “That for the proviso to clause (3) of article 149, the following be substituted :— ‘Provided that where the total population of a state as ascertained at the last preceding census exceeds three hundred lakh s, the number of members in the Legislative Assembly of the State shall be on a scale of not more than one member for every lakh of the population of the State up to a population of three hundred *CAD, Vol. VII, 6th January 1949, p. 1318. †Ibid., p. 1323. ‡Ibid., p. 1324. 537DRAFT CONSTITUTION