Vol. 13 · pages 841–845

808 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES a resident of India for five years. All these clauses are subject to a general limitation, viz., that they have not voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any foreign State. With regard to the last class viz., persons who are residing abroad but who or whose parents were born in India, they are covered by my article 5-B which refers to persons who or whose parents or whose grandparents were born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935, who are ordinarily residing in any territory outside India—they are called Indians abroad. The only limitation that has been imposed upon them is that they shall make an application if they want to be citizens of India before the commencement of the Constitution to the Consular Officer or to the Diplomatic Representative of the Government of India in the form which is prescribed for the purpose by the Government of India and they must be registered as citizens. Two conditions are laid down for them—one is an application and secondly, registration of such an applicant by the Consular or the Diplomatic representative of India in the country in which he is staying. These are as I said very simple matters. We now come to the two categories of persons who were residents in India who have migrated to Pakistan and those who were resident in Pakistan but have migrated to India. The case of those who have migrated to India from Pakistan is dealt with in my article 5-A. The provisions of article 5-A are these— Those persons who have come to India from pakistan are divided into two categories— (a) those who have come before the 19th day of July 1948, and (b) Those who have come from Pakistan to India after the 19th July 1948. Those who have come before 19th July 1948, will automatically become the citizens of India. With regard to those who have come after the 19th July 1948, they will also be entitled to citizenship on the date of the commencement of the Constitution, provided a certain procedure is followed, viz., he again will be required to make an application to an Officer appointed by the Government of the Dominion of India and if that person is registered by that Officer on an application so made.

809DRAFT CONSTITUTION The persons coming from Pakistan to India in the matter of their acquisition of citizenship on the date of the commencement of the Constitution are put into two categories—those who have come before 19th July 1948 and those who have come afterwards. In the case of those who have come before the 19th July 1948, citizenship is automatic. No conditions, no procedure is laid down with regard to them. With regard to those who have come thereafter certain procedural conditions are laid down and when those conditions are satisfied, they also will become entitled to citizenship under the article we now propose. Then I come to those who have migrated to Pakistan but who have returned to India after going to Pakistan. There the position is this. I am not as fully versed in this matter as probably the Ministers dealing with the matter are, but the proposal that we have put forth is this if a person who has migrated to Pakistan and, after having gone there, has returned to India on the basis of a permit which was given to him by the Government of India not merely to enter India but a permit which will entitle him to resettlement or permanent return, it is only such person who will be entitled to become a citizen of India on the commencement of this Constitution. This provision had to be introduced because the Government of India, in dealing with persons who left India for Pakistan and who subsequently returned from Pakistan to India, allowed them to come and settle permanently under a system which is called the ‘Permit system’. This permit system was introduced from the 19th July 1948. Therefore the provision contained in article 5-B deals with the citizenship of persons who after coming from Pakistan went to Pakistan and returned to India. Provision is made that if a person has come on the basis of a permit issued to him for resettling or permanent return, he alone would be entitled to become a citizen on the date of the commencement of the Constitution. I may say, Sir, that it is not possible to cover every kind of case for a limited purpose, namely, the purpose of conferring citizenship on the date of the commencement of the Constitution. If there is any category of people who are left out by the provisions contained in this amendment, we have given power to Parliament subsequently to make provision for them. I suggest to the House that the amendments which I have proposed are sufficient for the purpose and for the moment and I hope the House will be able to accept these amendments.

810 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri B. M. Gupta (Bombay : General) : Was the permit system brought in on 19th July 1948 ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes, on the 19th July ‘48 there was an ordinance passed that no person shall come in unless he has a permit, and certain rules were framed by the Government of India under that, on 19th July 1948, whereby they said a permit may be issued to any person coming from Pakistan to India specifically saying that he is entitled to come in. There are three kinds of permits. Temporary Permit, Permanent Permit and permit for resettlement or permanent return. It is only the last category of persons who have been permitted to come back with the express object of resettlement and permanent return, it is only those persons who are proposed to be included in this article, and no other. Mr. President : I think we shall take up the amendments tomorrow. ***** *Mr. President : I do not think any useful purpose will be served by further speeches. The amendments are all there before the Members ; they are free to vote in favour of any amendment they like. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : Mr. President. Sir, it has not been possible for me to note down every point that has been made by those who have criticised the draft articles which I have moved. I do not think it is necessary to pursue every line of criticism. It is enough if I take the more substantial points and meet them. My Friend, Dr. Deshmukh, said that by the draft articles we had made our citizenship a very cheap one. I should have though that if he was aware of the rules which govern the law of citizenship, he would have realised that our citizenship is no cheaper than would have been made by laws laid down by other countries. With regard to the point that has been made by my Friend Prof. K. T. Shah that there ought to be positive prohibition in these articles limiting Parliament’s authority to make law under article 6 not to give citizenship to the residents of those countries who deny citizenship to Indians resident there, I think that is a matter which might well be left for Parliament to decide in accordance with the circumstances as and when they may arise. * CAD, Vol. IX, dated 12th August 1049, pp. 422-24.

811DRAFT CONSTITUTION The points of criticism with which I am mostly concerned are those which have been levelled against those parts of the articles which relate to immigrants from Pakistan to India and to immigrants from India to Pakistan. With regard to the first part of the provisions which relate to immigrants coming from Pakistan to India, the criticism has mainly come from the representatives of Assam, particularly as voiced by my Friend Mr. Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri. If I understood him correctly, his contention was that these articles relating to immigrants from Pakistan to India have left the gates open both for Bengalis as well as Muslims coming from East Bengal into Assam and either disturbing their economy or disturbing the balance of communal proportions in that Province. I think. Sir, he has entirely misunderstood the purport of the articles which deal with immigrants from Pakistan to India. If he will read the provisions again, he will find that it is only with regard to those who have entered Assam before 19th July 1948, that they have been declared, automatically so to say, citizens of Assam if they have resided within the territory of India. But with regard to those who have entered Assam, whether they are Hindu Bengalees or whether they are Muslim, after the 19th July 1948, he will find that citizenship is not an automatic business at all. There are three conditions laid down for persons who have entered Assam after the 19th July 1948. The first condition is that such a person must make an application for citizenship. He must prove that he has resided in Assam for six months and, thirdly, there is a very severe condition, namely that he must be registered by an officer appointed by the Government of the Dominion of India. I would like to state very categorically that this registration power is a plenary power. The mere fact that a man has made an application, the mere fact that he has resided for six months in Assam, would not involve any responsibility or duty or obligation on the registering officer to register him. Notwithstanding that there is an application, notwithstanding that he has resided for six months, the officer will still have enough discretion left in him to decide whether he should be registered or he should not be registered. In other words, the officer would be entitled to examine, on such material as he may have before him, the purport for which he has come, such as whether he has come with a bona fide motive of becoming a permanent citizen of India or whether he has come with any other purpose. Now, it seems to me that, having regard

812 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES to these three limiting conditions which are made applicable to persons who enter Assam after 19th July 1948, any fear such as the one which has been expressed by my Friend Mr. Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri that the flood-gates will be opened to swamp the Assamese people either by Bengalees or by Muslims, seems to me to be utterly unfounded. If he has any objection to those who have entered Bengal before 19th July 1948—in this ease on a showing that the man has resided in India, citizenship becomes automatic—no doubt that matter will be dealt with by Parliament under any law that may be made under article 6. If my friends from Assam will be able to convince Parliament that those who have entered Assam before 19th July 1948 should, for any reason that they may have in mind or they may like to put before Parliament, be disqualified, I have no doubt that Parliament will take that matter into consideration. Therefore, so far as the criticism of these articles relating to immigrants from Pakistan to Assam is concerned, I submit it is entirely unfounded. Then I come to the criticism which has been levelled on the provisions which relate to immigrants from India to Pakistan, I think that those who have criticised these articles have again not clearly understood what exactly it is proposed to be done. I should like, therefore, to re-state what the articles say. According to the provisions which relate to those who are immigrants from India to Pakistan, any one who has left India after the first March 1947, barring one small exception, has been declared not to be citizens of India. That, I think, has got to be understood very carefully. It is a general and universal proposition which we have enunciated. It is necessary to enunciate this proposition, because on the rule of International Law that birth confers domicile, a person has not to acquire what is called domicile of origin by any special effort either by application or by some other method or by some kind of a grace. The origin of domicile goes with birth. It was felt that those persons who left India, but who were born in India notwithstanding that they went to Pakistan, might, on the basis of the rule of International Law, still claim that their domicile of origin is intact. In order that they should not have any such defence, it is thought wise to make it absolutely clear that any one who has gone to Pakistan after the 1st March—you all know that we have taken 1st March very deliberately, because that was the date when the disturbances started and the exodus began and we thought that there would be no violation of any principle of International justice if we presumed that any man who, as a result of the disturbances