Vol. 13 · pages 886–890

853DRAFT CONSTITUTION say to them, in the words of Edmund Burke, is “Large Empires and small minds go ill together”. Mr. President : I shall now take up the amendments one by one.... Shri Yudhisthir Mishra (Orissa States): Sir, I would like to withdraw my amendment. (The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.) Mr. President : Amendment No. 40 (List I—Fifth Week) Shri S. Nagappa : In view of the explanation given by Dr. Ambedkar I do not wish to press my amendment. (The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.) Mr. President : Amendment No. 99 (List III—Fifth Week). Shri V. I. Muniswamy Pillay : I was not present in the House on the 25th May when the Second Report of the Minorities Committee was considered. However, in view of what Dr. Ambedkar has said I would like to withdraw my amendment. The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn. *Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The principle of my amendment has been substantially accepted by Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari’s amendment. Therefore, I wish to withdraw my amendment. [The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.] Mr. President : The next amendment is No. 113 by Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava. This has been accepted by Dr. Ambedkar. The question is : “That in amendment No. 38 of List 1 (Fifth Week) of Amendments to Amendments, in the proposed new article 295-A, after the word ‘Constitution’ the brackets and letter ‘(a)’ be inserted and after the word ‘State’, the following be inserted :— ‘(b) relating to the representation of the Anglo-Indian community either in the House of the people or in the “Legislative Assemblies of the States through nomination.’ ” (The amendment was adopted.) Mr. President : The next amendment is Drafting Committee’s amendment No. 114. The question is : “That in amendment No. 38 of List I (Fifth Week) of Amendments to Amendments, to the proposed article 295-A, the following proviso be added :— ‘Provided that nothing in this article shall affect the representation in the House of the People or in the Legislative Assembly of a State until the dissolution of the then existing House or the Assembly, as the case may be.’ ” [The amendment was adopted. Article 295-A, as amended, was added to the Constitution.] *CAD, Vol. IX, 25th August 1949, p. 698.

854 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES ARTICLE 296 ***** *Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : .....My point is that the amendment should be rejected on technical as well as substantial grounds Shri T.T. Krishnamachari (Madras : General) : May I submit, Sir, that my honourable Friend is wholly out of order in raising this point of Order, bacause this matter was accepted by the House. The honourable Member had two clear days’ notice of it and if he is not able to understand the significance of the amendment in two days, I am sure he cannot understand it in two months. Mr. President : Is it suggested that when the question was reopened last time with regard to reservation of seats this also was one of the points considered and on this point also a decision was taken then ? Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : My suggestion is that since Muslims and Indian Christians are no longer to be treated as minorities this point does not arise. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Not at all. I submit that what was considered was the question of representation of minorities in the legislature. But this new article relates to a different matter, viz., the protection of the minorities in getting minor jobs in the secretariats and districts etc. On the matter of representation in the legislature Sardar Patel was kind enough to consult as and we agreed not to have any reservation in the legislature. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General): Sir, the position is this. The report of the Minorities Committee provided that all minorities should have two benefits or privileges, namely, representation in the legislatures and representation in the services. Paragraph 9 of the report which was accepted by this House contained this : “In the all-India and provincial services the claims of all minorities shall be kept in view in making appointments to these services consistently with the consideration of efficiency in the administration.” That was the original proposition passed by this House. Subsequently the Advisory Committee came to the conclusion on the consent of the two minorities—Muslims and Christians—that they were not to be treated as minorities. When the House has now accepted that the only minorities to be provided for in this manner are the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes obviously the Drafting Committee is bound by the decision of the House and to alter the article in terms of such decision. *CAD. Vol. IX. 26th August 1949, p. 702.

855DRAFT CONSTITUTION Mr. President : The point of Order taken is that what was decided at the time of reconsideration of the articles relating to minorities referred only to reservation of seats and that the question of services was not taken into consideration and that point was not decided. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : As I understand it, the decision was that they were not minorities and therefore they are not to have either of the two privileges. ***** ARTICLE 299 *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I beg to move : “That for article 299, the following article be substituted :— ‘299. (I) There shall be a Special Officer for minorities to be appointed by Special Officer for minorities the Special Officer, President. (2) It shall be the duty of the Special Officer to investigate all matters relating to the safeguards provided for minorities under this Constitution and to report to the President upon the working of the safeguards at such intervals as the president may direct, and the President shall cause all such reports to be laid before each House of Parliament.’ ” The original article provided that there should be a minority officer both in the Centre and in each of the provinces. It is now felt that, as the number of minorities has been considerably reduced, it is not desirable to have a cumbrous provision like that for having an officer in each province. The purpose of the original article will be carried out if the Centre appoints an officer and makes him report to the President. ***** THIRD SCHEDULE †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That in the Third Schedule, in Form I of the Declarations, for the words and brackets solemnly affirm (or swear)’, the following be substituted :— ‘solemnly affirm swear in the name of God.’ ” Sir, I also move : “That in the Third Schedule, in Form II of the Declarations, for the words and brackets solemnly affirm (or swear)’, the following be substituted :— ‘solemnly affirm swear in the name of God.’ ” “That in the Third Schedule, in Form III of the Declarations,— (a) for the word ‘declaration’ the words ‘affirmation or oath’ be substituted; “CAD, Vol. IX, 26th August 1949, p. 703. † Ibid. pp. 706-707.

856 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (b) for the words ‘solemnly and sincerely promise and declare’ the following be substituted :— ‘solemnly affirm swear in the name of God.’ ” “That is the Third Schedule, in Form IV of the Declarations,— (a) for the word ‘declaration’ the words ‘affirmation or oath’ be substituted; (b) for the words ‘solemnly and sincerely promise and declare’ the following be substituted :-— ‘solemnly affirm swear in the name of God.’ ” “That in the Third Schedule, in Form V of the Declarations,— (a) the words and figure ‘for the time being specified in Part I of the First Schedule be omitted; (b) for the words and brackets ‘solemnly affirm (or swear)’, the following be substituted :— ‘solemnly affirm swear in the name of God.’ ” “That in the Third Schedule, in Form VI of the Declarations,— (a) the words and figure ‘ for the time being specified in Part I of the First Schedule be omitted ; (b) for the words and brackets ‘solemnly affirm (or swear)’ the following be substituted :— ‘solemnly affirm swear in the name of God.’ ” “That in the Third Schedule, in Form VII of the Declarations,— (a) for the word ‘declaration’ the words ‘affirmation or oath’ be substituted; (b) the words and figure ‘for the time being specified in Part I of the First Schedule’ be omitted; (c) for the words ‘solemnly and sincerely promise and declare’ the follow ing be substituted :— ‘solemnly affirm swear in the name of God.’ ” “That in the Third Schedule, in Form VIII of the Declarations,— (a) for the word ‘declaration’ the words ‘affirmation or oath’ be substituted; (b) for the words ‘solemnly and sincerely promise and declare’ the following be substituted :— ‘solemnly affirm swear in the name of God.’ ” Sir, I also move : “That in the Third Schedule for the heading ‘Forms of Declarations’ the heading ‘Forms of affirmations or Oaths’ be substituted.” Mr. President : I take it that there is no objection to the heading being changed. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : There is no objection, Sir. Mr. President : Then the heading is changed.... *****

857DRAFT CONSTITUTION *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That in Form VI of the Forms of Declarations in the third Schedule, the words ‘or as may be specially permitted by the Governor in the case of any matter pertaining to the functions to be exercised by him in his discretion’ be omitted.” These are unnecessary because we do not propose to leave any discretion in the Governor at all. Shri H. V. Kamath : May I remind Dr. Ambedkar that 143 has not yet been amended ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes, I remember that. ***** Mr. President : We have abolished all discretion. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The difficulty arises in connection with the phraseology occurring at the end of Form VI. ***** Mr. President : That is why Dr. Ambedkar has moved for its deletion. ***** †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : In proposing this amendment, I have not the slightest desire to offend the sentiments of some of the Members who have spoken against the draft on the ground that God has been placed below the line. Sir, in this matter I must admit that we have really no consistent policy which we have followed, for instance, in article 49, which has been passed. God has been, I think, placed above the line and affirmation below the line. In article 81, we have placed affirmation first and the oath afterwards. In this article, to which we have moved amendments, we have merely followed the wording of the prin cipal clause, which runs : “Affirm or Swear”. That being the language of the principal clause, the logical sequence was that the affirmation was placed above the line and the oath was placed below. It is a purely logical thing. Now, the reason why we have thought it desirable to place affirmation first and oath afterwards, was because in this country, at any rate, the Hindu, when he is called upon in any Court of Law to give evidence, generally begins by an affirmation. It is only Christians, Anglo-Indians and Muslims who swear. The Hindus do not like to utter the name of God. I therefore thought that in a matter of this sort, we ought to respect the sentiments and practice of the majority community, and consequently we have introduced this particular method by stating the position as to affirmation and oath. As I said, I have neither one view nor the other. I am perfectly prepared to carry out the wishes of the House. If the House is of the opinion that Mr. Kamath’s amendment should be accepted—and *CAD, Vol. IX, 26th August 1949, pp. 711-712. †Ibid., pp. 714-715.