Vol. 13 · pages 896–900

863DRAFT CONSTITUTION The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Entry No. 19. Now, with regard to the question put to me by my Friend Dr. Deshmukh, he wants that the words “for reasons connected with the State” should be substituted. In my judgment, that would be a limiting entry; and ours is a much better one as it specifies the subject-matter in connection with which the preventive detention may be ordered. And then Mr. Brajeshwar Prasad wants public safety to be introduced. Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : I did not want it. I only wanted to know whether the phrase “reasons connected with defence etc.” included “public safety or interest.” The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes, “security of India” is a very wide term. Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : I am not referring to “security of India” but to “public safety or interest”. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Now, with regard to Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad’s question, he wants the words “persons subjected to such detention” to be deleted. Mr. President : No, he has not moved that amendment. He only wants to substitute the word “external” for the word “foreign”. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : We are hitherto using the word “foreign” throughout, and I think it is better we keep to the same word. Shri H. V. Kamath : Is the security of India the same as the security of any part of it ? And is the present entry in consonance with article 275? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes, undoubtedly. Mr. President : I shall put amendment No. 149 of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad to vote. [The amendment was negatived.] Mr. President : Then I put Dr. Deshmukh’s amendment. [The amendment was also rejected.] Mr. President : Then I put the entry as it was moved by Dr. Ambedkar. [The amendment was adopted.] UNION LIST ENTRY 4 *Mr. President : Then we come to entry 4. *CAD, Vol. IX, 29th August 1949. p. 731.

864 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I move : “That for entry 4 of List I, the following entry be substituted :— ‘4. Naval, military and air forces; any other armed forces of the Union.’ ” Honourable Members will see that this entry was a very large entry, and it consisted of two parts. Part one of the entry related to the raising of the forces by the Union. Part two related to the forces of the States mentioned in Part III. In view of the fact that it has been decided to put the States in Part III on the same footing as the States in Part I, it is desirable to delete the second part of this entry. And so far as any States have today any forces, it would be provided for by a provision in the part dealing with the transitory provisions of this Constitution. With regard to the first part of the entry, it is felt that it is a mouthful, and that many of the words are not necessary, and that the short phrase ology now proposed—naval, military and air-forces—would be quite sufficient to give the Union all the powers that are necessary for the purposes of maintaining an army, navy and air-force. ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It is necessary to retain the words “any other armed forces of the Union” because, besides the regular army, there are certain other forces which come under the armed forces and which are maintained by the Centre. For instance, there are what are called the “Assam Rifles” to guard the border. There are certain armed police forces maintained by the Centre with regard to the certain Indian States. In order, therefore, to give them a legal basis, it is desirable to include them in this entry 4.1 might also mention mat they were also recognised in entry I of the Government of India Act, 1935 as distinct from the navel, military and air forces. Mr. President : I shall put Sardar Hukam Singh’s amendment to the House. [The amendment was negatived.] Mr. President : Then I put the entry moved by Dr. Ambedkar. (The amendment was adopted. Entry 4, as amended, was added to the Union List.) ENTRY 5 ***** †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, entry No. 5 should be read along with entry No. 64. Entry 64 deals with the control *CAD, Vol. IX, 29th August 1949, p. 732. † Ibid., p. 733.

865DRAFT CONSTITUTION of industries which Parliament has declared to be necessary in the interests of the public. This, that is entry 5, relates to the taking over of industries for the purpose of defence or for the prosecution of the war. That being the important difference, I think it would hamper war effort considerably if entry 5 was made analogous to entry 64. Declaration by Parliament will be necessary in both cases. But the scope of entry 5 is much wider man that of entry 64. Having regard to the different ends and aims in view, it is sought to differentiate entry 5 from entry 64. [Entry 5 was added to the Union List.] ENTRY 6 (Entry 6 was added to the Union List.) ENTRY 7 *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That for entry 7 of List I, the following entry be substituted :— ‘7. Delimitation of cantonment areas, local self-government in such areas, the constitution and powers within such areas of cantonment authorities and the regulation of House accommodation (including the control of rents) in such areas.’ ” There is an amendment to this standing in the name of my honourable Friend Mr. T.T. Krishnamachuri the effect of which is merely to omit the word “self” in the expression “local self-Government” so that it will read “local government”. ***** Shri Mahavir Tyagi : Sir, may I suggest that the entry be held over ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Why 7 I do not understand. If you have any comments to make we are quite prepared to hear and give you a reply. Shri Mahavir Tyagi : I feel that either we must be given a full chance of tabling our amendments and pulling our case before the House, or such articles as are controversial may please be ordered to be held over. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : This amendment standing in the name of Mr. Sidhva has been there from 26th January! My friend has now become awake to the situation. There was plenty of time for him to give an amendment and I am even now prepared to say that he can make out his case for such changes as he wants and I am prepared to satisfy him. *CAD, Vol. IX, 29th August 1949. p. 735.

866 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri Mahavir Tyagi : Sir, we have accepted Dr. Ambedkar’s speed—he is going very fast—we have taken no objection to that. But on items like these he might agree The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Why don’t you say what you want to say ? Shri Mahavir Tyagi : My submission is that such items on which there are controversies or on which honourable Members say or feel that they want to table an important amendment, such items may please be held over. It will smooth the way, It will accelerate the work. Mr. President : Then the House will adjourn till 9 o’clock tomorrow. We shall take all the amendments tomorrow as they come, but I shall not give any further time. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I am entirely in your hands, Sir, so far as this amendment is concerned. If I can know what objections my Friend Mr. Tyagi has, I am prepared to deal with his case now in the House. ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : Sir, the amendments moved by my Friend Mr. Tyagi are the only amendments which call for reply. His amendments are in alternative form. In the first place, he wants to delete the whole part dealing with regulation of house accommodation including the control of rent. In his alternative amendment he is prepared to retain the control and regulation of house accommodation, but wishes to delete the words ‘rent control’. It seems to me, the matter is really one of commonsense. If my Friend has no objection to the retention of the words “regulation of house accommodation”, as is clear from his alternative amendment, then it seems to me that the control of rent is merely incidental to the power of regulation of house accommodation. It will be quite impossible to carry out the purpose, namely, of regulating house accommodation, if the authority which has got this power has not also the power to control rents. Therefore my submission is that the control of rents is incidental to the regulation of house accommodation. If Mr. Tyagi has no fundamental objection to the retention of the power to deal with house accommodation, I think he must not have any objection to the transfer of control also. *CAD, Vol. IX, 29th August 1949, p. 739.

867DRAFT CONSTITUTION Mr. President : I will now put the amendments to vote. The first is that of Dr. Deshmukh. Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : I will be content if the Drafting Committee will be pleased to consider it at the time of the final draft. Mr. President : It is only a matter of drafting so far as I can see. So we might leve it to the Drafting Committee. (The amendment was negatived.) [Amendment of Dr. Ambedkar was alone adopted Entry 7 as amended was added to the Union List] ENTRY 12 ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, there are various considerations which arise with regard to this amendment. As my honourable Friend, Mr. Kamath will see this is not the only entry which relates to foreign nations. There is, in the first place, an entry called Foreign Affairs which is broad-enough to be operated upon by this country if it wishes to establish itself as a member of any international organization. There is also the entry following, which we are dealing with now, which permits legislation relating to participation in any international conference or any international body. In view of that, I should have thought that the kind of amendment which has been moved by my honourable Friend, Mr. Kamath is really unnecessary. Secondly, it must be remembered that this is merely a legislative entry. It enables the State to make legislation with regard to any of the entries which are included in List I. If there was an article in the body of the Draft Constitution which limited the legislative power of the State given by any one of these entries, the question such as the one raised by my honourable Friend, Mr. Kamath would be very relevant, but I do not find that there is any limiting article in the Constitution itself which confines the legislative power given under this entry to the membership of the United Nations Organization and there is no such entry at all in the article. Therefore the State can act under any of the other items and be a member of any other international organization. But if the House is particular about it, I think no harm can be done if Mr. Kamath’s amendment is accepted and therefore, I leave the matter to the House to decide. [Entry 12 was added to the list] *CAD, Vol. IX, 29th August 1949, p. 743.