Vol. 13 · pages 966–970

933DRAFT CONSTITUTION Shri R. K. Sidhva : You can drop those words. *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It will also include malguzars. Before I accept any entry, I must have in my mind a clear and consistent idea as to what the words mean. The word “agriculturists” has no precise meaning. It may mean a rack-renter. It may mean a person who is actually a cultivator. It may mean a person who has got two acres. It may also mean a person who has five thousand acres, or five lakhs acres. Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : I am prepared to omit that particular expression. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : That is one difficulty I find. The second point is my Friend Dr. Deshmukh does not seem to pay much attention to the different entries and what they mean. So far as agriculture is concerned, we have got two specific entries in List II—No. 21 which is Agriculture and No. 24 which is Land. If he were to refer to these two entries he will find...† Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : What fallacious arguments are being advanced ! For that matter, Labour welfare is a specific entry and yet you wanted separate provision for their vocational training? Do not advance fallacious arguments. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It is not my business to answer questions relating to the faults of administrations. I am only explaining what the entries mean. As I said, we have already got two entries in List II. Entry 21 is there for Agriculture “including agricultural education and research, protection against pests and prevention of plant diseases”. Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : Then why do you want “welfare of labour”? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Why can’t you have some patience? I know my job. Do you mean to say I do not know my job? I certainly know my job. Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : I know your attitude also. Do not try to fool everybody! The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : There is already an entry which will empower any State to do any kind of welfare work not merely with regard to agriculture but with regard to agriculturists as well. In addition to that we have entry 24 where it is provided that laws may be made with regard to “rights in or over land, land tenures including the relation of land-lord and tenant”. All the economic interests *CAD, Vol. IX, 3rd September 1949, pp. 944-946. †Dots indicate interruption in original.

934 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES of the peasants can be dealt with under this entry. Therefore, so far as entries are concerned there is nothing that is wanting to enable the Provincial Governments to act in the matter of welfare of agricultural classes. Then I come to the question raised by my Friend Mr. Sidhva which, I think, is a very legitimate question. Hill question was what was the connotation of the word “labour” and he asked me a very definite question whether ‘labour’ meant both industrial as well as agricultural labour. I think that was his question. My answer is emphatically that it includes both kinds of labour. The entry is not intended to limit itself to industrial labour. Any kind of welfare work relating to labour, whether the labour is industrial labour or agricultural labour, will be open to be undertaken either by the Centre or by the Province under entry 26. Similarly, conditions of work, provident funds, employers’ liability workmen’s compensation, health insurance, including invalidity pensions—all these matters—would be open to all sorts of labour, whether it is industrial labour or agricultural labour. Therefore, so far as this entry, No. 26, is concerned, it is in no sense limited to industrial labour and therefore the kind of amendment which has been proposed by my Friend Dr. Deshmukh is absolutely unnecessary, besides; its being—what I might call—vague and indefinite, to which no legal connotation can be given. Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : Is there no class of persons except agricultural labour in this country? Has Dr. Ambedkar ever heard of a class called “farmers” and “peasants” ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Their welfare will be attended to under entries 21 and 24 of the Provincial List, as I have already explained. [Dr. P. S. Deshmukh’s amendment was negatived. Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment was adopted. Entry 27, as amended was added to the Concurrent List.] ENTRY 27 *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move : “That for entry 27 of List III, the following entry be substituted :— ‘27. Employment and unemployment’ ”. The amendment was adopted. Entry 27, as amended, was added to the Concurrent List. ***** *CAD, Vol. IX, 3rd September 1949, p. 946.

935DRAFT CONSTITUTION ENTRY 28 ***** *Mr. Vice-President : I will now put the question. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I want to say a word. The words “trade union” with regard to welfare of labour have a very wide connotation and may include trade unions not only of industrial organisations but may also include trade unions of agricultural labour. That being so, I am rather doubtful whether by introducing the word ‘industrial’ here, we are not trying to limit the scope and meaning of the term ‘trade union’. But I am not moving any amendment. I would like to reserve an opportunity to the Drafting Committee to examine the term and to consider this. I want the entry to stand as it is now. I have expressed my doubt that in view of the wide connotation of ‘trade union’, a part of the entry may require amendment. Mr. Vice-President: Subject to what Dr. Ambedkar says, I put entry 28 to vote. The question is : “That entry 28 stand part of List III. (The motion was adopted.) Entry 28 was added to the Concurrent List. NEW ENTRY 28-A †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I move : “That after entry 28 of List III, the following new entry be inserted :— ‘28-A. Commercial and industrial monopolies, combines and trusts’.” The motion was adopted. Entry 28-A was added to the Concurrent List. ENTRY 29 ‡Mr. Vice-President: As there is no amendment to entry 29, I will put it to vote. Entry 29 was added to the Concurrent List. Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : Sir, a part of this amendment of mine was very kindly accepted yesterday. But, so far as the wording is concerned, we have yet to decide it. When we were discussing the State List, it was decided that we should transfer ‘adulteration food’ to List III and therefore it would probably be relevant if we take up the wording of this entry at this stage. At the same time I would like that the first amendment of mine should also be accepted. *CAD, Vol. IX, 3rd September 1949, p. 947. †Ibid., p. 947. ‡Ibid., p. 948.

936 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : May I draw attention to the fact that the introduction of entry 29A has already been covered by entry 61A in List I which has been passed by the House in much wider terms? The words used are “goods” which will include agricultural products, etc. Similarly 29B was accepted yesterday on the motion of Mr. Maitra and it is now entry 20A in List III. Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : I accept the first part of my friend’s suggestion. I do not move for additing 29A. But I am not clear whether it is the mere transposition of the entry as it stood in List II that is proposed? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It is transferred to Concurrent List as 20A. That was the motion passed by the House. Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : Would it not be better to enlarge its scope? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : ‘Adulteration of food’ includes everything, I think. Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : If that is so, I do not move this amendment. Mr. Vice-President : Then I will put entries 30 and 31 to vote. Entries 30 and 31 were added to the Concurrent List. NEW ENTRY 31-A *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I move : “That after entry 31, the following new entry be inserted :— ‘31-A. Ports, subject to the provisions of List I with respect to major ports’.” [Motion was adopted. Entry 31-A was added to the Concurrent List] ENTRY 32 †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I move: “That entry 32 of List III be deleted.” This has been transferred to List I. Entry 32 was deleted from the Concurrent List. ENTRY 33 ‡The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I move : “That entry 33 of List III be deleted.” As I said, this also has been transferred to List I. Entry 33 was deleted from the Concurrent List. *CAD, Vol. IX, 3rd September 1949, p. 948. †Ibid., p. 949. ‡ Ibid., p. 949.

937DRAFT CONSTITUTION ENTRIES 33A AND 33B *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “That after entry 33 of List III, the following new entries be inserted :— ‘33A. Custody, management and disposal of property (including agricultural land) declared by law to be evacuee property. 33B. Relief and rehabilitation of persons displaced from their original place of residence by reason of the setting up of the Dominions of India and Pakistan.’ ” (Amendment No. 296 was not moved.) [Entries 33A and 33B were added to the Concurrent List.] ENTRY 34 †Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: ...Sir, there is another aspect of the question to which I would like to draw the attention of the House. Entry 34 reads thus: “Economic and social planning.” What about political planning? Some Honourable Member : It will be too disastrous. The Honourable dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It can be done by way of amendment of the Constitution. ***** ‡The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I am very sorry but I cannot accept this amendment moved by Shrimati Purnima Banerji. The introduction of the word “education” seems to me to be quite unnecessary. The word “social” is quite big enough to include anything that relates to society as a whole except, of course, religious planning, and a contradiction would be only between ‘social’ and ‘religious’. What the State would not be entitled to plan would be ‘religions’; everything else would be open to the State. With regard to the observations of my honourable Friend Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri, I think he will realize that this entry finds a place in the Concurrent List and the State also would have the freedom to do its own planning in its own way. It is only when the Centre begins to have a plan and if that plan conflicts with the plan prepared by the State that the plan prepared by the State will have to give way and this is in no sense an encroachment upon the planning power of the State and therefore, this entry, I submit, should stand in the language in which it stands now. *CAD, Vol. IX, 3rd September 1949, p. 949. †Ibid., p. 950. ‡Ibid, p. 952.