Vol. 13 · pages 986–990

953DRAFT CONSTITUTION Shri Kuladhar Chaliha : Is amendment No. 139 accepted? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I cannot say off-hand now. I am only dealing with your amendment and the amendment of Mr. Brajeshwar Prasad, and I think they are unnecessary. Mr. President : And amendment No. 139 has not been moved at all. It deals with paragraph 14. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : We shall deal with it when we reach paragraph 14. [Amendment of Dr. Ambedkar as mentioned above was adopted. Others were rejected. Paragraph 1, as amended, was added to the Sixth Schedule.] SIXTH SCHEDULE—(contd.) (Paragraph 2) *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : (Bombay : General): Sir, I beg to move : “That in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2, for the words ‘not less than twenty and not more than forty members’ the words ‘not more than twenty-four members’ be substituted.” This amendment is introduced because it was felt that the original number forty might be too large. Sir, I move: “That sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 2 be deleted.” The reason why the deletion is made is because we propose to leave the delimitation of constituencies to rules rather than provide it in the Constitution itself. Sir, I move: “That after clause (d) of sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 2, the following clause be added :— ‘(dd) the term of office of members of such Councils.’ ” This was omitted from the rule-making powers. ***** †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : If you like, Sir, I would make a few observations at this stage and then probably many people may not find it necessary to speak and all these doubts, I think, would have been dispelled. Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : I only wanted to say that if this scheme of things is going to be put in a permanent Constitution that will mean that some areas of Assam shall remain beyond the control of Parliament for ever.... *CAD, Vol. IX, 6th September 1949, p. 1007. †Ibid., p. 1013.

954 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Mr. President : Power is given to the Parliament under the paragraph 20 to repeal the whole of the Schedule, if it thinks necessary. What more do you want? Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : Sir, I have referred to this fact in my speech. Mr. President: Does Dr. Ambedkar like to say anything at this stage? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : If you like, Sir, now that honourable Members want to speak, let them speak. ***** *Mr. President: I will call upon Dr. Ambedkar to reply. I think, we had better finish this now. We have had enough discussion. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : We have debated this question for two hours and I think the debate was mostly on points that are really not concerned with the Schedule. It is time that we attended to the Schedule itself, unless any particular Member has something very new to say, we need not continue the debate. Mr. President : I have already called upon you to reply. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I am very much obliged to you. Sir, we have two amendments before us and I propose to deal with them before I reply to the general debate. The first amendment is No. 100 moved by Mr. Chaliha. With regard to this, I do not see how it is appropriate in sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 2. Sub-paragraph (5) merely deals with the jurisdiction of the Regional and District Councils. It has nothing to do with any directions that may be given by the Governor or the legislature of the State. We are simply creating a District Council and a Regional Council. If the honourable Member wanted to move any such amendment he ought to do to the appropriate provision. This Schedule deals with the subject matter with which the District Council and the Regional Council will be concerned. So I fail to understand altogether the appropriateness of the amendment at this particular place. With regard to amendment No. 257 whereby the honourable Member seeks to limit the number on the Council to fifteen, it seems to me, again, quite unnecessary, because my own amendment says, ‘not more than twenty-four’. Twenty-four is the maximum. Consequently, if it was necessary to have a Council of less than fifteen, even then my *CAD, Vol. IX, 6th September 1949, pp. 1024-1028. †Ibid.

955DRAFT CONSTITUTION amendment should suffice. I therefore say that amendment number 257 is quite unnecessary. Now, having disposed of these amendments, I will turn to the general debate on the question whether there should be Regional and District Councils for the purpose of the tribals living in Assam. Sir, in dealing with this matter, I am sorry to say, many Members who took part in the debate did not properly study the provisions contained in this Sixth Schedule. I am sure about it that if they had properly studied the provisions of this schedule they would not have raised the point which they raised that by creating these Regional and District Councils we were creating a kind of segregated population. It does nothing of the kind. Now, the position of the tribals in Assam stands on a somewhat different footing from the position of the tribals in other parts of India. Shri A. V. Thakkar : Hill tribals please. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I am not concerned with the terminology. I am speaking of Assam and other areas for the moment. The difference seems to be this. The tribal people in areas other than Assam are more or less Hinduised, more or less assimilated with the civilisation and culture of the majority of the people in whose midst they live. With regard to the tribals in Assam that is not the case. Their roots are still in their own civilization and their own culture. They have not adopted, mainly or in a large part, either the modes or the manners of the Hindus who surround them. Their laws of inheritance, their laws of marriage, customs and so on are quite different from that of the Hindus. I think that is the main distinction which influenced us to have a different sort of scheme for Assam from the one we have provided for other territories. In other words, the position of the tribals of Assam, whatever may be the reason for it, is somewhat analogous to the position of the red Indians in the United States as against the white emigrants there. Now, what did the United States do with regard to the Red Indians? So far as I am aware, what they did was to create what are called Reservations or Boundaries within which the Red indians lived. They are a republic by themselves. No doubt, by the law of the United States they are citizens of the United States. But that is only a nominal allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. Factually they are a separate, independent people. It was felt by the United States that their laws and modes of living, their habits and manners of life were so distinct that it would be dangerous to bring them at one shot, so

956 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES to say, within the range of the laws made by the white people for white persons and for the purpose of the white civilization. I agree that we have been creating Regional and District Councils to some extent on the lines which were adopted by the United States for the purpose of the Red Indians. But my point is that those who have based their criticism of this Schedule on this fact, namely that we are creating Regional and District Councils, have altogether failed to understand the binding factors which we have introduced in this Constitution. I should therefore like to refer to some of the provisions which nullify this segregation, so to say. The first thing that we have done is this: That we have provided that the executive authority of the Government of Assam shall extend not merely to non-tribal areas in Assam, but also to the tribal areas, that is to say, the executive authority of the Assam Government will be exercised even in those areas which are covered by the autonomous districts. This, as will be seen, is a great improvement over the provisions contained in the Government of India Act, 1935. In the provisions contained in that Act, the executive was divided into two categories, one was called the Government of the province and the other executive was called the Governor in his discretion, so far as the tribal areas were concerned. This applied not only to the tribal areas in Assam, but also to completely excluded areas in other areas. The executive authority which operated upon those areas was not the executive of the province, but the Governor in his discretion. We have abolished that distinction so that the whole of the tribal area including those in the autonomous districts is now under the authority of the provincial Government. The thing which is a binding thing, to which honourable Members have paid no attention is this. That, barring such functions as law-making in certain specified fields such as money-lending, land and so on, and barring certain judicial functions which are to be exercised in the village panchayats or the Regional Councils or the District Councils, the authority of Parliament as well as the authority of the Assam Legislature extends over the Regional Councils and the District Councils. They are not immune from the authority of Parliament in the matter of lawmaking, nor are they immune—and that is the aim of the new amendment—from the jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme Court. This, I submit, is one binding influence. The other binding influence is this : that the laws made by Parliament and the laws made by the Legislature of Assam will automatically apply

957DRAFT CONSTITUTION to these Regional Councils and to the District Councils unless the Governor thinks that they ought not to apply. In other words, the burden is thrown upon the Governor to show why the law which is made by the Legislature of Assam or by the Parliament should not apply. Generally, the laws made by the local Legislature and the laws made by Parliament will also be applicable to these areas. I say that this is another unifying influence. Yet another unifying influence to which I must make reference is this. We are not saying that the political authority or power we have given to the tribal people through the constitution of the Regional Councils or the district Councils is all the sphere of influence to which they will be entitled. On the other hand, we have provided that the tribal people who will have Regional Councils and District Councils will have enough representation in the Legislature of Assam itself, as well as in Parliament, so that they will play their part in making laws for Assam and also in making laws for the whole of India. Now, if these cycles of participation, if I may say so, to which I have referred, viz., representation in the legislature of Assam and representation in Parliament, the application of the laws made by Parliament and the application of the laws made by the Assam legislature are not binding forces, I would like to know what greater binding forces we can provide for the purpose of unifying the Regional Councils and the district Councils with the political life of the province as a whole. I do not therefore agree that in creating the Regional Councils and the district Councils, we have cut up the population of Assam into two water-tight compartments, viz., tribals and non-tribals. On the other hand, we have provided, as I have stated, many cycles of participation in which both can politically come together, influence each other, associate themselves with each other, and learn something from one another. I am sure about it that the argument which has been urged against the provision of Regional Councils and District Councils is entirely based upon a misunderstanding and inadequate reading of the other provisions contained in this Schedule. Sir, I was rather surprised at the attitude taken by my Friend, Mr. Chaliha, in moving his amendment, also at the attitude of my Friend, Mr. Rohini Kumar Chaudhari. I feel that they are not now a happy and united family. What is the cause of it I do not understand, but I can say that, when these amendments were made, they were made with the consent of Mr. Chaliha, they were made with the consent of the Premier of Assam, and also with the consent of my friend, Mr. Nichols Roy, who is a principal