Vol. 15 · pages 191–195

174 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES correspondence between the Government of India and the various other States. They undoubtedly took time, and must make time, with the result that by the time the Government of India had received the replies and was able to assess whether an amendment in terms proposed by the Government of Madras was necessary, Parliament had been prorogued. That is the reason why the measure could not be brought up before the recess. The second point raised by my friend Mr. Sidhva was this that he did not see any reason why we should make a statutory provision for the recognition of certain qualifications granted by the Bengal Dental School. According to him that was a matter which by the Act is left to the Dental Council. Now, I think my friend Mr. Sidhva has missed one important point and it is this. The power to grant recognition vested in the Council relates to qualifications or degrees granted by schools in existence; but we are dealing with a matter in which degrees and diplomas have been granted by a body which has become defunct. Consequently, it is for the Government of the day to decide whether the degrees granted by a school giving tuition in dentistry were worthwhile recognition or not. It is not a matter which should be left to the Bengal Council under Section 10, sub-clause (2). The word is “grants” which means “is granting at present” and not diploma which have been granted before. That being so it cannot be a matter which could be left easily to be dealt with by the Dental Council under its power, and if we have to amend the Schedule, then that must be done by the law itself. That is why a legal provision is made in the Bill to cover that particular matter. Now, what I have said with regard to the Bengal Dental School also applies to what my friend Pandit Thakurdas Bhargava said on the very same question. I come now to the points raised by Mr. Kamath. The first point raised by him was more or less of a technical character. If I understood him correctly, he said that the law required that the Register should be ready on the 28th March, 1950, and that if a person was not on the Register, then under the

175PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES provisions of Sections 46 and 49, he incurs certain penalties, while the Ordinance which exempted the person concerned from these penalties came into operation on the 29th May 1950. There is, therefore, a two months’ period in which a person not being on the Register and continuing to practise or holding office was liable to certain penalties. What is the position with regard to these persons ? I think my friend Mr. Kamath, if he had read clearly the terms of the amendment proposed in the bill itself, he would have seen that the provisions say that: “In sub-section (3) of section 46 and sub-section (1) of section 49 of the said Act, for the words ‘two years’ the words ‘three years’ shall be substituted and shall be deemed always to have been substituted.” Therefore, it is clear that that point has been adequately covered by the present clause. Shri Kamath : My point was that if during these two months, from March 29th to May 29, if a dentist had not been registered, then under the Act, and because the Ordinance had not come into force, how could mere executive instruction from the Government prevent a prosecution, or some other penalty being imposed on that dentist ? Dr. Ambedkar : I quite agree that that could not have prevented prosecution. But fortunately no such case happened and it cannot happen now because the period is carried back to the original Act. Shri Kamath : But then, Sir,…….. Mr. Speaker : Order, order. The point is very clear. Dr. Ambedkar : My friend Mr. Kamath in dealing with the reasons as to why this Bill was brought in, has made, if I may say so, certain very serious allegations. The contention on behalf of the Government is that this Bill has become necessary by reason of the fact that the States which were required to carry out the provisions of preparing the list have not been able to do so. My friend suggests that there is another reason, and that reason is that there are certain British dentists working in this country who do not propose to become domiciled and get themselves registered, and that this Bill

176 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES is intended to benefit them. Now, I first of all do not understand how an extension of one year is going to benefit a British dentist working here who has no intention of becoming a domicile of this country. I cannot understand it. But if my friend persists in making that suggestion, which I think is a very setious allegation against an hon. Member of Government, then it should be his duty when that Member returns, to specifically put the question and ask her reply, whether this was the real motive in bringing forward this particular Bill. I am unable to give any categorical answer; but I may say that I find it extremely difficult to believe that an hon. Member of Government should venture to bring forth such a Bill for no other purpose except the paltry purpose of benefiting one or two European dentists now in this country. It seems to me a most extravagant allegation. Shri Kamath : I did not say it is the only purpose, it may be one of the purposes. Mr. Speaker: But still, the suggestion is very uncharitable. Dr. Ambedkar : On that point also I would like to point out to him, in answer to a question that he asked, namely, to state the present position, that all the States, who were written to in order to find out how much time they would find it necessary to prepare the Register, have replied that they would require not less than one year. And the Bombay Government which may be given the credit of having a more efficient administrative machinery than others, insisted that they should have two years. I think that in itself would suffice to dismiss the suggestion made by my friend Mr. Kamath that this Bill was intended to protect some Britishers in this country. I do not think that there is any point which has been raised to which I have not adverted in the course of my reply. The Bill, as it is, is a very simple, non-controversial one. It has arisen not because of the fault of the Central Government but because of the other burdens carried on by the Provincial Governments, they could not find the time to bring a particular provision of the Act into operation. I do not know whether we can do nothing else except to help the Provincial Governments to give effect to this piece of legislation and bring the Dentists Act into operation as early as possible.

177PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Mr. Speaker : The question is : “That the Bill to amend the Dentists Act, 1948, be taken into consideration.” The motion was adopted. Clause 2 was added to the Bill. Clause 3 (Amendment of section 46 and section 49, Act XVI of 1948) Shri Kamath : I beg to move : “In clause 3, in the proposed amendment to sub-section (3) of section 46 and sub-section (1) of section 49 of the Dentists Act, 1948, for ‘three years’, substitute ‘two years and six months’.” The present clause has been inserted so as to enable State Governments to complete their registers of dentists under sections 46 and 49 of the Act. This is a retroactive piece of legislation in as much as the words used in the clause are “and shall be deemed always to have been substituted.” I for one cannot see why for registering a few hundred dentists such a long period is necessary. I do not know how many dentists there are in all the States ……….. Dr. Ambedkar : This is a matter of opinion. My friend Mr. Kamath with his abundant energy and administrative experience no doubt thinks that six months would be more than enough for completing the register. That as I just now told the House, even a Government as efficient as the Government of Bombay asked for two years. I personally myself think that in view of the fact that the obligation of preparing the register rests upon the Provincial Governments, it is desirable that this House should follow what the Provincial Governments think is feasible in this matter. As a matter of fact we have curtailed the period to one year instead of the two years asked for by the Bombay Government. We have stuck to one year, which was the original proposal by the Government of Madras. I do not think it is possible for us with safety to curtail the period provided in this Bill. Shri Kamath : I take it that the Hon. Minister has no figures with him.

178 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. Ambedkar : No figures. Mr. Speaker : If the registers are incomplete, how can he give the correct figures ? Dr. Ambedkar : There is no register and who knows who is a dentist and who not. Mr. Speaker : The question is : “In clause 3, in the proposed amendment to sub-section (3) of section 46 and sub-section (1) of section 49 of the Dentists Act, 1948, for ‘three years’, substitute ‘two years and six months’.” The motion was negatived. *Dr. Ambedkar : As my friend Mr. Sidhva, has said this amendment affects an important principle which underlies the provisions of this clause, namely that the registers should be operative on the same date throughout India. This is not a mere matter of academic interest.... Shri Sidhva : Is it laid down in the Act ? Dr. Ambedkar : That is why we have said three or two years throughout. Otherwise we would have prescribed different dates for different States. It is necessary and desirable to preserve the principle of uniformity. The House will see that it affects eligibility for holding posts. It cannot be said that a person is eligible for holding a post in a particular State and not eligible in another State, simply because the State has not been in a position to prepare the register. Therefore, I think as it is desirable to preserve the principle I cannot accept the amendment of Mr. Sidhva After all the difference is only a matter of six months. Shri Sidhva : I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. The amendment was, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Speaker : The question is : “That clause 3 stand part of the Bill.” The motion was adopted. * P. D. Vol. 4, Part II, 11th August 1950, pp. 863-64.