Vol. 15 · pages 276–280

259PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 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 subsituted 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 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 serious allegation against an hon. Member

260 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES 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 different to believe that an hon. member of Government should venture to bring forth such a Bill for no other 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 Government, they could not find the time to bring a particular provision of the Act into operation. I do not know whether we can do anything else except to help the Provincial Governments to give effect to this piece of legislation and being the Dentists Act into operation as early as possible. Mr. Speaker : The queation is : “That the Bill to amend the Dentists Act, 1948, be taken into consideration.”

261PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 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-clause (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 section 46 and 49 of the Act. This is a retroactive piece of legislation inasmuch 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 therefore ask again the Minister to tell the House how many dentists were still to be registered on the 29th March 1950 and in what stage the process is. That would be useful for us to know how much time is necessary for the complete registration and why this extension of time by one year is necessary. If those figures are forthcoming, we will be able to judge what time would be needed to complete the work of registration. In the absence of that it would be very difficult to arrive at an idea of the time required for the registration. 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. But, 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

262 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES for us with safety to curtail the period 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. Dr. Ambedkar : No figures. Mr. Speaker : If the registers are incomplete, how can he give the correct figures ? Mr. Ambedkar : There is no register and who knows who is a dentist and who not. The motion of Shri Kamath was negatived, Shri Sidhva : I beg to move : Renumber clause 3 as sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and add the following new sub-clause (2) : “(2) In sub-section ( 1) of section 49 of the said Act, after the words ‘three years’ the words ‘ from the commencement of this Act or on the completion of formalities under section 32, whichever is earlier,’ shall be inserted.” 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.

263PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES The amendment was, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Speaker : The question is : “That clause 3 stand part of the Bill.” The motion was adopted. Clause 3 was added to the Bill. (MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER IN THE CHAIR) Clause 4 (Amendment of the Schedule, Act XVI of 1948) Shri Tyagi (Uttar Pradesh) : My amendment reads as follows : In clause 4, for the proposed item (2A) of Part I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948, substitute : “(2A) Any other institution imparting education or giving practical training in dentistry which the Central Government may, in consultation with the Central Council of Dentists, recognise for this purpose and on such conditions as the Government may deem fit to prescribe therefore.” I wish to confess that Dr. Ambedkar is a hard nut to crack. He has already said in his speech that the organisation mentioned in this sub-clause was defunct, whereas I was informed by a member of the council of Dentists that a Committee had been appointed to inquire into the conditions of this institution and that the Committee was already working on it. I don’t want to make any aspersions on the institution. I don’t know what its standard is, I have no personal knowledge of it, and that therefore I don’t want to damage the reputation of the institution. But as an enquiry-is going on. I think instead of committing the whole Parliament to recognising that institution, it is better that the Government had reserved the right in their own hands to decide . . . Dr. Ambedkar : We are not affecting the institution in any way. We are dealing with the degrees granted by that institution in 1940—eight years ago. Shri Tyagi : Dr. Ambedkar expects me to believe that the degrees of an institution may be recognised without the institution itself being recognised. What I am suggesting is that he may even recognise that institution. I want Government to have powers to recognise any institution ....