Vol. 15 · pages 371–375

354 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES paid considerable attention to this subject. I may say that I have studied with great care the situation in Ireland, a country which resembles very closely our own. In Ireland, the peasantry is hungering for land. Land in Ireland has been unevenly distributed. Some have very large estates ; some have very small. There are many who are landless. What has the Irish Constitution done ? I want the Members who are representing the landed interests to consider this case in a comparative manner. Now, so far as the Irish constitution is concerned, property in land particularly is not a Fundamental Right. Article 43 of the Irish Constitution clause (2), states that the exercise of the right mentioned, that is the right on land, should be regulated by the principles of social justice. It does not say that land shall not be taken except on the basis of full compensation or without any discrimination as between landlords. What the Irish law does is this. They have appointed what is called the “Congested Board”, as they call it, or congested Areas board. It is a separate organisation created by law and this Board has been given the power to acquire land, to break up holdings, to equalise land, to make uneconomic holdings economic ones by taking land from a neighbouring owner and the right of assigning compensation has been given to this Board of congested areas. There is no judicial authority to interpret the action of this board. An hon. Member: And no appeal? Dr. Ambedkar: And no appeal at all. Some people have of course, taken appeals to the courts, but the courts have held that no appeals lie with any court. Now, I can, speaking for myself, say without any hesitation that I am not at all an admirer of the new schemes that have been drafted by these States who have acquired land. It is, in my judgment, not a very good thing to create peasant proprietors in this country. Our difficulty in this country has arisen by reason of the fact that we have small landlords holding half an acre of land or an acre or two acres, with no money, no measure, no bulls, no bullocks, no implements, no seeds and no arrangement for water. And yet they are the landlords and the holders of the land. Looking at the future,

355PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES I feel very aghast as to what is going to happen to this country and its national production of food, if this kind of agricultural system continues. I would have very much liked if the State had acquired all these properties and kept the land as State land and given it on permanent tenancy to cultivators so that the State would have had the right to create collective farming and co-operative farming on the basis of supplying the materials and so on and so forth. But now we have a large ‘number of landless labourers in this country, and I think their number will exceed even five crores. But when you make these laws, making the tiller of the soil the owner of it, what provision can you make for the welfare of these landless labourers ? They will remain where they are—high and dry— notwithstanding the abolition of the zamindars. I am, therefore, not very happy at what is being done. But that is a different question altogether. The question we are considering now is whether the intermediaries should be allowed to continue. That is the point, and on the point, I think there can be no dispute that the intermediaries should be liquidated, without any kind of interference from the Fundamental Rights either on the ground that there is no adequate compensation or that a discrimination has been made. I have got with me a very interesting paper which I secured from the Government of West Bengal. Hon Members will remember that there was a Commission called the Floud Commission, appointed for the purpose of liquidating the zamindars in Bengal. After that Commission had reported, the Government of Bengal appointed a special officer in order to find out how effect could be given to the recommendations of the Floud Commission and that officer has made a very interesting report. I have got a copy, but as I said, I have not got the time now to go through the whole of it. But that officer himself recommended that equality of compensation would be wrong. It would be neither just nor equitable, though it may be administratively smooth. He has worked out a scheme of compensation which is very interesting, and the scheme is one of graded compensation. In the case of profits up to Rs. 2,000 the compensation should be fifteen times the net profit. From Rs. 2,000 up to Rs. 5,000 it should be twelve times but not less than the maximum

356 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES amount given under the previous item. From Rs. 5,000 up to Rs. 10,000, the compensation should be ten times but not less than the maximum under the Rs. 2,000—Rs. 5,000 category and for profits above Rs. 10,000 it should be eight times but not less than the maximum under the last-mentioned category. It is all a graded thing. And I am afraid that we should not get mixed up with this question of compensation which is a very ticklish problem. If you want the betterment of agriculture, I am convinced that these intermediaries must be liquidated. The original article exempted compensation for the acquisition of zamindari rights. We are now dealing with exemption from discrimination. I do not see why article 31 should now continue to operate, when there is a law for the purpose of acquiring these estates. Shri Shiv Charan Lal: What about article 14 about discrimination ? Dr. Ambedkar: The whole chapter is excluded from operation. Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal) : When the Hon. Minister is prepared to go far, why does he not go further ? Dr. Ambedkar: I am not revolutionary enough. Shrimati Renuka Ray: But you yourself suggested that the State should acquire the land? Dr. Ambedkar: Yes, but I am a progressive radical. Now, I come to article 31 B. This article enumerates in the Ninth Schedule certain laws which have been passed. Great objection has been taken that this is a very unusual procedure. Prima facie, it is an unusual procedure. But let us look at it from another point of view. What are these laws ? What are the principles on which these laws are made which are being saved by the Ninth Schedule. All the laws that have been saved by this Schedule are laws which fall under article 31A. That is to say, they are laws which are intended to acquire estates. And when we say by article 31A that whenever a law is made for the acquisition of an estate, neither the principle of compensation nor the principle of

357PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES discrimination shall stand in the way of the validity of it. I admit that sentimentally there may be objection. But from the practical point of view. I do not understand why we should not declare them valid pieces of legislation. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : They are bad laws and so they have to be declared valid! Shri Syamnandan Sahaya (Bihar): May I enquire whether these laws that are now sought to be validated will cover, only land reforms or whether there will be interference with other laws like the Transfer of Property Act and other Act ? Has this aspect of the matter been investigated by the Government? Dr. Ambedkar: I shall be quite frank about it. The only Other method to adopt would be to give power to the President to revise these laws and to reconstruct them and to bring them strictly in conformity with the provisions of article 31. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: Under article 31 we decided that if President certifies certain laws, they will be valid. Now that safeguard has been taken away. Dr. Ambedkar: The reason why that has not been done is this. Just imagine the amount of burden that would be cast upon myself, on the Law Ministry, the Food and Agriculture Ministry and other Ministeries involved if we were to sit here and examine every section of each one of these Acts to find out whether they deviate. I think that is impossible. Shri Kamath: Appoint a Committee for the purpose Dr. Ambedkar : That will mean postponement of this Bill. Now I come to clause 6 which seeks to amend article 85. In article 85 the word used is ‘summon’. This word has given rise to some difficulty. The word ‘ summon’ has a technical meaning, viz. sitting of Parliament after a prorogation or dissolution. It does not cover the case of the sitting of Parliament after adjournment. The result is that although Parliament may sit for the whole year adjourning from time 11-00 AM

358 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES to time, it is still capable of being said that Parliament has been summoned only once and not twice. There must be prorogation in order that there may be a new session. It is felt that this difficulty should be removed and consequently the first part of it has been deleted. The provision that whenever there is a prorogation of Parliament, the new session shall be called within six months is retained. That is the difference between the old article and the new, viz., the summoning has been dispensed with. Parliament may be summoned once and it may continue to go on after short adjournments from time to time. Another difficulty with regard to clause (2) is—it was contended by some that according to the letter of this article it is necessary that both Houses should be prorogued simultaneously and not at different times. That certainly was not the intention of the Constitution. The Constitution intended that one House may be summoned at one time, another may be summoned at another time, one may be prorogued at one time and another may be prorogued at another time. It is to make this possible that clause (2) has been amended. With regard to article 87, which is sought to be amended by clause 7, the position is this. Under the old article the provision was that whenever Parliament was summoned, there was to be an address by President. Now as Parliament will be summoned only once and it will continue either by prorogation or by adjournment, it is not necessary to retain this provision. Similarly ……… Shri Kamath: How can it continue after prorogation ? Dr. Ambedkar: If it is prorogued, then it will be summoned. If there are two summonings, the address by President will be only once. With regard to precedence for debate, that also has been deleted—not that there will be no time given but for the simple reason that there may be some urgent business which may require to be disposed of earlier ...... Shri Syamnandan Sahaya: Supposing the President wants to address the House, this will be a limitation imposed on him.