Vol. 15 · pages 386–390

369PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES nullified a law which had made previous restraint as unconstitutional. But with regard to that case I think it is not desirable to fix our banner and standard by the decision that was given, because I would like to draw my learned friend’s attention to some of the incidents with regard to that particular case. I have a book with me and I shall give the name. I know that Dr. Mookerje is very careful in pursuing these matters. The book is Free Speech in the United States. There are various other books also which he must have known. Now with regard to this particular case the first point which the American writers have themselves noted is that it is a decision which was arrived at by a bare majority of one single judge ; it was a decision which was given by five to four. The second thing is that at page 380 the writer himself has said that on account of this very narrow majority— “The Near case had ho immediate effect beyond voiding the Minnesota statute, which is said to have grown out of a nasty local situation.” I would also like to read to him a portion of the judgment delivered by the chief of the dissenting judges which I think is worth quoting. This is what Mr. Justice Butler who headed the minority said: “It is well known ……that existing libel laws are inadequate effectively to suppress evils resulting from the kind of business and publications that are shown in this case. The “doctrine that measures such as the zone before us are invalid as previous restraints exposes the peace and good order of every community and the business and private affairs of every individual to the constant and protracted false and malicious assaults of any insolvent publisher who may have purpose and sufficient capacity to contrive and put into effect a scheme or programme for oppression, blackmail, or extortion.” That also is a demand which must be taken into consideration in dealing with the liberty of the press. The other thing which my friend has been harping upon all along is the phrase used by Justice Holmes in dealing with cases relating to freedom of speech which is called “clear and present danger”. I have been trying to find out whether that is a very new doctrine so far as we are concerned. I suppose our judges also adopt the same doctrine. Supposing, for instance, a professor delivered a lecture on Communism in the Delhi University

370 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES to the students. I do not suppose, although he may mention to them the violent methods that the communists adopt in order to achieve their object that anybody would hold that merely because he delivered a lecture to the students he was guilty of any offence. There was no “clear and present danger” and I have no doubt about it that our judges also would uphold the same line of reasoning. Therefore, as I said, I do not understand why our friends are abiding so much by certain catch phrases and certain decisions of the courts in the United States. I will now deal with the question of confining “incitement” in violence and I want my friends, Dr. Shyama Prasad Mookerjee and also Pandit Kunzru to pay some attention to what I am saying—and I will take some very particular cases. First of all, I would like to know whether they are in a position to give a precise definition of the meaning of the word “violence”. What is “violence” ? Is it to be confined merely to physical violence ? Dr. S. P. Mookerjee: Violent words are excluded. Dr. Ambedkar: I am not talking of violent words. Have they been able to give us any precise definition which would enable the legislature and the court to know that this is violence and this is not violence ? I cannot find any. Shri Kamath: Put it as “as defined by law”. Dr. Ambedkar: It is only postponing the trouble. Some day when we make the law we shall have to give the definition of “violence”. I come now to specific instances. Supposing, for instance, there is trouble—I am giving some concrete cases which have happened—and there is trouble between the Scheduled Castes and caste Hindus in a particular village and the caste Hindus conspire together to proclaim a social boycott on the Scheduled Castes, preventing them from obtaining any kind of supplies, preventing them from going into the fields, preventing them from going into the jungles to collect fuel, then I want to know from Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee and Pandit Kunzru whether they want this, as an offence, to be regarded by the State as such or not.

371PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : Doctors differ in this respect. Dr. Ambedkar: I shall give another illustration which was recently reported in Bombay. In a place near Thana there was trouble going on between caste Hindus and the Scheduled Castes over the taking of water from a particular well. With the help of the police the Scheduled Castes there were able to secure their right to take water from that well along with the caste Hindus. The caste Hindus did not like the matter. They wanted the well to be exclusively used by them. Two days ago there was a report in the Bombay Press wherein it was stated that some caste Hindus incited some of their men to drop into it some kind of poisonous weeds. The result was that the whole water was poisoned and some of the Scheduled Caste people who drank the water suffered from the effect of the poison. I want to ask both of them whether they would limit their definition of incitement to violence, or whether they would extend it to cover where one community does something in order to harm and injure another community. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee: In such a case you and I will go there to prevent it. Dr. Ambedkar: You and I cannot go everywhere. You will be engaged in fighting the elections and I may be doing something else and we will have no time to go to the rescue of those people. It is no use taking the responsibility on our shoulders. It is much better that the law provides for it. Then with regard to particular laws, I and my colleagues or the Treasury Benches have been shouting time and over again that in this Bill what we are doing is to merely confirm capacity on Parliament to make laws for certain purposes. We are not enacting particular laws. We are not even protecting the laws as they exist today. But somehow Members who are determined to oppose. Members who are determined to take the opposite view—if they will forgive me—out of pure obstinacy are not able to make this distinction between capacity to legislate and making a particular law. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee: The obstinacy is yours not to understand. The House then adjourned till Half Past Three of the Clock.

372 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES The House reassembled Half Past Three of the Clock. [PANDIT THAKUR DAS BHARGAVA in the Chair ] * Shri Hussain Imam: I wish to draw the attention of the House that no zamindar in his senses objects to the dictum laid down by the Constitution or by the Hon. the Prime Minister. The whole quarrel arises whether the intention of the Constitution is carried out or something is being foisted on us in the name of the Constitution which is not covered by the terms of the Constitution as embodied in the Constitution Act. And secondly…… An hon. Member: We are amending the Constitution. Shri Hussain Imam: No. What we are doing is, according to the Prime Minister to carry out the intentions of the Constitution which our wording had failed to do. And there I am at one with him, that as a member of the Constituent Assembly, I am as much a party in this—though I was not present on that day—as anybody else is. There were two cardinal principles of the Constitution—firstly about the Acts which are passed after the Constitution came into effect and those Acts which were passed upto 18 months before the Constitution was brought into effect. Now I ask you, the House and the Law Minister to certify that the eleven Acts are covered by these two categories. Only four Acts come under the category that are passed after the Constitution and had received the assent of the President. Seven Acts are not covered by this. Dr. Ambedkar: They were assented, I understand. Shri Hussain Imam : None, except the four. They are the Bihar Act, U. P. Act, Madhya Pradesh Act and the other Act. All the rest have not been assented to. Shri Bharati (Madras): Madras Act has been assented to. Shri Hussain Imam: Madras Act I of 1950 has been assented to, not the 1948 Act. I refer to this fact because in the beginning I spoke on the subject and suggested that ample time should be given to the House and to the Select Committee to examine these thoroughly …… * P. D., Vol. 12., Part II, 1st June 1951, pp. 9906-07.

373PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES The other thing to which I would like to draw attention is to the dictum laid down by the Hon. Prime Minister that we must pay fair, adequate compensation and not too much and I agree with that dictum. But do consider the things as they are existing. I am one with the Government in abolishing zamindari but on fair terms. Dr. Ambedkar: The words ‘fair compensation’ do not appear in article 31. Shri Hussain Imam : It was the wording of the Hon. Prime Minister. As far as article 31 is concerned, my charge is that the seven Acts that you are thrusting down our throats are not covered by the original provisions of article 31. Dr. Ambedkar: They are governed by new article 31A. Shri Hussain Imam : I was referring to the fact that we must face the facts. The Socialist party says that they are not going to honour the instialments that are going to be fixed by the Congress Government. The Communists have declared from the housetops that they are not going to honour it. Why be in a fool’s paradise and believe that it will be paid in 40 years ? Half a loaf is better than nothing and if you have to give you should give now. You should realise the plight of small landholder of zamindar who has an income of 500 or 600 or 1,000 rupees. He is not a bloated capitalist. I aver that at least the lower income group should be given compensation in lump sums so that they may start some business. *Dr. Ambedkar: As to my own amendment I do not think that any argument is necessary in, order to support the same. The amendment is merely an amplification as to the meaning of the word “estate”. Some people felt that while we had taken note of the laws that prevail in Part A States with regard to the definition of the word “estate”, we had not taken sufficient notice of the definition of the word “estate” operating in Part B States. In order to remove that doubt I felt that it was necessary to take note of it and to amplify the definition of the word “estate”, which I propose to do by my amendment. * P. D., Vol 12, Part II, 1st June 1951, pp. 9912-15.