Vol. 15 · pages 456–460

439PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES belonging to the Scheduled Castes, especially the Bharatiya Depressed Classes League, of which I am the General Secretary, submitted a long memorandum to the President, to the Prime Minister, to the Law Minister and to the hon. Shri Jagjivan Ram in this matter. After great consideration this proposal has been brought before this House. Madam, let me inform the House that justice has not been done to these unfortunate people in these centrally Administered Areas of the country. We speak very much against the State Governments of the various States but what about the Part C States? In my own State of Bihar there are all kinds of facilities for Harijans for reading, writing and in the services. But what do we see in the Centrally Administered Areas? Even education for the Harijans is not free. There are no arrangements for scholarship and other facilities. The Government of India have appointed a Board to deal with these matters. Last year they received about 100 applications from the students reading in colleges, but only five to seven could get scholarships. And in many of the other States, in my State of Bihar for instance, all the students reading in colleges get a stipend of Rs. 35 a month. So, the condition of these people in the Centrally Administered Areas is very bad indeed. As regards the representation of these people, there is no representative of theirs in this House. They have always been neglected by the Central Government. The responsibility for the administration of the Part C States is that of the Central Cabinet where the learned Law Minister is also a Member. May I ask what he has done for these people for the last three or four years he has been in the Cabinet ? I have seen that the Law Minister who calls himself the saviour of the Scheduled Castes was silent on this issue in the Constituent Assembly and even on the last occasion when a Bill was moved for Part C States representation. Therefore, if he comes with a Bill for the representation of these people now, it should not be opposed by any Member of the House. As we know, the number of Scheduled Castes in these Centrally Administered Areas is something like fifteen to twenty lakhs. I have moved an amendment that where they do not have representation, as

440 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES for instance in Coorg, Ajmer, Tripura, they should be given representation. The Scheduled Castes in those places have not even been listed as Scheduled Castes. I do not know whether the Law Minister will be able to accept my amendment and list these people as Scheduled Castes. I do not say that wherever these people are, they must be given representation in the Councils, Assemblies and Parliament. That is not my demand. If the population of these people does not warrant representation, do not give it to them. If on the other hand, their number warrants, please give them representation and if you want to give them a fair deal and justice, at least include them in the list of Scheduled Castes so that facilities in education, services, representation in local bodies, and facilities even for drinking water can be given to these people. That is my only argument. I must say that in my opinion the Central Government has not done justice to these people and the larger share of the responsibility for that falls upon the two Harijan Ministers in our Cabinet, especially upon Dr. Ambedkar who has been making public speeches that people in Parliament belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are doing nothing. I do not think this attitude of Dr. Ambedkar is fair, justified or warranted. Therefore, when we are working under a democracy and have laid down adult franchise in the Constitution for everybody, if these unfortunate people in the Centrally Administered Areas get adult franchise and get representation, there should be no grudge and nothing should be said against this. If any hon. Member gets up and opposes it, I shall say that he is acting against the principle laid down by the Father of the Nation—Mahatma Gandhi. Regarding the representation of these people in this House—and this is the only House in which they can be represented because there is no other House going to be established in the Centrally Administered Areas,—I should say that their representation is not fair. Delhi with a population of 15 lakhs will have three representatives in this House, but the number of these people in the Centrally Administered Areas is about 20 lakhs and yet they will have only three representatives, that is to say, one representative

441PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES less calculating on the basis of one representative for every five lakhs. And yet people say that this Bill has been introduced to give representation to these people who are less in number in the Centrally Administered Areas. In the end, I shall only say that there are other castes and communities which are Scheduled Castes and which have been recognised as Scheduled Castes by the Government of India in the Ministry of Education. As soon as the President declared a Scheduled Caste list a schedule was published and this list was published in respect of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for purposes of scholarships only. I would request the Hon. Law Minister to accept this list, so that those who are included in it may get the facilities that Scheduled Castes in other states are getting. With these words, I would request the Hon. Minister to accept any amendment when I move it at the proper time. Sardar Hukam Singh (Punjab): There cannot be any objection to the Bill under discussion. I feel that it was essential and has come in good time. I cannot persuade myself to agree with my hon. friend Mr. Kapoor when he said that there was no necessity for this Bill or when he questioned its propriety. Article 341 gives power to the President to specify the classes which may be included in the list of Scheduled Castes, but obviously if we read that article the intention was that it might be confined to Parts A and B States. That article did not concern Part C States. Therefore it was that it was mentioned that it would be done with the consultation of the Rajpramukhs or the Governors of those States. The other provisions in that Chapter also relate to only Parts A and B States. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that Part C States were not provided for so far as the specification of Scheduled Castes was concerned. Again, it has been mentioned that Article 392 could be availed of for the removal of difficulties by the President, but that article does not apply, if we look at that Article closely. It reads like this : “The President may, for the purpose of removing any difficulties, particularly in relation to the transition from the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935, to the provisions of this Constitution, by order direct...... etc...... etc...... ”

442 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Therefore, these two articles could not be availed of and there was necessity for this Bill. Then, it has been said that 341 (2) gives powers to the Parliament when an order by the President has been made. The Parliament is authorised to add to or subtract from or omit any caste from that schedule, but this is the general power, I Suppose, that is vested in the Parliament that is being exercised in enacting the Bill now before us. As I have said, the Bill was essential and it has been brought at the right moment before the elections which are so near at hand. There is a separate list for every State and I feel that some Members who spoke were right when they pointed out that some castes which are specified as Scheduled Castes in one State may not be specified as such in the adjoining States. There are certain entries in the lists before us which to my mind give rise to some doubts, and I want the Hon. Minister to kindly clear the position. So far as Delhi is concerned, there are two castes included in Nos. 5 and 6: Banjaras and Bawarias. But these people are not included in the list under Himachal Pradesh. These Banjaras and Bawarias are to be found in Himachal Pradesh as well in good numbers. Dr. Ambedkar: If my hon. Friend will see entry No. 6 under Himachal Pradesh, he will see Bhanjra there. Sardar Hukam Singh : I am referring to Banjara and not Bhanjra. Dr. Ambedkar : So it is a question of pronunciation. Sardar Hukam Singh: No. They are different castes altogether. A Banjara is a different tribesman from a Bhanjra. Then again, Mazhabi entered as item 16 under Himachal Pradesh has not been entered under Delhi. These people are included in the list of Punjab and PEPSU and after the partition a good number of them have migrated to the adjoining States and some have come to Delhi too,, apart from a good number who have gone to Himachal Pradesh. When the local authorities in those States collected the figures, they may have thought that their number was very small, but then

443PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES it would be a handicap for them if they are not included. As we know, these are either landless workers or labourers. The Banjaras move from one State to an adjoining State in search of employment and they eke out their livelihood. It would be a difficulty for them if they are deprived of their representation and the other concessions which they may otherwise be entitled to enjoy. Then there are one or two other entries. One such is No. 19 under Delhi—Julaha (Weaver). Then under No. 14 under Himachal Pradesh it is given as Kabirpanthi or Julaha or Keer. These Kabirpanthis and the Julahas are two different castes. They are not one and the same. Dr. Ambedkar: Sometimes, it is one caste with two names. Sardar Hukam Singh : That is not so here. These are two distinct and separate castes. Therefore difficulty would arise. Then again, there is entry No. 23 under Himachal Pradesh—Ramdasi or Ravidasi but under Delhi entry No. 32 reads Ram Dasia. I would like to know from the Hon. Minister whether Ramdasi and Ravidasi are two different castes and if they are—as in my opinion they certainly are—then why should that be omitted from Himachal Pradesh ? In entry No. 33 under Delhi it is given as Ravidasi or Raidasi but under Himachal Pradesh against entry No. 23 it is given only as Ramdasi or Ravidasi. So, there is a confusion. I am not aware of the actual denominations by which they may be called, but there is certainly some confusion and those castes have not been included in Himachal Pradesh under those two separate heads. My only point is that these provinces, Punjab, PEPSU, Himachal Pradesh and Delhi are contiguous areas and people keep on moving from one State to another in search of livelihood. Therefore if these poor classes are not included in the lists of all the States, they would be deprived of a concession which the Constitution wanted to give them and the whole object of ours would be frustrated. Therefore, I want to draw the special attention of the Hon. Minister to this matter. I had sent an amendment on this point this morning, copy of which he would by now have received. I would request him to give it his earnest attention. With these few words, Sir, I support this motion.