Vol. 15 · pages 471–475

454 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri. M. B. Vaishya: The ruling that you have kindly given in this regard is certainly valuable and we have but to follow it. But I have to say a few words to Hon. Dr. Ambedkar. The Bill that he has introduced has been moved on behalf of the Government and as it must have been very a necessary one, therefore, we, Harijans will surely lend our support to the same. But what I had to say I have submitted in brief. I hope that he will excuse me for what I have said here, and you Sir, will also excuse me. (Translation concluded) [SRHIMATI DURGABAI in the Chair ]. Dr. Deshmukh (Madhya Pradesh) : My friend the Hon. Minister is in a great hurry, but I have some very important points to urge. It is not with regard to one particular caste or another, but I must say, that the whole way in which this matter of representation of the people, election rules and regulations are being dealt with is extremely unsatisfactory. We have had one Bill in 1950, which is now Act No. XLIII of 1950. We know the way in which it was introduced, the struggle that this House had to put in for the sake of getting the provisions amended and the number of seats increased. Then very soon after we had an amending Bill which is Act No. XXIII of 1950 by which we provided for representation of Part C States in the Council of States. Then we have not had any Bill for some time although two are now pending before the House, but we had two notifications under the signature of the President. It is perfectly legal and constitutional to do so. Those are the notifications dated 10th of August 1950 and 6th of September 1950 specifying the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. My first complaint refers to action of Government under these two articles 341 and 342. Under the second part of article 341 Parliament alone has the authority to modify, add to or substract from the list that has been notified under the signature of the President. It was quite proper and constitutional to notify these lists but I wish the Hon. Minister had given this House an opportunity of looking into and scrutinizing the lists that have been given in these notifications.

455PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES I do not know whether the Hon. Law Minister had seen the representations, but I have had many letters from many communities, who have a grievance that they have not been included in these lists. It would have been quite proper if, instead of bringing another small Bill confined to one particular class of States—I do not object to the Bill on the other hand, I am in favour of the Bill—some sort of procedure was available to the Members of this House in the case of these two lists, so that it would have been possible for us to scrutinize them and the people would also know how far their rights have been protected. The long discussion and the anxiety of the Members of this House are, I believe, really based on this fact. If everything else was in order, if there was proper investigation as was absolutely necessary in this case, so far as the Parts A and B States are concerned—this is a supplementary list of Scheduled Castes with reference to Part C States—the debate in the House would probably have been much shorter. The keenness of Members would have been less and we would not have had much occasion to complain. But the way in-which the whole thing is being done is really strange and I hope and pray that this sort of thing is not done. We should have one consolidated enactment in which all these things should be provided for. There will then be no need to have amending Bills month after month to add or subtract and all the various things. My first and very earnest request to the Hon. Minister is that the lists given under these notifications are not exhaustive. The people belonging to many castes feel that they have been unjustly omitted and if we really compare these lists with the lists which formed the basis of the Order in Council under the 1935 Act we will find that many castes have certainly been omitted. If it is contended that these castes which have been omitted have really ceased to be untouchables or there has been a certain change in their social status, that is another matter. We do not know whether the House will accept it or not; whether the people will accept it or not. When we had these lists prepared as schedules to the 1935 Act, there was a great deal of investigation, then the people were informed and they came to know what their rights were and what they should fight

456 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES for. Nothing of this sort has been done on the present occasion. I do not know who prepared these lists which have been published under the signature of the President. I do not know what investigation has been made so far as these lists in the present Bill are concerned. These are matters which really create a lot of anxiety and feeling in the minds of the people and I would therefore like that the Government do really have some system, some method in approaching this question a method which will give satisfaction to the largest number of people. Then so far as this particular Bill is concerned, I think it is necessary so long as it is proposed to give representation to some of the Part C States. I think the lists have got to be prepared and whether they were prepared at one time as part of one whole or another is a different question. But I do not think this is absolutely superfluous. It does not appear to me beyond doubt that there is any definite provision in the Constitution according to which we are enacting this measure. So far as I can see the only justification or the only authority for bringing in this Bill appears to be that wherever there are Scheduled Castes people, some seats are proposed to be reserved for them. But this is merely because there is a provision for reservation for Scheduled Castes—I do not know if there is any specific provision in the Constitution according to which we can make this provision, apart from articles 341 and 342 which do not apply to Part C States. This is merely a technical objection. I really want that seats in Part C States should be reserved and Scheduled Castes should be enumerated. There cannot be any difference of opinion so far as the desirability of enumerating the Scheduled Castes or making provision for them so far as Part C States are concerned. But, what I wish to find out from my hon. friend when he replies is, where exactly is the provision in the Constitution according to which this representation is being sought to be given, according to which this Bill is perfectly in order? So far as the lists are concerned, I wish a little more time was available to all the people to know how far their rights

457PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES are going to be affected. I have received representations from various communities which desire that their names should be included. It is quite likely that many backward people have not yet come to know that anything is being done which would affect their rights. It may very well be that backward as these people are, their rights are probably jeopardised, simply because we are doing this in great hurry. From that point of view, I would not be surprised if there are many castes which happen to be omitted and which have a grievance against what we are doing. If we compare the lists that are in vogue, for instance, so far as the present situation is concerned, the Order in Council prepared in 1930 and 1931 and which formed part of the Act of 1935, with the present list, we find that there are great many omissions. I have another notification by the Public Service Commission. Here in Delhi, you will be pleased to find that the list of Scheduled Castes contains no less than 64 numbers. As against that, in this schedule, you find only 39. What steps have been taken to find out and what justification there is to omit the different castes, I do not know. I am prepared to wait till the Hon. Minister replies. But, I am sure, this is a somewhat drastic reduction. I do not know on what basis it has been made. Even if it is slightly late, I would request my hon. friend not to be in a hurry, for my hon. friend is in a great hurry to get this Bill through. That is the only anxiety of the Cabinet Ministers; they are in a hurry and want things to be done in five minutes or ten minutes, as if they are the only persons who understand things, and the other people merely waste their breath and spend the time of the House and do not contribute anything specially or directly although they represent the people. That sort of attitude I do not very much like. I hope that Dr. Ambedkar would give us a patient hearing and I would urge on him, on behalf of large number of people who have no voice and who do not understand their rights or what is going on in this House, that there should be no hurry in this matter. I should like the consideration of this Bill to be positioned and the whole subject taken up and settled once for all. As Mr. Sonavane rightly remarked, nowadays, many people are leaving their homes and there is a large transfer of

458 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES population. A lot of people from Madhya Pradesh have come and settled more or less permanently in Delhi. If you do not include, for instance, the Mahars, and some other Scheduled Castes who have come here permanently they will lose their rights. All these questions will have to be investigated because it is not a temporary thing. This is something which is going to be embodied in the Constitution; this is more or less a permanent thing which we expect to last for a long number of years. In these circumstances, spending a few more days on consideration of this Bill is not waste of time; it would be time well utilised, Therefore, I submit there should be no hurry in passing this measure. By merely passing this Bill, we are not going to go ahead much. There are many difficulties. I am really doubtful whether we would be in a position to hold the elections in November or December next, because the delimitation work is going to be a great headache. There are great differences between what the Election Commissioner is going to do and what the Delimitation Committees have decided. You cannot rush such things in this House over the shoulders and decisions of the Delimitation Committees and have elections anyhow. There are many more difficulties which are going to take time. If that is going to happen, there should be no undue haste in passing this Bill and shutting out representation to people who would like to be included in the schedules to this Bill. I have been able to table an amendment in the case of two castes; but I am sure there are many more who would like to be heard and represented. I urge that the whole thing should not be done in a piecemeal fashion in which it has been done. It would be much better to have a consolidated measure so that the kinds of objections that have been raised here will not come forward hereafter. I shall move my amendment, and I hope the Hon. Minister would accept the same. Shri R. Velayudhan (Travancore-Cochin): It was not my desire to speak on this Bill because I thought there was no scope for any controversy over it. I am very glad that the hon. Speaker who presided before gave the ruling that matters that have happened outside this House have no proper place in the discussion on the Bill now before the House. I wish, however,