Vol. 15 · pages 491–495

474 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES suggest amendments, to omit or add to the castes and tribes enumerated in the President’s order—that being so. I do not see any propriety for this Bill at all. All that it seeks to do could be done by an order of the President specifying the castes and tribes and by placing the order of the President before the House and then following the same procedure as in the case of the Part A and B States. I hope the hon. the Law Minister will look into this matter and convince us that the Bill is really necessary. Capt. A. P. Singh : ( English translation of the Hindi speech) Sir, I am not opposed to the object of the Bill, namely, making a provision for representation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. As for the many points that have been raised here, I will only say that I agree with the views of hon. Dr. Ambedkar. He himself says that Articles 341 and 342 apply in relation to Part A and Part B States only and that Articles 330 and 332 are also for Part A and Part B States. Then again, he has said that there is no specific provision of affording representation to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of Part C States. He admits this thing in the Statement of Objects and Reasons. Now, he finds that because it is necessary to reserve seats for these people, they must therefore be given representation by enacting legislation in the Parliament, that is to say he wants special powers for the Parliament to do it. That is the object for which he has brought this Bill before the House. In this connection, my submission is that he himself was a Member of the Constituent Assembly when the Constitution was being framed. If we wish to find out the reasons why no provision was made for the Part C States, we must examine the spirit of the Constitution as to why the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of Part C States were not given any representation. There must be some definite reasons for that. As far as I could make out, the entire population of Part C States were treated as Harijans for the reason that they have all been regarded as backward people. This right or reservation of seats is given to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

475PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES only because they are a backward class and since the people of those States have been treated as backward class, no provision has therefore been made to give separate representation to them. So, when there is no such provision, should we agree that they should not be given any rights and that there should be no separate representation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes? My submission is that there is another section in the Constitution which makes such a provision and they should be given these rights under that article which, I believe, is meant for Part ‘C’ States. They are Articles 239 and 240. Sir, I would like to draw your attention to Article 240, according to which these people can be given this right. Article 239 deals with special powers and Article 240 says : “(1) Parliament may by law create or continue for any State specified in Part C of the First Schedule and administered through a Chief Commissioner or Lieutenant-Governor— (a) a body, whether nominated, elected or partly nominated and partly elected, to function as a Legislature for the State; or (b) a Council of Advisers or Ministers, or both with such constitution, powers and functions, in each case, as may be specified in the law. (2) Any such law as is referred to in clause (1) shall not be deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the purposes of article 368 notwithstanding that it contains any provision which amends or has the effect of amending the Constitution.” That is to say, according to the Constitution, we can make change, if necessary, under this article. But in that case one thing is certain and it is that we will have to give more rights to the people in Part C States. It would have been better had hon. Dr. Ambedkar brought forward a clear measure, just as he has declared in the case of Part B States that Part VI with the undermentioned amendment will apply to them, to the effect that the Part VI with the following modifications will apply in relation to Part C States as well. I wish to draw the attention of the Hon. Dr. Ambedkar to that. It is as follows : “The provisions of Part VI shall apply in relation to the States specified in Part B of the First Schedule as they apply in relation to the States specified in Part A of that Schedule subject to the following modifications and omissions, namely:”

476 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Similarly he could have provided the following: “The provisions of Part VI shall apply in relation to the States specified in Part C of the First Schedule as they apply in relation to the States specified in Part A of that Scheduled subject to the following modifications and omissions, namely:” If a Bill having this object and purport and which could also provide that all provisions of Part VI would be applicable, had been brought, it could automatically have solved this problem of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. But he has chosen a different path and wants to enter through the backdoor. He does not take the simpler and a more direct course, which every hon. Minister has the option to adopt and which he must do. Dr. Ambedkar might probably say that it is the concern of the Ministry of States and not his. The Hon. Minister on several occasions, during my talks with him, expressed this view. But I take the Government as a whole, may he be Dr. Ambedkar or Shri Ayyangar or the Minister of Home Affairs. All that I want to submit is that such a Bill would have been much better. But in failing to do so he has put the cart before the horse with the result that people are complaining all round. He should now postpone this Bill and bring forward a Bill which would give all powers enjoyed by Part A States to Part C States. Then this object would automatically be fulfilled. At present he is not working according to the Constitution because, by this Bill, he is giving rights only to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. But we all are Harijans and so before taking this step, all other people must be made distinct from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, that is to say they should first be given more rights as is the case of Part A and Part B States. He should first do this and then only bring such a measure, otherwise, in my opinion, it is of no use. It would take a long time to deal with its details and to describe its reasons. Shri Ayyangar has also stated in his speech that so far as Himachal Pradesh and Vindhya Pradesh are concerned, a Bill will be soon coming for them. It is being framed and we are on the Standing Committee. The Committee has considered it and although it is very unsatisfactory at this time but we hope it will be improved upon to the satisfaction

477PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES of the people. Now, it is said that Delhi should also be allotted one seat. As for Delhi, I submit that there should be no hitch to give this right to it. It is said that since it is the capital of the country, it cannot be given this right. Sir, I would submit that Calcutta too had a Lieutenant-Governor when it was the capital of India but the people of Calcutta enjoyed full rights. Then again, taking the case of Simla, it used to be the capital of India for some period of the year and being situated in Punjab, the Lieutenant-Governor also used to live there, but there had never been any difficulties about the two Governments functioning from the same place. Therefore, I am at a loss to comprehend the argument put forward that the people of Delhi should not be given this right on account of its being the capital of the country. I for one, feel that the people of Delhi should be given more rights because they are living in the capital itself. Shri Ramchandra had said : Sab te priya mohi yahan ke basi, mum dhamda puri Sukhrasi. (I love most the people of my own place which is the land of wealth and prosperity). He had said it for the people of Ayodhya. So when there is so much of hesitation in giving rights to the people of Delhi, I am afraid, other people will have to face even more difficulties. Therefore, in my opinion, it is most desirable to keep the people of Delhi contented as it is the capital of the country and it will not be wise to dissatisfy them in any way. It would have been more proper had we arranged to hold a plebiscite of the people of the area which we are administering. Mr. Chairman: May I draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that we are not discussing the problem of Delhi but we are discussing the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill ? Capt. A. P. Singh : Since it is being enforced in Delhi also, I thought I might refer that Delhi should also be given these rights which we are going to have. I meant only that. Anyway, if it is so, I will not discuss that. My submission is only as to why smaller States like Manipur and Tripura should be refused these reforms of introducing responsible Governments. Aundh is one of the smallest states but it was the first state to have a responsible Government. Therefore I see no reason why other small States like Manipur and Tripura be deprived

478 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES of a responsible Government and why a responsible type of administration be not established there. There are so many other States where a responsible administration does not exist but I have no time to speak about them. The next point which I would like to submit is with regard to the population of Harijans in Vindhya Pradesh. How much is that? No figures have been given about Scheduled Tribes. But it seems that the population of both comes to about, nine lakhs, that is, a little less than one-fourth of the total population. But they are being given one-third of the total seats allotted, that is to say, two out of six seats are being given to them while their population is less than even one-forth. If Hon. Dr. Ambedkar deems it proper, and it is my personal request to him, he should allot one more seat to Vindhya Pradesh so that the population ratio may be adjusted to a greater extent. Although I have not submitted any amendment to that effect, but it is my request to him and it would be better if he agrees to do it. I submit to hon. Dr. Ambedkar that if he thinks it proper he should withhold the present Bill and bring another Bill to that effect. If he is agreeable to do it, I can submit my own Bill to him which I have already drafted in a comprehensive manner. It will be a small Bill saying that more rights should be given to Part ‘C’ states and that responsible Government should be set up there. If it is done, I believe the problem will automatically be solved. That is all I have to say. (Translation concluded) Mr. Chairman : I think this has been sufficiently discussed. I therefore, propose to call hon. Dr. Ambedkar to speak. Dr. Ambedkar: Yesterday when Mr. Kapoor raised a constitutional question that in view of certain articles in the Constitution, this Bill was unnecessary and that I had brought this Bill for some other motive, I myself did not believe that Mr. Kapoor believed in his argument. Shri J. R. Kapoor (Uttar Pradesh): You never believe in a fact. Dr. Ambedkar: It seems to me that his argument has caught on and it has been repeated by several Members today on the floor of this House.