Vol. 15 · pages 496–500

479PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES [MR. SPEAKER in the Chair ] It is therefore incumbent on me to repel the suggestion which has been made in the course of this debate that this Bill is uncalled for. hon. Members have referred to article 330 on which they have built their main argument. It is quite true that article 330 refers to the reservation for the scheduled castes in the House of the People. What we are considering in this Bill is the reservation of seats in the House of the People for the scheduled castes in certain Part C States. As I said, it is therefore relevant that this article should be referred to. It seems to me that hon. Members who have relied upon article 330 seem to have altogether forgotten that the basis of representation of the scheduled castes must be the enumeration or the definition of the scheduled castes. Unless and until we knew what the scheduled castes are and what their total population is, it is absolutely impossible for anybody to make any provisions for the practical and factual representation of the Scheduled Castes. The question, therefore, is this : Is there any provision whereby it is possible for any authority except Parliament to make a list of the scheduled castes so that we might know what they are, and also their population? For that purpose, it is necessary to refer to article 341. This is what article 341 says : “(1) The President may, after consultation with the Governor or Rajpramukh of a state, by public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State.” A similar provision is contained in article 342 which relates to scheduled tribes. There is a proviso contained in sub-clause (2) of article 341 and sub-clause (2) of article 342 which prevents the President, after having once made the order, from modifying it. The power to modify the order has been expressly reserved to Parliament. It is necessary to read very carefully the words of article 341 and article 342. No doubt, the President is empowered to issue a notification; but, there is a very important condition attached to his power to issue a notification. That condition is that he can issue it only after consultation with the Governor or Rajpramukh of a State. Any

480 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES one who reads the Constitution will know that by making reference to a Governor or Rajpramukh, it is quite clear that what is meant is states in Part A or States in Part B. Because, it is only in States in Part A or Part B that you find the institution of a Governor or Rajpramukh. If article 341 also stated in specific terms that the President can issue such a notification in consultation with the Chief Commissioner, undoubtedly, the President could have been presumed to have been empowered by the Constitution under articles 341 and 342 to issue a notification with regard to States in Part C also. Unfortunately, or fortunately, such a clause was not put in article 341. My. hon. Friend who spoke last asked that I must explain as to why the Constitution did not make any provision giving the President the power to issue a notification with regard to the scheduled castes in Part C States. I think those Members, who took part in the discussion of the various articles when the matter was before the Constitutent Assembly, will recall that this question was a matter of great controversy. Everybody felt that politics might enter into this field, that the President might be advised for political reasons to omit a certain community, that the President might be advised to add a certain community because of its political affiliation. Consequently, we had to draft this article with the greatest care and attention. It was also insisted that once the President had made the order, he should not have the power to alter it, because, there again, politics might enter. This is evident from the fact that in both the articles clause (2) was introduced, because it was felt that once the order was made, if any change was demanded, that change ought to be made in the open House, by the House, with the knowledge of the scheduled caste Members of Parliament. That was the reason why these articles were drafted with such meticulous care. My point, however, was this. The argument of my hon. friends who said that this Bill was unnecessary is based upon a complete misunderstanding and misreading of article 341. As I stated in my opening remarks, it is absolutely impossible to devise any kind of scheme of reservation for the scheduled castes unless two things are known : who the scheduled castes

481PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES are and what their population is. As I said, if this matter was covered by article 341, then it would have been quite unnecessary to come to this House for making provision for representation of scheduled castes in Part C States. Because, then the President would have the same power as he has with regard to the scheduled castes in Part A and Part B states to determine the Scheduled Castes in Part C States and their population so that the Election Commissioner could easily proceed to delimit the constituencies. Therefore, my submission is that there is no substance in this argument that this Bill from a constitutional point of view is unnecessary. My hon. Friend Mr. Deshpande has challenged me on another ground that this matter is already covered in the former Act called the Representation of the People Act, 1950. He has referred to section 6 of that Act where it is stated that the President may determine among other things, “the number of seats, if any reserved for the scheduled castes or for the scheduled tribes in each constituency ”. Here again, he seems to be suffering from one fallacy. This Act has reference to the order issued by the President with regard to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in Part A and Part B States. This section 6 could have no reference to or relevance to a case where the scheduled castes or the scheduled tribes have not been notified by the President. It is only when the President can notify that this section can be attracted. What we are doing now is to enact a list of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes in the various Part C States where we propose to reserve seats for them. Therefore, my submission is that his argument too is based on a complete misunderstanding of the provisions of that particular Act. There is, I find, no disagreement on the question that provision should be made for representation of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in Part C States. So far, so good. Two Members from Vindhya Pradesh have said that by taking two seats, one for the scheduled castes and one for the scheduled tribes, the general representation has been cut into too much. Prima facie, I am not prepared to accept that argument. That argument seems to be founded on the supposition that all the six seats were to ensure to the benefit

482 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES of the caste Hindus. I am not prepared to accept that argument. Those seats have been given to Vindhya Pradesh not only for the caste Hindus but for all other people who are resident in those States. They have appealed to me to see if the quota of seats allotted to Vindhya Pradesh in the House of the People may not be increased by one. You know that in the Constitution a definite maximum limit has been placed for the House of the People and I believe it is about 500. It is quite obvious that I could not increase the quota of representation of Vindhya Pradesh if the thing is going to offend against that maximum which would be quite impossible and unconstitutional. It is quite possible that other Part C States may also claim an enlargement of their quota because they may also claim the same sort of treatment. It is therefore difficult for me to commit to any such proposal as has been put before me. All that I can say is that I will look into the matter and see if something can be done. Beyond that I do not propose to say anything. Then, my friend from Vindhya Pradesh drew my attention to article 240. His argument was that instead of taking action under article 240 I was proceeding under some other articles of the Constitution. Well, I know he will agree that the articles under which I am proceeding are perfectly legitimate. The reason why he wants me to act under article 240 he knows very well and I do not wish to expose the thing more than is necessary. All that I need tell him is this, that it is unnecessary for me to refer to article 240 because my problem is very different. My problem is to provide for the representation of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in Part C States in the House of the People. My present problem is not to find representation for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in any local assembly or a Parliament that may be devised hereafter. When the Government of India will take action to satisfy my friend for the purpose of establishing some local legislature, then undoubtedly article 240 will be resorted to and provision will be made for the representation of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes therein also. But for the moment, it is not necessary for me to resort to article 240.

483PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Then, much criticism has been levelled against the list of the scheduled castes. Well, I do not know how one can satisfactorily deal with a matter of that sort, because anybody in the Government of India dealing with a matter of this sort as to what community is a scheduled caste community and what community is not a scheduled caste community, must necessarily depend upon the local information furnished to the Government of India by their officers and other agencies who are conversant with the matter. It is quite possible that the information supplied to the Government of India by their agency differs from the information which hon. Members have. Government, therefore, has to come to its choice necessarily relying on the information of its own officers. If any hon. Member can prove to my satisfaction that in the list that we have prepared, there has been any grave error or omission. I shall certainly consider the question. My friend Dr. Deshmukh of course, is very discontented, I think with the Government and thinks that the Government is always rushing through matters. I do not know how long he would like each Bill to take—probably a fortnight—and I do not know whether he would be satisfied even with that time. He expatiated a great deal upon the inadequacy and the errors of the list. My friend Dr. Deshmukh will permit me to say that as a member of the Round Table Conference, I had a great deal to do with the preparation of these tables. I had a great deal to do with it. We had before us a very grave problem. That problem was that in the census reports, right from 1910, if he will refer to them he will see, that certain classes were shown separately and they were called “depressed classes”. When the question came at the Round Table Conference for giving representation to these classes, the question arose what was meant by the “depressed classes”. There were a large number of people who were economically and educationally backward but who in the technical sense of the word were not untouchables. There were certain communities like the mangarudis for instance, who were criminal tribes put were not untouchables in the technical sense of the word; they were practically outside the pale of society and yet were not untouchables. The question was then considered at great length—Are we going to give