Vol. 15 · pages 501–505

484 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES representation to the whole body of people who were in the census designated as “depressed classes”, which would have meant a very large division in the share of representation of the general Hindu population, or whether we were going to cut that class into something more precise, more definite, something which represented what were known as classes with disabilities imposed upon them and not those which were merely backward? Therefore, a decision was taken that the representation should be given only to what, were really untouchables and to no others. Now, some people did not like the word “untouchables”. They said, “We do not want that word ‘untouchables’.” So we had a term known as the “excluded classes”. That the Hindus did not like. They said: “These are our blood brothers and you must not have a terminology which would indicate that they are outside us.” And so we devised this phrase—scheduled castes—and I might say that to some extent I was responsible for it. I said, if you do not want the word untouchables, and if you do not want the term excluded classes, then have this term of scheduled castes. After all, they will have to be scheduled. Consequently the enumeration which is contained in the 1935 Act Order in Council for scheduled castes has been drafted with the greatest care and attention and I have no doubt in my mind that there is no community which is omitted from it which as a matter of fact ought to have been included, nor added any which ought not to have been added. It is as exact a classification as one could make. I may tell my friend Dr. Deshmukh that while sitting here I was myself making some mathematical calculations in order to find out what variations there were from the list contained in the Order in Council following the Government of India Act, 1935 and the list produced or rather notified by the President. Now I find that so far as these lists are concerned, this is the position. Unfortunately here it is done in the alphabetical order while there it was shown presidency-wise. Well, in Assam there are 15 communities listed in the order issued by the President. I do not find that any single community which was included in the Order in Council has been omitted. All of them are there.

485PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES You take Bihar. There again there are really 14 communities listed in the Order in Council under the Government of India Act, 1935 and here the number of communities that have been listed as scheduled is 21. What they have done is this. In Bihar certain communities were untouchables throughout the province but certain other communities were untouchables in parts of districts and not in others. Consequently they were listed separately. Probably the Home Department in making the notification thought that it was much better not to make this territorial distinction but to treat all of them as untouchables irrespective of the territorial distinction. Take Bombay. There is no change at all. The old Order in Council mentions 34 communities. In this notification the communities listed are 36, which is two more. I do not think it is necessary for me to go over the whole list. So far as Part A States are concerned I do not think there is any ground for complaint. With regard to Part B States it is not possible for me to give any such assurance, for the simple reason that no such lists were prepared under the Act of 1935 for Part B States. Consequently the lists are very new and it is possible that some errors might have crept in. I quite see that an important community like the Ballia whom I know, is not to be found in the list. So with regard to Part B States I have no basis for comparison. So far as Part A States are concerned the list is a fair list. My friend referred to Delhi and produced some paper issued by the Union Public Service Commission. It is quite true that a larger number is mentioned in the list but I have checked it up, and I am prepared to say that compared to the list we have included in this Bill, I think you might as well say that, about 90 per cent, are included in our list. Some of them seem to me to be duplicate names, the same community called by two different names. Dr. Deshmukh: Only 39 out of 64. Dr. Ambedkar: Some people are called Ramdasias as also Ravidasias. Some others are called Dhanuk and Dhanu.

486 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES It is very difficult to know whether they are two communities or one community with two different names. I am prepared to rectify this by omitting the word “or” and numbering them as though they were separate communities. Then an hon. Member wanted figures. But I may tell him that we have been very meticulous in seeing that the proportion is very accurate. I do not think there is any point made in the course of the debate which I have not dealt with. With these words I commend the motion. Shri Ethirajulu Naidu : I would like to have a clarification from the Hon. Minister. Scheduled castes and tribes are in a way defined by articles 341 and 342, but only in respect to Part A and Part B States and there is no corresponding provision in the Constitution of scheduled castes and tribes in Part C States. It is a matter of doubt whether Parliament can by law define a term used in the Constitution. (Dr. Ambedkar: of course.) Is it not necessary that action should be taken by the President under article 392? Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is agitating the same point. If he coolly considers the reply of the Hon. Law Minister I think he will find the answer. The question is : “ That the Bill further to amend the Representation of the People Act, 1950, be taken into consideration.” The motion was adopted. Clause 2—(Insertion of new section 3A etc.) Shri J, R. Kapoor: I beg to move : In clause 2, for the proposed section 3A of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, substitute: “ 3A. for the purposes of reserving seats in the House of the People under the Constitution of India, the castes specified in the Sixth Schedule shall be the scheduled castes in relation to the Part C State under which they are so specified, and the tribes specified in the Seventh Schedule shall be the scheduled tribes in relation to the Part C State under which they are so specified.”

487PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES The implication of my amendment is that sub-clause (1) of the proposed new section 3A goes off. So far as subclause (2) of the new section is concerned for the words “for the purposes of this Act” we shall have the words “for the purposes of reserving seats in the House of the People under the Constitution of India”…… Dr. Ambedkar : May I say that this amendment is entirely outside the scope of the Bill? What we are doing is we are reserving seats in some of the Part C States. Only so far as those States are concerned we are preparing the list. The amendment is that there shall be a list of scheduled castes for all Part C States. That is a separate question. Shri J. R. Kapoor: I do not know how my hon. friend could put this interpretation on my amendment. I have nowhere stated in the amendment that there must necessarily be a schedule in relation to all Part C States. I am referring only to the Sixth and Seventh Schedules which are already given in the Bill itself. I nowhere seek to add a new Schedule or even to amend the two Schedules. They shall remain intact unless of course they are amended by any other amendment which may be moved and accepted by the House. All that I suggest in my amendment is that sub-clause (1) of the proposed section 3A shall be omitted and so far as sub-clause (2) is concerned for the words “for the purposes of this Act” we shall have the words “for the purposes of reserving seats in the House of the People under the Constitution of India.” Why I am moving the amendment is that I am definitely of the view as I submitted yesterday and reaffirm today, that article 330 of the Constitution specifically provides that in the House of the People seats shall be reserved for every State. And the word “state” as defined in article 1 of the Constitution includes all States whether they are in Part A or Part B or Part C. The Hon. Law Minister in his reply to the debate on the Bill a few minutes ago said that while he did admit that article 330 specifically provided for reservation of seats his only difficulty was that article 330 could not be complied with until there was a specific list of scheduled castes for Part C States and since there was no such list and since none could be made according to the provisions of article 341, it was necessary to

488 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES have a separate list of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. To that I would repeat my submission made yesterday that article 341 should have been so amended and adapted by the President as to remove this difficulty. This he could have done under article 392. But that argument did not appeal to my Hon. friend Dr. Ambedkar. I am not reiterating that argument today, but even assuming that it is necessary for Parliament to pass a list specifying the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, my original contention does remain, that it is not necessary to provide again in this legislation for the reservation of seats in the House of the People for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes residing in Part C States. This provision is already specifically included in article 330 of the Constitution. Therefore, sub-clause (1) of the proposed section 3A is absolutely redundant. There is another reason why we should not have this sub-clause (1) of section 3A. It not only specifically provides— unnecessarily—for the reservation of seats but it goes beyond that and fixes the number of scheduled castes representatives in the House of the People on behalf of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes of Part C States. This, I submit, is against the Constitution itself because under clause (2) of article 330 a definite formula has been given as to in what proportion there shall be reserved seats in the House of the People in relation to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in Part C States—they shall be in proportion to their numbers. Here the number is absolutely ignored and theoretically speaking an arbitrary number of seats is fixed, one here and one there. May be today we know definitely the specific number of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes living in a particular Part C State of Vindhya Pradesh, Delhi and so on, but we do not know what the situation may be five years hence. Only this morning my hon. friend, Shri Deshbandhu Gupta brought to our notice that quite a large number of persons from different parts of the country, belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, have come over to Delhi and, for aught we know, during the next five years there might be material change in the figures of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the various Part C States mentioned in