Vol. 15 · pages 516–520

499PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES [PANDIT THAKUR DAS BHARGAVA in the chair. ] As I had pointed out in my speech the number of these castes in Delhi according to this list is sixtyfour. I have not suggested the inclusion of all that have been omitted. I have only suggested two, which are also present in the list here. I think it is very unfair that the Hon. the Law Minister should not accept it. But even if he is not prepared to accept it I want to press it and I hope all hon. members of this House will be pleased to vote with me, because this is discrimination pure and simple. For one purpose you have a notification in which certain castes are included. This notification holds good and neither the Law Minister nor the Government have taken any steps to disallow this list. Any boy who is born of any of these castes is entitled to apply, under this notification, styling himself as a scheduled caste. But here I do not know for what reasons the Hon. Dr. Ambedkar does not wish to include them. These two castes are here in this list—in this Gazette copy which any hon. Member may come and see. These petty fishermen who are called Dhinwars or Jhinwars—that name also is here—are here in this list, which is item 22 in this list. I hope therefore that irrespective of what the Hon. Dr. Ambedkar decides, the House will vote with me and see that these two castes who feel it keenly are not deprived of their privileges merely by a stroke of the pen. I hope therefore that the House will support me in this amendment of mine. Shri Sidhva : May I know whether it is a Government of India publication? Dr. Deshmukh: Yes. Dr. Ambedkar has got a copy of it. Mr. Chairman : Amendment moved: In clause 3, in the proposed Sixth Schedule, under the heading ‘Delhi’, at the end, add new entries: “ 40. Nai (Barber). 41. Dhiwar (fisherman)”. Shri Sonavane : With reference to the amendment moved by my hon. Friend Dr. Deshmukh I think only such of the castes who are untouchables in the society…… An hon. Member: We have no untouchables now.

500 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri Sonavane: That is the basis for the scheduled castes lists and therefore these two communities are mentioned in the amendment and if they are really untouchables then there should be no objection to their inclusion. But as far as my knowledge goes, in Bombay, barbers and fishermen are not untouchables and if they are not treated as untouchables here in Delhi, I do not see any point in their inclusion. Therefore, I would oppose this amendment. Shri Shiv Charan Lal (Uttar Pradesh): It is really very strange to see that Nais are being put in the scheduled caste list. In our province, U.P., formerly they used to write Nai Thakur and afterwards as Nai Brahmin. If you call them scheduled castes, I am sure they would never like it. The same is the case with Dhiwars. You cannot include these two castes in the scheduled castes in any way. As for any other list that might be prepared for the purpose of giving service or any other thing, they might be termed as ‘backward’. That is a different thing, but they cannot be put in the scheduled castes’ list in any case. Shri Deshbandhu Gupta: I also agree with my hon. friend who has preceded me that Nais and Dhiwars should not be considered to be members of scheduled castes in Delhi. I do not know on what basis their names have been included in the list which Dr. Deshmukh has read out. The fact is that some time ago some representatives of Nais came to me and said that they had a grievance that they were termed as members of depressed classes. Therefore, I am sure that Dr. Deshmukh will not be obliging the Nais and the Dhiwars by their inclusion in this list. Mr. Chairman: Has not the hon. Member heard : Ghar se aaya hai motbir nai? The question is: In clause 3, in the proposed Sixth Schedule, under the heading ‘ Delhi ’ at the end, add new entries : “40. Nai (Barber). 41. dhiwar (fisherman)”. The motion was negatived.

501PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Sardar Hukam Singh (Punjab): I beg go move: In cluase 3, in the proposed Sixth Schedule……….. Dr. Ambedkar: If my hon. Friend moves both his amendments together, I am prepared to accept them, subject to one reservation that these will be numbered alphabetically. Under the heading “Delhi”, he has given the No. 40 and so on and under the heading “ Himachal Pradesh ” he has given the No. 28 and so on. These will have to be renumbered. Sardar Hukam Singh: I beg to move: (i) In clause 3, in the proposed Sixth Schedule, under the heading ‘Delhi’ at the end, add new entries: “40. Kabirpanthi. 41. Mazhabi”. (ii) In cluase 3, in the proposed Sixth Schedule under the heading ‘Himachal Pradesh’, at the end, add new entries: “28. Banjara. 29. Bawaria. 30. Ramdasia.” Mr. Chairman : Amendment moved: (i) in clause 3, in the proposed Sixth Schedule, under the heading ‘Delhi’ at the end, add new entries: “ 40. Kabirpanthi. 41. Mazhabi”. (ii) In clause 3, in the proposed Sixth schedule, under the heading “Himachal Pradesh’, at the end, add new entries: “ 28. Banjara. 29. Bawaria. 30. Ramdasia.” Shri Sonavane : With reference to the amendments moved by Sardar Hukam Singh, I would like to say that I am very much surprised that Sardar Hukam Singh, who is a Sikh to the core, has come forward to take out some of the Sikhs from the Sikhs proper and put them as scheduled castes. I was very much surprised in the beginning when I learnt that there were some scheduled castes among the Sikhs and then it became clear to me that Dr. Ambedkar was right when he did not embrace Sikhism. Besides that, when we hear a lot of

502 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES atrocities committed in P.E.P.S.U. and Punjab by Sikhs on the scheduled castes. I am afraid my hon. Friend Sardar Hukam Singh wants some communities to remain as scheduled castes in order that persecutions may continue to be committed on them. Therefore, I would request him to withdraw his amendments and get all these people into his fold and bring them up to his level and in that way end the scheduled castes among the Sikhs. Shri Deshbandhu Gupta: Before you put the amendments to vote, I would like to know whether Dr. Ambedkar has satisfied himself that the Kabirpanthis in Delhi are members of the scheduled castes ? To my knowledge, there are no Mazhabis in Delhi and I do not object to their being included in the list as some Mazhabis might have migrated here. But about Kabirpathis, so far as I know, they are not termed as members of the scheduled castes. If Dr. Ambedkar has satisfied himself about this I have no objection, but if he has not satisfied himself, merely for the reason that they are so in the Punjab and P.E.P.S.U., they should not be treated as such in Delhi. Sardar Hukam Singh: I have not put down anywhere whether these would be Sikhs or Hindus. I do not see why such an obsession should be there and certain hon. Members should bring up such an objection. I deliberately refrained from saying anything on the order that had already been passed and when I learned that the Hon. Minister was accepting I did not make a speech. But now a discussion is being initiated, may I be allowed to say certain things? I never said it has to be done here. It is also in the order of the President that these castes shall be included in the Scheduled castes so far as the Punjab and P.E.P.S.U. are concerned. I have stuck to that whether they are Hindus or Sikhs, they shall be scheduled castes. Whether they are Hindus or Sikhs, it has been admitted that they are backward classes. Now, to bring….. Mr. Chairman: The Hon. Minister is accepting the amendment. The question is : (i) In clause 3 in the proposed Sixth Schedule, under the heading ‘Delhi’, at the end add new entries: “ 40. Kabirpanthi. 41. Mazhabi”.

503PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (ii) In clause 3, in the proposed Sixth Schedule, under the heading ‘Himachal Pradesh’, at the end, add new entries : “28. Banjara. 29. Bawaria. 30. Ramdesia.” The motion was adopted. Shri Chandrika Ram: I beg to move : In clause 3, in the Sixth Schedule, at the end, add: “ Ajmer-Merwara. 1. Aheri 2. Begri 3. Balai…… Dr. Ambedkar: These amendments are quite outside the scope of the Bill. The Bill reserves seats in certain Part C States. It is only in those States that we are trying to define what the scheduled castes are. In Ajmer-Merwara we have not reserved any seat. In Bhopal, we have not reserved any seat. In Tripura and Coorg we have not reserved any seat. Therefore, these amendments are quite outside the scope of the Bill. Shri Chandrika Ram: You are going to make a representation for Part C States. All these people belong to Part C States. Even yesterday when I spoke I did not demand that these people must have representation. But, this matter has got a long history. When these people….. Dr. Ambedkar: I might mention to cut short the discussion that Government has in contemplation the issue of a list of scheduled castes in Part A states, Part B States and also Part C States where there is no representation because it is felt that besides the privilege of representation in the legislature, there are also other privileges such as educational concessions, fees and services and so on. In order that there may be no misunderstanding on the part of anybody that those scheduled castes who are not included in the list are not entitled to those privileges. Government propose to do that. This is hardly the moment to deal with that.