Vol. 15 · pages 531–535

514 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES alteration in the disqualification clause introduced by the Select Committee in sub-clause (d) of clause 7. This change is proposed by two members of the Select Committee, Mr. Gokulbhai Bhatt and my friend, Mr. Goenka. Among themselves they do not seem to be ad idem. Mr. Bhatt has no objection to the disqualification relating to holding of a contract to continue as it is. His only objection is to the holding of licences or permits, but my hon. friend, Mr. Goenka objects to both. As I said, these provisions did not exist in the original Bill; they were introduced by the Select Committee. I do not mind giving to the House my own personal reactions to these additional provisions. The first thing I feel is that there is no doubt that the clauses, as worded in the Select Committee draft of the Bill, appear to be somewhat severe. I personally feel that we could make a distinction between disqualification for being chosen and disqualification for continuing to be Members of Parliament. We ourselves have been making that distinction. I do not quite understand what difficulty or political injustice can arise if we said that while persons holding a contract from Government or having a licence from Government are free to stand as candidates for election they would become disqualified for continuing to be Members of Parliament. I cannot see any difficulty in making a provision of this sort. In other words, we may permit a holder of a contract or a holder of a licence to stand as a candidate. After he has been elected, he may be presented with this alternative, either he gives up his contract and continues to be a Member of Parliament or he decides not to be a member of Parliament and continues his contract…… Pandit Maitra (West Bengal): Whichever is more profitable ? Dr. Ambedkar: Whatever it is, my point is this. I think it would be too much to say that none of these people shall be entitled to stand as a candidate. There may be something in the argument that they should not continue to be Members of Parliament. I think we could make that change. Shri Sidhva (Madhya Pradesh): Has Government any view on this ?

515PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Dr. Ambedkar : In course of time Government’s view will be known. With regard to the other question of licences and so on, no doubt a great agitation is going on in the country by the business community that if this clause stood as it now stands in the draft Bill of the Select Committee, the whole of the business community would be disfranchised from playing its part in Parliament, I mean in the political affairs of the country. I am sure that we do not want to bring about such a result. Every section of the community should have an opportunity of taking part in the politics of the country, of coming into Parliament, placing its points of view, modifying legislation in any way it thinks it ought to be. Parliament ought not to be a sectional body, representing any particular class or any particular group or any particular community so that the point of view of all others goes un-represented. I think that would be very unfair thing; it would be a disservice to Parliament in my judgment if such a thing happens. At the same time, I am quite clear in my mind that while the business community should have a fair opportunity to influence politics and to come into Parliament, we do not want Parliament to be converted into a Stock Exchange. Pandit Maitra: They are already dominating. Dr. Ambedkar: Another thing that we must bear in mind, and which I think goes to the root of the matter is that our Parliament and our Electoral law should be so constituted that the independence of the Members of Parliament as against the Government must be scrupulously observed, There can be no use in a Parliament if we adopt a system which permits the Government to corrupt the whole of the Parliament either by offering political offices or by offering some other advantages. If a Parliament cannot act independently without fear or without favour from the Government, in my judgment such a Parliament is of no use at all. Therefore, while it is necessary to permit every class of people to come into Parliament and to play their part, you must at the same time place some safeguards whereby Parliament will not be converted into a sort of what I might call chorus girls who would be saying always ditto to what the Government say. 10 A.M.

516 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shrimati Durgabai (Madras): Why girls ? Dr. C. D. Pande rose— Mr. Deputy Speaker: What is it ? Dr. Ambedkar: My point is as I said, we have to sail within two limits. One limit is this: that our electoral law should not be such as to deliberately shut out any particular section or any particular community. The second limit is this: the Electoral law must be such that it would maintain an amount of freedom in Parliament. Within these two limits, anybody who has any suggestion to make with regard to the improvement of the provision relating to this particular disqualification will have my sympathetic hearing. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there any provision regarding political jobs ? The Hon. Minister was saying that political jobs or contract ought not to be allowed to corrupt Members of Parliament. Dr. Ambedkar: To that point, my reply is this. I wish very much that we adopted the principle of the British law where there has been a definite limit laid down to the number of Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, Ministers of State, and so on. I hope some day we shall be able to pass legislation of that kind so that Government will not be in a position to increase its supporters by offering political jobs such as Ministers and Deputy Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries to anybody in the House. This matter……….. Seth Govind Das (Madhya Pradesh): Why not have those provisions now ? Dr. Ambedkar: That cannot be done; that is a matter dealing with Ministerial affairs. I do not know ; perhaps, you may remember that this question was considered at the time when the Government of India Act, 1935, was made. One proposal was ……… The Deputy Minister of Food and Agriculture (Shri Thirumala Rao): That was by a foreign Government.

517PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Dr. Ambedkar : Wisdom is wisdom whether it comes from inside or outside the country. Pandit Munishwar Datt Upadhyay (Uttar Pradesh): Are you in agreement with this ? Dr. Ambedkar: Yes ; I said so. I remember when the Government of India Act, 1935 was framed, this very question was raised whether we should allow the Prime Minister………… Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava (Punjab): Article 102 is already there; everybody holding an office of profit is disqualified. Dr. Ambedkar: We have limited that. If anybody becomes a Minister, he ceases to come under that disqualification. I do not want to go into that now. This question apart. I shall answer the query that you put. Shri Sidhva : Why not incorporate all those things here ? Dr. Ambedkar: I cannot do all sorts of things in this Bill. Shri Kamath (Madhya Pradesh): You were referring to the Government of India Act, 1935. What was it ? Dr. Ambedkar: I said about the Government of India Act, 1935, because I had been at the Round Table Conference where this very question was raised namely, whether it was necessary to put a limit on the number of Ministers that could be apppointed. The point there was that it might be possible for the Ministry to so expand as to have a large number of people in the Ministry so that the House may be disabled. There were two proposals made. One proposal was that a maximum number should be fixed in the Act, that not more than a certain number of persons could be appointed as Ministers. The second proposal was—I do not know whether the Members would like it or not—to fix a maximum salary for the Ministry as a whole, so that, if they wanted to expand, they could do so by dividing the spoils and lowering the share of each one. Neither suggestion was adopted and it was left to the good sense…………. Seth Govind Das: We can have both.

518 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Pandit Munishwar Datt Upadhyay : Could you limit the number of Ministers under the Constitution ? Dr. Ambedkar: The House can. The Minister of State for Transport and Railways (Shri Santhanam): If cannot; please read the Constitution. Dr. Ambedkar: I am very sorry; I should think that we can. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent that. All that the Constitution says is that there shall be a Council of Ministers to advise the President. It does not say how many Ministers there will be. Shrimati Durgabai: On a point of order, Sir………… Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is on a point of order. Will the Hon. Minister give way? Shrimati Durgabai : On a point of order, Sir, may I know whether the Hon. Minister is making any insinuation against the Government that whenever they appoint more Ministers or Deputy Ministers they are appointing them only to disable the House ? Dr. Ambedkar: I am replying to the Chair. I wanted to drop the thing; it was Mr. Kamath who wanted me to say something. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think there is any insinuation. Dr. Ambedkar: I hope my hon. lady friend is not intending to create bad blood between myself and the Ministry. I come to the next question. The second proposal is that the Princes should be declared to be disqualified for being chosen as Members. The point is made by my hon. friend Mr. Raj Bahadur—I hope he is here—and his friends. Shri Raj Bahadur (Rajasthan): I am here. Dr. Ambedkar: Mr. Rama Rao has appended a separate minute of his own. The ground which has been urged by Mr. Raj Bahadur and his friends is that the Princes are holders of Office of profit. It seems to me that if that contention