Vol. 15 · pages 581–585

564 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES *Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: But if we put Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes together in part (a) there would be duplication in part (b). But part (b) deals only with Scheduled Tribes and therefore for the sake of greater clarity it is necessary to separate the two parts of part (a), namely the Scheduled Tribes and the Scheduled Castes. With regard to part (b) it should remain as it is. In fact, Scheduled Tribes are of two classes ; Scheduled Tribes in ordinary cases and Scheduled Tribes who have something do with the cantonment or the municipality of Shillong. So, in order to keep the Scheduled Tribes of the cantonment area and the Scheduled Tribes in other areas absolutely distinct, I suggest that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes must be treated separately. Mr. Deputy Speaker: There does not appear to be any ambiguity. Dr. Ambedkar: There is no ambiguity. Because the Constitution contains two separate articles, it does not follow that we must everywhere give two separate clauses. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it necessary to pursue this matter ? Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: In view of the unfavourable reception it has received at the hands of the Hon. Minister. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by my pursuing it. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question is : “That clause 5 stand part of the Bill.” The motion was adopted Clause 5 was added to the Bill. Clause 6.—(Legislative Council Membership) as amended, was added to the Bill ** Clause 7.—(Disqualifications for membership ) *P.D., Vol. 11, Part II, 14th May 1951, pp. 8705-06. ** Ibid., pp. 8706-12.

565PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Dr. Ambedkar: Sir, I would request you to hold over clause 7. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: We should have a clear knowledge beforehand as to what clauses would be taken up. In that case we can concentrate our attention on them. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall ask the Hon. Minister to state in the beginning of each day the particular clauses he proposes to hold over... Dr. Ambedkar: I do not suppose I would be forced to take any clause out of order, except clauses 7 and probably 9. The rest of the clauses I am quite prepared to take in the order in which they are. Shri Jhunjhunwala (Bihar): When will these be taken up ? Dr. Ambedkar: I propose to circulate the amendment this evening. If hon. Members would be prepared to take it up tomorrow I shall have no objection. But if they desire to have time, I shall take it up later. At any rate, I do not want to keep it back for a long time. I am prepared to give one day for Members to consider my amendment to clause 7. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think it may be taken up conveniently day after tomorrow for the reason that hon. members may have sufficient time to study it. If the amendments are tabled sufficiently in time, the office will circulate them and hon. Members may come prepared with them. Clause 8 was added to the Bill. Clause 9. —(Disqualifications for membership of electoral colleges) Dr. Ambedkar: I would like to hold it over. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Clause 9 is also held over. Clause 10. —(Election to the Council of States ) Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: I beg to move: In the heading over clause 10, for the word and Roman letter “Chapter I” substitute the word and Roman letter “Chapter V”.

566 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES The point is that in this Bill, unlike many other Acts, separate Chapter No. has been given in each part. That would lead to inconvenience in the matter of reference, e.g., whenever we refer to a Chapter, we shall have to say, Chapter so and so of Part so and so. In all other Acts, except of course in the Constitution, namely, the Civil Procedure Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Transfer of Property Act and in all other Acts, although there are parts, the Chapter Nos. are not separate with regard to each Part. The result is tremendous convenience. When we refer to a Chapter, we need not refer to the Part. That will lead to the avoidance of a lot of mental botheration. I suggest it as a matter of convenience only. Dr. Ambedkar: I do not agree with that argument. If dividing the Bill into Parts and Chapters we had also given separate numbers to clauses, that would have created a certain amount of difficulty. But in view of the fact that the number of the clauses is continuous I do not think any difficulty such as the one anticipated by my friend can be really apprehended. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : But this is the uniform practice in all the Acts. Dr. Ambedkar: Never mind uniformity. It depends upon how big the matter is. If the matter is so big that it requires to be divided and sub-divided under appropriate heads I do not see what other method one can follow than giving Parts for broader heads and Chapters for smaller heads which come under those Parts and many other smaller heads which come under those Chapters. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: The Hon. Minister says that there should be Parts, Chapters and sub-divisions and further sub-divisions. I do not object to that at all. All that I want is that the Chapter numbers from beginning to end should bear a continuous numbering and that is in accordance with the practice of all Acts. Dr. Ambedkar: That means that the parts must be omitted, otherwise it would have no meaning.

567PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the Chapters have a continuing number and if the Parts also are there it will lead to confusion. We will not know to which particular part it relates. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: But that is the practice in all Acts. Mr. Deputy Speaker: But when the Constitution has set up a new practice, after the Constitution, that is our Bible. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: Not in all respects. We are going to change it very soon! Mr. Deputy Speaker: Very good. Then this will also be changed ! Is it necessary for the hon. Member to press this ? Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: No. Sir. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next amendment is No. 222 which says: In sub-clause ( 1) of clause 10 for the words “the Council of States”, in line two substitute the words “the first Council of States”. The hon. Member will kindly explain what this amendment is. Or, is he not pressing it ? Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : I do not know where I am. The House is proceeding so fast that even an acrobat will not be able to follow. I will have to look into the matter. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The brake is always there at that end ! Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: Could we not adjourn till tomorrow ? We have made very quick progress. Mr. Deputy Speaker: This must be easy. The hon. Member will take his own time. There is no hurry. In 222 he wants for the words “the Council of States” the words “the first Council of States”. Is it because he thinks there is no provision here for rotation ? Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: Yes, Sir. Dr. Ambedkar: Rotation is there in sub-clause (2).

568 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: I have now got my bearings ! The introduction of the word “first” was suggested to me from a sample which is to be found in clause 11 in the second line—“For the purpose of the first constitution”. Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is in respect of electoral colleges for Part C States. That relates only to a portion. Dr. Ambedkar: They have no connection at all. Shri Sidhva: He is puzzled. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: Not that they are connected. but as a sample of very good draftsmanship. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member must be satisfied with some bad drafting! Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: We are already accustomed to it. Mr. Deputy Speaker: But there does not seem to be any need for this change. So amendment No. 222 is not moved. I take it that amendment No. 224 is going to be moved. What about 225 ? Dr. Ambedkar: I have no objection. It can be moved. Mr. Deputy Speaker: What about No. 228 ? Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: I shall move that. Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. 229 is going to be carried out. Then we come to No. 231. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : It is a substantive amendment and I will move it. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Amendment No. 224. The hon. Member is absent. Shall I allow this to stand over ? What is the attitude of the Hon. Minister to this amendment which the hon. Member was discussing with him ? Dr. Ambedkar: I do not think it is necessary to have that amendment.