Vol. 15 · pages 706–710

689PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (b) a person serving under the Government of any State shall include a patwari, chaukidar, dafedar, lambardar, zaiidar, shanbagh, karnam, talati, talari, patil, village munsif, village headman or any-other village officer, by whatever name he is called, employed in that State whether the office he holds is a whole-time office or not, but shall not include any person (other than any such village officer as aforesaid) who has been declared by the State Government to be a person to whom the provisions of this clause shall not apply.” Mr. Chairman: Amendment moved : These are all agreed amendments * Mr. Chairman : Amendment moved : In the amendment proposed by Dr. Ambedkar, in part (b) of the proposed Explanation to part 8 of clause 122, omit the words “Patil, village headman or any other village officer”. Shri Kamath : I have got amendments in supplementary list No. 3 to Consolidated List No. 2. I have got several amendments there but I will move only one of them. In Supplementary list No. 6 to Consolidated List No. 2 also I am moving only one of my amendments. And in supplementary list No. 6 to Consolidated List No. 2 also I have several amendments, but I am moving only one. I am not moving the rest. That is to say. I shall move amendment No. 5 in supplementary list No. 3 to Consolidated List No. 2, amendment No. 3 in supplementary list No. 4 to Consolidated List No. 2, and amendment No. 2 in supplementary list No. 6 to Consolidated List No. 2. I will take No. 6 in supplementary list No. 3 first. I beg to move : (i) In part (a) (ii) of the Proviso to part (2) of clause 122, for the words “an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure”, substitute the words “a victim of a divine curse’. Dr. Ambedkar: I do not understand the difference between the two. Shri Kamath: Now, Sir, I would like to point out that this apparently has been taken from the English law on the subject and also perhaps from the Indian Penal Code which *P. D., Vol. 12, Part II, 28th May 1951, pp. 9582-83.

690 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES also borrowed it originally from English law. But in the English law the words used are “spiritual undue influence”, and there it is clear because in Christian religion the words “spiritual censure” or “spiritual injury” have got a definite connotation. With regard to this “spiritual undue influence” it was held in England—where certain Roman Catholic priests exercised their religious influence on voters in a manner inconsistent with their religious duties as minister of religion—it was held to be “undue influence”. “A priest may counsel, advise, recommend and point out the true line of moral duty and give the opinion about the candidate, but he may not appeal to superstition of the people he approaches.” Now, Sir, India. I am not quite sure in my own mind .............. Shri Jawaharlal Nehru: I do not wish to interrupt, but I am total unable to follow what is happening in this House. I do not understand the relevance. Shri Kamath: That is due to the time. I suppose. The Prime Minister is tired. Shri Jawaharlal Nehru: May I just point out that I should like to understand, and I am not supposed to be unintelligent. Shri Kamath: Nobody dare say so. *Shri Sarangdhar Das: The next amendment I have given notice of is to delete the proviso. I beg to move: Omit the proviso to part (6) of clause 122. I had given notice of this amendment to delete the proviso in the Bill saying: “Provided that the hiring of a vehicle or vessel by an elector or by several electors at their joint, costs for the purpose of conveying him or them to or from the polling station shall not be deemed to be a corrupt practice under this clause.” This proviso is right under sub-clause (6) of clause 122. 8-00 P.M. *P. D., Vol. 12, Part II, 28th May 1951, pp. 9590-91.

691PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Shri Santhanam : His point is met by Dr. Ambedkar’s new amendment because all mechanically-propelled vehicles have been excluded from this proviso. Therefore, a substantial part of his point has been met already. Shri Sarangdhar Das: I do not agree. If my amendments are accepted then all the involvements in the Law Minister’s amendment should go. Motor transport should be entirely banned. That is my amendment to the Bill as amended by the Select Committee. It is a very radical amendment. Sir, I commend my amendment to the House. Dr. Ambedkar: I do not accept it, Sir. The motion was negatived. *Ch. Ranbir Singh: I beg to move: In the Explanation to part (8) of clause 122, omit the words “chaukidar, dafedar, lambardar, zaildar”. Dr. Ambedkar: I do not accept the amendment. Shri Satish Chandra (Uttar Pradesh) : I support the previous three speakers. I myself happen to be a lambardar. I have about ten villages in my zamindari and for each of them I am supposed to be the lambardar. Fortunately there is no co-sharer in most of them. I may be the owner of the entire village, but because I pay the land revenue to the Government I am called a lambardar according to Government revenue terminology. I have never imagined in my life that I am a Government servant or that I am in any official capacity connected with Government. Anybody who has to deposit land-revenue in the government treasury is known as lambardar in Uttar Pradesh. I do not know what is the system in other States. But in Uttar Pradesh any person who deposits land revenue in the government treasury either solely on his own *P. D., Vol. 12, Part II, 28th May 1951, pp. 9592-95.

692 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES behalf or on behalf of his co-sharers in the village is known as lambardar. I do not know, in what sense exactly this word is inserted here. But if the word lambardar here means a zamindar who is responsible for the payment of landrevenue in Uttar Pradesh or elsewhere, it must be omitted. Dr. Ambedkar: I would like to say a word about this. I do not quite understand why my friend Pandit Kunzru got into temper over this. He was a Member of the Select Committee. This clause was introduced by the Select Committee. It was a unanimous clause. All the Members of the Committee represented their different States. I can speak with authority, say, for instance, about Bombay or about Madhya Pradesh. I cannot speak with authority with regard to the other States. These names and categories of people were introduced by the Select Committee, by Members from the different States who knew what they were talking about. At any rate I take it that they knew what they were talking about. I did not include it on my own responsibility and I do not know how he charges me with the sort of thing about which he gave an utterance. (Interruption.) I have not done it. It was done by the Select Committee. The Punjab Members, the U.P. Members, they were all present and they said that lambardar should be included. I never included the lambardar on my own. But if the view of the House is that the lambardar is in no sense an official, I am quite prepared to omit it. But they must take the responsibility. I cannot take the responsibility. I have not examined the revenue laws of different States to find out if the lambardar is an official or not. If the view of gentlemen here who can speak with authority about their States is that lambardar is not an official. I have no objection to omit it. I have no interest in this. Shri Jawaharlal Nehru: My hon. Colleague has more or less explained the position. We are not wedded to this long list of appellations half of which I have never heard of in my life. These were given by the Select Committee and they were adopted. We are perfectly prepared now or at the third reading

693PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES to go through the list very carefully in consultation with Members and to take’ out such of them as ought not to be there. Shri Bhatt: ‘Patil’ stands in a similar position. Dr. Ambedkar: It will be possible to find out from the various States whether any of them are Government officials. But with regard to Patil I can say that I know it—and nobody knows more about Patils than I do. Dr. Deshmukh : You do not know about Madhya Pradesh. Dr. Ambedkar: I know about Madhya Pradesh also. Some hon. Members : rose— Mr. Speaker: We are now prolonging discussion of a point which deserves consideration but which can be disposed of by mutual goodwill and compromise in no time. What I would suggest therefore, to the Law Minister, if the House agrees and he agrees, is that we cannot settle just at the moment as to whether the lambardar should be taken out or the Patil should be taken out or other persons should be taken out. After all, as the hon. the Leader of the House has stated, these are various appellations by which these people are known. Members may informally discuss the matter. It is more or less a matter of form really and it may be taken up after two or three days when we take the Bill for third reading. Dr. Ambedkar: It can be reserved till then. Mr. Speaker : It need not even be reserved for that purpose. They can pass this clause. They are only formal matters and not matters of substance, the substantial thing being that, a government official holding an office of profit should not be there. I do not think we need take time over these things. Dr. Ambedkar: What interest have I against the lambardar ? I am not a lambardar. Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Dr. Ambedkar: I am an inferior village officer, if you want to call me under the Watan Act in Bombay.