Vol. 15 · pages 756–760

737PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES want to avoid. Therefore I say, it is no business of the Government to decide whether an office held is an office of profit or not. That is something for the President or for Parliament to decide. Dr. Ambedkar: That is why the Bill has been brought before Parliament. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: For Government to arrogate this power to themselves is certainly wrong. If they say that they have got the President in the hollow of their hand and they can fix a standard of profit I do say thay are wrong. In certain cases it is the President in consultation with Election Commission who has to decide whether an office is an office of profit or not and in other cases Parliament decides. I do not think that the Finance Ministry or the Government can decide this matter at all. Shri Sidhva : Shall we not agree that whatever allowance is drawn up to the limit of the allowance of a Member of Parliament shall not be considered a disqualification ? House should decide this matter and not Dr. Ambedkar. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Having heard the discussion, I can only say at this stage that there is nothing to prevent us from adding a clause here to the Bill itself to say that notwithstanding anything contained so far, if a Member of Parliament is on any committee and does not draw an allowance more than that drawn by him as a Member of Parliament, he shall not be deemed to be disqualified. That is just a suggestion. In that case it would not be open to the objection that Government is placing allurements before Members, because nothing more than Rs. 40 will be paid. But there is this difficulty that if an official is appointed on a committee he will continue to draw a different rate of allowance, probably according to the salary he draws. But this matter may be considered. I would therefore allow this to stand over till to-morrow and get through with Mr. Narayan Mahtha’s amendment. Shri Kamath: Sir, last year this House decided that the offices of the Minister of State and the Deputy Minister would

738 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES not amount to disqualification under this Article. Therefore the present Ministers of State and Deputy Ministers do not incur any disability. But what about the newly born Parliamentary Secretaries ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : They are also included in the Act. Dr. Ambedkar: Sir, with reference to the suggestion made by you that this may be taken up to-morrow may I point out that it may not be possible for me to undertake that this matter will be taken up to-morrow. This is a matter which I have to refer back to the Ministries and that may take time. “ So if it is kept over, it may be taken up on any convenient date. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the wish of the Hon. Law Minister that we may get through the other amendments ? Dr. Ambedkar: The amendments may be moved. I accept Shri Narayan Mahtha’s amendment. Shri S. N. Mahtha (Bihar): Sir, I beg to move: In page 1, line 23, after “March 1951” insert: “or for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1952” . Shri Sidhva : But, Sir, we have not received notice of this amendment at all. It has not been circulated among us. Dr. Ambedkar: It is just a small amendment. Shri Sidhva: It may be small according to the Law Minister, but it may be a very important one. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Then does the hon. Member want this also to stand over ? It is just a small amendment extending the period from March, 1951 to March, 1952. Shri Sondhi: Let this also be considered along with the whole Bill later on. Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a simple amendment extending the period up to March, 1952. There need not be any speeches on it and I shall place it before the House. Amendment moved: In page 1, line 23, after “March, 1951” insert: “or for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1952”.

739PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Shri Sidhva: Sir, these local advisory committees are permanent committees elected by the Railway Standing Committee. Therefore, I would like to know whether every year amendments like this will have to be brought into remove the disqualification ? Will it not be better to consider this matter in greater detail and devise some proposition under which this annual performance may not be necessary ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : As the hon. Member will see, this relates to the sitting Members. The year 1951-1952 has already started and to remove the disqualification from the whole period, the date has to be extended to 31st March 1952. Dr. Pattabhi: But we are sitting in April, 1952 also. Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it is not extended, Members who have agreed to serve on committees would be obliged to resign straightaway. Therefore the period is being extended to 31st of March 1952. We are in the middle of the year 1951-52 and therefore, this amendment is necessary. As to whether this amendment should be effected now or hereafter, it is for the Law Minister and the House to consider and decide. We are not bringing in a legislation to remove disqualifications under various categories. Shri Sidhva : Sir, what you state is perfectly correct. But these Advisory Committees are very important bodies. My point is—and I may add that I am not a member of an Advisory Committee—my point is, as Members of Parliament we are interested in the carriage of passengers and goods by the railways and just because as a member of the committee a person draws an allowance of Rs. 30 or so, he should not be debarred from being a Member of Parliament. In this matter the Railway Finance Committee and the Advisory Committee have to be consulted. So this question of changing the date from March, 1951 to March, 1952 may also be postponed and considered along with the other provisions of the Bill when the Bill comes next to us. Dr. Pattabhi: Why not say “during the tenure of the present Parliament.” ?

740 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. Ambedkar: I thought that the amendment was a very simple one. The reason why the Bill originally did not mention the words that are now sought to be introduced by the amendment was because the Bill was expected to be passed much earlier. That did not happen. Members have continued to sit. If you want to completely exonerate them from the application of this office of profit rule it is necessary to continue the period. With regard to the future I understand that the allowances have been reduced, so that no disqualification should be incurred. An Hon. Member : By how much ? Dr. Ambedkar : The same Rs. 20. The Minister of State for Transport and Railways (Shri Santhanam): I shall give the information on the next day. Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been so reduced as not to impose this disqualification. This only applies to existing members. The question is : In page 1, line 23, after “March, 1951” insert: “or for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1952”. The motion was adopted. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The rest of the Bill will stand over to such other day as the Hon. Law Minister may find convenient to bring it before the House. Pandit Kunzru: As the Hon. Law Minister has been given time to think over the matter I hope he will arrive at a correct decision. Dr. Ambedkar : I should like to say that I would be very much dependent upon the advice of my hon. friend.

741PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (36) *ASSAM (ALTERATION OF BOUNDARIES) BILL Mr. Deputy Speaker : The House will now proceed with the further consideration of the motion that the Bill to alter the boundaries of the State of Assam consequent on the cession of a strip of territory comprised in that State to the Government of Bhutan, be taken into consideration. The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): I am sorry I was not present in the House when a certain point was raised by certain Members that Parliament had no power to pass this Bill, in view of the fact that the Bill proposed, although indirectly, to cede certain portions of territory which belonged to the Indian Union, to Bhutan. I heard that my hon. Friend Mr. Sri Prakasa also made certain submissions to the House on this point in justification of the stand taken by the Government. But, I was told that the House expects me to say something on the point. The point seems to be very easy. I think, in order to under stand the matter fairly, it is better to begin by a reference to List I contained in the Seventh Schedule, which defines the legislative powers of this Parliament. I would refer to List-I, Entry No. 14 and Entry No. 15. Entry No. 14 relates to the making of treaties and entry No. 15 refers to war and peace. The question that has been raised very largely hinges upon the interpretation of the words ‘treaty making’ and ‘war and peace’ What do these items include ? This matter was debated at great length in the United States when the question arose for the first time for interpretation. In order to cut short the matter, I should like to state that in the United States it has been accepted that treaty making does include the power to cede territory. *P. D., Vol. 14, Part II, 8th August 1951, pp. 103-118.