Vol. 15 · pages 876–880

857PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Shri P. Sundarayya (Madras) : Let us confiscate it. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I have no idea what they have done. The third fact he told me was that all trade in the village was in the hands of the Reddys An hon. Member: What is wrong ? Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: The lowest village officer is also a Reddy; the ‘mulki’ is also a Reddy. Well, Sir, I want to know for myself, especially in view of the fact whether the reservation, which was so blissfully granted to us by the Congress Party for ten years, is going to disappear. An hon. Member: You accepted it. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Yes, what else can one do; if you can’t get puri you must get roti. Sir, in view of the situation that is obtaining there, you can imagine what is likely to be the position of the Scheduled Castes. What provision has my hon. Friend made for the purpose of granting protection against tyranny, against oppression, against communalism, that is sure to be rampant not only in the Andhradesh but everywhere in the States similarly situated. One of the greatest regrets that I have is that the Home Member, whose duty it is to see that every citizen is well protected against the tyranny of the majority, has come here with a Bill with no idea, with no conception as to what the State is likely to be and what is likely to happen to millions of people. I know, Sir, he is a high born person. Dr. K. N. Katju: Who ? I ? I started life in a normal manner ............ Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: But the fact is that he is a Kashmiri Pandit. Even if he takes to the profession of a Bhangi he will still remain a Kashmiri Pandit. He may never suffer. All people may respect him for his ancestry, for his noble birth, for his learning. What about us who have been tyrannised for the last 2,000 years ? Shri H. P. Saksena (Uttar Pradesh): But we all respect you.

858 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I may die in ten years time. Now, Sir, these are the three considerations which I thought I should urge before my hon. Friend, the Home Minister, for his consideration. There is still time even in this House, if he likes. Shri K. S. Hegde : Is it the suggestion that Andhra should have a different tradition altogether ? Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am going to suggest that. That is what I am going to tell him, that he has not applied his mind to this subject. Shri K. S. Hegde : That will be applicable to all the States. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I have said so. Shri K. S. Hegde: It is a general proposition. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Wait a minute now, please. Mr. Chairman we are not going to finish our troubles with the creation of the Andhra State. There are plenty of other States which are making a similar demand and I think it is therefore necessary for the Government to find out whether there are any other ways and means whereby we could keep the multi-lingual provinces as they are, and remove the feelings and the lots of blemishes that arise therefrom and only in excusable cases resort to the creation of a linguistic State, I have been devoting a certain amount of attention to this question because I know that this is going to be one of our most crucial questions. Sir, my suggestions are two-fold. Wherever I find a multi-lingual State I would vest the Governor there with certain special powers to protect the minorities in that State. That is one proposition that I would place before the Government for its consideration. I shall presently cite some authority in order that they may not think that this is my imagination. I am going to cite some constitutional precedents. And the second thing that I would like to be done would be that in all such States where there are multi-lingual people you should establish by law committees of members belonging to different linguistic sections which would have the right to hear and the right to ask the Ministry whether they are doing justice to their

859PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES problems. Also they should have the right to appeal to the Governor to set aside any act of injustice that might have been done to any one section. I think, if these three things are done, we should be able to keep the States as they are, at any rate in the first stage. If ultimately we find that we do not succeed even with these measures, then fate may take us to the logical extreme end, namely, to have a linguistic State. Sir, in the case of creation of linguistic States, in my judgement there appear to me to be two considerations. One is that the linguistic State must be a viable State. It may be that this is a small State which has got a culture and which has got a language and which has got a separate feeling and an entity. Yet it is so small that it cannot find the means of carrying on its Administration. People do not live on culture. People do not live on language. People live on the resources that they possess. But if God has given them culture and God has given them language but God has not given them the resource, I am afraid they cannot have the luxury of having a separate linguistic State, The second thing is this. It is only in our country that we find that linguistic provinces create difficulty. I would like to ask the question as to why there are no difficulties in Switzerland although Switzerland itself is a multilingual unit. The Cantons have French, German and Italian. Yet they are a very happy nation and they are the most prosperous nation today. Why is it that Switzerland has no provinces although it is a multi-lingual unit ? The answer which I can give is this that linguism in Switzerland is not loaded with communalism. But in our country linguism is only another name for communalism. What happens when you create a linguistic province is that you hand over the strings of Administration to one single community which happens to be the majority community and I can cite many provinces where this is likely to happen. That community charged with a feeling of its own sacred existence begins to practise the worst kind of communalism which otherwise is called discrimination. Discrimination creates injustice and injustice creates ill-feeling. If our linguism was not charged with communalism our linguism would not be a danger to

860 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES us at all; but the fact is that it is. But it seems to me that in order to do away with the community practising communalism being in office these two remedies are worth while, namely, to give the power to the Governor to override and, secondly, to appoint small committees who can make representations either to the Ministry or to the Governor. Now, Sir, we have inherited a tradition. People always keep on saying to me : “Oh, you are the maker of the Constitution”. My answer is I was a hack. What I was asked to do, I did much against my will. Shri P. Sundarayya: Why did you serve your masters then like that ? Mr. Chairman: Order, order. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: But, Sir, we have inherited, on account of our hatred of the British, certain ideas about democracy which, it seems to me, are not universally accepted. We inherited the idea that the Governor must have no power at all, that he must only be a rubber stamp. If a Minister, however scoundrel he may be, however corrupt he may be, if he puts up a proposal before the Governor, he has to ditto it. That is the kind of conception about democracy which we have developed in this country. Shri M. S. Ranawat (Rajasthan): But, you defended it. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: We lawyers defend many things. (Interruptions.) You should listen seriously to what I am saying, because this is an important problem. Sir, as I said, we happened to develop a theory of democracy, simply because of our opposition to the British. The British must go and the British must have no power. A Governor must have no power. Let me cite two cases. One case which I propose to cite is about the Constitution of Canada and I refer to section 93 of that Constitution. As everyone in this House knows, Canada, like ourselves, is a billingual place. A part of it speaks English; a part of it speaks French. And what is worse still is that the English-speaking people are Protestants; the French are Roman Catholics. In

861PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 1864, when the Constitution of Canada was made, the Catholics were very much afraid as to what might happen to them under the English Protestant majority and they were not prepared to come into the Constitution of a united Canada. Therefore the Parliament enacted section 93 in the Canadian Constitution. That section does two things. It says that if any province—naturally the reference was to provinces in Protestant areas—where Roman Catholics lived passed any law with regard to certain matters which the Roman Catholics regarded as their special privilage based upon religion, they had the right to appeal to the Governor General that a wrong was done to them, and the Governor General by section 93 had the right to look into their complaint. It was a statutory right of complaint. Not only did section 93 give the catholics a statutory right of appeal against the decision of the majority to have a certain measure annulled, but it goes much further and says that the Governor General shall have the right to enact a positive measure in protection of the Catholic minority. I would like to ask my friend, the Home Member, whether, with the inclusion of section 93 in the Canadian Constitution, he regards the Canadian Constitution to be democratic or undemocratic. What is his answer ? 11-00 A.M. Dr. K. N. Katju : My answer is that you had drafted this Constitution. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: You want to accuse me for your blemishes ? Mr. Chairman : He has said that he defended the present constitution because it was the majority decision. Get along. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, therefore, my submission is this that no harm can be done to democracy and to democratic Constitution if our Constitution was amended and powers similar to those given to the Governor General under section 93 were given to the Governor. At any rate, that would be some kind of a safeguard to certain small linguistic areas or linguistic groups who find that the majority in the State are not doing justice to them.