Vol. 15 · pages 966–970

947PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES be called constitutional morality. Their official doctrine was inequality of classes. Though there is inequality in every community, or whatever be the word, that inequality is a matter of practice. It is not an official dogma. But with a majority in this country, inequality, as embodied in their Chaturvarana is an official doctrine. Secondly, their caste system is a sword of political and administrative discrimination. The result was that the fundamental rights became inevitable. What I found—and I know this thing more than probably many do, because I had something, to do with it—was that the Congress Party was so jubilant over the fundamental rights. They wanted fundamental rights, and they thought that fundamental rights were so necessary that if the Indian people had a constitution which did not embody fundamental rights, they would appear nude to the world. That was the reason why they clamoured for fundamental rights. In the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly, I do not find a single Member who stood up and said “We do not want fundamental rights.” Fundamental rights were regarded as a kind of an ornament which the Indian people must have. Today, their attitude has undergone a complete change. Today, they look upon the fundamental rights as an iron chain which ought to be broken, whenever occasion arose for breaking it. This, I find, is a fundamental change. I am sorry to say that this attitude of treating the fundamental rights with contempt, as though they were of no consequence, that they could be trodden upon at any time with the convenience of the majority or the wishes of a Party chief, is an attitude that may easily lead to some dangerous consequences in the future. And I therefore feel very sorry that even a matter of this sort, namely, the infringement of, or the deviation from, fundamental rights, is being treated by the Party in power as though it was a matter of no moment at all. It seems to be suggested that those who made the Constitution had no sense, that fundamental rights must be elastic, that they must leave enough room for progressive changes. I must, Sir, as the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, repudiate any such suggestion. Any one, who reads the fundamental rights as they are enacted in the

948 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Constitution, will find that every fundamental right has got an exception. It says: Notwithstanding anything contained, the State may impose reasonable restrictions on them. We were quite aware of the fact that fundamental rights could not be rigid, that there must be elasticity. And we had provided enough elasticity. Article 31, with which we are dealing now in this amending Bill, is an article for which I, and the Drafting Committee, can take no responsibility whatsoever. We do not take any responsibility for that. That is not our draft. The result was that the Congress Party, at the time when Article 31 was being framed, was so divided within itself that we did not know what to do, what to put and what not to put. There were three sections in the Congress party. One section was led by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, who stood for full compensation, full compensation in the sense in which full compensation is enacted in our Land Acquisition Act, namely, market price plus 15 per cent. solatium. That was his point of view. Our Prime Minister was against compensation. Our friend, Mr. Pant, who is here now—and I am glad to see him here—had conceived his Zamindari Abolition Bill before the Constitution was being actually framed. He wanted a very safe delivery for his baby. So he had his own proposition. There was thus this tripartite struggle, and we left the matter to them to decide in any way they liked. And they merely embodied what their decision was in article 31. This Article 31, in my judgement, is a very ugly thing, something which I do not like to look at. If I may say so, and I say it with a certain amount of pride the Constitution which has been given to this country is a wonderful document. It has been said so not by myself, but by many people, many other students of the Constitution. It is the simplest and the easiest. Many, many publishers have written to me asking me to write a commentary on the Constitution, promising a good sum. But I have always told them that to write a commentary on this Constitution is to admit that the Constitution is a bad one and an un-understandable one. It is not so. Anyone who can follow English can understand the Constitution. No commentary is necessary.

949PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Dr. Anup Singh (Punjab) : Last time when you spoke, you said that you would burn the Constitution. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Do you want a reply to that ? I would give it to you right here. My friend says that the last time when I spoke, I said that I wanted to burn the Constitution. Well, in a hurry I did not explain the reason. Now that my friend has given me the opportunity, I think I shall give the reason. The reason is this : We built a temple for a god to come in and reside, but before the god could be installed, if the devil had taken possession of it, what else could we do except destroy the temple ? We did not intend that it should be occupied by the Asuras. We intended it to be occupied by the devas. That is the reason why I said I would rather like to burn it. Shri B. K. P. Sinha (Bihar) : Destroy the devil rather than the temple. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : You cannot do it. We have not got the strength. If you will read the Brahmana, the Sathapatha Brahmana, you will see that the gods have always been defeated by the Asuras, and that the Asuras had the Amrit with them which the gods had to take away in order to survive in the battle. Now, Sir, I am being interrupted ………….. Mr. Chairman: You are being drawn into ………….. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : ………….. into all sorts of things into which I do not wish to enter. I was saying that Article 31 was an article for which we were not responsible. Even then, we have made that article as elastic as we possibly could in the matter of compensation. If members of the House will refer to entry 42 of the Concurrent List, and compare it with Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935, they will find how elastic has been the provision made by the drafting Committee. Section 299 of the Government of India Act which governed the question of compensation described the following ingredients. One was that there must be full compensation by which they, no doubt, meant compensation in accordance with the terms of the Land Acquisition Act. Secondly, it said that compensation

950 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES must be paid and paid in cash before possession could be taken. That was the provision in the Government of India Act, 1935. Look at the provision that we have made in entry 42 of the Concurrent List, by which I hope members will understand that the authority to determine compensation is given to both the State Legislatures as well as to Parliament, and the reason why we did this was simple. It was this : we thought that, if compensation was distributed in List I and List II, so that the Centre might be free to fix compensation for such acquisition as it might make, and the provinces or the States might fix such compensation as they might think fit, it would result in utter choas in this country and that there must be some sort of uniformity in this. Therefore, while giving authority to the States to lay down rules of compensation, we also gave authority to Parliament so that Parliament might enact a general law which would be applicable to the whole of India and which might supersede any State law which might be inequitous. That was the reason why we put it in the Concurrent List. What is the provision we have made ? We have said that it is not necessary that Government should actually pay compensation to acquire possession of property. We have not said that. We have said “compensation to be given” and not “paid” so that it is open to the Government at the Centre as well as in the States to acquire property without actually paying compensation. The second distinction that we have made between section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and entry 42 is that compensation may be in any form, that either Parliament or the State Legislature might decide by law to give compensation in the form of paper bonds, cash certificates or whatever they liked to give, or that they might pay it in cash if they liked it. We have also said that, although Parliament may not actually fix compensation, it may merely lay down the rules for compensation, so that, if a law was passed which did not contain a clause specifically saying what should be the compensation but merely laid down the rules and principles, that was enough for Government to take possession of the property and acquire it. Now, Sir, I would like to ask the Members of this House if they can point out any

951PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Constitution where the procedure for acquiring property is so easy as it is in our Constitution. Can anyone point out to me that there is some other Constitution which enables the Government with greater facility to acquire property for public purposes ? Now, with all this facility, is there any necessity for the Government to come out with a proposition that there are cases where they shall not give compensation ?They need not cast the whole burden, the entire burden, on the present generation. They are not asked to say that the bonds that they might issue must be redeemable. They may make them irredeemable. All that they need do is to give some interest on the bond as every borrower agrees to do and as every creditor gets. Why at all even the most hasty socialist should say, “well, we shall not pay compensation;”, I do not understand. There are in my judgement three cases or three paths that one might follow. The first path would be full compensation; the second, no compensation; and the third, compensation as determined by law. I am quite in agreement with those who think that it is not possible to accept full compensation in terms of the Land Acquisition Act. I am quite in agreement with that; if by full compensation is meant compensation as determined by the rules now prescribed by the Land Acquisition Act, I am quite prepared to side with the Government and say that that is an impossible proposition which we need not accept. I might at this stage draw the attention of the House to the fact that we are not the only people who are bringing about socialism. What socialism means, nobody is able to say. That is the socialism of the Prime Minister, which he himself said that he cannot define. There is the socialism of the Praja Socialist Party; they don’t know what it is. And even the Communists…… Shri S. N. Dwivedy (Orissa): You don’t know either. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am not a socialist. Shri S. N. Dwivedy: You want to criticise without knowing what it is. Mr. Chairman: Order, order, you may go on.