Vol. 17, Part I · pages 316–320

291DR. AMBEDKAR....................AWARD no conclusive precedent for the purposes of the present reference.” Dr. Ambedkar quoted two authorities in support of his assertion, Knolt vs. Cottee, and Johnson vs. Rowlands”1 Following are the stage to stage details : Editors. I “HARIJAN REPRESENTATION IN COMMITTEE Dr. Ambedkar’s Telegram to Gandhiji Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Leader of the Independent Labour Party, has sent the following telegram to Mahatma Gandhi :— “Would like knowing if Rajkot Depressed classes get representation on the Reforms Committee.” 2 II “ANOTHER CLAIM FOR SEAT Dr. Ambedkar’s Wire to Virawalla The Muslim Deputationists to-day denied that the negotiations had broken down and added that they will be seeing Gandhiji again to-night. Meanwhile they are in communication with a prominent Muslim League leader in Bombay to receive instructions. The Girasyas and Bhayats whose claim for representation on the Reforms Committee have not been accepted are waiting in a deputation on the Thakore Saheb to-night. The latest claimant for a seat on the Reforms Committees are some members of the Depressed Classes in Rajkot. Dr. Ambedkar has wired to Durbar Virawalla to-day “hope you won’t forget your State representation to Depressed Classes on your Reforms Committee as already promised.” The First Member of Rajkot Council has handed over the above telegram to Gandhiji. 1: Keer, pp 322-323. 2: The Bombay Chronicle, dated 14th April 1939.

292 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES On behalf of the Thakore Saheb Durbar Virawalla has sent the following telegram to Dr. Ambedkar : “Your wire has been communicated to His Highness. I am directed to say that in spite of His Highness’ desire and keenness Mr. Patel is not likely to recommend any representative of the Depressed Class. If you so desire, His Highness will willingly grant an interview to discuss with you how the Depressed Classes could be helped. “—A. P.” 1 III “DR. AMBEDKAR AS STATE GUEST (From Our Correspondent.) Rajkot, April 18 . Dr. Ambedkar arrived from Bombay this morning by air and was received by some Girasias at the aerodrome. He was taken to the state guest house in a state car. Khwaji Hassan Nizami who also arrived with Dr. Ambedkar was received at Anandkunj by Mahatmaji this morning and had a talk with Mahatmaji for an hour. 2 IV “DR. AMBEDKAR SEES THAKORE (From Our Correspondent.) Rajkot, April 18. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar who arrived here this morning in order to study the Harijan problems is returning to Bombay tomorrow. The Doctor interviewed the Thakore Saheb to-night and will see Gandhiji tomorrow. In the evening prominent Muslim leaders and Bhayats met him and discussed how their negotiations with Gandhiji for representation of their interest in the Reforms Committee broke down. 1: The Bombay Chronicle, dated 15th April 1939. 2: The Bombay Chronicle, dated 19th April 1939.

293DR. AMBEDKAR....................AWARD Dr. Ambedkar was also closeted with Mr. Virawalla this evening. It is understood that Dr. Ambedkar will issue a note on the Rajkot question in the light of his discussions with various communities in Rajkot.” 1 V “DR. AMBEDKARS ALTERNATIVE Rajkot April 19. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, in an interview to the “United Press” stated that he came here not at the invitation of the Rajkot Durbar, but at the invitation of the local Depressed Classes who requested his intervention in the dispute regarding their non-inclusion in the Reforms Committee. “The first thing I did on my arrival”, he said, “was to ascertain from the Durbar whether they were prepared to have on the Committee a person who was the accredited representative of the Depressed Classes. Alternative Proposal “I saw Gandhiji this morning at 11-30 but unfortunately, I could not discuss in detail all the points since he had got sudden temperature. However, I discussed with him an alternative proposal of submission of the formation of the new constitution to a person like Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru or Sir Shivaswami Iyer or any other equally well versed man in constitutional law, before all the classes of the State could put their cases. Gandhiji could not agree to this, his argument being that such a report should be final.” Dr. Ambedkar left for Bombay this evening by train— United Press.”2 1: The Bombay Chronicle, dated 19th April 1939. 2: The Bombay Chronicle, dated 20th April 1939.

294 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES VI “DR. AMBEDKAR CHALLENGES GWYER AWARD Quotes Cases to Show “Recommendation” Is Not Command Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, in a legal analysis of the Gwyer Award says :— The award given by Sir Maurice Gwyer on the dispute between the Thakore Saheb of Rajkot and Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel over the interpretation of the word “recommend” is not only of importance to the parties to the dispute but to the general public at large. The parties to the award being bound by the award the question whether that interpretation is right or wrong may not be of much use to them. The same cannot however be said of the public. To them the question is still full of interest. It is true that the award is not a decision of a court of law. Yet it has behind it all the authority of so great a name as that of Sir Maurice Gwyer. Last Word With Sardar For an intelligent appreciation of such principles it is necessary in the first place to state what the contention of the Thakore Saheb was and how it was disposed off by Sir Maurice Gwyer. Sir Maurice Gwyer sums it up thus, “The gist of Thakore Saheb’s argument is contained in the following sentence in the written case submitted on his behalf. ‘It is obvious that the word “recommend” itself clearly indicates that it (each name) is to be considered and it was open to the Thakore Saheb to reject any of the names on the ground, for instance, that any one of the names recommended was not a suitable person, was incapable or undesirable’. This contention Sir Maurice Gwyer has not upheld. He says, “In my opinion the true construction is that the Thakore Saheb undertakes to appoint the persons whom Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel may recommend and that he does not re-serve to himself any discretion to reject those whom he does not approve. He is no doubt entitled to criticise the recommendations and to urge reasons for reconsidering them, but, unless it can be shown that any of the

295DR. AMBEDKAR....................AWARD persons recommended is neither the subject nor the servant of the State, Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel is to have the “last word”. Two Objections The ground for this conclusion and for the rejection of the Thakore Saheb’s contention by Sir Maurice Gwyer are two. To use the words of Sir Maurice Gwyer himself, the first ground is that “no such proposition (as is contended for by the Thakore Saheb) can be based simply upon, the use of the word “recommend” which in itself does not necessarily imply anything of the kind. It may take its colour from the context and accordingly, all the circumstances of the case must be taken into account.” The second ground is that the Thakore Saheb had not reserved to himself the power to consider the recommendation and therefore he had no discretion to reject the persons recommended by Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel. Sir Maurice Gwyer has referred to the case Rex- vs-Governors of Christs’ Hospital reported in (1917) I. K. B. 19. But, he does not rely upon it. He makes it quite clear as to why he refers to it. He says, “I only refer to them for the purpose of showing that there is no single principle which regulates cases where one person recommends and another appoints.” Indeed he has proceeded to give his decision on the footing that there is no conclusive precedent for the purposes of the present reference . . . .” Precedent And Principle With due deference I venture to say that there is a well established principle supported by a precedent which could be invoked in deciding this reference. Knott- vs-Cottee (2 Phil 192 equal to 41 E. R. 915) i.e. the precedent I have in mind. The facts of the case can be very briefly stated. ‘A’ made a Will and appointed his wife, one Mr. Cottee and one Mr. Ibbettson executors and trustees and he also appointed these three as the guardians of his children. Further ‘A’ recommended that if his wife should die before his son should attain twenty-one. or before his daughters attain that age or marry, the surviving guardian or guardians should place his children, or such of them as should then be minors under the care of his cousin Mary