Vol. 2 · pages 121–125

102 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES peace and tranquillity of the Presidency. It is therefore imperative to abolish the system. The Bill aims (1) to abolish the Khoti system and to establish direct relationship between Government and those who, are in possession or occupation of the land which is under the management or beneficial enjoyment of the Khot, (2) to make provision for the payment of reasonable compensation to the Khot for the loss of his rights, and (3) to give those inferior holders who are in actual occupation of the land the status of occupants within the meaning of the Land Revenue Code, and (4) to provide for other incidental purposes. With these words, Sir, I beg leave of the House to introduce the Bill. Question proposed. Mr. S. L. Karandikar (Ratnagiri North): Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the introduction of this Bill. (Interruption.) I would not ordinarily have opposed the introduction, because it seems to be a formality in this House to allow introduction unopposed. But I think it my duty to oppose this Bill at its very introduction for one reason only. When the land revenue question was being discussed in this House at the time of the demands for grants, it was made clear to us by the Honourable the Revenue Member, when he gave us an assurance, that the whole question of land revenue policy in the Presidency would be taken up some time in ensuing February, and therefore, we have to wait before we do anything. We should not accept any piecemeal legislation in regard to any item of land revenue. Therefore, even the members on the Treasury benches will agree with me when I say that this piecemeal legislation that is being proposed should not be allowed to be introduced in this House. There are so many other remarks that I would have liked to oppose, because the introductory remarks were read out to the House ; but, I believe, there is sufficient time ahead when all these matters will have to be discussed and fought for. Therefore, I do not want to take up any more time of the House. But I think this is a matter of principle. Government have given us an assurance that the whole question of land revenue in this Presidency will be taken up for consideration and that legislation on a broad basis will be brought before this House some time in January or February. There is no reason why an exception should be made so far as this legislation relating to Kolaba and Ratnagiri is concerned. With these remarks I oppose the introduction. The Honourable the Speaker: I do not think that any other member has a right to participate in this, treating it as a debate. The honourable member who begs leave to introduce the Bill has a right of reply ; and if he wants to reply, I will give him a chance. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I do not think that any very detailed reply is called for by the observations made by my honourable friend Mr. Karandikar. He said that the Honourable the Revenue Minister has

103 ON A BILL TO ABOLISH THE KHOTI SYSTEM given an assurance to the House that he is going to bring in legislation in order to overhaul the whole of the revenue system. Unfortunately, I was not present when this assurance was given; and I personally myself do not know exactly the extent and the scope of the assurance that he gave to the House. But, Sir, what I should like to submit to the House is this. The Khoti system is a system which stands by itself. It is not a system which comes under the Land Revenue Code and therefore can be said to be a part and parcel of the general land tenure of this Presidency. It is a separate item altogether. Therefore, I do not see any objection to a system which does not come under the general system being considered by itself. My second submission to the House is that if the honourable members who occupy the Treasury Bench do in fact intend to carry out what they have assured the House they will, and if I find that the measures that they are bringing forth in order to deal with the subject with which this Bill deals are of such a nature that I should be content with the remedies which they propose, then I have no hesitation in saying that I will withdraw the Bill if I find that their legislation is superior to mine. I do not think anything more is necessary for me to say on this occasion. Question put, and leave granted. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I introduce the Bill. The Honourable the Speaker: The Bill is introduced. zz

21 *ON VILLAGE PANCHAYATS BILL : 1 Dr. B, R. Ambedkar: Mr. President, I have listened with very great interest to the speech delivered by the Honourable Minister in charge of this Bill. Sir, I must also say that I have listened to it with very grave concern. I am sure there can be no two opinions on the fact that this Bill deals with some very vital issues. It not only deals with the question of self-government in so far as it affects the civic amenities of the rural population of this Presidency, but it also affects the question of the life, liberty and property of the rural population. Having regard to these vital issues involved in this Bill, I am bound to say that the Honourable Minister, in justice to all the interests concerned, ought to have given a longer period for the consideration of the implications involved in this Bill. Sir, he has chosen to satisfy his conscience by barely complying with the requirements of the law by allowing seven days to pass before the Bill was brought for consideration. May I say that in my opinion not only seven days but seven months are necessary for the consideration of this Bill ? And I suggest that there would be nothing wrong even now in the Honourable Minister sending this Bill for circulation in order to elicit the opinion of the general public on the issues involved in this Bill. That course I would request him with all due respect to adopt, but if he does not, I would like to address to him two other considerations which, in my opinion, are very important considerations. Sir, I would like to say that, in my opinion, the present Government is not competent to undertake this piece of legislation. The Government is aware that the present system of administration is a discredited system. I am not using that in any carping sense. I am only trying to depict the facts as we all know them. Sir, no section of the population of this country is satisfied with the administration and the working of this Government. Indeed, if one wants to state facts as they are, there is a powerful section in this country which is not prepared to admit and to acknowledge the moral authority of this Government to rule. Sir, we also know that we are on the threshold of a new constitution. We know that the constitution of India for a government of the people, by the people and for the people is on the anvil. We all know and I think we are justified in hoping that this new constitution will be *B.L.C. Debates, Vol. XXXV, pp. 1128-36, dated 6th October 1932.

105ON VILLAGE PANCHAYATS BILL forged within the short period of a year or two, and that a new government, supported fully by all sections of the community, will be installed. Sir, having regard to that consideration, I would like to point out to the Honourable Minister and to those honourable members who are occupying the Treasury Bench that they in their present position are no better than caretakers. Sir, by common consent a caretaker cannot undertake substantial alterations in the premises he is appointed to look after. At the most, during the interval before the real occupant comes to occupy his abode, he may undertake repairs in order to keep the building in working order. I would also like to point out to the Honourable Minister the analogy of parliamentary life. In England where parliamentary system has been in operation for centuries now, when a Ministry is defeated and when the defeated Ministry does not resign outright and allow the reins to pass into the hands of the opposition but chooses to make its appeal to the electorate, it is an accepted convention of the constitution that the Ministry so situated must not undertake any legislation of any consequential importance. All that they can do is to look after the administration pending the decision of the electorate so that the new Government may not be embarassed by anything that may be undertaken by such a Government. I ask the Honourable Minister whether he does not wish to abide by the conventions of the parliamentary constitution. I leave it to him to decide. Sir, I do not find any reason why the Honourable Minister should rush with this measure with such terrific speed, if I may say so, with only seven days notice. I do not find that there is any very great urge, that there is any very great necessity and urgent call upon him by the people of this Presidency to introduce this measure. So far as I am aware, no political party in this country has made this measure a party cry. I do not know that the Liberals, the Responsivists or the Non-Brahmins or the Congress members who were in this House during the last Legislative Council had ever insisted that they looked upon the introduction of the village panchayats as a fundamental part of their programme. I know of no such thing. Not only that, but I do not find that the masses themselves are clamouring for this measure. If you read the report of the Committee made in 1925 on this question appointed to report upon the working of the Village Panchayat Act of 1920, what do you find ? You find this. There are in this Presidency as many as 30,000 villages, on a rough calculation. The Act was passed in 1920 permitting the people to apply for the application of that Act voluntarily. What is the result ? The result is that the Sind people set their face against the introduction of village panchayats, so that we do not find a single village panchayat instituted in the province of Sind. In the presidency proper, there is a paltry figure of 323 or something like that. I submit that it is a sad commentary on the civic spirit of the people. Apart from that, it is a proof positive that the people are not anxious for the introduction of village panchayats. I do not wish to go into the reasons of that at this stage, but I am certain that my honourable friend the Minister for Local Self-

106 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Government will accept that that is a correct analysis of the situation. Not only that, but I would like to suggest that the reason why he has superadded the judicial functions to the village panchayats is to sweeten the pill so that it may be swallowed more readily. In view of these considerations, I think it would be advisable for the Honourable Minister to postpone the Bill sine die so that it may be considered in all its implications on its merits by a new Government which will be fully representative of the people of this Presidency. Coming to the merits of the Bill itself, Sir, I find that the Bill has two parts. The first part deals with the functions of the panchayat as a body for local self-government. I should like to say at once that I have no objection in principle to the policy of devolution ; if it is found that the local boards of this Presidency are overburdened by the functions which are placed upon them by the Local Board Act and if by reason of that they are unable to discharge their functions efficiently, then I say “by all means institute village panchayats so as to disburden the local boards.” Sir, if the desire is to constitute panchayats for their own sake, then to my mind it is a reversion to a very dangerous system. Many have eulogised the ancient system of village panchayats. Some have called them “rural republics”. Whatever be the merits of these rural republics, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that they have been the bane of public life of India. Mr. Pestanshah N. Vakil: Question. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : If India has not succeeded in producing nationalism, if India has not succeeded in building up a national spirit, the chief reason for that in my opinion is the existence of the village system. It made all people saturated with local particularism, with local patriotism. It left no room for larger civic spirit. None whatever. Under the ancient village panchayats, India, instead of being a country of a united people, became a loose conglomeration of village communities with no common tie except common allegiance to a common King. I am glad to say, Sir, that this is not my opinion alone. A member of the committee which was appointed in 1925 expressed himself in that same strain. I refer to the minute of my friend Mr. R. G. Pradhan. This is what he stated in that minute : “The excessive village patriotism and village spirit which these communities fostered proved very fatal to the growth of a strong Indian nationality based on the realisation of the territorial unity of India as a whole or of the racial unity of each of our natural territorial divisions.” Mr. Pestanshah N. Vakil: Is Mr. R. G. Pradhan a historian ? Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not think that we need bring historians here ; we ought to be beware of historians. In these days when you are striving for bringing about a national spirit, in these days when you are striving for bringing about a common nationality and a common sense of Indian citizenship, in my opinion we ought to do nothing which will nullify and which will dilute that sense. I would like to leave this aspect of the matter at that so far as I am concerned.