Vol. 2 · pages 151–155

28 *ON SMALL HOLDERS’ RELIEF BILL : 2 (Minute of Dissent) Proceedings of the Council of the Governor of Bombay BY THE SECRETARY TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE GOVERNOR OF BOMBAY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OFFICE Council Hall, Poona, 10th July 1928 No. 894.—With reference to the footnote to the Report of the Select Committee on Bill No. XVI of 1927 (An Act to prevent the excessive subdivision of agricultural land and to promote the consolidation of such land) published at pages 34-49 of the Bombay Government Gazette, Part V, dated the 30th June 1928, it is notified that Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, M.L.C. has signed the report of the Select Committee subject to a minute of dissent shown below : (Minute of dissent by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, M.L.C.) 1. Part I of this bill starts with the assumption that for the purposes of profitable cultivation it is necessary to have bigger farms than what we have now. I am not at all satisfied that this assumption is correct. But assuming that it is correct the main question every one shall be required to satisfy himself about before giving his assent to this part of the bill is “does the bill solve the problem of creating large farms out of the existing small farms in such manner that no serious objection can be raised to it ?” 2. The mechanism employed by the bill to maintain the standard unit once it is laid down in two-fold. First it severely penalises the owners of farms smaller than the standard so that ownership of a small farm shall to him become a burden instead of a benefit. Secondly it prohibits the ownership of small farms in that it provides that in future small farms shall not come into existence at all. As an instance of the latter one may refer to the restrictions on partitions. It is therefore obvious that in the mechanism adopted by the bill the rights of ownership of people are at stake. 3. I object to this mechanism on three grounds. Firstly because it affects the rights of property. If the arrangement was state ownership and *The Bombay Government Gazette, Part V pp. 64-65, dated July 12, 1928.

133ON SMALL HOLDERS’ RELIEF BILL state management of lands the invasion of rights of property would not be a matter of such anxious concern. But the arrangement is such that there will be the aggrandisement of some landlords at the cost of the rest. There is no doubt in my mind that the effect of the mechanism adopted in the bill will be to reduce some landowing farmers into landless labourers. Just how many will find themselves in this predicament it is difficult to imagine. Everything will depend upon how large the standard farm will be. If the standard be much above the actual it will affect a large class than will be the case if the standard approximated the actual. The magnitude of displacement that will take place is an unknown quantity and will become known only when the standard becomes defined. But as majority of farmers are owners of small farms the fear is general. The opposition to the bill mainly arises from this fear and I am not prepared to say that the opposition is groundless. I cannot view with equanimity a prospect of such a revolutionary change in the economic basis of society. 4. The second ground of my objection to the mechanism of the bill is that it will be infructuous and will largely leave things as they are. The neighbouring owners of a small farm are given the right of pre-emption the object of which is to bring about a combination of contiguous small farms. But this right of pre-emption will come into operation only when the owner wants to sell and only when the neighbour is willing to accept the terms of the owner. The occasion for pre-emption may not arise ; for owner of small farm (I am referring to old fragments) may continue to hold it. On the other hand the occasion for pre-emption may arise but it may fail because no neighbour is able to accept the terms of the owner. In either case the existing small farms will continue indefinitely in spite of the desire to bring about the combination of small farms at an early date. 5. Apart from all this I think that the mechanism of Part-I of the Bill overshoots the purpose which the bill has in view. The purpose of the bill is to have larger farms under single cultivation than is the case now. Now I feel that if we can combine small farms owned by different owners for cultivation we ought to stop there and not attempt to bring them under the ownership of a single individual unless it was proved that single ownership was necessary for combine cultivation. I am certain that the establishment of co-operative farms of standard size will give us all that we want under the bill and will save from destruction the small farm-owners. Under this scheme the ownership of a farmer will remain intact, except to the extent that he shall not be at liberty to cultivate it unless he agrees to combine it with a contiguous farm or farms so that the total area so cultivated shall be equal to or exceed the standard unit. Such a covenant if it were made to run with the land will do away entirely with the necessity for the restrictions which the bill seeks to impose on transfers and partitions. For, whoever acquires the fragment he will not be able to disturb the arrangement for the cultivation of the co-operative farm. By reason of the covenant the transferee

134 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES will be obliged to cultivate the farm in common. The co-operative farm will be like a shareholders’ company in which the company remains even though the shareholders change. The scheme is simple in its operation and avoids the evils of the present bill. 6. I do not see what objection there can be to such a plan. As a matter of fact such a system is actually working in many European countries and particularly in Italy. But it is unnecessary to go so far afield to seek support for the scheme I have outlined above. I am fortunate enough to be able to say that the bill itself in part accept the plan I have sketched above. A reference to clause 19 of the original bill which corresponds to clause 21 of the bill as amended by the Select Committee will show that no new fragment shall be cultivated unless it is combined with another contiguous farm. This I submit is nothing but the co-operative plan which I have suggested above. The only difference between myself and the Select Committee is that it restricts the co-operative plan to the new fragments; while I propose to apply it to all fragments. As between us I think I am right, when I say that it is for the Select Committee to justify why the plan satisfies the case of the one and not of that of the other. I see nothing to justify this distinction between the old and the new fragments. 7. For the reasons given above I cannot support Part I of the bill although I am not opposed to its aims and objects. Regarding Part II, I have no objection to raise, now that it is confined purely to consolidation. I may however say this that under my scheme separate provision for consolidation would be unnecessary. A co-operative farm would be both a large and a consolidated holding. zz

29 *ON SMALL HOLDERS’ RELIEF BILL : 3 Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay City): Sir, I would like to ask one question, because I am finding some difficulty in understanding Rule 19. This is undoubtedly a matter which, in the first instance, has to be decided by the Speaker as to whether a particular amendment or a particular Bill needs previous sanction. Clause (2) says that, if in the opinion of the Speaker, the matter requires previous sanction, the Speaker “shall as soon as may be after the receipt of the notice, refer the Bill or the amendment to the Governor and the notice shall not be placed on the list of business unless the Governor has indicated to the Speaker that the previous sanction required has been granted.” Clause (3) deliberately states : “If any question arises whether a Bill or amendment is or is not a Bill or amendment which cannot be introduced or moved save with previous sanction the question shall be referred to the authority which would have power to grant previous sanction if it were necessary, and the decision of that authority shall be final.” The question that is contemplated in clause (2) to arise is between the Speaker and the member who has given notice of an amendment or Bill. If the member who has given notice of an amendment or a Bill feels that his Bill or amendment does not require previous sanction clause (3) gives him the right to refer the matter to the final authority, the Governor. Therefore, it seems to me—I will frankly say, I have not moved any amendment and am not, therefore, directly concerned—that the matter is so important that, if you would not mind, it should be discussed on the floor of this House. Our rights to bring in Bills is so limited by the Government of India Act that, if we are not given the benefit of the few sections there are which give us the right essential to us, though little, this House will be very greatly handicapped in trying to do its bit in the matter of bringing legislation which is vital. Therefore, I would really like to know whether you are of opinion that under Rule 19, the Speaker is the final authority and that there is no right of appeal to the authority which is vested with the power of giving previous sanction. If you permit me, I shall refer to section 299, sub-section (3) of the *B.L.A. Debates, Vol. 2, pp. 617-19, dated 24th January 1938.

136 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Government of India Act in the light of the Bill for which permission has been asked by my learned friend. If I understand this Bill, technically it can be spoken of as a remedial measure. The Honourable the Speaker: Let us keep clear of two issues. One issue that has been raised by the honourable member Mr. Parulekar is in regard to the interpretation of Rule 19 as to whether, when a question arises as between a member and the Speaker, the Speaker is the final authority. That is one issue. I have stated what my interpretation of Rule 19 is. As regards the question whether a particular amendment tabled by the honourable member Mr. Parulekar does or does not require sanction under section 299(3), it is an independent question. I have already intimated to the honourable member that I do not propose to have any discussion in this House over the question of his amendment. I have already come to a conclusion on that. I am prepared to hear the honourable member, if he advances any argument on the interpretation of sub-rule (3) of Rule 19. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Unless I am permitted to point out that the Bill cannot come within the purview of sub-section ( 3) of section 299 of the Government of India Act, it is futile for me to argue on the interpretation of Rule 19(3). If I am to convince you that Rule 19(3) does give a member aggrieved whose amendment has been rejected, the right of appeal to the Governor, then my submission is that section 299(3) will have to be considered. If you are not prepared to allow me to argue whether this Bill really does come within the mischief which is sought to be prevented by sub-section ( 3) of section 299 of the Government of India Act, it will be quite useless for me to argue. Reading sub-section ( 3) of section 299 of the Government of India Act, it seems to me that the Bill will have to be postponed until a member who is aggrieved has obtained the final sanction, because it has precluded the member from discussing the most important provisions of this Bill. It is shelving the whole question. If I am given the opportunity, I will show how. I have applied my mind to it. Neither this Bill nor the amendment tabled by my honourable friend Mr. Parulekar or members of my party can come within the proviso of sub-section ( 3) of section 299. If you permit me. I will do it in two minutes. The Honourable the Speaker: So far as the individual amendments are concerned. I have already decided one way. Now, if, without any reference to any particular amendment, or any ruling I have already given in regard to it the honourable member wishes to say how the entire Bill is out of the scope of section 299, that will be a different question, and I am prepared to give him a hearing on that question. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am obliged to you, Sir. Sir, as I was saying, this Bill is a Bill which might be called purely a remedial measure. A person may obtain a decree from a court. That decree means that he has got certain rights as against a certain person. All that this Bill says is that whatever rights that person may have acquired as