Vol. 2 · pages 196–200

177ON MINISTERS’ SALARIES BILL Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: This reminds me of how at the Round Table Conference the Conservative Party was trying to strengthen its provision by introducing certain clauses in the Government of India Bill which could have no other purpose except to restrict the freedom of action of the Labour Party. Many of us used to question them as to why they wanted certain clauses to be introduced into the Government of India Act which apparently had no justification. They could give no reply, but everybody knew that what they were doing was really to forestall the Labour Government should it ever come into power, and prevent it from undoing what the Conservative Party wanted to do. If my learned friends want to adopt that policy, they are welcome to do so. We cannot prevent them. All I want to say is that this is a misuse of their power. Let me at this stage make it clear, because I am likely to be misunderstood, that when I am protesting at the salary of Rs. 500 as being too low. I am not at all suggesting that the salary of Rs. 4,000 or Rs. 3,000 which was suggested by the Interim Ministry was a standard salary. Nobody need draw that conclusion, because I am not going to say that Rs. 4,000 or Rs. 3,000 is a proper salary. I bind myself to no figure. All I say is that Rs. 500 is not a proper salary for a Minister. The statement I have made will no doubt leave me open to the criticism that I am suggesting an extravagance. But I do not feel any embarrassment in making the suggestion that the salary ought to be more than that fixed in the Bill. I am certainly not a recipient of the salary, if it was increased ; and, so far as I can see the future, I do not think that I shall ever be a recipient of it. The Honourable Mr. B. G. Kher: Do not despair. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Well, I need not answer my learned friend. But his policy is what it is ; he certainly has deliberately excluded members of the Scheduled Classes from his Cabinet. The Honourable Mr. K. M. Munshi: They may not like Rs. 500 ! The Honourable the Speaker: Order, order. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I do not feel any embarrassment in making this proposal, because I am not going to be a recipient of this salary. My motives are motives purely of public policy. Dr. Johnson said that patriotism was the last refuge of scoundrels. He could very well have said that politics also was the last refuge of scoundrels. And it is because I do not want that politics in India should become the last refuge of the scoundrel that I have risen to speak. ***** †Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay City): Sir, I would just like to say a word to my honourable friend the Prime Minister, whether the whole of the difficulty could not be solved by putting in a lump sum rather than putting in all these different items. I am only suggesting it to him whether we could not then say that a consolidated salary of so much—Rs 750 per †B.L.A. Debates, Vol. I, p. 279-80, dated 23rd August 1937.

178 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES month should be paid to a Minister. I am only suggesting for his consideration whether that would not solve the difficulty. The Honourable Mr. B. G. Kher: Sir, I thought I had made clear what we had done in Poona, where there were four Government residences available. In Bombay also there will be Government residences available. Those Ministers as also the Speaker and the President who will get accommodation in Government bungalows will not need and will not be paid any allowances. There is no question of consolidating the allowances with salary. For residences which are available from the Government and which they occupy they do not get an allowance. If they have their own houses, whether they choose to occupy them or not is entirely left to them. But for the purposes of a house allowance, we consider that Rs. 100 per month is a reasonable provision. That being the position, I do not think it will be possible to consolidate the salary with the allowance. The arrangement that we have followed in Poona seems to have worked well ; the arrangement in Poona was to divide the Government residences available, and I can assure the honourable member Dr. Ambedkar that we are now accommodating in one. Government bungalow two or three Ministers where including the out-houses formerly only one Minister used to occupy it in solitary dignity. If we do the same thing in Bombay, after providing residences for the Ministers as also for the Honourable the Speaker and President, there will be some Government residences perhaps available for letting. Therefore, more retrenchment will follow as a result of the arrangement that we have in view. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am only trying to point out a way out of the difficulty which has been raised, namely, that the word “allowance” does not occur in the section of the Government of India Act which refers to the salaries of the Ministers. In order, therefore, not to give rise to any contention that an allowance has been fixed in addition to salary which may not be permissible under the Act, what I am suggesting to my honourable friend is that he might consolidate the whole thing and call it salary and drop the word “allowance” arid thereby get out of the difficulty. Of course, we have yet to know from the Advocate-General whether the point raised has any substance in it. zz

38 *ON PROBATION OF OFFENDERS BILL Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay City ): Mr. Speaker, Sir, one notices that there is not much enthusiasm for this Bill because one does not see the same competition that is observable when other Bills are before the House, and when I rise, although I am desirous of making reference to only one section, I also confess that I do not feel any very great enthusiasm for this Bill, and that, I submit, is very natural, because the Bill does not touch any problem which can be said to be either grave or urgent. It touches a very small problem. The Bill, I am told, follows very closely an English statute. I do not know whether the English people who are made subject to the statute which is taken as a model for this Bill have derived any benefit which may be called to be considerable, but I trust that the Honourable the Home Minister has examined the position carefully and has evidently come to the conclusion that the benefit arising from this Act in the country in which it is now prevailing, is certainly so considerable that we ought also to follow it by similar legislation in our province. Sir, I have nothing to say with regard to the detailed provisions contained in the Bill, and I say at the outset that reading the Bill as it is, I think there are principles embodied in this Bill to which I can lend my support. There is only one clause about which I feel some trouble and which I would like to place before the Honourable the Home Minister for his consideration, and that clause is clause 6. Clause 6 seems to me to embody a principle which may become in its operation somewhat oppressive, to use a very mild expression. The latter part of clause 6 says : “and if the offender is under the age of sixteen years, and it appears to the Court that the parent or guardian of the offender has conduced by his neglect or in any other way to the commission of the offence, the Court may order payment of such damages or compensation and costs by such parent or guardian.” It seems to me that this may rightly involve a great deal of oppression as against the parent or guardian. My learned friend the Honourable the Home Minister will agree that the words “neglect” and “negligence” are *B.L.A. Debates, Vol. 2, pp. 425-26, dated 20th January 1938.

the vaguest of the vague words, and it is very difficult to give any positive definition of what is negligence and what is not negligence. If I may refer to what happened during the course of the Civil Disobedience Movement, I think it will give an analogy by which it might be possible for my honourable friend to realise the difficulty which I feel. I believe it is true— I will stand corrected if I am told that I am wrong—that during the Civil Disobedience Movement many civil servants who were in the service of the State and whose children had taken to the Civil Disobedience Movement, were brought under disciplinary action on the ground that they had not justified their duty to the State by seeing that the children did not follow the movement which was subversive of the Government of the day. I think I am right in saying that members who are now sitting opposite did take great objection to that principle, because, if I understand them correctly, their contention was that no parents could be responsible for the conduct of their children, especially if the conduct involved the holding of a certain opinion which may differ very legitimately from the opinion of their parents. My submission is that a child may develop criminal proclivities notwithstanding the fact that the parent has been as careful and as dutiful as ordinarily parents are; and unless the word “neglect” or “connivance” or “conducing” is properly defined, it seems to me that this Bill may lead to consequences which would be far greater than those which probably the Honourable the Home Member himself intends. My honourable friend Mr. Bramble, who undoubtedly, as one sees from the speech that he made, has devoted special attention to the study of this problem, has pointed out that the English law contains certain anomalies, and that if the English law is to be taken as our model, we ought to take this occasion in order to see that the anomalies which are found in the English law are not introduced in the legislation that we are passing. I have every reason to believe that the statement that he has made is based upon the deepest study, and if that is so and the prestige of the Government does not come in the way, I would join in the request made by the honourable member Mr. Bramble that this Bill could very well be referred to a select committee, where all the points that may be raised either in favour of certain principles or against may be threshed out, so that the Bill may become as perfect as we in this House can make it. With these remarks, I support the first reading of the Bill. zz 180 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

39 *ON TOBACCO DUTY ACT AMENDMENT BILL Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay City): Sir, I should like to submit in reply to what the Honourable Leader of the House has suggested, that unless you uphold the principle that there is such a thing as waiver or estoppel, the discussion that my honourable friend Mr. Jamnadas Mehta wants to raise will be quite relevant under the rules of the House. With regard to the point raised by the Honourable Leader of the House, what I should like to submit is this, that the House may easily take the view that they have granted sufficient funds and more shall not be granted. I submit that would be a complete answer to the point raised by the Leader of the House. Therefore, there can be no estoppel or waiver on the ground that the House has granted supplies by adopting the other taxes which were discussed previously under the head “Finance Bill”. Then, Sir, the point I should like to raise is this. I think the issue is whether this is a Finance Bill or a Bill which merely regulates the administrative machinery for raising the tax. If this were a Bill merely providing for the machinery for raising the tax and laying down the mode and method of raising the tax, then I could quite understand the relevancy of the ruling to which you have referred. But it seems to me, looking to the statement of objects and reasons which is appended to the Bill, that this Bill is from beginning to end treated by the Government as a Finance Bill. The main object of the Bill is to raise additional revenue. The change in the machinery is merely secondary—to provide an instrument for raising the additional revenue. Additional revenue for the purpose of meeting the deficit caused by the prohibition policy of Government is the principal aim of this Bill. I shall just refer to one or two passages in the statement of objects and reasons: “Tobacco is subject to substantial taxation in most countries. It is absolutely essential to develop this source of revenue in order to meet part of the loss caused by the new prohibition or anti-drink policy. In Bombay City duty on tobacco is levied under the Tobacco Duty (Town of Bombay) Act, 1857. Under the said Act there is already a substantial *B.L.A. Debates, Vol. 3, pp. 336-37, dated 5th March 1938.