Vol. 2 · pages 556–560

535IN SUB-COMMITTEE NO. III Sir P. C. Mitter: I should like to join, Sir, in those discussions. Dr. Ambedkar: We have heard just now these proposals and percentages being disposed of, but really it strikes me that if you add up all these they not only go over 100 per cent but they practically take no notice of many other communities that are existing in the Punjab and Bengal and in other places. If these communities, the Sikhs, the Muhammadans, the Hindus are going to appropriate 49 and 20 and so on, what is left for the other people? Are they to be taken into account or not? That is a very serious question, Mr. Prime Minister. Lt. Col. Gidney: May I just raise my humble voice—it is a very small voice. I know—in this conflict? I support what Dr. Ambedkar has just said. Surely you are not going to take the political rupee and give 15 annas and 9 pies to the major communities, leaving 3 pies to be scrambled for by the other minorities. On behalf of the smaller communities I maintain we should have some say in this distribution. Chairman: That is just the point. I think that we had better discuss this matter with a smaller body and a little but more informally. Mr. Foot: And no notes taken ? Chairman: And I shall remain in the Chair, you being agreeable, and see what can be done to straighten out the situation that has been opened up by the very hopeful suggestion made by Sir Muhammad Shafi. Sixth Sitting— 16th January 1931 †Chairman: “The inclusion in the Constitution of declaration of fundamental rights safeguarding the cultural and religious life of the various communities and securing to every individual, without distinction of race,” and so on, “the free exercise,” and so on. Raja Narendra Nath: I propose we say “the free and equal exercise”. Chairman: of his or her economic, social and civil rights”. Raja Narendra Nath: I do not think we want the “his or her”. Cannot we say “the free and equal exercise of economic, social and civil rights by citizens” ? I do not insist on it. Chairman : “equal” is of substance, but I do not think the other matters very much. Raja Narendra Nath : I suggest we should say “free and equal exercise”. Chairman: As a matter of fact, that is a question from Dr. Ambedkar. Raja Narendra Nath: The word “equal” was used in Dr. Ambedkar’s speech. Sir M. Shaft: I think “free” covers it. Dr. Shafa’at Ahmad Khan: I think it should remain as it is. Chairman: It says “and securing to every individual......the free † Proceedings of the Sub-Committee No. III (Minorities), pp, 129-31.

536 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES exercise”. You cannot secure the equal exercise, because equal is an attribute of the individual who uses the rights. Raja Narendra Nath: I mean equality in rights; equal rights. Mr. Chintamani: I do not see the particular propriety of that objective “equal”. Raja Narendra Nath: It is used in Dr. Ambedkar’s draft. Chairman: You can secure to each individual the Free exercise of his rights, but if he does not exercise them in terms of equality that is his lookout, not the Government’s. Raja Narendra Nath: Very well. Chairman: “his or her” can come out, I think. Dr. Ambedkar: After the word “rights” at the end of the paragraph I should like the words “without discrimination” added. Chairman: It says already “without distinction of race, caste, creed or sex”. Dr. Ambedkar: I should like the word “untouchability”. You included there ! Chairman :...... “untouchability ! ” you already have race and caste. Dr. Moonje: I think it is all right. Dr. Ambedkar: In order to explain things better I think that word might be included. Chairman : Do not let us produce a document which people will laugh at on account of the way it is worded. Dr. Ambedkar: I think we ought to make a distinction between caste and untouchability. Many people who have caste do not suffer from the difficulties of untouchability. Raja Narendra Nath: Even the Muslims have caste. Diwan Bahadur Ramachandra Rao: There is caste among the untouchables. “Caste” is a wider expression. Mr. Foot: Unless an alteration which is substantial is proposed, I understand it is rather late to make an alteration at this stage. Dr. Ambedkar: I should like to say “social and civil rights on account of untouchability or otherwise”. Chairman : Untouchability is a violation of social rights, and if you pile on words instead of making it more precise it has, as a matter of fact, an exclusive tendency ; it narrows the thing if you give a specific application to a general principle. If you keep your general principle sound you are much safer so far as its application is concerned than if you quote it as applying to the one particular grievance. Dr. Ambedkar: That is true, but I do maintain that the question of interpretation will come in, and I should like whoever is going to handle this Report to understand that the Sub-Committee did mean not to impose any disability on account of untouchability.

537IN SUB-COMMITTEE NO. III Chairman : In a case like that, if there is any doubt about it, I will take the opinion of the Committee and settle it Do you persist, Dr. Ambedkar ? Dr. Ambedkar: I am afraid, Sir, I shall have to. My dissent might be noted, that I do wish that this should be made clear. Chairman : There is a suggestion made that the word “distinction” should be substituted by the word “discrimination”, so that it will read “without discrimination as to race, caste” and so on. Dr. Ambedkar: Yes, that would do it. Chairman: That will be all right ? Dr. Ambedker: That will be all right. I suggest at the end it should be “without discrimination”. Chairman: Quite then would you make that alteration please. Then it will read without discrimination. Dr. Ambedkar: Yes. Chairman: That is a good amendment: the other, I think, would have been a bad one. ***** †Dr. Ambedkar: Sir, as I understand, paragraph 3 summarises the demand put by the different communities before this Committee. Chairman : Yes. Dr. Ambedkar: In view of that, I should like to suggest that the other demands made by the Depressed Classes specifically in their own interests, on account of the fact that their position differs somewhat from the position of the other minorities, should be added. I do not mean to say that they should be added as an accepted proposition by this Conference, but for the sake of completeness those demands should be put in. I would therefore suggest the addition of the following paragraph to this paragraph after the word “rights” : “The Depressed Classes also urged that untouchability, with all its consequent disabilities, should be abolished by law, and that they should be guaranteed free and unfettered enjoyment of their rights ; and they also claim the right of appeal to the Governor-General and the Secretary of State in cases of prejudices or neglect of their interests.” Chairman: But you see, in so far as these suggestions can be made workable, they will come in in the details that will have to be worked out. Dr. Ambedkar: I quite see that. Chairman: Partly legislative and partly administrative. Dr. Ambedkar: But what I would like to say is this, that in view of the fact that the paragraph tries to summarise what was put before this Committee by the different communities, what was put by the Depressed Classes, as something specifically for themselves, apart from what other communities needed, ought to come in by way of completion. Chairman: But it says “without discrimination” and so on. † Proceedings of the Sub-Committee No. III (Minorities), pp. 133-35.

538 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. Ambedkar: Mr. Prime Minister, you will excuse me ; it is one thing for the constitution to say that no man shall be discriminated against, and that every man shall be guaranteed the free enjoyment, and so on; but I know as a matter of fact that we are hard up against facts, and that people will not allow us to enjoy the rights which are given to us by the constitution. I am as certain of that as I am certain of my existence. I do not want merely a paper guarantee. The whole community will be against us, and we shall certainly never enjoy one-tenth of what is given to us. I therefore desire that the constitution should not only declare that we shall have specific rights that every community will have, but that the constitution should also provide ways and means by which we shall be protected in the exercise of those rights. Chairman: The point is, supposing a legislature does not pass a law which will suit you, then the constitution has been broken. Dr. Ambedkar: No. What I suggest is this : That in the memorandum which I have circulated I have suggested certain ways and means by which we think our rights could be protected in the matter of their exercise. The Committee here, for instance, may not agree that that is an appropriate way of doing it; the Committee may suggest that there are some other means of doing it. I am quite prepared and open for consideration of these other ways and means ; but what I want to submit is this, that this draft ought to report that the Depressed Classes did suggest that they were not satisfied with the mere declaration that they were placed on an equal footing with other communities : but they pressed in that rights be given to them by the constitution. I am not asking for anything more than that. That is by way of completion of the report. In the memorandum which I submitted, you will see I do recommend a certain procedure for that. Mr. Foot: The only difficulty which occurred to me, with every sympathy for Dr. Ambedkar, was that if you begin to put in a statement of your position, it would have to be a very full statement. Already we have upon the notes the claim that has been made, and the sympathetic adoption of it here referred to again at the end of paragraph. 16. It seems to me perhaps there may be the risk that if you are going to put in any claim at all, you will not have it fully stated in this memorandum. Dr. Ambedkar: I would just like to say as regards paragraph 16, the last two sentences refer to the Depressed Classes, and they are confined to the seats that are to be allotted to them. That is a different matter altogether. What I am stating is this, that the constitution may give me certain rights, but I know that 99 per cent of the people in India are not going to allow me to exercise those rights. What is the use of those paper rights to me unless the constitution provides that if anyone infringes my rights he is liable to certain penalties ? What I say is this. I do not press that the meeting should adopt my proposal. What I want is that the constitution should be made to complete as to cover what I have said on behalf of the

539IN SUB-COMMITTEE NO. III Depressed Classes on this Sub-Committee. Chairman : We have every sympathy with your position, and are prepared to support it; but the difference between putting a paragraph in the constitution declaring for fundamental rights and the drafting of laws carrying out those fundamental rights is a real one. You cannot get into a constitutional declaration any details of a law which is going to enforce it. What you have got to do is, when you get your representation, when you get your declaration of rights, not in detail, in your constitution, then, as a representative of your people co-operating with the other people in the Legislature you have to produce the law which you think carries out the declaration in the constitution, because if you put anything more by way of detail into your constitution and the constitution is not carried out in that respect, then the constitution is not carried out at all. So you will never get on in that way. Dr. Ambedkar: My submission is this. I perfectly agree with you that this declaration of fundamental rights is of no consequence. I attach no importance to it myself personally, because after all, what is important to an individual is not that his rights should be declared but that he should have the remedy in order to enforce those rights. That is the effective guarantee of the rights in the declaration, and therefore I want that the constitution should give me some means whereby I can get redress when I am wrong. It is no use merely saying that there is no “untouchability” and so on. Chairman: As a matter of fact we have got the point clearly in our minds, so it need not be reiterated ; but what Dr. Ambedkar says is that a declaration in the constitution is not good enough for him unless it is enforceable by law. That is so. In order to make it enforceable by law, laws must be passed creating the penalties and the crimes—the crimes first of all, and the penalties. You cannot create a crime of this kind. I think, not safely—I am in the hands of Lord Reading; he is a lawyer, I am not—you cannot, in drafting a general introductory clause to your constitution, create by that a crime which gives you more rights than those that you can claim under the constitution. Under the constitution you have got certain rights given to you, and I am not at all sure what is the position. Supposing a Depressed Class person was actually persecuted in violation of this declaration, could he not move for some redress in the Courts ? Lord Reading: Well, you have got to give him some remedy for it, of course. You must make it a misdemeanour. Chairman : Can you do that in the constitution ? Lord Reading: No, I do not think so. If you will forgive me for a moment I do not think Dr. Ambedkar was pressing for that. As I understand it, he wants us to make a definite statement that he had put the claim forward, that he was not satisfied merely with the declaration of