Vol. 2 · pages 71–75
In the Bombay Legislature, with the Simon Commission and at the Round Table Conferences
This text was extracted automatically from the official PDF of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, so it may contain small errors. Always check the original page before quoting.
PDF page 71 (printed page 52)
52 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Syndicate or on the Academic Council. I recognise, and I realise fully as
well as my honourable friend Professor Hamill does, that these two bodies
are no doubt bodies which are to be manned by experts, who will run the
show of the University. But I have to remind him that the Senate is entirely
intended to be a legislative body, a body which has to put forth the needs of
the backward communities and to suggest the facilities that are necessary
for meeting them. The Senate in my opinion, corresponds exactly to our
Legislative Council, and we have in this Legislative Council members from
the depressed classes, who are appointed not because they desire to displace
any honourable members who are sitting here on the Government side but
their only business here is to point out to the Government what are the
needs of the communities which are suffering under disabilities. That is all
we are asking, and I think when my honourable friend makes the point he
absolutely forgets what the Senate is intended to be.
Now, Sir, before I close, I wish to state one thing most emphatically,
Sir, there is a demand from honourable members belonging to the Swaraj
party that we must have provincial autonomy. Sir, it is a demand which
is a welcome demand. But, Sir, I beg to submit that when three-fourths of
the population is drenched in ignorance and does not know its rights and
responsibilities there can be no hope of autonomy. If we do get self-government
notwithstanding the fact that three-fourths of the population is drenched in
ignorance, our representative system will be a sham, and there would be a
rule of wealth against poverty, of power against weakness. That is really
what it will be. I, therefore, say, Sir, that if we desire to have provincial
autonomy, we must ensure two things. One thing is that every access must
be given to every grade of modern education to the communities which are
educationally backward, in order that they may realise their rights and
liabilities of citizenship, and secondly, in order that every access may be
given to these communities, it is absolutely necessary, under the present
circumstances, that special representation should be provided for them.
Before I sit down, Sir, I do wish one matter cleared up. You, Sir, have
given us a ruling yesterday about which I am not quite clear. I understand,
Sir, from your ruling yesterday that the principle of communal representation
has been ruled out. Now, by that I understand that the principle of communal
representation in the ordinary sense of that word, namely, that the voters
of a particular communities are to be grouped together to elect a member
from that community is ruled out. That is my interpretation of your ruling.
So that, we are debarred now from raising the question of communal
representation on the various bodies of the University in that sense of the
term. But I do not think that your ruling goes so far as to say that we
shall have no say in the matter as to how the 40 seats which are reserved
for nomination shall be distributed. I submit that that particular matter
is still open for the honourable members of this House to discuss in the
select committee or at the second reading. I should like to ask, therefore,
my honourable friend the Minister of Education that in his concluding
PDF page 72
53
ON THE BOMBAY UNIVERSITY ACT AMENDMENT BILL
remarks he should make his position clear is regards that point; because,
I want to say most emphatically that unless the representation to these
backward communities is provided for on the Senate, the bill would be of
no value to us whatsoever, and I for one will vote against it.
zz
PDF page 73
8
*ON THE BOMBAY UNIVERSITY ACT
AMENDMENT BILL: 2
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, before I move my amendment to clause 3
I should like to correct a typist’s error which has crept in the amendment
as it stands on the paper. The amendment should read :
“An incorporated college is any institution founded and managed by the
University itself for the study of a special group of subjects not provided in
any adequate way in other colleges; and so on.”
Sir, this amendment which I propose to move is a consequential amendment
which depends upon the passing of the main amendment to clause 25 of
the bill which I shall be moving. If that amendment is not passed it will
not become necessary for me to move this amendment. I therefore submit
that I may be allowed to move this amendment after my main amendment
to clause 25 is passed. If I move this amendment now and later on if my
main amendment is lost, I shall be wasting the time of the House.
* * *
RELATION OF COLLEGES TO THE UNIVERSITY
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. President, the first part of my amendment to
clause 7 is a consequential amendment depending upon the amendment to
clause 25. I therefore request you, Sir, to hold it over till the amendment
to clause 25 is disposed of.
The Honourable the President: I will hold it over.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: As regards my second amendment to clause 7.
I understand the Honourable Minister desires to have some time to consider
whether he can devise some amendment to my amendment to which both
of us can agree.
The Honourable the President: Will the honourable member move his
amendment.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: My second amendment to clause 7 runs thus :
Add the following clause to the bill :—
“7(b) For the purposes of grants-in-aid from Government Treasury the
University alone shall be recognised by the Government and no grants-in-aid
shall be given to any college except through the University.”
*B.L.C. Debates, Vol. XXI, pp. 250-53, dated 1st October 1927.
PDF page 74
55
ON THE BOMBAY UNIVERSITY ACT AMENDMENT BILL
I should like to insert the word “except” after the word “college” in the
amendment of which I have given notice. It had been left over through
mistake of the typist.
Sir, my reasons for moving this amendment are these. Under the new
Act the University has been charged with the responsibility of undertaking
the work of education far more directly than it was ever done before. Now,
although the responsibility for teaching has been placed upon the University
by the provisions of this Act, it must be recognised that the colleges which
will be affiliated to the University will be the primary bodies which will
carry on the practical work of teaching under this University. Now, Sir,
I submit that unless the University is allowed some control over the colleges
to regulate the work of teaching that is carried on in the colleges, I think
it would not be fair to hold the University responsible for maintaining the
standard of education. It must be given power to control the colleges and
to regulate their work of teaching if the University is to discharge this
responsibility. Now, Sir, under the existing law, the only means of control
which the University has over these colleges is that the University appoints, I
understand, what is called a committee of inspection, which committee visits
these colleges at certain stated intervals, makes inspections and finds out
what are the defects in their organisation and equipment. That committee
I understand. ......
Mr. P. R. Chikodi: I rise to a point of order. I should like to know what
the exact wording of the amendment of the honourable member is.
The Honourable the President: It was read out, the word “except” has
been added.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Now, Sir, I find that the only means of control
which the University has over these colleges, whereby it can enforce its
regulations on the colleges, is through the report of this committee of
inspection. I understand that this committee of inspection occasionally
goes round on a visitorial tour, and makes reports on the defects in the
college organisation, and that report, I understand, is submitted to the
standing committee of the University; and the standing committee reports
to the syndicate its opinion on the defects pointed out by the committee of
inspection. That is all that is done today by way of enforcing the rules of
discipline which the University has framed in the matter of controlling the
colleges. Now, I submit that that is not sufficient, because if the colleges
do not follow the directions given by the University on the basis of the
report of this committee of inspection then the only effective power which
the University has got over these colleges is the right to disaffiliate those
colleges. Now, I submit, Sir, that that is a power which is too drastic ; it
is a power which is the power of annihilation. The University has really,
as a matter of fact, no power to amend the ways of the colleges. In other
words, under the existing system of control which the University has got
over the colleges, the University today can only make or unmake a college,
either by granting affiliation or by disaffiliating a college. The University,
PDF page 75 (printed page 56)
56 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
under the present system, has now power, whereby it can enforce its
discipline and compel obedience on the part of the colleges to these rules
of discipline, without resort to this extreme penalty of disaffiliation. Now,
Sir, my amendment is such that it gives the University the power to amend
the ways of the colleges and to compel obedience on the part of the colleges
to the directions given by the University, without resort to this extreme
measure of disaffiliation. I submit, therefore, that if the University was
recognised by the Government as a unit—and I submit that it ought to be—
and if the grants given to the different colleges by the Government were
distributed through the University or, if possible, on the recommendation
of the University, then my submission is that the University will acquire a
power which, it is very necessary for it to enable it to enforce its discipline
on the colleges. I think there is no other power which the University can be
given which can effect this object, and I say the most necessary object, of
enabling the University to enforce its rules of discipline over a recalcitrant
college. Now, Sir, this view, that the University should be given financial
control over these colleges, is a view which has also been laid down by the
Royal Commission on University Education in London. In paragraph 41 of
their report, they say :
“The power of the purse is indeed the most important means of control which
the University should possess, if it is to organise teaching, with which it is
concerned. All the other modern Universities, except Wales and Scotland are
masters in their own house in regard to the assignment of State and municipal
grants, because the University is one unit and not a congeries of many units.”
In this report the Commissioners also recommended that the same
principle should be applied in the case of the University of London and
my amendment is based upon this important recommendation of the Royal
Commission on University Education in London. I should also like to point
out in this connection that the organization of the Bombay University in its
inception was fundamentally based upon the organization of the University
of London. I think we are also tending in this Bill to amalgamate, so to
say, or assimilate the position of the colleges under the Bombay University
to the same position which colleges under the London University have
been made to assume under the reforms effected as a result of the Royal
Commission. The situation in both cases is the same: and I think the rule
prescribed for regulating the relations of the colleges under the University
of London to that University should with equal advantage be applied for
regulating the relations of the colleges under the University of Bombay to
that University. There might be some objection on the ground that probably
the University may misbehave in the matter of making recommendation
for grants-in-aid. I think there is no justification at all for the supposition
that the University will have any private grudge against any particular
college. I do not think that a University under the new Act will be
composed of such irresponsible persons that they would for their own