Vol. 2 · pages 761–765

740 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES one or two, or a few representatives of the primitive classes in the Provincial Council will feel that they are overwhelmed by the forces on the other side, is not quite justified by an analysis as I am presenting it to you of the composition of the future Legislatures as it will be under the White Paper proposal ? Dr. J. H. Hutton: In view of the difference of race, I think it is possibly justified, at any rate in certain places. D253. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Take the question again of education. I happen to know something about these primitive people in the Bombay Presidency. We have a backward classes ? Dr. J. H. Hutton: Yes, I know. D254. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: We ourselves are not very far divided from them ? Dr. J. H. Hutton: I know. D255. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Educationally speaking, one could not really say that a good many people in India are in less need of education than the primitive or the backward people ? Dr. J. H. Hutton: You could not say what ? D256. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: You could not say (take, for instance, the depressed classes) that bare educational need is less ? Dr. J. H. Huttton: You could not say that it was less. D257. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: One could not say it ? Dr. J. H. Hutton: No. D258. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I have been sitting on the backward class board in Bombay, which is a composite board for the depressed classes and these primitive people ? Dr. J. H. Hutton: Yes, in certain cases the primitive people are very much more educated. D259. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Therefore, as I say, taking their educational need, in the Legislative Council, they would not find themselves isolated ? Dr. J. H. Hutton: They might do. D260. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: You would desire that they should be completely excluded, and their need, such as education, which I think is the greatest need of these people should be met entirely by revenues supplied by the Governor under his special responsibilities ? Dr. J. H. Hutton: Yes. D261. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I want to put this to you : whether a Governor would at all go to the length of providing what he thought was a sufficient amount of funds for the education of the primitive classes if his Ministers did not support him ? Dr. J. H. Hutton: That is a serious difficulty. D262. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: If there is something in the point that I have put to you, would not it be desirable that some representatives of these people should be in the Legislative Council so that a Minister may be

741 EVIDENCE : WING COMMANDER A. W. H. JAMES AND ANOTHER dependent upon their votes, and may be amenable to their wants ? Dr. J. H. Hutton: An odd vote or two would not be likely to affect a Minister. D263. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I do not say one or two. You may have a small number, but, assuming they have adequate representation in the Legislature, would not the Minister be dependent upon their votes, and, therefore, he might be more amenable to their wants ? Dr. J. H. Hutton : Theoretically, but not in practice. Their numbers would be so small. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: In politics a single vote might turn the balance. D264. Lord Eustace Percy: I thought Dr. Hutton’s recommendation was that they should be excluded from the purview not only of the Province but of the Governor also, and that they should be administered from the centre. Is not that so? Dr. J. H. Hutton: That is what I should, on the whole, prefer. I have stated in my memorandum that in the case of the proposals of the White Paper for the totally excluded areas in which the Governor acts as the agent of the Governor-General, the White Paper proposal is satisfactory. I do not say I should prefer it. D265. Lord Eustace Percy: I thought from your proposals for setting up petty States that you intended that it should as far as possible be a central function ? Dr. J. H. Hutton: My intention was that it should be central as far as possible, certainly. D266. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Even in that case, the criticism I have offered would be equally applicable even if the subject was made central, because the Governor would have to certify the amount necessary for the administration of the subject and, if the Ministers in the Central Government objected to spending that amount of money, the conflict would still be there; it would only be transferred from the Provincial Field to the Central Field ? Dr. J. H. Hutton: I am assuming the Minister would not have a word in it. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: But my point is that the Minister would have a word, because there would be other rival claims for the expenditure, and a Minister cannot be expected to be interested in primitive peoples who are not part of the Legislature. Dr. Shafa’at Ahmad Khan: Would not the representatives of the primitive people in the Legislature generally combine with the depressed classes ? D267. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: That is what I am visualising, and, therefore, they would have many friends. Dr. J. H. Hutton: I do not think the representation would be affected. D268. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: If I felt as pessimistic as you feel I should

742 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES at once say : “I do not want this constitution at all” ? Dr. J. H. Hutton: But I do not, for the primitive tribes. ***** D284. Major Attlee: I do not think the Simon Commission recommended the forests from your point of view at all. The forests were recommended by the Simon Commission to be transferred ? Dr. J. H. Hutton: No. I put that forward as a suggestion for the economical administration of an excluded area. Lord Eustace Percy : Perhaps Dr. Hutton will deal with this difficulty, because I do not understand what a totally excluded area is in which the provincial forest official and the provincial forest policy prevails. D285. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: If I may say so, the area is not excluded, it is the people who are excluded ? Dr. J. H. Hutton : No, the area is excluded, as I read the White Paper. Is there any definition of a totally excluded area in the White Paper ? (17) The Right Honourable Sir Winston Spencer Churchill, C.H. Member of the House of Commons †l4,681. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. Churchill, the White Paper does not propose to establish Dominion Constitution ? Sir Winston Churchill: No. 14,682. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Therefore I do not propose to trouble you with any questions with regard to the logical and metaphysical position, whether one could draw a distinction between Dominion Status as a ceremonial affair and Dominion Status as a Dominion Constitution. I propose to ask you just one or two questions with regard to the White Paper itself without confusing the issue by bringing in anything with regard to the distinction that you propose to make. May I draw your attention, therefore, to the debate that took place in Parliament on December 1st, 1931, when the Prime Minister moved the resolution; it was in these terms : “That this House approves the Indian policy of His Majesty’s Government as set out in Command Paper No. 3972 — Indian Round Table Conference — presented in Parliament on the 1st December, 1931.” That is the first White Paper-not the full scheme ? Sir Winston Churchill: You mean the Prime Minister’s speech ? 14,683. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: The Prime Minister’s speech. Sir Winston Churchill : Quite. 14,684. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: The Constitution adumbrated in the White Paper which was presented to the House included in the main the proposals which are contained in the White Paper as it is presented to the Joint Select Committee. There was to be Provincial responsible government †Minutes of Evidence, Vol. II-C, 24th October 1933, pp. 1807-08.

743 EVIDENCE : RIGHT HON. SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL in the Provinces with the transfer of Law and Order, and there was to be a sort of dyarchy at the Centre, in which Defence and Foreign Relations were to be reserved subjects. Is that right ? Sir Winston Churchill: I find no need to interrupt you at this point. 14,685. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Then the next point I wish to ask about this. The Prime Minister made his object clear in moving this resolution in the House of Commons. I am reading his words : “the statement which I made to the Round Table Conference yesterday had the full authority of the Cabinet, and we now wish, having communicated that statement to the House, to ask the House by its vote to associate itself with that policy.” That was the object of the Prime Minister in moving this resolution in the House of Commons. Now, as you know you moved an amendment to the resolution. That amendment was in these terms : “Mr. Churchill : I beg to move in line 3 at end to add the words, provided that nothing in the said policy shall commit this House to the establishment in India of Dominion Constitution as denned by the Statute of Westminster ; provided also that the same policy shall effectively safeguard the British trade in and with India from adverse or prejudicial discrimination, and provided further that no extensions of self-government in India at this juncture shall impair the ultimate responsibility of Parliament for the peace, order and good Government of the Indian Empire.” 14,686. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: The impression that I have formed, after reading this debate that took place in the House of Commons on the 3rd December 1931, was this, that if the Prime Minister had accepted your amendment you were willing to vote with the Government in support of the resolution moved by the Prime Minister. Is that correct ? Sir Winston Churchill: I think it very difficult to say what would have happened in these hypothetical circumstances, but, undoubtedly it would have been a very great relief to the great mass of Conservative Members in the House of Commons if the Government had seen eye to eye with those who supported me in that amendment—a very great relief, and altogether more agreeable atmosphere would have followed immediately and would have been created. 14,687. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Fortunately for me, I do not think the matter is really hypothetical because I find you have taken a very definite attitude with regard to your amendment in the course of that debate and I want to call your attention to one or two statements you made in the course of your speech. I think the one fact which has puzzled me, I must admit, is that, first of all, according to the impression of most Members then present in the House, there was really no distinction between what the Government was asserting and what you proposed to state in your amendment. Is it not so ? Let me read a passage of yours. The point I want to make is this : A subject which has always puzzled me is this, that having read the statement of the Prime Minister and the amendment which you proposed to move on

744 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES that day in the House of Commons, I, at any rate, did not see any distinction, and that, I say, was your position as well, because I propose to read a passage which will make it clear. You say at column 234 : “I have finished and I am most grateful to the House for permitting me to intrude for so long upon their attention. What can we do but to preserve with our amendment. It is not a vote of confidence in His Majesty’s Government” and this is the important point, “On the contrary, it merely asserts the principles which they themselves affirm and which both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have affirmed.” So you yourself really saw no distinction between the proposals as put forth in the statement of the Prime Minister and the substance of your amendment ? Sir Winston Churchill: Of course, I thought it was unfortunate that the Government did not take proper view of the proposal. I should have been very glad to get that amendment on the paper. 14,688. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Let me quote another passage of what you said on the same day. You said your second alternative to the Government on that day was that if your amendment was not accepted you would be content to vote with the Government provided the pronouncement of the Prime Minister was accompanied by the speech of the Secretary of State that was made on that day in the House of Commons ? Sir Winston Churchill: Yes. 14,689. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: My point is this : If that is your position, namely, that you were content to vote with the Government on that particular debate, provided the Prime Minister’s announcement was accompanied by the speech made by the Secretary of State in the House of Commons, what I wish to understand from you is this : What is the difference between the White Paper as it is presented to this Committee and the statement of the Prime Minister combined with the speech of the Secretary of State ? Could you give us any difference that you see between the White Paper as presented to the Committee and the pronouncement of the Prime Minister as interpreted by the Secretary of State in the House of Commons ? Sir Winston Churchill: In the case of a difference which arises in a Parliament or in a House of Commons between two sides of a debate, it is difficult for outsiders to appreciate what the difference was unless they understand all the circumstances which influence and affect our debates, but that there was a great and real difference between the amendment which I sought to have put upon the paper and the resolution which the Government passed over our heads is indisputable. There was a sharp difference. Each side naturally presents its case in the manner least likely to deter support, but the difference is there all the same and remains quite clear, and I do not suggest to Dr. Ambedkar that in justice to our Parliamentary institutions, he should remember that we still have a bica-