Vol. 2 · pages 771–775

750 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Sir Samuel Hoare : Yes. I think there is a great deal to be said for giving the Governor a free choice, always assuming, Dr. Ambedkar, that the Cabinet is collectively responsible and there would be no intention of imposing a Minister against the wish of the Cabinet in case of this kind. ***** †6549. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru : Is Sir Samuel right in conceding that the present Government of India Act makes a distinction between elected and nominated members for appointment as Ministers ? Sir Malcolm Hailey: It was new to me, but I took it from Dr. Ambedkar. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I used it in the sense that it must be an elected member within six months. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru : So far as I can see the Government of India Act makes no distinction between elected and nominated members for the purpose of appointment as Ministers. The Section which deals with that matter is Section 52. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: He has to get himself elected. 6550. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru: I thought Dr. Ambedkar put it to Sir Samuel, and suggested that the Government of India Act makes a distinction between elected and nominated members in the matter of being Minister ? Sir Malcolm Hailey: It only does so to the extent of laying down that a Minister shall not hold office for a longer period than six months unless he becomes an elected member. 6551. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru : But if there is a nominated member there already, there is nothing to prevent you from appointing him Minister ? Sir Malcolm Hailey: That is so. 6552. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru : And that has been done ? Sir Malcolm Hailey : Yes. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru: The law, as I understand it, is this: It is open to the Governor to appoint any outsider a Minister, provided that outsider gets elected to the Legislative Council within a period of six months. Similarly, it is open to the Governor to appoint a Minister from the block of nominated members who are already there. The Act does not make any distinction. 6553. Mr. Zafrulla Khan : Once a nominated member is appointed, does he continue to be nominated member all the time or must he seek election ? Sir Samuel Hoare: No, I thought that was quite clear. A nominated member is treated just like anyone else. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: He cannot continue to be a Minister after six months unless he gets elected. ***** ‡6558. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: May I read the section ? Sir Samuel Hoare: Does it really very much matter with what the †Minutes of Evidence, Vol. II-B, 14th July 1933, p. 748. ‡Ibid., pp. 749-50.

751 EVIDENCE : RIGHT HON. SIR SAMUEL HOARE AND OTHERS position is now ? 6559. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: It matters because I want to ask what the exact position is. Section 52, sub-section 2 is : “No Minister shall hold office for a longer period than six months unless he is or becomes an elected Member of the Local Legislature.” All I wanted to suggest was that the Act does not contemplate the continued holding of a nominated member as a Minister. which would be the case if the suggestions in the White Paper were adopted, that a nominated Member of the Second Chamber would be entitled to be a Minister. With respect to the appointment of the Ministry, I want to draw your attention to the recommendation of the Sub-Committee on Provincial Constitution. They said: “The Sub-Committee is of the opinion that in the discharge of that function the Governor should ordinarily summon the Member possessing the largest following in the Legislature and invite him to suggest the Ministers and submit their names for approval.” Paragraph 67 says that he shall make “his best endeavours to select his Ministers in the following manner”—which I regard as a considerable departure from the recommendation of the Provincial Constitution Committee ? Sir Samuel Hoare: I do not think there is any departure at all. The Committee said ‘ordinarily’, and this is, I imagine, what will ordinarily happen. 6560. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: You do not think it would be necessary, in the interests of fostering collective responsibility, to impose an obligation upon the Government that he should follow a particular course in the formation of the Ministry ? Sir Samuel Hoare: The Round Table Committee that Dr. Ambedkar quotes did not think so. 6561. Dr. B. R: Ambedkar: I thought that was the thing ? Sir Samuel Hoare: You have just read a quotation from them saying “ordinarily” they thought so. 6562. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Or that they should do it —not “best endeavour” ? Sir Samuel Hoare: It is a question of words. 6563. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: The next question I want to ask is on the question of this ordinance power of the Ministers under Proposal 104. What I want to know is this : Why is it necessary to make a provision of this sort in the Constitution itself ? Would not it be possible for a Ministry in a Provincial Legislature to have an Emergency Act passed by the Legislature itself similar, for instance, to that of 1920 in this country, and to derive its powers from the Acts passed by the Legislature ? I am talking about No. 104 : Would not it be possible for the Provincial Ministry to have an Act passed by the Provincial Legislature giving them the necessary powers to act in a specified emergency ?

752 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Sir Samuel Hoare : I should have thought this was essentially a power that every government must possess, namely, of taking emergency action when the Legislature is not sitting and particularly necessary in a country like India where there are great distances and where it may take some time to get the Legislature sitting. 6564. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I suggest the Provincial Ministry can get an Act passed from the Provincial Legislature defining the emergencies in which they may be called upon to act, and the Legislature may give them the powers. Why is it necessary to make a provision of this sort in the Constitution itself ? Sir Samuel Hoare: Because I regard it as an essential power that a Government should have, and as we are dealing with the whole field of the Constitution it is the kind of power that ought to be inserted in the Constitution Act Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: It is a power that is intended to be given to a responsible Ministry and it is, in the nature of things, that the responsible Ministry should draw its powers, whether emergency or otherwise, from the Legislature to which it is responsible. Lord Eustace Percy: May I remind Dr. Ambedkar that the Act of 1920 in this country only regularized a power which Ministers frequently exercised in the past without legislation ? It has always been the practice in this country, that, subject to be a sequent Parliamentary indemnity, a Ministry can issue an Emergency Order. Dr. B. JR. Ambedkar: That is all I ask. ***** †6870. Sir Hubert Carr: No. 44 gives the Governor-General power in his discretion, “in any case in which he considers that a Bill introduced, or proposed for introduction, or any clause thereto, or any amendment to a Bill moved or proposed would affect the discharge of his ‘special responsibility’ for the prevention of any grave menace to the peace or tranquillity of India, to direct that the Bill, clause or amendment shall not be further proceeded with.” That, I understand, is only in the case of his special responsibility for the peace or tranquillity of India being threatened. Does any such power exist for him in the case of his other special responsibilities being threatened ? Sir Samuel Hoare: No, I think not 6871. Sir Hubert Carr: For instance, (b) : “The safeguarding of the financial stability and credit of the Federation” ? Sir Samuel Hoare: No ; it is limited to the special responsibility for grave menace to peace and tranquillity. Sir Malcolm Hailey: I think I could give Sir Hubert the reason for that. It is a practical repetition of Section 67 (2a) of the existing Act which only refers to the safety and tranquillity in British India, and it has been repeated †Minutes of Evidence, Vol. II-B, 18th July 1933, p. 784.

753 EVIDENCE : RIGHT HON. SIR SAMUEL HOARE AND OTHERS almost in terms. 6872. Sir Hubert Carr: It is not considered necessary to give the GovernorGeneral that power to prevent his responsibilities being threatened other than peace and tranquillity ? Sir Findlater Stewart: No. He could, of course, refuse his assent to the Bill as passed by the House. 6873. Sir Hubert Carr: But he cannot stop the discussion ? Sir Findlater Stewart: No. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I would like to reserve my questions for the Secretary of State because they are questions of policy. ***** †7016. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Arising out of the questions that were put by Mr. Morgan Jones regarding the pledges, you stated that no responsible statesman in this country has bound himself to time and pace. Is that so ? Sir Samuel Hoare : Yes. 7017. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: But I think there is a general agreement that the ultimate goal of India’s Constitution is to be Dominion status ? Sir Samuel Hoare: It has constantly been so stated. 7018. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: So that on the question of the ultimate goal, there is really no dispute ? Sir Samuel Hoare: That would be so, yes. 7019. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Now what I want to ask you is this : In view of that, would you be prepared to put this in the Preamble to the Government of India’s Constitution that India would be Dominion status, leaving the question of the time and the pace to be determined by circumstances as they arise ? Sir Samuel Hoare: I do not think here and now I would like to give a pledge as to What is or is not put in the Preamble of an Act of Parliament. I, myself, am prejudiced against Preamble of Acts of Parliament, for reasons good or bad, and I would rather say neither yes nor no to Dr. Ambedkar’s question. It is a point that ought to be considered by the Committee. I would not regard it as a question of principle, one way or the other; I think it is essentially a matter for discussion. Upon the face of it, I am against these general declarations in Preambles. 7020. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I want to say this, that this is not a point in dispute now, and, in view of the fact that it would have a reassuring effect on the Indian people, it would be desirable to have this embodied in the Preamble to the Government of India Act ? Sir Samuel Hoare: We must take note of what Dr. Ambedkar has said upon the point. 7021. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Now the next question that I propose to ask you is with regard to the date of the Federation : that in view of certain uncertain elements connected with the entry of the Princes into the Federation, †Minutes of Evidence, Vol. II-B, 18th July 1933, pp. 797-805.

754 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES it was not desirable to give a date for the inauguration of the Federation. Now the point that I propose to put to you is this : What would you say to a proposal like this — I am making it as my own : Supposing you started the Federation without waiting for the Princes, and had a nominated bloc appointed by the Viceroy or the Governor-General, it may be officials or non-officials, it may be partly from officials and partly from non-officials, and then inaugurate your Federation, and then, as the Princes come in, eliminate the nominated bloc to make room for such Princes as begin to come in ? Have you any objection to a proposal of this sort ? Sir Samuel Hoare: Yes, I have several objections to it. I think that perhaps, the strongest that occurs to me offhand is that it is a completely new one. Here for the last three years we have been considering no other kind of Federation than an All-India Federation, with the Princes adequately represented in it. 7022. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Quite true, but let me pursue this point ? Sir Samuel Hoare: May I just finish my answer? Secondly, I would say, even apart from that every formidable objection, an objection that would mean that we should have to start all our discussions over again, there is the further objection that I do not see what is to happen supposing when you had got your nominated bloc, the Princes then do not come into the Federation at all. 7023. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I will put my next question. You want the Princes’ representation as a stabilising element ? Sir Samuel Hoare: No; more than that, Dr. Ambedkar; I would not restrict myself to that at all. I want the Princes’ accession for a number of reasons. I believe, quite apart from the stabilising element of the Princes’ representation, they can bring into the Government of India many very valuable influences. 7024. Dr. B R. Ambedkar: But my point is this, I am not making this suggestion as a permanent part of the Constitution. I am making the suggestion for the transitional period until the Princes come in. I am only trying to get over the difficulty that you would say would arise if the Princes do not make up their minds to come in a stated period. I am only trying to get over the difficulty as to date ? Sir Samuel Hoare: I quite see that. None the less, with the best will in the world, I do see the very formidable objections that I have just mentioned to a transitional plan of this kind. Nawab Sir Liaqat Hayat Khan : In any case, if I might interject, had that not better be brought out when you meet again, in the event of such a contingency arising. It has been promised that when a contingency arises we meet again. I think a suggestion of that nature would be more appropriate then rather than now. Sir A. P. Patro: You will not be there when it comes. Sir Samuel Hoare : I have always thought that it is really a great mistake,