Vol. 2 · pages 796–800

775 EVIDENCE : RIGHT HON. SIR SAMUEL HOARE AND OTHERS Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: May I ask another question arising out of the same ? There is another aspect of it. It is assumed that the States that would be liable to make this contribution would be solvent at the time when the contribution is called for. Is there any provision in the White Paper to see that the Governor-General whose finances would, to some extent, be dependent upon these contributions coming from the Indian States, has power to see that these contributories will be solvent on the days when the contributions fall due ? Rao Bahadur Sir Kishnama Chari: What is the provision with regard to the Provinces ? Is there any such provision with regard to the Provinces ? Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Yes, the Governor can certify that a certain amount is due to the Federation and shall be paid, and it will be paid. Mr. Zafrulla Khan: May I recall a suggestion I made during the preliminary discussions here that the Viceroy might ask the States who are units of the Federation to submit for his information every audited copies of their accounts ? 8651. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: There is one more point, and I think the Secretary of State may give a combined answer. If you will refer to paragraph 146 dealing with the borrowing powers you will see there it is provided that the Federation may borrow upon the security of Federal revenues. The contributions to be made under Proposal 141 will be part of the Federal revenues which will be the security for the loans which the Federation will raise. Do you think it would sufficiently add to the credit of the Federation if part of the revenues which the Federation can call upon in order to give security for the Federal loans are left in this uncertain state both as to capacity to pay and the willingness to pay ? Sir Samuel Hoare: I would have thought really that the contingency Dr. Ambedkar is contemplating is a contingency that is not very likely to arise often, and that, if it does arise, it is not the kind of contingency that is going substantially to alter the credit of the Federation. After all, these amounts taken altogether are very small amounts. 8652. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I do not know what they would be ? Sir Samuel Hoare: And in the event of a single default. 8653. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I hope they will not be very small ? Sir Samuel Hoare: I cannot imagine that that would make much difference to the credit of India. Sir Akbar Hydari: Is not the financial position of the States, through the exercise of paramountcy, in a much better condition than that of the Provinces through the exercise of the special responsibilities of the Governor ? Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I thought the statement made by Sir Mirza Ismail yesterday disclosed a most pathetic state of affairs. Sir Akbar Hydari : It was still a balanced budget by which he could pay up his tribute all right. *****

776 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES †11,297. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: My Lord Chairman, I would like to point out to the Secretary of State that the expression which we find in the Government of India Act—“existing and accruing rights”—is an expression which is also found in the South African Constitution Act. I was wondering whether it would not be possible for us to get a statement from the Dominion Office to find out exactly how that expression has been acted upon in South Africa ? Sir Samuel Hoare : We made an inquiry upon this very point. Dr. Ambedkar, I think, did allude to it during the summer and I have asked the Dominion Office for the information. I have not yet got it, but I am told that the cases are separate and distinct. In the case of South Africa there is no promise of compensation at all. Sir Manubhai N. Mehta: I think they have it in Australia as well. 11,298. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I simply wanted to know how the expression, “accruing rights”, had been interpreted in South Africa by the South African Government. The expression is exactly the same ? Sir Samuel Hoare: I will see if I can get it. I asked about South Africa and Australia as well. ***** ‡11,438. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: There is nothing to prevent a Public Service Commission being appointed for one province or for two provinces ? Sir Samuel Hoare: No ; we do make provision for that purpose. ***** §11,526. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Might I intervene just for a moment to point out that the result to which Sir Malcolm Hailey has referred, namely, the denudation of the services of the local element, as soon as they are transferred to ministerial control is largely due to the fact that this transfer has also been accompanied by a reduction in the scale of salary. When a service has become provincialised the Minister has adopted a lower scale of salary than was obtainable formerly, and, consequently, the smaller scale of salary has not attracted European candidates ? Sir Samuel Hoare: Yes ; they have substituted, in other words, ‘Imperial’ for ‘Provincial’ services. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: It is the salary that has made the difference—not the transfer. ***** ¶11,669. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Might I make a suggestion for consideration on this matter ? Instead of giving the right outright to the new entrant would it not be better for the Secretary of State to retain a discretion in his own hands which he may exercise in a genuine case where a man wants to †Minutes of Evidence, Vol. II-B, 3rd October 1933, p. 1032. ‡Ibid., p. 1056. §Ibid., p. 1058. ¶Ibid., p. 1072.

777 EVIDENCE : RIGHT HON. SIR SAMUEL HOARE AND OTHERS retire because he has really been suffering under the new conditions, and does not really want to take advantage of this rule ? Sir Samuel Hoare: We can consider a suggestion of that kind. 1 assume Dr. Ambedkar’s suggestion refers to the new entrants ? 11,670. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Yes, I am talking of the new entrants. In that case the Secretary of State may retain in his own hands a certain amount of discretion which he may exercise in favour of a man who has genuinely proved to the Secretary of State and his advisers that the reasons of his retirement is discontent and dissatisfaction with the new conditions ? Sir Samuel Hoare: I should like to consider a suggestion of that kind. The doubt that is in my mind is whether the mere fact that there is this discretion will take away the assurance from the mind of the parent, or the university, or the school from which the young man is coming, but I will consider it. ***** †12,025. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I want to ask one question, Sir Samuel, on these provisions in general. The ultimate purpose of these previous sanction rules would also of course be achieved by the power of veto—the subsequent power of veto which the Viceroy, and the Governors have got; so, from that point of view, there is really not much to be gained by these provisions. I mean although the Viceroy may give his previous sanction he is not thereby bound to adopt the Bill when it is finally passed; he has the power of veto. So, from that point of view, there is not much to be gained by the rules of previous sanction, which could not ultimately be gained by the power of veto ? Sir Samuel Hoare : I am not sure that I should agree with Dr. Ambedkar. The veto is a sanction of a somewhat different kind. It seems to me it is a bigger and more serious sanction. It comes after the Legislature has formally pledged itself to certain proposals ; I think therefore it is a more serious sanction. 12,026. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Apart from all that, so far as the main object is to prevent anything affecting adversely the special responsibilities of the Viceroy, the veto is an effective measure ? Sir Samuel Hoare: I was just coming to that second consideration. The veto has a long history behind it, and judged by British experience generally, the veto becomes more and more in course of time something in the nature of a constitutional formality. 12,027. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: But what I wanted to say was this. So far as I am able to judge the only distinction that one could draw between the effect of a previous sanction rule and ultimate veto is that the one, namely, the previous sanction, prevents discussion, while the veto does not. Is that not so ? Sir Samuel Hoare: It is a difference. †Minutes of Evidence, Vol. II-B, 5th October 1933, pp. 1118-19.

778 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES 12,028. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: That is a difference. Now, what I want to point out to you, Sir Samuel Hoare, is this : Surely if discussion is to be prevented because it is going to attack the special responsibility of the Viceroy, you will bear in mind that this previous sanction rule certainly cannot operate to prevent discussion, either in the Press or on the public platform outside the Legislature, and cannot even prevent a public demonstration on an issue that would legitimately be brought under a previous sanction rule, so the only thing really that would happen under this is that while the public and the Press may be free to agitate and to demonstrate on a matter covered by the previous sanction rule, the only body that would be muzzled would be the Legislature ? Sir Samuel Hoare : That is one way of putting it; it is Dr. Ambedkar’s way of putting it. 12,029. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Is it not a fair way of putting it ? Surely the Viceroy’s previous sanction powers are not going to be so widely extended in their operation as to cover the prevention of any discussion of a matter subject to previous sanction, either in the Press or in public meetings, or anywhere else ? Sir Samuel Hoare: I think these certainly will be discussion of that kind. None the less, I do think there is a difference between discussion in the Legislature, and the comparatively irresponsible discussion outside. Secondly, this sanction of the previous consent has been in operation for some time and it was accepted generally as a Part of the New Constitution at each of the Round Table Conferences. Thirdly, if Dr. Ambedkar will look at the categories set out in paragraph 119 he will see that for each of them there is a considerable demand for some kind of special precautions. For instance, if he will take the question of religious rights and usages ; there he must have noticed the very strong feeling that certain sections of the orthodox Hindus have upon the subject. He does not agree with them ; he thinks they are all wrong. At the same time, they do hold these views very strongly, and they would like questions of that kind excluded from the Indian Legislature altogether. Now, we have attempted to adopt a midway attitude between the two points of view and so on. With each of those categories I could make a similar defence, that there is a considerable body of opinion asking for some special precautions in these directions. 12,030. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: What I was trying to drive at was this that while a member of the Legislative Council and a member of the Legislative Assembly may be free to discuss these matters outside in public, they will not be free to discuss them when they come inside the Legislative House. That is the only difference you are making by this previous sanction rule ? Sir Samuel Hoare: They can have resolutions, but that is substantially the case. 12,031. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Now I just want to make one suggestion with regard to the point raised by Mr. Jayakar regarding the use of the

779 EVIDENCE : RIGHT HON. SIR SAMUEL HOARE AND OTHERS expression “religion and religious usages”, because that is a thing in which I am so vitally concerned. I am just making the suggestion whether it would not be sufficient to use the expression “articles of faith” rather than the phrase “religion and religious usages” ? Sir Samuel Hoare: I would have thought that articles of faith would have occasioned almost the same kind of controversy. 12,032. Sir Hari Singh Gour: More so ? Sir Samuel Hoare: And the trouble of a new phrase of that sort, I would have thought, would have concentrated upon it more varieties of interpretation even than the old phrase. 12,033. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I suggest that as far as possible the word “usage” ought to be avoided ? Sir Samuel Hoare: I will take note of what Dr. Ambedkar has said. ***** †12,751. Lord Rankeillour: Secretary of State, on that would not it be possible for the Central Government to carry out the contemplated orders arising out of Federal legislation and to charge the Province with the cost ? Sir Samuel Hoare: There is no machinery for getting the money. 12,752. Lord Rankeillour: But the money for the Provinces comes through the Central Exchequer, does it not ? Sir Samuel Hoare: Income Tax would. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I think the answer to Sir Austen Chamberlain’s question may be given somewhat in this form. So far as the concurrent legislation is concerned, it is, I think, laid down in one of the paragraphs of the White Paper that any law in the concurrent field passed by the Federal Legislature will override a similar law passed by the Provincial Government. Consequently, if there was a conflict of law passed in the concurrent field between a law passed by the Centre and one passed by the Province, ipso facto, by the provisions of the White Paper itself the Federal Law will have an overriding force as against the Provincial Law. Sir Austen Chamberlain: That is so. That is the point that I put earlier to the Secretary of State. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: That is I think the position so far as the legislation is concerned. Sir Austen Chamberlain: So I understand. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: So far as administration is concerned, I think the position will be that the Federal Executive will have the authority to issue directions and instructions to the Provincial Government through the Provincial Governors with regard to the administration of a concurrent law passed by the Federal Legislature, and the Governors, I think, would be bound to obey them. Marquess of Reading: That is exactly the point upon which the Secretary of State has given an answer in the negative. †Minutes of Evidence, Vol. II-B, 10th October 1933, p. 1130.