Vol. 2 · pages 81–85

62 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES recognised that the lower classes had rights, if they recognised that those rights must be respected, then probably we, coming from the backward communities, might well entrust our destinies to what are called the advance communities. But, Sir, for centuries we have had the bitterest experience of the rule of what are called the higher and the educated classes, Sir, I think it is hardly to the credit of the advanced classes that there should exist in this country a large part of the population which is known as the criminal tribes. It is certainly not to their credit that there should exist in this country a population which is regarded untouchable. Surely, they could have raised the status of the depressed classes, they could have raised the status of the criminal classes. They could have brought their culture to us and made us equal to them, if they had only the desire to do so. But they have never done so in the past and do not mean to do anything in that direction in future. By their callous neglect of us and by their active hostility to our progress they have convinced us that they are really our enemies. There is no doubt that it is their desire to keep us where we are. I do not wish to refer to the debate that has gone on for the last few days. But there is not the slightest doubt about the fact that the opposition benches which looked upon Government as their enemy sided with it now with the sole object of defeating us on this vital question. There is no other excuse for their conduct except that they wanted to defeat the claims of the backward communities for representation through nomination. It is for that reason that they have joined Government whom they opposed in season and out of season. Sir, can we have any trust in an intelligentsia so narrow, so illiberal in its views. My honourable friend, Mr. Munshi said that if it had been a question of division of any material benefits he would probably consent to the introduction of communal representation on the Senate. But I wish to remind him that the backward classes have come to realise that after all education is the greatest material benefit for which they can fight. We may forego material benefits, we may forego material benefits of civilization, but we cannot forego our right and opportunity to reap the benefit of the highest education to the fullest extent. That is the importance of this question from the point of view of the backward classes who have just realized that without education their existence is not safe. It is for this reason that the fight for increase of seats is being made. There is another point to which I wish to refer. It has been stated several times that since the principals in the different colleges have been given separate representation it will not be necessary to increase the number of nominated seats, because, if the principals had not been given direct representation on the University, Government would have been obliged to use at least 10 seats to make for them. And that as separate provision has now been made for them the whole number of 40 seats will go to the backward classes. Now, Sir, I submit that it is for that very reason that the number of the nominated seats should be increased for ensuring adequate

63 ON THE BOMBAY UNIVERSITY ACT AMENDMENT BILL representation of the backward classes. It can never be guaranteed to us that the principals of different colleges who have got direct representation as a result of the amendment of the honourable member Mr. Hamill would necessarily be friends of the backward communities. I have had sufficient experience of these principals, and I am sure that those who will be elected to the Senate will be from the upper classes and they will never come to the rescue of the backward classes who are clamouring for education. If the Honourable Minister had added 10 seats more to the strength of the upper classes in the Senate he should come to the rescue of the backward communities and equalize the balance. That can be done only by adding 10 more seats to the seats that have already been provided in the bill. Sir, we have expressed our fears and our doubts. I think it is only fair that in a matter like this, where the feelings of the backward communities are so high and where they think that their interest will not be safeguarded unless they get representation on the Senate, Government should consider whether it is proper that Government should use its official force to put the backward classes at the mercy of the upper classes. I think it would be wise and I appeal to the Honourable the Leader of the House to leave this question to the free vote of this House. Let the House decide in any way it likes best. With these remarks I support the amendment. zz

11 *ON THE BOMBAY PRIMARY EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL: 1 Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I find it very difficult to follow this section ; if I heard him correctly with reference to what he said that we should not think of a democratic constitution for the board contemplated under section 2A, I agree with him on the point. This board is intended to be a body of experts. Those members who are supposed to be elected by the school boards on the provincial board ex-hypothesi may be persons who will merely express the views of the general public. They could not bring to the work of this board expert mind. Obviously by their constitution, they could not. The other six members are to be appointed by Government. There is nothing in this section to suggest that Government bind themselves to appoint only persons who will be experts in education. The clause merely says that three shall be appointed by the Provincial Government. There is nothing to indicate that the three shall be experts on education. Therefore, analysing the whole constitution of the Provincial Board, beyond the three Government officers, who will be there, there is certainly no guarantee that the board as a majority will have experts on it. Therefore, my honourable friend should accept the principle suggested by the honourable member Mr. Bhole that this ought to be looked at as a democratic institution. From that point of view, the elective principle should prevail over nomination principle. If my honourable friend says that it ought not to be looked at as a democratic institution but as a body intended to give advice, he must provide for it by saying that the board shall consist of a majority of experts on education. I suggest to him whether he will accept some such amendment “three members to be appointed by the Provincial Government shall be appointed from people who are known as experts on education”. He should not leave the matter vague as it is. Government in its weaker moments—Government have weaker moments as Governments and we have our weaker moments—may appoint persons who may not be experts. It will frustrate the very object underlying this clause. The Honourable Mr. B. G. Kher : I am much indebted to the honourable member Dr. Ambedkar for replying in effect to the amendment brought forward by a member of his own party. I confess, I myself could not have put forth more convincing arguments against the amendment. *B.L.A. Debates, Vol. 3, pp. 2176-77, dated 21st April 1938. zz

12 *ON THE BOMBAY PRIMARY EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL: 2 (Clause by clause reading) The Honourable the Speaker: We now proceed the Bill No. XV, the Primary Education Act Amending Bill. It was, I believe, on Tuesday last that the House was considering this Bill and, when it adjourned, amendment No. 91 in the consolidated list of amendments was under discussion. That amendment was moved by the honourable member Mr. Jamnadas Mehta and it runs as follows : The sub-clause (2) of clause 12, omit the words “and shall be servant of”. The clause, as sought to be amended, will then read as follows : — “(2) The Administrative Officer shall be appointed by the Provincial Government. His pay, powers and duties shall be as prescribed.” Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: May I rise to a point of order, Sir ? I am unable to understand the amendment and the purport of it. Therefore, I am rising to ask for some information on this point. The amendment is to omit the words “and shall be the servant of the Provincial Government”. Am I right ? Therefore, the purpose of the amendment seems to be this. ....... The Honourable the Speaker: The words to be omitted are “and shall be a servant of”. The words “the Provincial Government” are not sought to be omitted. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Therefore, what I understand is that he is to be appointed by the Provincial Government but is not to be the servant of the Provincial Government. My submission is that in law, even if these words were omitted, namely, “and shall be a servant of ”, he will continue to be the servant of the Provincial Government, by reason of the fact that he is allowed to be appointed by the Provincial Government. Therefore, it is rather difficult to make up one’s mind whether to vote for the amendment or against it. If the honourable mover of the amendment desires that he should continue to be appointed by the provincial Government, then the fact that he is a servant of the Provincial Government is merely the legal consequence of it, and the omission of these words would not come in the *B.L.A. Debates, Vol. 3, pp. 2647-49, dated 30th April 1938.

66 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES way of his being regarded as a servant of the Provincial Government. I want some light on this point. The Honourable the Speaker : I am not sure whether the honourable member was present when the amendment was moved. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I was present. The Honourable the Speaker : I am unable to agree about the legal consequences. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : The Honourable the Home Minister might clear up the point. The Honourable the Speaker : I believe the contention was that if the way in which the officers are selected or appointed by the school boards is not an ideal one or a proper one, it should be left to the Government to make the appointments on the lines of the appointment of the Municipal Commissioner for Bombay, but so long as they continue to be in service, they will be the servants of the school board and therefore amenable to their jurisdiction, and liable to suspension or dismissal or to being dealt with in any other way like any other servants at the hands of the school board. That seems to be the idea; and I believe it was also suggested that Government may have a panel submitted to the school board for that body to make a selection, and that is how the appointment was to be made. There does not seem to be any conflict or inconsistency in it. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: If the object is that he shall be the servant of the school board, then that object will not be carried out by the omission of these words, “and shall be a servant of” because in law he will be the servant of the Provincial Government, simply by reason of the fact that the Provincial Government appoints him. To be a servant is one thing, to be under control is another. One may be the servant of another, and yet may be under the control of a third party. I submit there is great distinction between the two. The Honourable the Speaker: It does not necessarily follow that because an appointment is made by one party he cannot be the servant of another party. A person may be appointed by one party and yet may be the servant of another party. I expect the honourable member will clarify it in his reply. Mr. Jamnadas M. Mehta: So far as I am concerned, I do not look upon it as a point of order. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: It is a point of information, if not a point of order. I would like to understand the position in order to decide whether to vote one way or the other. The Honourable the Speaker: I will leave it to the honourable member the mover of the motion to reply, so far as the point of information is concerned. zz