Monday, the 22nd November 1948

The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at Ten minutes past Ten of the Clock, Mr. Vice-President, (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee), in the Chair.

Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee): Before we commence the proceedings of today, I beg to apologise to the House for my delay which I may add is not due to any fault of my own.

We shall now resume discussion on new Article 30-A.Does any Member want to speak on amendment No. 872?

Shri Mahavir Tyagi (United Provinces: General): Sir,the other day I had spoken at length on this amendment, and I had put in a request with the Mover of this amendment to kindly agree to postpone the discussion on this question just now and have it when my amendment No. 999 comes. I hope, if the honourable Mover agrees, then it will be better that you be pleased to postpone discussion just now, and take it up when the proper occasion comes.

Mr. Aziz Ahmad Khan (United Provinces Muslim): Sir,this amendment was proposed by Mr. Karimuddin who is not present here today but at the same time the amendment was sent by me and him both, and he has specifically authorized me to submit that in case there is an agreement or an undertaking given by the Honourable the Law Member that he is prepared to incorporate the principle of it anywhere in the Constitution, then the amendment may be withdrawn; and I agree to it. Therefore, I am quite prepared to submit to your decision that consideration of the amendment may be delayed till we come to article 38.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: (Bombay: General):Sir, I have not followed exactly what it is, but if it is a matter which relates to prohibition............

Mr. Vice-President: Yes.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Then, it has been agreed between myself and Mr. Tyagi that he will move an amendment to Article 38, and I propose to accept his amendment. So, this matter may be postponed until we come to the consideration of Article 38.

Mr. Vice-President: Then we shall pass on to the next amendment No. 873.

Shri Basanta Kumar Das (West Bengal: General): Sir, I am not moving it.

Mr. Vice-President: The next amendment is No. 874.

Shri Raj. Bahadur (United State of Matsya): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I tabled this amendment because it appeared to me that the Draft Constitution contained no provisions to secure the most elementary justice or the barest chance of survival as decent and self-respecting citizens of theIndian Union, to the people of those territories in our country which are at present under the control and possession of feudal lords, the jagirdars. I want to invite the attention of this Assembly to the unfortunate circumstances - circumstances which provoke sympathy and pity at one and the same time - under which these people are living. But before I do that I should read my amendment. The amendment runs as follows:

"That after article 30, the following new article 30-Abe added:

'30-A. The State shall not recognise feudalism in any shape or form and no person shall be entitled within the territory of India to any special rights or interests on the basis of property falling in the category of Jagirs orMuafis'."

Sometimes the position of these jagirdars and these feudale states is confused with that of the zamindars and zamindaries. I submit that the two are essentially different in nature, conception and origin. In fact there is no resemblance or similarity between the two. The jagirdars find their origin in past history. They descend from certain ruling families in the States. In other words they are the scions of these families. They enjoy the right to hold properties in their jagirs and estates without paying anything absolutely, or if at all very little, to the State or Government to which they owe their origin. They enjoy independent judicial powers. They have got the right to levy even customs duty in some cases. In some other cases they have got the right to have a separate Police force.

They also levy sales tax. Their succession always operates on the principle of primogeniture. As such, vis-a-vis the State to which they belong or vis-a-vis the Central Government, their position is one of quasi-sovereignty. I should therefore submit that there is nothing common between the Zamindars and feudalists. Vis-a-vis their people, their rights and authority are almost unlimited. They have the right to levy extortionate rates of rents from the kisans (tenants) under them. It is common knowledge that they enforce begar, that is, forced labour, not only for ordinary purposes of agriculture but even for menial and humiliating jobs. Another thing that constitutes an insult to humanity itselfis the imposition of a duty known as "Lagbag" on marriage or other occasions as also the way in which they impose certain humiliating social restrictions as for example in some cases these feudal lords do not allow their ryots and kisans to ride horses in their presence. If there is a marriage party,the bridegroom cannot ride a horse. The womenfolk of their ryots are not allowed to wear even silver trinkets orornaments. In some cases, this goes to the extent of refusal of the right to hold an umbrella even. I therefore invite the attention of the House that if in a free India such conditions exist and are tolerated then this would mean clearly a denial of democracy and liberty. It is why when we address these people and tell them that "Swaraj has come",they look blankly at our faces. They refuse to believe that Swaraj has really come and we find ourselves in a very awkward position. It is true that now with the democratisation of the States, we have got popular Ministers functioning in the States, but in some of the States where these jagirs or feudal estates exist there are some sort of mixed Governments and Ministries, and our popular Ministers are unable to bring any succour or relief to this hard-pressed and oppressed section of the people.

If we consider the problem from another point of view,we can also see that in our Constitution, there are three classes of States or "units" - firstly, Governor's provinces,secondly, Chief Commissioners' provinces, thirdly, the acceding States. But it is obvious that these feudal estates enjoying a sort of quasi sovereignty over their people,constitute a class by themselves. It should have been therefore meet and proper that there should have been something in the Constitution to provide for the securing of social justice, of liberty and democratic freedom to thepeople in these feudal estates. Unfortunately it is not there. The simple question that arises from the amendment I have tabled is whether this Constitution of ours should or should not contain something in order to ensure even an elementary freedom for these people. As far as the Draft Constitution is concerned, we have been assured that the position of the States, in course of time or may be even before we finish the consideration of the Draft Constitution, shall be brought on a par and equality with the rest of the units of the Indian union. But at the present time there is definitely a difference in the Draft Constitution between the treatment proposed for the present States Unions or States on the one hand and the provinces on the other. This goes to the extent that the people of the States cannot come in the defence of their fundamental rights even, before the Supreme Court. If you want to appeal regarding certain matters there is a special procedure provided for it and that procedure would make it very difficult for us to get even our rights vindicated from the Supreme Court. When I commend this question to the House, I presume that the House will earnestly consider it. I am not very serious to move my amendment. What I am very serious about is that when I go back to my constituency I may face the people with an easy conscience. I want to know in case they ask me, "What have you done for us who are so much hard-pressed under the thumb of these feudal lords?" what answer I shall give to them. I want this answer

from this Assembly. It is not my purpose to delay the proper consideration of the Draft Constitution by any frivolous or superfluous amendments, but I submit that the House should come to the relief and succour of these hard-pressed peopleand our Constitution should contain adequate provisions to secure this.

Mr. Vice-President: I have not been able to make out whether this amendment has been formally moved.

Shri Raj Bahadur: I have not formally moved it. I have simply had my say on it, to invoke the attention of the House on this question.

Shri H. V. Kamath (C. P. & Berar: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, it is very unfortunate that several amendments dealing with this subject have been scattered pell-mell in this list of amendments. It would have been much better if these amendments relating to village panchayats had been taken up all together and had been placed in the list also in the same order. Unfortunately,however, that has not been so, and I am constrained to move the amendment as it appears on the Order Paper, because by not moving it I do not want the impression to be created that I have resiled from the stand which I took in the course of the debate on Dr. Ambedkar's motion for consideration of the Draft Constitution. I am very happy to see that my feeble voice was reinforced by the powerful support of my veteran and elder colleagues in this House and I am glad that several amendments on this subject have appeared. If you are to disposed, Sir, I would formally move it now and request you to hold it over for consideration till the other amendments come up for discussion or an agreed amendment comes up. Whatever the case may be and whichever amendment on this subject is accepted by the House, the other amendments will be withdrawn in favour of that, and mine also will be withdrawn later on; but as matters stand, I have no other go but to move it before theHouse. I do not want to traverse the ground which I covered in the course of my speech on Dr. Ambedkar's motion. I would only express the hope that where the type of capitalist,parliamentary democracy typified by Europe and America and the centralised socialism typified by the Soviet Union have failed to bring peace, happiness and prosperity to mankind, we in India might be able to set up a new political and economic pattern, and that we would be able to realise the vision of Mahatma Gandhi's Panchayat Raj and, through this system of decentralised socialism, we will lead mankind and the world to the goal of peace and happiness.

I, therefore, with your leave formally move this amendment and make a personal request to you to hold thisover till such time as the other amendment to this Article are ready for discussion. I shall read my amendment.

"That after article 30, the following new article beinserted:

'30-A. The State shall endeavour to promote the healthy development of Gram Panchayats with a view to ultimately constituting them as basic units of administration.'"

Mr. Vice-President: Does Dr. Ambedkar wish to say anything on this amendment?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I move that this matter do stand over.

Mr. Vice-President: I find that there is an amendment,to add a new article 31-A, numbered 927 in the list,standing in the name of Shri K. Santhanam. This, as well as that amendment may be considered together. Is it the wish ofthe House that this may be done?

Honourable Members: Yes.

Article 31.

Mr. Vice-President: We shall then pass on to article31.

An Honourable Member: Article 30 has not yet been put to the House.

Mr. Vice-President: It has been put and adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The House will now take up article 31, for discussion.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim): Sir, I beg to move:

"That in clause (i) of article 31, the words 'men andwomen equally' be omitted."

The clause in question is to this effect, that "the citizens, men and women equally, have an adequate means of livelihood." I submit, Sir, that the words `men and women equally' are unnecessary and redundant. In

fact with the acceptance of this amendment, the clause would run thus:"that the citizens have the right to an adequate means of livelihood." I submit, Sir, that the word 'citizen' has beendefined in article 5, clause (a). That definition is in general terms and I presume includes the feminine. The masculine, as it is well known, embraces the feminine. In the circumstances, as we have defined,................

Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (West Bengal: General): Didthe Honourable Member say, "masculine" means "feminine"?

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: 'Masculine' includes 'feminine'in interpretation. 'Every person' mentioned in article 5(a)means certainly feminine as well as masculine. Therefore, as the word 'citizen' has been precisely defined and that defined expression 'citizen' has been used in this article,I think the addition of the words "men and women equally" is unnecessary. If we are to make it clear that any law shall apply to men and women equally and if we are forced to declare it everywhere, then this expression has got to be used unnecessarily in many places. Although I agree with the principle that all citizens shall have certain rights without distinction of caste or creed, sex or colour, these words need not be there.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I oppose the amendment, Sir.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: Sir, I have a suggestion to make.There are a number of amendments suggesting improvement in language or change in words. They do not propose any change of the spirit or the meaning of the article concerned. That being so, may I suggest that they may be collected together and sent to a committee which you may appoint to consider and dispose them of? If this is done much of the time of theHouse can be saved for the consideration of vital and important amendments.

Mr. Vice-President: I am quite willing to fall in with the suggestion, if that is the wish of the House. Probablywe shall consider this suggestion later, after two or three days.

Shri Lokanath Misra (Orissa: General): Does it mean anadjournment of the consideration of these motions?

Mr. Vice-President: No. Why should we adjourn it? We can take a vote on it at once and come to a decision.

Prof. K. T. Shah (Bihar: General): Mr. Vice-President,Sir, I beg to move: -

"That in clause (i) of article 31, for the words 'that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate' the words 'every citizen has the right to an adequate' be substituted."

Sir, in commending this motion to the House, I would like to be understood in the first place that this is not merely an attempt to improve upon language. I do not profess to be an authority on the English language, and much less on the mysteries of technical draftsmanship as is implied in this language. Mine is only a commonsense view of this matter. The term "the citizens", as it is used in this clause, is so collective that I am afraid its distributive sense is apt to be lost sight of. I am, therefore, proposing to substitute for the words "the citizens" the words "everycitizen" so that each and every member of the society shall have this right to an adequate standard of living. The distributive sense is brought out much better by my amendment, this very language is used in another article in this Chapter itself later on when they are speaking of the right to primary education. I am therefore suggesting no innovation which is not authorised by the draftsman's own terminology.

It is, of course, beyond me to say why in one article,in one and the same Chapter, they use the collective expression "the citizens", while in another article in the same Chapter they use the words "every citizen" and in a third again some different form. This, Sir, is the reason why, not understanding the distinction that may have been in the mind of the draftsman for using a variety of expressions to convey perhaps the same meaning, at least to a commonsense man, I am proposing this amendment. If the intention is that the words "the citizens" are used in the collective sense, then I submit that

would be an offence more of substance than I am at present inclined to believe while reading this article. For taking the term collectively it can at best express a vague hope for the happiness of the average citizen. Now, the law of averages is a very misleading law, and will give you a sort of satisfaction for which in truth there can be no basis. I have no desire to convert this debate into any kind of light hearted exhibition of one's capacity to entertain the House; but I cannot help bringing here to the notice of the House the mischief that the vagaries of the mere mechanical statistician can reduce the law of averages, and give a result which is totally opposed to fact. In illustration,may I say that I have heard the story of a women's hostel having to be reported upon, when the trustees of the hostel came to know that there were ten girls, and one of them had apparently misconducted herself. There was some trouble and a statistical authority was called in to investigate and report on this hostel. He examined the inmates and made the famous report saying that everyone of the inmates of the hostel was ninety per cent virgin and ten percent pregnant.In this statement he was simply applying the law of the average.

I do not know whether it is fully appreciated that this kind of perpetration is within the power of the expert to achieve; and as I do not wish the Constitution to lead to this kind of expert technical perfection, I wish to substitute the words "every citizen" for the words "the citizens", which will leave no room for doubt in the matter.

Another reason why I am moving this amendment for dropping the words "men and women equally" is that it smacks too much in my opinion, of patronising by men over women.There is no reason for man to believe that he is even an equal to woman, let alone superior. According to that view which I have always entertained that man is a somewhat loweranimal as compared to woman, I feel that this exhibition of patronage by man over woman, as if we were conferring any special right, ought to be expunged from the Constitution.

Citizens are citizens irrespective of sex, age or creed; and that being one of the fundamental propositions accepted by the Constitution, I see no reason why we should say "men and women, equally" as if we were pleased to grant equal rights to men and women, rights moreover which are only directives, and therefore not necessarily to be implemented immediately. For these reasons, I suggest that this amendment ought to be taken, not merely as a verbal amendment, but one of substance, and I trust that those responsible for moving this Constitution before the House will accept it.

Mr. Vice-President: I understand that even though amendment No. 884 is to be negatived, I must give anopportunity to Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad to speak on it.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Not moving it, Sir.

Mr. Vice-President: Then 885, Professor K. T. Shah.

Prof. K. T. Shah: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg tomove:

"That for clause (ii) of article 31, the following be substituted:

'(ii) that the ownership, control and management of the natural resources of the country in the shape of mines and mineral wealth, forests, rivers and flowing waters as well as in the shape of the seas along the coast of the country shall be vested in and belong to the country collectively and shall be exploited and developed on behalf of the community by the State as represented by the Central orProvincial Governments or local governing authority or statutory corporation as may be provided for in each case byAct of Parliament';"

Sir, the original clause for which I propose this one in substitution stands as follows: -

"(ii) that the ownership and control of the materialre sources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good;"

If I may venture to say so, Sir, the clause, as it stands can lend itself to any interpretation; and, with the background on which we have been working, with the traditions under which the administrative machinery is operating, and

the allegiance which vested interests command in this House, I am afraid that, if this clause is allowed to stand as it is, instead of serving any purpose, it will make the proper development of the country or the justre distribution of its wealth, or bringing in a fair measure of social justice, only an empty dream.

I suggest, therefore, that it should be substituted by what I have just read out, where by the ownership, control and management of the natural resources shall be vested in the community collectively, and shall be exploited,developed and worked by the community as represented by the Central or Provincial or Local Governments, or by any statutory corporations that may have been created for the purpose.

I think there can be no dispute on this propositionthat, as regards the natural resources that I have tried to describe, no human being has lent any value to those resources by his or her own labour.

They are gifts of nature. They are the initial endowment which each country has in greater or less measure;and, in mere equity, they should belong to all people collectively. And if they are to be developed, they should be developed also by, for, and on behalf of the community collectively.

The creation or even the presence of vested interests,of private monopolists, of those who seek only a profit forthemselves, however useful, important, or necessary theproduction of such natural resources may be for the welfareof the community, is an offence in my opinion against thecommunity, against the long-range interests of the countryas a whole, against the unborn generations, that those of uswho are steeped to the hilt, as it were, in ideals ofprivate property and the profit motive, do not seem torealise to the fullest.

In the resources that are mentioned in my amendment notonly is there no creation of any value or utility byanybody's proprietary right being there, but what is more,the real value comes always by the common effort of society,by the social circumstances that go to make any particularinterests or resources of this kind valuable.

Take mines and mineral wealth. Mines and mineralwealth, as everybody knows, are an exhaustible, - a wastingasset. Unfortunately, these, instead of having been guardedand properly protected and kept for the community to beutilised in a very economical and thrifty manner, have beenmade over to individual profit-seeking concession-holdersand private monopolists, so that we have no control overtheir exploitation, really speaking, for they are used in amanner almost criminal, so that they can obtain the utmostprofit on them for themselves, regardless of what wouldhappen if and when the mines should come to an end or thestored up wealth of ages past is exhaused.

I suggest, therefore, that we allow no long rangeinterests of private profit - seekers involved in theutilisation of these mines and the mineral wealth, that onthe proper utilisation of these mines and mineral wealthdepends not only our industrial position, depend not onlyall our ambitions, hopes and dreams of industrialising thiscountry, but what is much more, depends also the defence andsecurity of the nation. It would, therefore, I repeat, be acrime against the community and its unborn generations ifyou do not realise, even at this hour, that the mineralwealth of the country cannot be left untouched in privatehands, to be used, manipulated, exploited, exhausted as theylike for their own profit.

It is high time, therefore, that in this Constitutionwe lay down very categorically that the ultimate ownership,the direct management, conduct and development of theseresources can only be in the hands of the State or theagents of the State, the representatives of the State, orthe creatures of the State, like Provinces, municipalities,or statutory corporations.

Another argument may also be advanced here in supportof my view. By their very nature, these resources cannot beexploited economically or efficiently unless they becomemonopolies. In one form or another, they have to bedeveloped in a monopolistic

manner. Now monopolies arealways distrusted so long as they remain in private handsand are operated for private profit. If they are to bemonopolized, as I believe inevitably they will have to be,then it is just as well that they should be owned, managedand worked by the State.

It is not enough to provide only for a sort of vagueState control over them as the original clause does; it isnot enough merely to say that they could be so utilised asto "subserve the common good," every word of which is vague,undefined and undefinable, and capable of being twisted tosuch a sense in any court of law, before any tribunal byclever, competent lawyers, as to be wholly divorced from theintention of the draftsman, assuming that the draftsman hadsome such intention as I am trying to present before theHouse. We must have more positive guarantee of their proper,social and wholly beneficial utilisation; and that can onlybe achieved if their ownership, control and management arevested in public hands.

Considerations, therefore, of immediate wealth, of thenecessity of industrialisation, of national defence, and ofsocial justice have moved me to invite this House toconsider my amendment favourably, namely, that without aproper full-fledged ownership, absolute control and directmanagement by the State or its representatives of theseresources, we will not be able to realise all our dreams ina fair, efficient, economical manner which I wish to attainby this means.

Most of these forms of wealth, I need hardly tell thisHouse, are yet undeveloped, or developed in a very, verysuperficial manner. It is to be hoped that in years to come,we shall undertake and carry out a much more direct, a muchmore effective and efficient Plan for the all rounddevelopment of the country, in every part and in every itemof our available resources. If that is so, if we are goingto achieve, if we are going to take that as our firstconcern, for the new life that is pulsating throughout thecountry, then I put it to you, Sir, that without some suchprovision, it would not be possible to attain the objectiveas quickly and as economically as we would desire.

I would only add one word. Deliberately, I have notincluded in the list of initial resources of the country,the biggest of them, namely land. I have not mentioned it,not because I do not believe that land should be owned,operated and held collectively, but because I recognize thatthe various measures that have been in recent years adoptedto exclude landed proprietors - zamindars to oust them andtake over the land, would automatically involve theproposition that the agricultural or culturable land of thiscountry belongs to the country collectively, and must beused and developed for its benefit.

For these reasons, therefore, Sir, whileparticularising the natural resources which we should havein common ownership and develop collectively, I havedeliberately left out perhaps the most important of themall. But that I trust will not prejudice the fate of thisproposition by itself. I commend it to the House.

(Amendments Nos. 886 to 891 were not moved.)

Prof. K. T. Shah: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg tomove:

"That for clause (iii) of article 31, the following besubstituted: -

'(iii) that there shall be no private monopolies in anyform of production of material wealth, social service, orpublic utilities nor shall there be any concentration ofmeans of production and distribution in private hands andthe State shall adopt every means to prevent suchconcentration or accumulation'."

Sir. the original Article as it is drafted reads asfollows:

"(iii) that the operation of the economic system doesnot result in the concentration of wealth and means ofproduction to the common detriment;"

Once again, I have to use the same argument namely thatwhile I have taken the phraseology that is given in myamendment almost entirely from the Draft itself, I havetried to make it much more clear and unambiguous than theDraft makes it. I feel, Sir, that if the Draft remains as it is, it is liable to be interpreted in

a way not at allintended perhaps by the draftsmen, or, at any rate, notunderstood in that sense by the reader.

I think, Sir, that monopolies by themselves are veryoffensive to the common good. In every country whose historyis recorded, wherever they have manifested themselves, therehave been cries of protest against their presence. Some ofthe most important decisions which have contributedmaterially to the growth of the English Constitution havebeen in regard to monopolies granted by the Crown. No fightwas so strong in the ages gone by in England or France orother countries which have experienced this in a moreintense form than the fight against the monopolies.

Monopolies, however, need not be created or establishedby direct grant or patent, or in a legal, open form thatwould admit itself to be caught or controlled, so to say, bythe straightforward operation of any provision like thisincluded in the Constitution or legal system in general.

Monopolies develop much more artificially; monopoliesdevelop much more by force of the very circumstances thatcompetition is supposed to provide. In a competitivesociety, we are told, the only guarantee of the common goodbeing served is that, by the mere process of competitionamongst themselves, the competing producers will have so toreduce prices, they would have so to bring down their costsor selling price, that the largest amount of profit can begained if the monopolised commodity is consumed by thewidest number of consumers. In actual fact, however, Sir, inevery country that has got industrialised, andcommercialised on a wide scale, you find that thecompetitors soon come to realise that competition is goodfor nobody. Hence by arrangement amongst themselves, by allsorts of devices, like Trusts, Syndicates, and Cartels, theytry to make a virtual monopoly, which may seem inoffensiveon the face of it, which may even appear to be aimed atcutting out costs and reducing overheads, and thereby makingthe product more easily and more cheaply accessible; butwhich, in fact, really result in adding enormously to theincreasing profit of the private proprietor.

I take it, Sir, that members of this enlightened Housewill be all too familiar with the history of Trusts inEngland or America, and of the Syndicates and Cartels inGermany or France, for me to outline it. They would easilyrealise how insidiously, how slowly, but how irresistiblythe movement for Trustification, Syndication, Cartelisation,combination or monopoly in all important industries began todevelop, what devices they adopt for holding thesemonopolies tightly and closely among a selected few of theirown blood circle, and what part the Interlocking Directorateplays in the general direction of policy; how whencompetition is intense, they try to ruin every newappearance in the field, so that the field remains for evertheir exclusive possession, their exclusive property.

We in this country have too bitter, too recent, toovaried and too numerous experiences of the operation offoreign monopolists, who, until the other day, held power inour country, whereby any indigenous enterprise that wasagainst the vested interests of the alien Monopolists, hadto put up the most intense struggle against the monopolistoutsiders. Only the other day we had the spectacle, in whichthe history of the growth of a great national shippingconcern was outlined. Those who know the vicissitudesthrough which that concern has gone, would realise the longyears of fight, the discouraging developments that they hadto put up with, because the Government of the country inthose days was a foreign Government. Because the newcompeting interest was an Indian interest, it did not suitthe Government to allow the foreign monopolists in any wayto suffer, and the native new enterprise to succeed. Thelatter, therefore had to suffer all kinds of handicaps anddisadvantages, into the details of which this is not theplace nor the time to go. The fact, however, that in spiteof that, by the support of the people, by the intrinsicstrength of the service

they wanted to render, theenterprise has survived to this day, does not undo theprincipal argument that I am trying to place before theHouse, that private Monopolies, by their very nature, arenot in the interests of the public, unless they are of thecommunity as a whole.

A private less correct monopolist will always be apredatory creature, who will hunt and prey upon those whobecome consumers of his product or service. Whether it is inan ordinary industry like the manufacturing industryturning out a given product, or in any industry which ismaking consumer goods, or in a social service, likeEducation or Health, there is danger of monopolists creatingstrong private interest which it will never be in theinterests of the country to tolerate. I should thereforeforbid the very possibility of any monopoly emerging, let ussay, in the matter of education or educational apparatus,let us say, in regard to health or the production of drugs,or making medicines, or the supply of surgical and otherinstruments and apparatuses. I would beg to submit to thisHouse that there is every danger of our country beingdominated by private monopolists unless, from the verystart, in this very Constitution we make it perfectly clearthat in this New India, there shall be no room for privatemonopolists, who would be predatory, who would be preyingupon their kind as cannibals in a form that no savage oralleged savage of the Pacific Seas would do.

The civilised cannibal of our time, the blood-sucker,is the exploiter who is highly honoured, who is oftentitled, who is very fully represented in this House also,and is therefore able to dictate to you, and inspire you ininnumerable ways, as to how you shall provide for his safetyin the Constitution itself, so that he could get a new leaseof life and go on in a variety of ways, multiplying,diversifying, increasing and intensifying his monopoly tothe prejudice of the common people, to the prejudice of thecountry's defence, to the prejudice of all those who havebeen looking forward to this age as an age in which realpower is supposed to be vested in the representatives of thepeople in this House, to be able at least to obtain theimmediate necessaries of life without paying the toll of theprofiteer, and as such to be able to lead a life a littleabove the level of the beasts.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: (Madras: General):Does the expression 'Private Monopolies' include monopoliesby public companies?

Prof. K. T. Shah: I have already said in an earlieramendment that I would not only have monopolies but onlymonopolies when they are public, either Government owned,State-owned or owned by state Corporations. If by publiccompanies you mean statutory companies, the answer is in theaffirmative. But if you mean by public companies only thosethat are registered and falling under the Companies Act aspublic companies, then the answer is in the negative.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: The expression'private monopolies' will exclude public limited companies.

Prof. K. T. Shah: I would invite my Honourable friendto help me in making it much more explicit. If he will not,then he will forgive me for not paying more attention tothese very casuistic words. The monopolies I have in mindare represented much more by Trusts, by inter-lockingDirectorates, by a variety of ways by which banks, insurancecompanies, transport concerns electricity concerns, powercorporations, utility corporations of all kinds etc. yet allcombined horizontally, vertically, angularly, sideways,backways and frontways, so that if you take up the totalityof them all, you will find that this country is in the gripof between 300 to 500 people or families so far as economiclife of this country is concerned. They may have theirnephews and their nieces functioning in various capacities.One may work in a factory, another may shine in sports, athird may flirt with Art, and a fourth may endow Science andLearning. One may be a Manager, and another may be aphilanthrophist, and yet another may be a religious teacher,but that does not change the

complexion. There are a fewhundred families in this country which hold us all ineconomic slavery of a kind that theslavery in the Southern States of America has no comparison.If you do not open your eyes even now, then you are invitingwith open eyes the kind of revolution in a form which noneof us might desire but none of us would be able to resist.Sir, I commend this proposal to this House.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I beg to move: -

"That in clause (iii) of article 31, for the word'concentration' the words 'undue concentration' besubstituted."

Sir, the passage in the Draft Constitution runs thus: -

"That the operation of the economic system does notresult in the concentration of wealth and means ofproduction to the common detriment etc".

My amendment would be to the effect that the clauseshould prevent "undue" concentration of wealth and means ofproduction to the common detriment. I submit that theeconomic system which we have here today and which it seemsis in view, would necessarily mean that the wealth and meansof production would be uneconomic; unless we want tointroduce a Communistic state, these inequities would beinevitable. Even in the Communistic state of today there areinequities. I submit, Sir, that it is impossible to equalisewealth and means of production in the hands of all. Isubmit, the earning of a good business man, that of a lawyerof eminence, that of a Minister of eminence and that of acommon man in the street or a Chaprasi, cannot be equal. SoI submit that all that we should attempt to prevent is"undue" concentration of wealth and means of production.There would be inevitable concentration of some wealth andthe means of production. I submit Sir, that this word wouldremove the misconception.

(Amendments Nos. 896 to 903 were not moved.)

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, Amendment No. 904 consistsof three parts, of which I wish to move only parts two andthree.

Sir I beg to move that in clause (v) of article 31, forthe word "abused" the word "exploited", and for the words"economic necessity" the word "want" be substituted.

Mr. Vice-President: Is it necessary to make a speech?

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: No, Sir.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 905, Mr. Kamath.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I find thatso far as this amendment of mine is concerned, I am in verygood company. I find that the Drafting Committee hassponsored an amendment - No. 907 - to the same effect.

The clause as it stands, reads as follows:

"The State its policy towardssecuring........that citizens are not forced by economicnecessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age orstrength."

My amendment seeks to add the word "sex" also, so thatit will then read thus:

".........are not forced by economic necessity to enteravocations unsuited to their age, sex or strength."

I feel, Sir, that so long as the economic system iswhat it is today, it is conceivable that women might beforced by sheer necessity to take to occupations which maynot be suitable to the conditions imposed on them by nature.I personally feel that this would be a wise amendment, awise move, to see that necessity does not force women toenter certain occupations.

Since sending in this amendment, however, I haveascertained from my Honourable women friends in this Housethat they are not very keen on this provision being made, inthis clause. So in spite of my inclination to the contrary,in spite of my disposition to retain this amendment, I havedecided, out of deference to their wishes, not to press thisamendment, and not to move it. Of course, it will await thefate of amendment No. 907 which has been officiallysponsored.

Shri C. Subramaniam (Madras: General): Sir, can aspeech be made if the Member is not moving his amendment?

Mr. Vice-President: I did not notice till the very endthat Mr. Kamath was not going to move his amendment. We areall in the hands of Mr. Kamath in this matter. I am not aprophet.

Then we come to amendment No. 906, Shri Sahu.

Shri Lakshminarayan Sahu (Orissa:

General): *[Mr. Vice-President, move the amendment which stands in my name:

"That in clause (v) of article 31, for the words 'theirage' the words 'their age, sex' be substituted."

Mr. Kamath admitted here that even he considers thatthe word 'Sex' should be put in but that he did not do sobecause the term 'Sex' was not liked by some lady members ofthis House. But I insist that this word should be retainedhere. I would like to know the reasons which led them to saythat they did not like this word. We see that the word 'Sex'has already been used in article 9 of the FundamentalRights. We also know that we use the word 'Linga' in ourlanguage, and so I fail to see the harm likely to be done bythe use of this word here.

Secondly, if we do not use the word 'Sex' here, manyunpleasant complications are likely to ensure. In order toavoid all such complications I would like that the words"Unsuited to their age, sex and strength" should beretained. There are many such factories and mines which arenot fit for women to work in. But many women are compelledby circumstances to work there. To stop this practice theword "Sex" should be specifically used here.

The third point is that the members of the DraftingCommittee like to use the word 'sex' here. When it is so, Ido not find any reason to delete it. And hence the word sexmust be retained so that women may be saved fromexploitation. The condition of the women of our country israther deplorable and I do not like that they should workday and night in the mines and be obliged to adopt some suchprofession which may spoil their home life. On account ofthese three reasons I propose that this word 'Sex' must beretained here and I move this amendment accordingly.]

Mr. Vice-President: No. 907, Dr. Ambedkar?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Not moving.

Mr. Vice-President: Then No. 908. Mr. Syed Abdur Rouf.

Syed Abdur Rouf (Assam : Muslim): Sir, I beg to move:

"That in clause (v) of article 31, for the words 'totheir age or strength' the words 'to their sex, age orhealth' be substituted."

From the trend of the amendments it is seen that so faras acceptance of the word "sex" is concerned, there isunanimity of opinion in the House. Now, in my amendment Ihave tried further to add the word "health" in place of"strength", because I think the word "health" includes and connotes the


* [] Translation of Hindustani speech.

word "strength", but the word "strength" does notnecessarily connote the word "health". On this ground theword "strength" is unsuited. If we want to save the worker from ruin, we should consider the health of the worker, not merely his strength. I therefore commend this amendment forthe acceptance of the House.

Shri S. V. Krishnamoorthy Rao (Mysore): Sir, I move:

"That in clause (v) of article 31, for the words 'thatthe strength and health' the words 'that the health andstrength' be substituted."

My amendment is only in order to rearrange thephraseology. My only justification is that strength followshealth and the phraseology sound better. Sir, I move.

(Amendments Nos. 910 to 913 were not moved.)

Rev. Jerome D'Souza (Madras: General): Mr. Vice-President, I am grateful to you for the opportunity you havegiven me of making a very brief statement on this amendmentwhich I and some of my friends have tabled. Let me say atonce, to reassure this House that statement will be briefand that for reasons which I shall presently explain, it isnot my intention to press the amendment. But, Sir, I deem ita matter of some importance that the grounds which moved usto table this amendment should be understood by this House,and that the broad principles on which we have based thisrequest may be appreciated, so that though at the presentmoment and in the present form this amendment may not beacceptable or may not be prudently pressed, the spirit of itmay be understood and somehow embodied in this momentous andsolemn document of our Constitution.

Sir, there have been complaints from many sides of

thisHouse that our Constitution does not reflect the spirit orthe genius of our people, that it is a kind of mixed recipegot up from various foreign sources and foreignconstitutions. To a certain extent this was inevitable, butI am sure that the framers of the Draft have partly answeredthis criticism by the embodiment of certain principles inthis part of the Constitution, the Directive Principles.

Now, Sir, if one thing characterises our people morethan anything else, it is the power and the sanctity of thefamily tie, the sacredness which we have been accustomed toattach to the sanctities that go to make up the spirit andthe atmosphere of home life. Therefore, I am sure that everysection of this House will feel that it is in the fitness ofthings that this strong and traditional spirit of our nationand race might somehow be expressed in our Constitution.Sir, I venture to say that if the virtues, the strength andmanhood of our people have survived so many centuries ofinvasion and subjection, it is because, inspite of externaland political changes, the strength of the family, itsprotective power, its capacity to inspire and maintainvirtue and moral strength, have never been diminished, havenever been completely overcome in our land. Whatever is bestin the Caste system - and nobody will say that it is anunmixed evil - I venture to say is an extension of the familyspirit, and the attachment to family ties that has come outof it is its best and most admirable characteristic.

Sir, in a Constitution, we undertake legislation forthe organisation of society. We are speaking of villages, ofprovinces and the Centre, of tribes and Communities, andevery other form of society. Now, the primary unit ofsociety. One whose limits and characteristics are fixed bynature itself, is the family. The varieties and forms ofexternal civil society may vary and change, but the limits,the characteristics, the fundamental features of the family,are fixed by nature. And it is within the bosom of thefamily that the social virtue, on the basis of which we aremaking this Constitution, and the firmness of which will beresponsible for the carrying out of the Constitu-tion, those fundamental virtues are developed and mostlastingly founded in the family circle - mutual regard,mutual dependence, respect for authority and order,foresight and planning, and even the capacity fornegotiating with other units, - qualities which would berequired on a wider scale and in a wider theatre in ourpolitical and public life. Nay, Sir, patriotism itself isbut the extension and the amplification of the love of thefamily. We call our country Fatherland or Motherland. Evenbefore we know the culture and the extend and the greatnessof our historical past, we begin to love our country becausewe love the little place where we were born, because thescenes and the sounds and the sights of those places arelinked for ever in our memories with the voices and visageswhich are among the most lasting and most treasured thingsin life. Therefore, I feel that this house will not rejectthis plea that in some form our respect and love for familytraditions, may be reflected in this Constitution.

Now, Sir, I know that there is a serious divergence ofviews as to what this amendment should imply, in what mannerthe family should be protected and how its stability shouldbe ensured. Let me, Sir, in all frankness place before youvery briefly what was in my mind about the means of ensuringthe stability of the family. In the first place, I believeit implies that in the majority of instances, in a normalstate of society, the mother of the family should havefreedom and leisure to give all her attention to theupbringing of her children and to the maintenance of thatfamily. Now, I do not say that it is obligatory on her to doso always - there are exceptions, and she may sometimes findit convenient to give her best energies to answer the highervocation of public life and public service. But under normalconditions this is her main and her sacred duty, and thisimplies that the wage-earner,

be he the working man, be hethe poorest in the country, should have a wage which willenable him to maintain his wife and children, a family wage,a concept which modern social legislation tends to acceptmore and more. I say, therefore, that the head of the familyis not to get a wage in accordance with the strict principleof remuneration for labour done according to the laws ofliberal economics. I rather say that society owes him, asthe head of a family and as one of the most importantelements in the organisation of society, a maintenance towhich he has a right, partly independently of whatever workhe does. That is one principle which this amendment implies.

In the second place, I believe that this amendment, orthis idea of the sacredness of the family, implies areadiness on the part of the State to recognise andencourage the institution of marriage in every way possiblein its stable and monogamous form. I wish to draw theattention of the House to this fact that in all societiesthe tendency is to recognise more and more monogamousmarriages as the only legal form of marriage. Moreover, I amaware of, and I am not here prepared to discuss, the claimsof the women of our land to some degree of facility inbreaking up unions which are no longer happy. I admit theremay be grounds for separation when a union has becomeutterly unhappy. I plead at least for this: that the Stateshould look with caution and prudence, nay with positivedisfavour, on the multiplication of the facilities fordivorce in order that the permanence and happiness of thefamily may be ensured.

In the third place, - and I know that here again I shallprovoke the opposition of many elements, but nevertheless,it is necessary to state it on this occasion and in thisHouse - it would be unfortunate if the State gave officialpatronage or approbation or encouragement to the artificiallimitation of families. We in India who are recipients ofsuch bounty from nature have nothing to fear from themultiplication of the greatest source of our wealth,namely, the manhood of our land, the hard-working men andwomen of our race.

Lastly, I would, as a last idea which should accompanythis notion of the sanctity and permanence and stability ofthe family, plead for respect for the rights of parents, therecognition of all reasonable authority on the part ofparents in regard to their children, particularly, the rightof the parent to see that his child is brought up in thetraditions and in the beliefs, which are dear to him, sothat there may not be in his family a disruption of thehappy atmosphere, the uniformity, the homogeneity whichshould normally reign there. These are the implications - grave, far reaching, but I believe, acceptable to the vastmajority of our countrymen - these are the implications ofthis amendment. But as I said already, it is because Iunderstand that in this particular form and owing to thevagueness of its implications there may be very seriousdifference of opinion, I am prepared not to press it at thepresent moment, but I do want this House and my mosthonoured and most respected colleagues somehow and at sometime and in some form to speak the word which would ensurefor future generations the blessings which they and weourselves have inherited and enjoyed, to recognise that thegreat virtues which go to make up the greatness of acountry - personal worth - are best developed in an earlyperiod and within the atmosphere of the home. We areoptimists and democrats, but we know that human nature hasmany evil inclinations and if they are not to get the betterof a man, if the vicious and anti-social elements in hisnature are not to gain the upper hand, it is during thesetender years that the seeds of lasting civic virtues shouldbe planted. I therefore ask you, my honoured colleagues, toturn your attention, to turn your regard, back to thattreasury of the tenderest and the most sacred memories thatyou have, the voices and the visages that are most dear toyou, and appreciating all you have received from that circleand from those people, do something to ensure that

thefuture children of this land will be blessed with the samehappiness.

Shri V. C. Kesava Rao (Madras: General): I do not moveamendment No. 917 standing in my name but I reserve theright of moving it later in connection with fundamentalrights.

Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava (East Punjab: General): Iam not moving amendment No. 920 at present, but when we cometo fundamental rights, I propose to move it.

I am not moving No. 923. The same remarks apply as in920.

Mr. Vice-President: The article is now open for generaldiscussion.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena (United Provinces: General):This is a clause which is very fundamental in ourConstitution. The character of the amendments suggested alsoshows that it goes to the very root of the wholeConstitution. My sympathies are undoubtedly with theamendments of Prof. K. T. Shah who has moved two amendmentswhich really suggest that in this clause we should lay downthat the system of our State shall be "Socialist". In an amendment to the Preamble I have suggested that the word"Socialist", should be added before the word "Union". Ipersonally feel that the particular amendments which he hasmoved are very important and I would urge on my friend Dr.Ambedkar at least to incorporate the spirit of thoseamendments somewhere in the Constitution. Part (2) ofarticle 31 says:

"...Ownership and control of the material resources ofthe community are so distributed as best to subserve thecommon good."

Now, this enunciation "ownership and control of thematerial resources of the community to be distributed so asto subserve the common good" is avery wide enunciation of a most important principle. Theenunciation is so general that any system of economy can bebased upon it. Upon it can be based a system of socialisteconomy where all the resources of the country belong to theState and are to be used for the well being of the communityas a whole. But a majority in the next Parliament can alsocome forward and say that the New Deal evolved by Rooseveltis the best system, and it should be adopted. This clauseleaves it open to any future parliament to evolve the bestplan of their choice. But I feel personally that we shouldtoday at least lay down that the key industries of thecountry shall be owned by the State. This has been animportant programme of the Congress since 1921. The Congresshas accepted the principle that the key industries shall becontrolled by the State. Even recently in the committeeappointed by the Congress the report mentioned that the keyindustries shall be owned by the State; for the present wehave postponed nationalisation of key industries for tenyears. But I do feel that in our Constitution we must laydown that this is our fundamental policy. Unless we lay downin the Constitution itself that the key industries shall benationalised and shall be primarily used to serve the needsof the nation, we shall be guilty of a great betrayal. Evenif the principle is not to be enforced today, we must laydown in this clause (ii) about directive principles that thekey industries shall be owned by the State. That is,according to the Congress, the best method of distributingthe material resources of the country. I therefore thinkthat Professor Shah's amendment has merely drawn attentionto this fundamental principle.

His second amendment is against monopolies and mysympathies are entirely with him. The system of monopolieshas been admitted to be very wrong everywhere. In America,about 54 per cent of the nation's wealth is owned by some 60families of that State and it is said that the 12 directorsof these industrial concerns there are more powerful thaneven the Cabinet Ministers of the U. S. A. I therefore thinkthat we must take a lesson from the other countries and laydown in our Constitution that monopolies will not bepermitted in India. This being so I trust that Dr. Ambedkarwill try to incorporate this idea in the clause by means ofan appropriate amendment.

I know there is one merit in his draft which is that hehas left the whole thing open and it is my hope that he willincorporate

this idea in the clause. This Assembly, whichhas the majority from one party that has already committeditself to these principles, should lay down these principlesin the Constitution itself. As I said, Dr. Ambedkar has leftthe whole thing open and it is possible that an Assemblyelected on the basis of adult franchise will lay it downthat the State shall own and control the key industries.

I have given notice of an amendment to an amendment ofMr. Kamath (875-A) which he did not move. My object therewas to substitute for the words "The State shall foster thegrowth" the words, "the State shall promote thedevelopment". The amended amendment would have read: "TheState shall promote the development of economic and socialdemocracy and to that end direct its policy towardssecuring." I had proposed that this amendment should beincorporated in the first line of article 31 in accordancewith the view announced by Dr. Ambedkar the other day thatwe want an economic democracy on the basis of `one man onevalue'. It is a great ideal and I congratulate him forgiving expression to that great ideal. With these words Icommend this article to the House and I hope that the spiritof my criticism will be remembered by Dr. Ambedkar.

Shri Jadubans Sahaya (Bihar: General): With your kindpermission, Sir I hope the House will give me the indulgenceof making certain observations in regard to article 31 whichis now before the House for its consideration.

Sir, it was said, possibly yesterday, that this articleof this Chapter is the Charter of economic democracy. It wasalso said that in this Charter and in this article we couldfind the germs of socialism and other isms. It was said alsothat this article was the Charter of the poor man. I mostrespectfully submit that in this Chapter, Article 31 is thepivot around which everything will revolve. Article 31clause (ii) is the most important feature to which I shallmost respectfully draw the attention of the House. But it isnot possible for me, I am sorry, to support the amendmentmoved by my friend Professor Shah outright, because Irespectfully submit it is loosely worded. But I may statefor the information of the House that, so far as theprinciples which underlie his amendment are concerned, Isupport them. The spirit of it also I support. I fail to seewhy this august Assembly which meets only once in everycountry, is not keen to the extent of clearly and boldlyincorporating in this article that the means of productionand the natural or material resources of the country shallbelong to the community and through it to the State. Icannot understand this, though the large majority of theamendments, if you scrutinise them, will be found to favourthe principles underlying the amendment of Professor Shah. Icannot understand how it is that the Congress, thepredominantly majority party here, is not pressing thisthing.

One Honourable Member stated yesterday that these arepolitical matters and that political parties should notbring up such amendments. I was considerably surprised tohear it. Constitution making is the work of politicalparties. So far as the organisation to which I have thehonour to belong, viz., the Congress we congressmen havegiven promises from many platforms to the teeming millionsthat so far as the means of production and the naturalresources of the State are concerned, they will not be putinto the hands of a favoured few. How can we go back on ourword? After all this is a directive principle. I am notasking you to incorporate it so that the capitalists and thebig purses of the country may not have the opportunity towork the mines and the minerals. This is only a directiveprinciple. Are we not going to keep it as our goal that allmeans of productions and the gifts of Nature which belong tothis vast country should belong to the State or to thecommunity? I am sorry, Sir, that the bogey has been raisedby the capitalists that if you talk like this they willcease to produce. I know the large majority of friends herewill not be deterred by this bogey raised by thecapitalists, because

production is not for the welfare ofthe community. It is for the welfare of the capitalists.They produce for profits. Honourable Members of this Houseknow it better than myself that they produce for profit andthey will continue to produce as long as they make profitand, if not, they will not. So we should not be deterred bythis slogan. As far as the Government of India isconcerned, - somebody attributed it to the Prime Minister - it is said that after ten years we shall have nationalisation.To this, Sir, Ardeshir Dalal has stated, according tonewspaper reports, that production is hampered becausesomething was said by the Prime Minister of India.

Sir, in this Chapter and particularly in this articleare we not going to suggest that ultimately we have tonationalise them, are we not going to suggest that is theaim of the nation, is the target of the nation? We stated inthe August Resolution that land belongs to the tillers ofthe soil. You have here magnificent and sparkling words,social justice, political justice and economic justice. Verygood and splendid words but they appear very far away fromthe toiling millions. Why not state here, not today, nottomorrow but in the distant future that the community willown what belongs to the community by the gift of nature andby the gift of God. I do not belong to the Socialist Partybut I belong to the Congress to which many here belong. MayI appeal to Dr. Ambedkar who claims to represent the down-trodden untouchables ofthe country not to wash away this hope from our hearts thatin the future years the natural resources of the communitymay belong not to the provileged few but to the poor peopleof the country, for the good and benefit of all.

Shri S. Nagappa (Madras: General): Sir, this clause isthe only clause where the poor man, the common man can findsome hope for the future. Clauses (ii) and (iii) areintended for the benefit of the poor man. No doubt, it wouldhave been better if this clause had been drafted in moreunequivocal terms instead of in this ambiguous language. Asa layman, as a common man, I can see some ray of hope forthe future in these clauses. It is the aim of all honourableMembers who have assembled here to socialise as early aspossible. As long as these clauses stand, there is nopossibility of capitalism thriving in India. I am very muchthankful to the Drafting Committee and to the President ofit in particular for having brought in these clauses and myonly grievance is that they have not been drafted in moreunequivocal language. Sir, the slogans today aremunicipalise utilities and nationalise industries and meansof production, and unless and until these things are done,there is no hope for the common man. Today, land isconcentrated in a few hands and the tiller finds himself inserious difficulties. A friend was moving an amendment forabolishing feudalism in India. When such are his feelings,you can imagine what would be the feelings of a man who hasbeen teased for centuries and centuries. You know theconditions of the tenants in jagirs and zamindaries. Theyare expected to work for nothing for a number of hours andfor a number of days, whereas in factories there are fixedhours. I am very glad, Sir, that in the Fundamental Rightsthere is a provision against beggar and forced labour. Iwould request the framers of the Constitution to see thatevery word of it is translated into action. There is no usehaving pious wishes or putting in high-sounding words.

With these words, I support the article.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad (Bihar: General): May I speak,Sir?

Mr. Vice-President: I am very sorry. I think there hasbeen sufficient discussion. Dr. Ambedkar.

The Honourable Dr. Ambedkar: Mr. Vice-President, Sir,of the many amendments that have been moved to thisparticular article, there are only four that remain forconsideration. I will first take up the amendment of Mr.Krishnamoorthy Rao. It is a mere verbal amendment and I saystraightaway that I am quite prepared to accept thatamendment.

Then there remain the three amendments moved by myfriend, Professor K.

T. Shah. His first amendment is tosubstitute the words "every citizen" for the words "thecitizens". Now, if that was the only amendment he wasmoving, I would not have found myself in very greatdifficulty in accepting his amendment, but he also proposesto remove the words "men and women equally" to which I haveconsiderable objection. I would therefore ask him not topress this particular amendment on the assurance that, whenthe Constitution is gone through in this House and isremitted back to the Drafting Committee for theconsideration of verbal changes, I shall be quite preparedto incorporate his feelings as I can quite understand that"every citizen" is better phraseology than the words "thecitizens".

With regard to his other amendments, viz., substitutionof his own clauses for sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of Article31, all I want to say is this that I would have been quiteprepared to consider the amendment of Professor Shah if hehad shown that what he intended to do by the substitution ofhis own clauses was not possible to be done under thelanguage as it stands. So far as I am able to see, I thinkthe language that has been used in the Draft it a much moreextensive language which also includes the particularpropositions which have been moved by Professor Shah, and Itherefore do not see the necessityfor substituting these limited particular clauses for theclauses which have been drafted in general languagedeliberately for a set purpose. I therefore oppose hissecond and third amendments.

Mr. Vice-President: I shall now put the amendments tothe vote, one by one.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (i) of article 31, the words `men andwomen equally' be omitted."

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (i) of article 31, the words `that thecitizens, men and women equally' have the right to anadequate' the words `every citizen has the right to anadequate' be substituted."

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That for clause (ii) of article 31, the following besubstituted.

`(ii) that the ownership, control and management of thenatural resources of the country in the shape of mines andmineral wealth, forests, rivers and flowing waters as wellas in the shape of the seas along the coast of the countryshall be vested in and belong to the country collectivelyand shall be exploited and developed on behalf of thecommunity by the State as represented by the Central orProvincial Governments or local governing authoritystatutory corporation as may be provided for in each case byAct of Parliament';"

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That for clause (iii) of article 31, the following besubstituted: -

(iii) that there shall be no private monopolies in anyform of production of material wealth, social service, orpublic utilities nor shall there by any concentration ofmeans of production and distribution in private hands andthe State shall adopt every means to prevent suchconcentration or accumulation'."

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (iii) of article 31, for the word`concentration' the words `undue concentration' besubstituted."

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (v) article 31, for the word `abused'the word `exploited' and for the words `economic necessity'the word `want' be substituted."

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (v) of article 31, for the words `theirage' the words `their age, sex' be substituted."

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (v) of article 31, the words `to theirage or strength' the words `to their sex, age or health' besubstituted."

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (v) of article 31, for the words `thatthe strength and health', the words `that the health andstrength' be


The motion was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That Article 31, as amended, be part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 31, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

Mr. Vice-President: We shall now proceed to Article 31-A.

Article 31 - A

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar (Madras: General): Mr.Vice-President, Sir, Amendment No. 927 stands in my name,but Mr. Santhanam has given an amendment to this amendment,for substitution of this. I find that that language isbetter. With your permission, Sir, he may be allowed to movehis amendment in the place of mine. If you want me toformally move my amendment, I will do so, but I am preparedto accept the substitution for 31-A. I am prepared to adoptwhichever course you direct.

Mr. Vice-President: Let Mr. Santhanam move.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: Sir, I beg to move:

"That after article 31, the following new article beadded: -

`31-A. The State shall take steps to organise villagepanchayats and endow them with such powers and authority asmay be necessary to enable them to function as units ofself-government'."

Sir, I need not elaborate the necessity for thisclause. Many honourable Members had given similar amendmentsfor village panchayats, but they had also attached to itconditions like self-sufficiency and other matters, whichmany of us did not consider desirable to be put into thedirectives. What powers should be given to a villagepanchayat, what its area should be and what its functionsshould be will vary from province to province and from stateto state, and it is not desirable that any hard and fastdirection should be given in the Constitution. There may bevery small hamlets which are so isolated that even for fiftyfamilies, we may require a village panchayat; in otherplaces it may be desirable to group them together so thatthey may form small townships and run efficient, almostmunicipal administrations. I think these must be left to theprovincial legislatures. What is attempted to do here is togive a definite and unequivocal direction that the stateshall take steps to organise panchayats and shall endow themwith necessary powers and authority to enable them tofunction as units of self-government. That the entirestructure of self-government, of independence in thiscountry should be based on organised village community lifeis the common factor of all the amendments tabled and thatfactor has been made the principle basis of this amendment.I hope it will meet with unanimous acceptance. Thank you,Sir.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I accept theamendment.

(At this stage Seth Govind Das rose to speak).

Mr. Vice-President: If you want to discuss anything,you can discuss after Prof. Ranga's amendment has beenmoved.

An Honourable Member: Prof. Ranga is not here.

Mr. Vice-President: I am on the horns of a dilemma.This amendment has been accepted. If I gave an opportunityto one speaker, then the whole question will have to be re-opened. I would value the advice of experts on this matter.

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: If you will permit meto say so, I shall only quote the procedure that is adoptedin the House when it sits as aLegislature. Even though a Member in charge of a Bill sayshe accepts an amendment, he only indicates the line ofaction for other Members to follow. They may go on speakingand he will always have a right of reply after they havespoken. Even to cut short the debate on certain matterswhich do not involve a principle, people would like to knowwhat the attitude of the Government is. If it is founduseless, they may not pursue that matter and it is for thatreason that Dr. Ambedkar has said that he accepts theamendment. He still can reserve his reply after the speechesor debates are closed. I therefore request you to call uponother speakers who want to speak. It is a very importantsubject and every one would like to throw some light on it.

Mr. Vice-President: In that case, I shall call upon Mr.Prakasam to speak first.

Shri T. Prakasam (Madras: General): Mr.

Vice-President,Sir, I feel happy that the Government have with graceaccepted this amendment and agreed to introduce it in the Constitution. We should have tried to introduce this at thevery beginning of the framing of the Constitution.

Shri Vishwambhar Dayal Tripathi (United Provinces:General): Sir, I do not know which Government he hasreferred to.

Shri T. Prakasam: I am referring to the Government asit is constituted today.

This is a subject which is so very dear to the countryand to the Members of this House as is shown by the way inwhich they have intervened in the general debate and broughtit to the forefront of the discussion that this should finda place in the Constitution itself. Dr. Rajendra Prasad, whois the President of the Constituent Assembly, himselfexpressed his opinion in favour of having village republicsas the basis of the Constitution.

Shri Vishwambhar Dayal Tripathi: What has theGovernment to do with our discussions?

Mr. Vice-President: The reference was to the Presidentof the Constituent Assembly and not to the Government.

Shri T. Prakasam: I have not referred to theGovernment. Thank you,

Dr. Rajendra Prasad has expressed his view in favour ofmaking the village republic as the basis of the wholeConstitution, which we are completing these days. On the10th of May, Sir, Dr. Rajendra Prasad happened to expresshis views in this matter. The Constitutional Adviser, Sir B.N. Rau, when he dealt with this question, sympathised withthe whole thing, but pointed out that it was too late tomake any attempt to change the basis of the Constitutionwhich has gone so far. I too agree, Sir, that if there wasany mistake, the mistake was on our part in not having beenvigilant enough and brought this before the House in propertime. When this was coming so late as that, I did not expectDr. Ambedkar as Chairman of the Drafting Committee to begood enough to accept this.

Sir, a very serious situation was created by not makingthe village republic or the village unit as the real basisof the Constitution. It must be acknowledged on all handsthat this is a construction which is begun at the top andwhich is going down to the bottom. What is suggested in thisdirection by Dr. Rajendra Prasad himself was that thestructure must begin from the foundations and it must go up.That, Sir, is the Constitution which the departed MahatmaGandhi indicated and tried to work up for nearly thirtyyears. Under these circumstances, it is very fortunate thatthis should come in at this stage, that this should beintroduced and worked in a proper way. I must reallycongratulate Mr. Santhanam for having attempted to bringthis amend-ment in this form so that all others who had tabledamendments, of whom I was also one, reconciled ourselves toaccept this, because this gives opportunity to the people ofevery province and the whole of India to go on this basisand work up the whole thing, without interrupting theprogress of the Constitution at this stage.

Sir, one of the distinguished friends of this House wasremarking the other day to me, "why are you thinking ofthese village republics and all these things? The bullockcart days have gone; they will never come back." This washis observation. I may point out to that friend that thevillage republic which is proposed to be established in thecountry and worked is not a bullock cart village republic.The republic that would be established, Sir, under thisresolution, under the orders of the Government as it were,would be a village republic which would use the bullockcarts, not for simply taking the fire-wood that is cut inthe jungles to the towns and cities and getting some moneyfor hire; these village republic would convert the work ofthe bullock carts to the work of carrying paddy and otherproduce which they produce in the village for their ownbenefit and for the benefit of the public. These villagerepublics will also be serviceable to those men of ours whoare now fighting in Kashmir. I was there the other day; Isaw the way in which those friends in the battle field havebeen carrying on

their work. Some of them said to us: "WellSir, when you go back to the country, you please see thatthe prices of food-stuffs are reduced and that our peoplewhen they apply for small sites for habitation, they aresecured." For all these things, the village republics willbe of service to the military people in the best possiblemanner.

This is not a thing which should be looked upon withcontempt, having forgotten our history and the history ofthe world. This is not the first time that this isintroduced in our country. This is not a favour that webestow upon our people by reviving these republics. When wefill the whole country with these organisations, I may tellyou, there will be no food famines; there will be no clothfamine and we would not be spending 110 crores of rupees aswe are doing today for the imports of food; this amountcould be saved for the country. We have gone away far fromthe reality. These village republics will put a stop toblack-marketing in a most wonderful manner. These villagerepublics, if properly worked and organised on the basis ofself-sufficiency, to which some may take exception, if thevillage is made a self-governing unit, it would put a stopto inflation also which the Government has not been ableeven to checkmate to any appreciable extent. This villageorganization will establish peace in our country. Todaywhatever the Government might be doing from the top here byway of getting food from other countries and distributingit, the food would not be distributed amongst the massesordinarily through the agencies which we have got either inthe Centre or in the provinces. All that trouble would besolved immediately so far as this business is concerned. Letme tell you above all that Communism - the menace the countryis facing - we are seeing what is going in China, we sawwhat was done in Czechoslovakia and we know what theposition is in Burma, we know what the position is even inour own country with regard to Communism. Communism can bechecked immediately if the villages are organized in thismanner and if they are made to function properly. Therewould be no temptation for our own people to becomeCommunists and to go about killing our own people as theyhave been doing. For all these reasons I would support thisand I am very anxious that this must be carried out in allthe provinces as quickly as possible, soon after the Constitution is passed, and I am seeing today the light andprosperity before the country when the Constitution ispassed and when this village organization comes intoexistence.

Shri Surendra Mohan Ghose (West Bengal: General): Sir Iam grateful to you for giving me an opportunity to expressmy feeling on this amendment moved by my honourable FriendMr. Santhanam. Sir, you will find there is another amendmentNo. 991 which stands in my name almost identical with thepresent amendment which has been moved by my honourableFriend. I am glad that such an agreed amendment has beenmoved by my honourable Friend, Mr. Santhanam and that it hasbeen accepted by the Honourable Law Minister, Dr. Ambedkar.

Sir, in my opinion the meaning of this Constitutionwould have been nothing so far as crores and crores ofIndian people are concerned unless there was some provisionlike this in our Constitution. There is another point alsoviz., for thousands and thousands of years the meaning ofour life in India as it has been expressed in variousactivities, was this that complete freedom for everyindividual was granted. It was accepted that everyindividual had got full and unfettered freedom; but as towhat the individual should do with that freedom there wassome direction. Individuals had freedom only to work forunity. With that freedom they are to search for unity of ourpeople. There was no freedom to an individual if he worksfor disruption of our unity. The same principle was alsoaccepted in our Indian Constitution from time immemorial.Every village like the organic cells of our body was givenfull freedom to express itself but at the same time withthat freedom they were to work only to maintain and preservethe

unity of India.

Sir, our village people are so much familiar with thissystem that if today there is in our Constitution noprovision like this they would not have considered this astheir own Constitution or as something known to them, assomething which they could call their own country'sConstitution. Therefore, Sir, I am glad and I congratulateboth my friend the Honourable Mr. Santhanam and theHonourable Dr. Ambedkar on moving this amendment as well asfor acceptance of the same. Sir, I commend this. Seth Govind Das (C. P. and Berar: General): *[Mr.President, very few speeches are being made now-a-days inthis House in Hindi. I would, therefore, resume my practiceof speaking in Hindi unless of course I have something toexplain to my south Indian friends which requires myspeaking here in English.

During the course of the speech he made whilepresenting this Draft to the House Dr. Ambedkar made someremarks about villages which caused me and, I believe, agreat majority of the members of this House, great pain. It is a matter of deep pleasure to me that he has at lastaccepted the amendment moved by Shri Santhanam. We need notcomplain if one comes to the right course, though belatedly.

I belong, Sir, to a province in which perhaps thegreatest progress has been made in respect to this matter.Our village Panchayats, our judicial Panchayats, and ourlaws for Janapadas are the talk of the whole of India today.There was a time when our province was regarded as a verybackward province. But today the whole country will have toadmit that our province though small in size, has given alead in many matters to the other provinces of the country.So far as the scheme of village Republics is concerned, it is an undisputed fact that our province has progressed morethan any other province towards its fulfillment.

Ours is an ancient, a very ancient country and thevillage has had always an important position here. This hasnot been so with every ancient country. In Greece, forinstance, towns had greater importance than villages. The

* [] Translation of Hindustani speech.

Republics of Athens and Sparta occupy a very important placein the world history today. But no importance was attachedby them to the villages. But in our country the villageoccupied such an important position that even in the legendscontained in most ancient books - the Upanishads - if thereare descriptions of the forest retreats, of the sages, thereare also descriptions of villages. Even in Kautilya'sArthasastra there are to be found references to our ancientvillages. Modern historians have also admitted this fact. Wefind the description of our ancient village organisation, in`Ancient Law' by Mr. Henry man, `Indian Village Community'by Mr. Baden Powell and in `Fundamental Unity of India' byShri B. C. Pal. I would request the members of this House togo through these books. They will come to know from thesebooks the great importance the villages have had in Indiasince the remotest times. Even during the Muslim Rulevillages were considered of primary importance. It wasduring the Brit ish regime that the villages fell intoneglect and lost their importance. There was a reason forthis. The Brit ish Raj in India was based on the support of ahandful of people. During the Brit ish regime Provinces,districts, tahsils and such other units were formed and sowere formed the Talukdaris, Zamindaris and Malguzaris. TheBrit ish rule lasted here for so many years only on accountof the support of these few people.

Just as Mahatma Gandhi brought about a revolution inevery other aspect of this country's life, so also hebrought about a revolution in the village life. He startedliving in a village. He caused even the annual CongressSessions to be held in villages. Now that we are about toaccept this motion I would like to recall to the memory ofthe members of this House a speech that he had deliveredhere in Delhi, to the Asiatic conference. He had thenadvised the delegates of the various nations to go to Indianvillages if they wanted to have a glimpse of the real India.He had

told them that they would not get a picture of realIndia from the towns. Even today 80 per cent of ourpopulation lives in villages and it would be a great pity ifwe make no mention of our villages in the Constitution.

I support the amendment moved by Honourable K.Santhanam. I hope that the Directive Principles laid down inthe Constitution would enable the provinces to follow thelead given by the Central Provinces in the matter and I hopea time will come when we shall be able to witness theancient glory in our villages.]

Shri V. I. Muniswamy Pillai (Madras: General): Mr.Vice-President, Sir, by my Honourable Friend Mr. Santhanammoving this amendment and the Chairman of the DraftingCommittee expressing that he is going to accept it shows thereal feeling of the Sovereign Body towards their lessfortunate brethren living in the villages. My HonourableFriend Mr. Prakasam referred to the statement made by therevered leaders Rajendra Prasad and Mahatma Gandhi. But weknow it for a reality that the villages are in rack andruin, and if there is to be any amenities or self-government, it is to the villages that the Sovereign Bodymust give them. The other day when I made a speech on theDraft Constitution, I pointed out that there is no provisionto give the rural areas any choice of self-government. Now,under this amendment we bestow a certain amount of power tomake the villages self-contained and to have self-governmentthere. Sir, I am sure the seven lakhs of villages in thewhole of India will welcome the provision of this amendmentin this Constitution. Sir, it is with the revenue that isderived from the rural areas that it has been possible tocreate towns, with all amenities therein. But the man whogives the revenue by way of taxes could not get even therudiments of amenities, due to a citizen. I feel that byaccepting this amendment we will go a long way to re-constructthe villages that have been allowed to go to rack and ruinfor centuries together. If the pies are taken care of, therupees will take care of themselves. So I feel that byhaving this amendment, we are going a long way towardsreconstructing our villages which are in such dire necessityof such reconstruction today.

Dr. V. Subramaniam (Madras: General): Mr. Vice-President, when our Mother India delivers her Constitution,if there is any living cell in the Constitution, it will bethis village panchayat amendment which has been broughtforward by my Honourable friend, Mr. Santhanam. It is awell-known fact that India is standing today as a self-governing unit in the world because of this living cell inour body politic - the village panchayat. Today, if we wantto make the country strong and self-sufficient in everyrespect, this clause in the Constitution or in the Directiveprinciples is very necessary.

Now, there has been some controversy about self-sufficiency. My interpretation when we speak of a villagebeing self-sufficient is this. It may produce, say ground-nut in large quantities, and it may export it, even thoughit may be forced to import Dalda and other substances forthe needs of the people in the village. By saying that it isself-sufficient, we only mean that it may grow all thearticles that it can and also import what is necessary, fromthe neighbouring villages. That is my interpretation. Butthese are matters to be worked out in detail by the villagepanchayats themselves.

It is clear that as far as this amendment is concerned,there can be no two opinions about it. This amendment mustbe carried, and in our future constitution, much more powersmust be given to the villages. As a matter of fact, we donot know how many carpenters there are in our land. If wehave the panchayats, we need go only to their records andpick up the number of carpenters in every village. Thesepanchayats will serve a very useful purpose. This clause isvery essential, and I support this amendment.

Shri Satyanarayan Sinha (Bihar: General): Sir, we havehad enough discussion, and after Shri Bharathi, I would liketo move for closure.

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi (Madras:

General): Mr.Vice-President, Sir; I congratulate the Honourable Mr.Santhanam for moving and Dr. Ambedkar for agreeing to thisamendment. I must confess that I am not fully satisfied withthis amendment, for the very simple reason that even todayeven under the present Constitution, I think the ProvincialGovernments have enough powers to form village panchayatsand operating them as self-governing units. But to theextent to which it goes, I must express my satisfaction. Itmust be remembered that this is in the directive principles,and I see no reason why the idea of self-sufficiency shouldnot have been accepted by Mr. Santhanam. The reasons that hegave for not accepting that principle are not at allconvincing In fact, two or three Honourable Members - Mr.Ranga, Shri Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, and Mr. Prakasam havegiven amendments with these ideas. Mr. AnanthasayanamAyyangar's amendment says there is great need for effectivedecentralisation of political and economic powers. Afterall, what the amendment seeks to give is only politicalindependence. Political independence apart from economicindependence, has no meaning. The idea behind the DirectivePrinciples is to emphasis the way in which we want thecountry to function, and for that we must make it quiteclear to the whole world that economic democracy isimportant and for that decentralisation of economic power isimportant. It is that aspect of the matter which Gandhijiemphasised. Decentralization both in the political andeconomic sphere is absolutely essential if India is tofunction as a democracy.

In fact, speaking at the Asian Relations Conference,Mahatmaji said pointing out to the City of Delhi: -

"This is not India. You people are seeing Delhi - thisis not India. Go to villages; that is India, therein livesthe soul of India."

Therefore, I do not know why they should fight shy of`self-sufficiency'. It has been sufficiently explained byMahatmaji, and if it is necessary I would like even to saysome words from his speeches.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: May I point out tothe Honourable Member that self-government is not merelypolitical? It may be economic or spiritual.

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi: I quite understand itand that is the reason why it should be made clearer. Ifself-government includes that, it is much better that weexplain it because that explanation is very necessary. Iwould very much like the word "self-sufficiency" in theGandhian sense of the word, self-sufficiency not in allmatters, let it be remembered, but in vital needs of life,self-sufficiency in the matter of food and clothing as faras possible. That is what Mahatmaji said. It does not meanabsolute independence. Sir, I would ask leave to read fromMahatmaji's articles certain important portions which willclear up the matter. This is what Gandhiji wrote: -

"My idea of Village Swaraj is that it is a completerepublic, independent of its neighbours for its vital wantsand yet interdependent for many others in which dependenceis a necessity."

An Honourable Member asked, "Well, what can you do?Some villages produce only paddy, they cannot have self-sufficiency". Is it such an impossible proposition? Gandhijiwas emphatic in saying that he was not at all suggestingthat the village should be independent of all these things,but in certain matters you must have self-reliance, thebasic idea being, "no work, no food". Now the villagersthink that as it is a Swaraj Government, khadi and food willflow from the heavens as manna. Gandhiji's idea in thisself-sufficiency is, "Don't expect anything from theGovernment. You have got your hands and feet; work; withoutwork you will have no food. You can produce your own cloth,you can produce your own food. But if you do not work, youshall have no food, no cloth." That is the basic idea ofdecentralization and economic democracy. And if thevillagers are to have that idea, we must put it here andtell them about self-sufficiency, "Do not expect anythingfrom the Government. Who is the Government? After all youconstitute the Government. You must work, you must

produce.Do not depend on these mills. Go on with your charkha, makeyour own food". That is the basic idea of self-sufficiencyand decentralization and economic democracy.

Mahatmaji said: -

"My idea of Village Swaraj is that it is a completerepublic, independent of its neighbours for its vital wants,and yet interdependent for many others in which dependenceis a necessity. Thus every village's first concern will beto grow its own food crops and cotton for its cloth. Itshould have a reserve for its cattle, recreation andplayground for adults and children. Then if there is moreland available, it will grow useful money crops, thusexcluding ganja, tobacco, opium and the like. The villagewill maintain a village theatre, school and public hall. Itwill have its own waterworks ensuring clean supply. This canbe done through controlled wells and tanks. Education willbe compulsory up to the final basic course. As far aspossible every activity will be conducted on the co-operative basis. There will be no castes such as we havetoday with their graded untouchability. Non-violence withits technique of Satyagraha and non-cooperation will be thesanction of the village community..."

(At this stage Mr. Vice-President rang the bell).

Sir, I think there are only a few more lines ofMahatmaji's picture of life. With your leave I should liketo finish it.

"...There will be a compulsory service of villageguards who will be selected by rotation from the registermaintained by the village. The government of the villagewill be conducted by the Panchayat of five persons, annuallyelected by the adult villagers, male and female possessingminimum prescribed qualifications."

This is a rough idea of what Gandhiji felt, andtherefore, in my opinion it is very necessary that thissovereign body should enunciate and give its views on thisfundamental tenet of Mahatma Gandhi, his idea being thatthere must be decentralisation and the village must functionas an economic unit. Of course, the Honourable Mr. Santhanamsaid that it is included. I only wanted that it should bemade more explicit so that Mahatmaji's soul will be verymuch pleased. He said that India dies if the villages die,India can live only if the villages live.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, as I said, Iaccept the amendment. I have nothing more to add.

(An Honourable Member rose to speak.)

Mr. Vice-President: In this matter my decision isfinal. I have not yet found anybody who has opposed themotion put forward by Mr. Santhanam. There might bedifferent ways of praising it, but at bottom andfundamentally, these speeches are nothing but praising theamendment.

The question is:

"That after article 31, the following new article beadded: -

`31-A. The State shall take steps to organise villagepanchayats and endow them with such powers and authority asmay be necessary to enable them to function as units ofself-government'."

The motion was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That the new article 31-A stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 31-A was added to the Constitution.

The Assembly then adjourned till Ten of the Clock onTuesday, the 23rd November 1948.