Wednesday, the 24th November 1948

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


Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee): I understand that Shri Kanyalal Manana who was elected to the Constituent Assembly from Madhya Bhrat died some time ago. This was announced in newspapers and then the news had to be verified. It has been verified now. May I request the Members to stand up for a minute in order to pay respect to his memory?

(All the Members stood up in their seats.)

Mr. Vice-President: I wish that the House should authorise me to send the usual message of condolence to the members of his family.

Honourable Members: Yes.

Mr. Vice-President: We shall commence today's proceedings with the consideration of the particular article with which we are concerned today in the draft Constitution.The introduction of the Bill will be taken up after a little while.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena (United Provinces: General):I am tabling an amendment which is an amendment of Mr.Mahavir Tyagi's. I hope it will be acceptable to him,because in his amendment, he has not included the words`except for medicinal purposes'; I think that if the amendment of Mr. Mahavir Tyagi is accepted as amended by my amendment, it would become much better. I wish Dr. Ambedkar to accept my amendment which is mentioned in No. 86 of listIV.

Sir, I beg to move:

"That at the end of article 38, the following be substituted: -

`and shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the comsumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs which are injurious to health except for medicinal purposes'."

This exception in the last four words was not made in the original amendment but I think it is important. I think it was an omission and therefore my amendment should be accepted. Sir, I pointed out the other day while discussing the amendment of Syed Karimuddin that this is a fundamental subject on which opinion in our country is almost unanimous.Probably people do not generally realise the far-reaching consequences of the drink evil. In fact, if we add up there venues of the various provinces from prohibition, we will find that the figure is of a very high order. I have complete figures for 1940-1941 and in that year the total revenue from prohibition was Rs. 12,52,00,000 from all the provinces. Out of this one crore was from foreign liquors and two crores from opium and only Rs. 25 lakhs of this sum was derived from sales of medicinal and intoxicating drugs.Actually now it has become almost double or even more, in the last six or seven years. So the real magnitude of the sacrifice involved in accepting this amendment will be clear from the fact that if we can achieve prohibition, we shall be voluntarily foregoing about 25 crores of rupees in revenue. But the revenue is only a fourth or fifth part of the price of liquor and if the revenue lost is Rs. 25crores, the amount saved to the people is at least Rs. 100crores which are wasted by the people in the country on intoxicants. Now this 100 crores will be saved to the families of drunkards and especially to labour and Harijan families where this vice is most prevalent. I wish to call the attention of Dr. Ambedkar to the fact that the Harijanand the labour population which earns this money by hard labour spends a large portion of it in the toddy shops and the drink shops which are generally situated in the vicinity of mills and labour and Harijan quarters. I hope that this directive principle will not remain merely a pious wish; but like Madras, all the provinces will enforce it and soon we shall have our country dry and thus we shall set an example to the whole world in this matter.

At present the expenditure on enforcing these excise duties is about a crore and a half of rupees, but I know that if we enforce prohibition, the expenses will increase,so that we are not only sacrificing a

revenue of Rs. 25crores, we shall also spend a few crores on the enforcement of prohibition; it is a big sacrifice, but I think for the great ideal which our leader has bequeathed to us, we must not grudge this sacrifice, because ultimately it will result in a very happy population and a contented country. In fact the advantage in the shape of Rs. 100 crores saved to theHarijan, labour and other drunkard families together with far more valuable moral advantages which far outweigh even the material advantages, which will follow complete prohibition are worth all this great sacrifice. Only the other day the Premier of my province, the Honourable PanditGovind Ballabh Pant, was telling me that prohibition in Cawnpore has been very beneficial and the labour populationin Cawnpore is now very much better off and their families thank the Government for what they have done. I hope very soon the whole country will be dry and we will then have achieved our great ideal of prohibition. I commend the motion to the House.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi (United Provinces: General): Sir, I accept the amendment.

Shri B. H. Khardekar (Kolhapur): Mr. Vice-President,Sir, at the outset I must say I am extremely nervous. Thisis the first speech that I am making not only in thisAssembly, but in any Assembly. I may further add that I havenot so far taken part in any college or school debate. I should like, therefore, Sir, to have your indulgence, almost your generosity, particularly when I am making bold to speaksomething against prohibition. I do want you to give me thenecessary hearing.

I have been listening, Sir, very carefully to the number of arguments brought forth in favour of prohibition.I will just mention them and because I think they are very fimsy, I will say what I have to say about them. One of the arguments put forth was that the American Constitution makes such a provision. Sir, are we not going to learn anything from the mistakes of others? Is it going to be said of us that history teaches us nothing? The Americans had it in their Constitution; the Americans provided for it in the legislature; ultimately, in the light of experience, they had to give it up completely.

Then, Sir, the second argument put forth has been thatthe Congress is pledged to it. Sir, it has been repeatedly admitted that in this House there is neither a Governmentnor any party. The Congress is no longer a mass organisation; it is one, perhaps the most important political party. This is only a technical objection. Let mego a little further. The Congress has done such a tremendous work in the past and innumerable sacrifices and so on for the attainment of freedom. The Congress is pledged to a number of good things. My request to the members of the Congress is, you must try to see which pledges should come first. You have to see first of all how you are going to make the lot of the teeming millions of India economically and in several other respects better.

The third argument put forth has been the success of prohibition in Madras. How, Sir, is this success measured I want to know. Is it measured in terms merely because there is prohibition? You have a number of people who go on still indulging in drinks and go on filling the innumerable jails.Have you also measured as a result of the squandering of several crores of Rupees, what you have failed to do? Have you tried to measure the success of prohibition in Madras from that point of view?

The next argument put forth was that all communities want it. Parsis and Christians also were included in that list. Sir, I happen to know Parsis and Christians a little bit and I think, Sir, definitely they are not in favour of prohibition.

Then, the last and perhaps the most difficult argument for me to answer is that Gandhiji has been always for prohibition. Let me make it very clear to this House that I am second to none in my admiration, respect and veneration for Gandhiji. Gandhiji is the father of the Nation; he is the father of all of us. But, Sir, I want to say something.It was stated here, might be

perhaps a little frivolously,that where liquor is, Gandhiji is not; where Gandhiji is,liquor is not. In other words, Gandhiji shuns sinners,presuming that liquor drinking is a sin. Gandhiji read,studied, I dare say, loved the Gita, and as a student of theGita, he had, what I may say, attained Sama Drishti. He didnot make any distinction between a sinner and a saint.Gandhiji was a saint first, a politician afterwards. I want you to consider, Sir, I make bold myself to ask you, what do you think is the essence of Gandhism? The essence of Gandhism is love, toleration; its essence is non-violence,search for truth and all these important things. The externals of gandhism or the outward trappings of Gandhism are Khaddar and prohibition. Unfortunately, the followers of Gandhiji, some of them have been giving more importance to the outward trappings of Gandhism than to the than to the essence of it. Gandhiji's conception of truth was that though truth is one, every individual is to have his own approach to truth, and every individual had to see it for himself. Therefore, this is what Gandhiji said, what Gandhiji wanted. If we merely follow blindly, the good father that he is, he will really be sorry, though he has departed, - he has left even this House full of lispingbabes, who merely do discredit to the Father, - for not having taught them to think individually and rationally.Then, Sir, are we going to say: merely because it is the father's word, as the saying goes, Baba Vakyam Pramanam, is that going to be the philosophy of life? We are living in an age, when, in spite of the fact that there are several defects in it, there is one very important thing about the twentieth Century. This is an age of interrogation. The young men of today want to throw a challenge and find out the truth for themselves. As Flaker has said, "Even if God were to burn with hell and fire, I would still ask Him till He answers me why;" I would not follow blindly even if God were to tell me to do so. We are not to be dumb driven cattle; We are to be heroe in this strife. Sir, George Bernard Shaw has said much the same thing, `examine, test and then accept'. If you are fond of Sanskrit literature,Kalidasa says more or less the same thing:

From answering arguments, let me go to the positive side of my speech. On the practical side, I say prohibition should be made to wait, and wait for long in this unfortunate land of ours which has become fortunate only the other day. On the practical side, Sir, I may quote one great thinker who says that there are two important fronts in life, first there is the war front,and then there is the front of education. When we will have war, God alone knows; we may have a major war at any time and we must be prepared for that. There is some trouble in Kashmir; there was some in Hyderabad. We have got to be prepared. It must also be remembered that we are a very poor country and we must gather up all the resources that we have, so that we can attend to first things first. In a country where democracy has to flourish, where democracy is in its infancy, the front of education is the most important one. You know the appalling condition of the people so far as education is the most important one. You know the appalling condition of the people so far as education is concerned. About sixty to seventy years ago, in several,countries free and compulsory primary education was introduced. As a result of freedom, that should be our first business. Only yesterday, we discussed the necessity of having such a clause in the Draft Constitution. In a country like ours, even free compulsory primary education would not be enough, because the poor boy, who goes to plough, forget seven to put his signature after a few years, and so, in proportion, even secondary education for the backward communities, rather I may say for the poor would have to be provided. Sir, we are an infant democracy and if we are going to have really a democratic Government, we must have education. You know the great saying `Democracy without education is hypocrisy

without limitation" and we do not want to have such a Government where only a few who know will govern ultimately and we will have a Fascist Government; and if we are going to insist too much to-day on prohibition, we are going to deprive a number of our good children from receiving proper education and the result would be whereas we aim at establishing a secular democratic State, we are really going to have a religious fascist Government and nothing short of it. I am giving you, Sir, a warning.

Then apart from education, there is a thing like medical health and public health. Most of you are very honest and sincere workers and you have been to villages.Even during my occasional visits I find that the poor villager has absolutely no medical help. There are thousands of lepers who require medical help and if all that tremendous help is to be given, from where is the money to come forth? Therefore, we must have first things first and our great enemy is poverty and unless we pool our resources and put first things first, unless we develop a sense of values, I think we will be in a mess.

Now curiously enough I want to talk to you, Sir, a little about the moral side of prohibition or against it. I recommend to you very strongly a remarkable Chapter in Harold Laski's `Liberty in the Modern State' which he has devoted against prohibition. I could not get the book, so I cannot quote from it but his main point is that prohibition goes against the very grain of personal liberty. In a freeIndia, Sir, the development of personality to its fullest extent is our aim and by frustrations, prohibition,inhibitions, suppressions we are going to have a stunted growth in the young men. It does not mean that we should encourage them to drink but they will find their mistakes and ultimately liberty - I don't mean by liberty license - would be of considerable use. Then Sir, consider - I am not going to be frivolous here - but consider the shock given to social life, - club life will come to an end - and I may tell you just compare the two things - some friends having discussion may be in the evening or night quite seriously over a glass of butter-milk and as against that an innocent but intellectual discussion over a glass of wine or even beer. The Greeks had it. True philosphers know how to enjoy both the worlds and the foundations of philosophy and science were laid by the Great Greeks. They did not have taboos and suppressions and inhibitions. The real development of personality comes through that. If you were to compare the life in a city like Bombay on dry days and wet days, Sir, on dry days you will find life really dry and dull. I ask you to see that. You might think this is all for the rich.Everybody that goes to club is not rich but what about the poor? Think of the millions of mill hands working very hard all day. In the evening they like to have a glass or two of toddy which is really nothing but fermented neera and if along with the vitamins he gets a little mirth or joy, why should you deprive him of that? Sir, I would request you to consider the solace and the little comfort that he gets.There are some among us - men like Dr. Ambedkar getting great solace in reading. There are others who like to read novels and enjoy them. There are those who like to play the piano and there are some who would like to have a glass of wine or beer. Now I may draw some distinction here because most of you, I beg to say, would not be knowing how many people after all do drink. I would request the economists and the statisticians to find it but I dare say the figure is not more than 10 per cent and most of you are ignorant of a very important fact that you do not know the essential difference between drinkers and drunkards. Of the 10 per cent. that drink not 9 per cent are drunkards. They just drink a glassor two with friends and the 1 per cent that consists of drunkards are hopeless people due to very bad circumstances--there might be innumerable reasons - if you deprive them of drink by law, they will resort to illicit distillation.

If even that is not allowed, if your machinery is perfect - but I dare say our machinery is inclined towards bribery and corruption and this will be one more handle for them - but apart from that even if you deprive them of that, they will indulge in drinking poisonous stuff and meet their end even earlier. So, for this 1 per cent of the human population are you going to throw so much of valuable wealth, tons and tons of rupees into the Arabian Sea merely because there is a sort of religious inking behind. You may have that religious idea that it is impious to drink. Well, Gods were supposed or they are supposed to indulge in Sura. The human beingsmay indulge in Madira. What harm is there? Then, I may point out that after all if one really does not have bad effectsfrom it, why should we deprive them? Let us consider what India really requires. Now, having prohibition and being very pious are very good and these are very highly developed qualities which even the civilised nations have not been able to bring into practice. We, Sir, lack even common decency and honesty. The Prime Minister of India PanditJawaharlal Nehru, the most beloved and most respected, loses a pair of shoes. In European countries the least respected leader would not lose a pair of shoes, if he attends a function. So there is this difference that essential qualities, basic qualities like honesty etc. we must have first. You are a party in majority and you can decide what you like. I don't mean you should stop bringing prohibition but wait for some time - and I may quote the Editor of theTimes of India and say that there are things other than liquor that go to the head and power is one. Let not the majority party suffer from it.

Shri Jaipal Singh (Bihar: General): Mr. President, Sir,I do not know whether I shall be in order in suggesting to you that this amendment be postponed until such time as we come to the consideration of the recommendations that theAdvisory Committee has made particularly in regard to theTribal Areas. Now the recommendations of the AdvisoryCommittee as well as the Sub-Committees have not been given a chance for full discussion on the floor of this House.Therefore, I do not at this stage, want to go into details but I am bound to oppose the Resolution and amendments of this sort. We have heard such a lot of pious language about a democratic State, of a secular State, of our being voluntarily opposed to the establishment of the ocracy in India. Here, Sir, I submit, by the back door we are trying to interfere with the religious rights of the most ancient people of this country. You may laugh. Excess in everything is wrong. If you eat too much rice, it is bad for you. Thereare so many other things that you take in excess. But, if you take anything in its right quantity, it is good for you.Drink certainly is one of the things taken in excess which does no one good, but, let us remember that we should not be hasty in putting into the Constitution anything which is going to work for more bitterness than there is already.During our discussions in the Advisory Committee, MaulanaAbul Kalam Azad was pleased to put a direct question to meand it was this - "Kya yah mazhabi chij hai". Is it really areligious right? On that occasion, the Chairman of the Advisory Committee, the Honourable Sardar Patel gave me an opportunity to explain what the position was. Now, as far as the Adibasis are concerned, no religious function can be performed without the use of rice beer. The word here used - the phrase used is `intoxicating drinks'. Sir, that is avery vague way of describing the thing, and, also `injuriousto health'. My friend Prof. Shibban Lal has tried to put forward the argument of economic efficiency. He thinks that if prohibition were installed in this country, the economic efficiency of the workers would be ehnanced. I dare say it would be. But what I want to tell him is that it is not merely the industrial workers whom he has particularly in ruind, that are affected. I would like to point out to him the position of the very poor people, the

Adibasis, and,members who come from West Bengal and other places will bearme out in what I say about the Adibasis who are in such large numbers in West Bengal, Southern Bihar, Orissa and other places. In West Bengal, for instance, it would be impossible for paddy to be transplanted if the Santhal does not get his rice beer. These illclad men, without even their barest wants satisfied, have to work knee-deep in water throughout the day, in drenching rain and in mud. What is itin the rice beer that keeps them alive? I wish the medical authorities in this country would carry out research in their laboratories to find out what it is that the rice beer contains, of which the Adibasis need so much and which keeps them against all manner of diseases.

Well, Sir, I am not opposing this amendment because Iwant drink to increase in this country. I am all for seeingto it, and, seeing vigorously to it, that the Adibasis donot injure themselves by this drink habit. But that is quiteapart from the religious needs and religious privileges; weshall educate them to lead a life of temperance. I am allfor that. But this amendment is a vicious one. It seeks tointerfere with my religious right. Whether you put it in the Constitution or not, I am not prepared to give up myreligious privileges. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. Vice-President: Order, order.

Shri Jaipal Singh: Sir, if you will forgive me, I wouldrather explain all this when we come to the recommendationswhich the Advisory Committee has made in regard to theScheduled Tribes and others. This is not the proper time forme to talk in extenso. Here I would only point out to thehonourable Members here that it is better not to be hasty,and, I would request you that this amendment be deferreduntil such time as we come to the recommendations of theAdvisory Committee in regard to the Scheduled Tribed andScheduled Areas; because, if we decide the thing at thisstage, we shall be doing ourselves wrong. We shall be unfairto a very important and, at the present moment, politicallyhelpless minority. There are hardly a dozen of them who canspeak on behalf of them here, though they are thirtymillions. This is a decision which must rest with the wishesof the people themselves. We are going through difficulttimes. Let us not make matters any more difficult. Sir, Ineed say nothing more than that I am opposed to thisamendment, and my humble request to you would be that thefurther consideration of this amendment be taken up after wehave come to a decision with regard to the Scheduled Tribesand Scheduled Areas.

Shri V. I. Muniswamy Pillai (Madras: General): Mr.Vice-President, Sir, I was strangely surprised to-day to seetwo members of the sovereign Body come up here and say thatprohibition must be postponed. Let me take myhonourable Friend Mr. Jaipal Singh. He claims to representthe Adibasis - the Hill-tribes and the aborigines. A humblemember like myself, coming from the region of the aboriginesand Hill-tribes may tell him that there is no such thing asrequire liquor, toddy, brandy or any such thing, at the timeof the caremonies of the aborigines. I do not know, Sir,whether my friend has ever seen a Toda - a member of thepastoral community, living in the Nilgris. They live thereunder the worst conditions of the monsoon. In their lifethey had never seen what alcohol is. Sir, when theBrit ishers came, they brought in the whisky bottle and whenthey disappeared, from the administration of this land, wemust take it that wine also has disappeared. But it isstrange that to-day my friend Mr. Jaipal Singh had to pleadfor these unfortunate communities. I may say there areseveral communities like the Kotahs. Irulas, Paniyas,Kurumbas, Badagas, and others who all come under thecategory of Adibasis in the Province of Madras. But therenone of these communities has ever come forward to protestagainst the authorities that drink must be given back tothem. It is strange that my friend who is so sympathetic tothe aborigines should plead for drink for them. I may tellhim that in actual practice, all these communities

havegreatly benefited in the province of Madras after theintroduction of prohibition. The other friend from Kolhapurhas been praising Mahatma Gandhi as the Father of the Nationand all that. But unfortunately he fails to follow whatMahatma Gandhi told us. Of the four constructive programmes,Mahatma Gandhi placed prohibition at the head of all thefour. Why? Because he found that the country was going torack and ruin, and the poor were spending all their earningson drink and leaving their children and families in utterpoverty and want. I am sorry my friend has taken up thisattitude and opposed this amendment, so wholesomely broughtbefore this Sovereign Body. The Province of Madras has lostyearly nearly seventeen crores of rupees. But the people ofMadras stood up as one man and said, "Never mind about theseseventeen crores of rupees. We want the citizens, we wantthe poor people to be healthy and peaceful." Sir,Prohibition has brought peace and plenty to the province ofMadras, It has produced a marked improvement in the physiqueof the people and also in their economic position. I maytell you that Harijans, the unfortunate communities weredriven by the Caste-Hindus and the Mirasdars to lowlyoccupations and were given their wages not in cash, butchits to liquor vendors that they may go and get drunk. Butthese things have now disappeared and as the Minister incharge of the portfolio, I can dare say that prohibition hasbrought peace and plenty to my province. So I support theamendment brought by Prof. Saksena and oppose those friendswho are talking about postponing prohibition.

The Honourable Shri B. G. Kher (Bombay: General): Sir,it is rather unfortunate that the very first appearance ofour new arrival from Kolhapur should have been made anoccasion for attacking what is a very vital directiveprinciple in the shaping of our constitution. Prof. ShibbanLal Saksena has suggested that at the end of Article 38 thefollowing clause may be inserted:

"The State shall endevour to bring about prohibition ofthe consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs which areinjurious to health."

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: That amendment is my copyright andnot Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena's.

The Honourable Shri B. G. Kher: I do not propose toinfringe the copyright of the Honourable Mr. Mahavir Tyagior any other Member who wishes to take the credit of it. Iam perfectly willing to give it.

The amendment further says "except for medicinalpurposes". From the fact that these gentlemen propose toobject to this amendment it is evident that they wish thatthe State should allow the consumption of intoxicatingdrinks and drugs which are injurious to health.

I do not wish to speak at length on prohibition becauseafter very deliberate consideration and prolonged discussionmost of the provincial governments and most of those who areinterested in the progress of this country have accepted thenecessity of protecting our people from going to their ruinby the use of intoxicating drugs and liquor. They believethat humanity will not progress on proper lines unless alongwith intellectual and material progress they give sufficientimportance to moral progress and it is too late in the daynow to argue that the use of intoxicating drugs and liquordo not affect the moral sense of a person who uses them. Thevery lamp which shows to you the distinction between rightand wrong is extinguished and it is therefore, not a matterof individual liberty, which was one of the arguments whichthe honourable representative from Kolhapur used. Therecannot be individual liberty to commit suicide. Society isinterested in every individual's prolonged life andtherefore I was surprised to find such an amount ofignorance in what today is being done, thought andexperienced as a result of the administration of prohibitionin the provinces. Instead of getting a large excise revenueand spending it on education, the best education is to teachpeople to abstain from drink and drugs.

For every single rupee that the State gets by way ofrevenue from excise society loses three times that money bythe

increase of crime, by the increase of disease and theloss of efficiency. This has been admitted by economists.The honourable gentleman who championed the cause ofAdibasis told us that there ought to be further medicalresearch. Medical research has been made to a considerableextent and people have come to the conclusion that theconsumption of spirituous liquors and injurious drugs (thedescription which has been used in this clause) isadmittedly injurious to health. One Honourable Membermentioned Nira. The Bombay Government is opening Niracentres by the hundreds, because Nira before it ferments andbecomes toddy is a health-giving drink and therefore we areallowing people to drink Nira. But we are now speaking aboutintoxicating drinks and drugs which are injurious to health.Is it the contention of those honourable members that theState shall not strive to prohibit the use of drugs anddrinks which are injurious to the health of the people?Those who use such hackneyed arguments as that of furthermedical research, individual liberty or medicinal benefit, Iam afraid these people are living in an isolated world oftheir own, because whichever province (Madras and Bombay forinstance) has introduced prohibition, has come to theconclusion that the very people who indulged in the use ofthese liquors are today benefited so considerably that not aday passes when we do not get letters of gratitude from themembers of the family of the labourers and other people whoused to drink themselves to death. To say that only 10 percent of society indulge in this and that therefore societyneed not worry itself about this does not need any furthercriticism.

I was surprised to hear an Honourable Member whorepresents the Adibasis attack this amendment as vicious. Iam afraid that this is the way in which men's minds areperverted. The very object of introducing this amendment,which I am very happy to find has been accepted by theHonourable Dr. Ambedkar who is in charge of the Bill, is toprevent the furtherance of vice. Is it argued that the useof intoxicating liquors and injurious drugs leads to thepractice of virtue? I am not quoting Mahatma Gandhi insupport of my argument but he has said that he would notattach any importance to any other social reform so long asthis question of the prevention of consumption ofintoxicating liquors and drugs was not taken up by theState. The very first reform that he enjoined upon all theprovinces was the stopping of this vicious thing. In thiscountry almost every section of society, whether it is theHindus, the Muslims or even Christians, have always lookedupon the use of intoxicating liquor and drugs as avice........

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi (Madras: General): As asin.

The Honourable Shri. B. G. Kher: I mean sin. Thedrinking of liquor is one of the five deadly sins which theSmrit is have laid down and that was not a matter of bigotryor prejudice but the result of vast experience. Today go toAmerica. I met a number of people who genuinely regrettedthat they were not able to make prohibition a success. Whywere they not able to make a success of it? Simply for thereason that they have gone on too long imbibing the poisonand it is too late now for them to go back. But the sectionof the people who have the good of the community and oftheir country at heart still desire that it were possible tostop the deterioration of the human race, which is sure tobe brought about by the use and by making the use ofintoxicating drinks respectable in society. So, though a sinboth for the Hindus as also for the Muslim, after the adventof the Brit ish the use of intoxicating liquors became a signof being fashionable, a sign of progress and culture. It isquite true that it is perhaps impossible to eradicate fromthe face of the earth for good and for ever these threevices - the use of liquor in one shape or other by some fewpeople, the evil of gambling and the evil of prostitution:but it shall be the endeavour of every civilised governmentto prevent all these three cankers of human society, if it is their object that

society should be healthy and happy andmoral.

I do not propose to take much time of the House.

Sir, it is entirely due to the fact that our friendsfrom Europe were used to look at liquor in a different waythat people in this country began to look upon the use ofliquor as respectable. Before the evil becomes so deep-rooted that we also come to the same conclusion as those inEurope and America that it is impossible to prevent ourpeople from drinking, it is time that the State should takeup this reform which is not only in the interest of thiscountry but also of the world and of the human race ingeneral.

I was considerably surprised at the argument of thehonourable Member representing the Adibasis. Here is Mr.Thakkar who has devoted his whole life to the service of theAdibasis and I am sure he wholeheartedly agrees with theprinciple of this amendment. I quite agree that these peopleare accustomed to drink and they will have to be graduallyeducated but that is what this amendment proposed to do,that is, prohibiting the consumption of intoxicating drinksand drugs which are injurious to health. I do hope thehonourable Members do not wish to encourage the use ofdrinks and drugs which are injurious to the health of thepeople.

I strongly support the amendment.

Mr. Vice-President: Does the Honourable Member, Dr.Ambedkar, accept the amendment?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Yes.

Mr. Vice-President: I ask the indulgence of the Houseas I have overlooked another amendment. That is No. 81 inlist No. 3 - by Sardar Bhopinder Singh Man. Does he proposeto move it?

Sardar Bhopinder Singh Man (East Punjab: Sikh): Yes.*[Mr. Vice-President I would like that where these words,namely, "Drinks and drugs" occur, the word "tobacco" also beadded between them. Mr. Vice-President, I am aware that inmoving this amendment. I would be incurring the displeasureof the influential members of this House and I also feelthat I am going against the temper of the majority. Inreminding Mr. Tyagi regarding this omission I am submittingit after judging it according to the test laid down by him.He has made out two points, namely, to prohibit thoseintoxicants that are bad and dangerous for health. Judgingby this test we should


* [] Translation of Hindustani speech.

see whether it can be classified as an intoxicant or not, orwhether it is harmful to health. I have no doubt thattobacco is an intoxicant and is more harmful to health thanliquor. This is the considered opinion of the medical menthat tobacco has nicotine - a poison - most harmful to health.Take the villagers; they get liquor only off-and-on, butthey smoke tobacco day and night, and due to their indolencethey let suffer even their important tasks. As far as theeconomic aspect is concerned, I can assure you that muchgreater loss is incurred on account of tobacco than byliquor. Not only lakhs but crores of rupees annually flowout of the country on this account. When it is realised thattobacco is in fact a dangerous intoxicant, then I do not seewhy Mr. Tyagi has left out tobacco while mentioning liquorand other drugs. It is probably because it is consumed bythe majority but that is no reason. It is said thatcigarette or bidi, if consumed in small quantity, would notbe harmful to health. But this leads to another controversyof `too-much or too less'. Even if a useful thing isconsumed in excess, it might prove harmful. My point is thatwhen you are dead against an innocent thing like liquor thenwhy don't you prohibit tobacco also?]

Shri A. V. Thakkar (United State of Kathiawar:Saurashtra): Sir, after the case had been put by my friendShri Bal Gangadhar Kher I did not want to speak. But I wantto speak on two small matters, but those are very importantmatters. One is this. Mr., Jaipal Singh has said, "Let theRegional Committees or the Advisory Committees of theAdibasis come into existence; ask their opinion and thenthis amendment should be passed; or this should be postponedtill then." That is not a correct attitude for

anylegislator to take.

Shri Jaipal Singh: What I said was let the Scheduledealing with the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Areas comeup for discussion here; there was no question of consultingthe Regional Council.

Shri A. V. Thakkar: The Advisory Committees are stillto come into existence. We do not know whether they willapprove of this prohibition of disapprove of it. It shouldnot be taken for granted that they will disapprove of itbecause Mr. Jaipal Singh disapproves of it.

There is another matter. All Adibasis do not want todrink: they want prohibition. I am talking of the Bhils inGujerat, in Maharashtra, in West Khandesh and in the CentralProvinces. I am talking of the Gonds also of the CentralProvinces. I have asked hundreds and thousands of themwhether they want drink or whether they want prohibition.Their decided answer to me has been: "Thakkar, you aretalking of prohibition; you are talking of doing away withdrinks. You are placing these enticements in our path andyou are still asking for our opinion. For God's sake havethe liquor shops closed and then ask us. We are enticed togo to drink; otherwise we will not." To give you a concretefact about the Bhils of Panchmahals, amongst whom I haveworked for 27 years, even the shops set up by the governmentof the day had to be closed because of the voluntaryabstention of the Bhils from drinking. The shops went dry oftheir own accord. Nobody would visit the shops, because theBhils had taken vows not to drink and not to become victimsto the liquor shops. The shops had to be auctioned out andnobody would buy them. Therefore, it is too much to say thatall Adibasis want this, or want this even as a religiousright. Even in the matter of it being a religious right withthe Bhils, that was the talk twenty years ago. Now they havestopped talking about it. It is not a religious right withthem now.

Mr. Vice-President: May I ask the permission of theHouse to suspend discussion of this item so that theHonourable Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel may have an opportunityof moving the motion which stands against his name?

Honourable Members: Yes.


The Honourable Sardar Vallabhbhai J. Patel (Bombay:General): Sir, I beg to move for leave to introduce a Billto amend the Government of India Act, 1935.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That leave be granted to introduce a Bill to amend theGovernment of India Act, 1935."

Maulana Hasrat Mohani (United Provinces: Muslim): I begto oppose this.

Mr. Vice-President: On what ground?

Maulana Hasrat Mohani: I will make out the reason ifyou please allow me to have my say. I say that he should notbe allowed to introduce the Bill.

Mr. Vice-President: I shall put the matter to vote. Thequestion is:

"That leave be granted to introduce a Bill to amend theGovernment of India Act, 1935."

The motion was adopted.

Maulana Hasrat Mohani: I strongly protest against thisprocedure. It is a well-known fact that this House is apacked House.

The Honourable Sardar Vallabhbhai J. Patel: With yourleave I now introduce the Bill to amend the Government ofIndia Act, 1935.

Mr. Vice-President: The Bill has been introduced. Nowmay I ask Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel to give the House someidea of the time when he proposes to move for taking theBill into consideration? This is required only for theconvenience of Honourable Members.

The Honourable Sardar Vallabhbhai J. Patel: It will beafter a week.

Mr. Vice-President: Thank you. The House will nowresume discussion of article 38 of the Draft Constitution. Inow call upon Shri L. N. Sahu to speak.

Article 38 (contd.)

Seth Govind Das (C. P. & Berar: General): I move thatthe question be now put as far as the clause relating toprohibition is concerned.

Mr. Vice-President: I have already called upon Mr. L.N. Sahu to speak.

Shri Lakshminarayan Sahu (Orissa: General): *[Mr. Vice-President, the subject which we are discussing here today isvery important. It is correct that Adibasis are addicted tothe habit of drinking as has been stated by

Shri JaipalSingh, but as remarked by Shri Thakkar Baba it is also afact that they (Adibasis) want to do away with it.

First of all, I would like to point out that the liquorused by Adibasis is of a different kind. It is prepared outof a tree and is named as "Salab Drink". It relaxes them alittle but does not produce intoxication. In the words ofKeshab Chandra Sen the two great gifts of the Brit ishers toIndia are on the one hand, the Bible and on the other handthe bottle. The country lost its all. Shri Keshab ChandraSen said that Bible was really such a great book that hadnot the Brit ishers brought the bottle with them, thiscountry as a whole would have put faith in the Bible. Ispeak from my experience when I say that wine produce veryharmful consequences in our country. Formerly in the townwhere I have been living for the last 32 years, no one wasgiven to the drink habit. But since the Government startedliquor shops all persons began to


* [] Translation of Hindustani speech.

drink. My grand-children talk now of other people drinkingand I am afraid that they may also take to drinking. Asthere is now a new order of things as we have attainedindependence and as it was the wish of Mahatma Gandhi thatthe word Prohibition should be inscribed in every publicplace, therefore, I desire Prohibition to be enforced. Is itnow wise on Sri Jaipal Singh's part to talk of religiousfreedom in this context? We had the religious freedom ofSati in our country. Where is it now? Most of such otherreligious freedoms were abolished according to theconditions of the age. Human sacrifice was permissibleamongst the aboriginals, but today that evil customdisappeared under the stress of changed circumstances. Nowthe Government does not permit human sacrifice. I am talkingof aboriginal area. I toured along with Shri Thakkar Babafor about three or four months. In Orissa I toured alone. Ifound a new feeling amongst the aboriginals of that area.They have got a feeling that one who teaches should not taketo drinking and one who goes to school should not alsodrink. Reading and drinking should never be combined. Onewho reads does not drink.

Aboriginals have such a nice feeling and the greaterthe facilities provided to them to cherish this feeling thebetter it would be for them. It is not fair to talk ofdrinking as a matter of our religious rights; and that weshould fight to preserve it is quite unfair.]

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. Vice-President.I accept the amendment of Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena subjectto a further amendment, namely, that after the word `and' atthe beginning of his amendment (86 of List IV) the words "inparticular" be added.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: I really cannot understand how thatamendment can be accepted by the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar.The amendment under discussion is mine.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I accept theamendment of Mr. Tyagi as amended by the amendment of Prof.Shibban Lal Saksena (Laughter.)

Mr. Vice-President: Mr. Tyagi is a great stickler forrights.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, if I may sayso, the right really belongs to me, because it is I whodrafted the amendment he moved. (Renewed laughter.)

Mr. Vice-President: That puts the matter in a newlight.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I do not think theHouse would have found any difficulty in accepting thisamendment. Two points have been raised against it. One is byProf. Khandekar who represents Kolhapur in this Assembly. Iam sure that Mr. Khandekar has not sufficiently appreciatedthe fact that this clause is one of the clauses of anArticle which enumerates what are called DirectivePrinciples of Policy. There is therefore no compulsion onthe State to act on this principle. Whether to act on thisprinciple and when to do so are left to the State and topublic opinion. Therefore, if the State thinks that the timehas not come for introducing prohibition or that it might beintroduced gradually or partially, under these DirectivePrinciples it has full

liberty to act. I therefore do notthink that we need have any compunction in this matter.

But Sir, I was quite surprised at the speech deliveredby my friend Mr. Jaipal Singh. He said that this matterought not to be discussed at this stage, but should bepostponed till we take up for consideration the report ofthe Advisory Committee on Tribal Areas. If he had read theDraft Constitution, particularly the Sixth Schedule,paragraph 12, he would have found that ampleprovision is made for safeguarding the position of thetribal people with regard to the question of prohibition.The scheme with regard to the tribal areas is that the lawmade by the State, whether by a province or by the Centre,does not automatically apply to that particular area. Firstof all, the law has to be made. Secondly, the DistrictCouncils or the Regional Councils which are establishedunder this Constitution for the purposes of theadministration of the affairs of these areas are given thepower to say whether a particular law made by a province orby the Centre should be applied to that particular regioninhabited by the tribal people or not, and particularmention is made with regard to the law relating toprohibition. I shall just read out sub-paragraph (a) ofparagraph 12 which occurs on page 184 of the Draft Constitution. It says:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in thisConstitution -

(a) no Act of the legislature of the State inrespect of any of the matters specified inparagraph 3 of this Schedule as matters withrespect to which a District Council or aRegional Council may make laws, and no Act ofthe Legislature of the State prohibition orrestricting the consumption of any non-distilled alcoholic liquor shall apply to anyautonomous district or autonomous regionunless in either case the District Councilfor such district or having jurisdiction oversuch region by public notification sodirects, and the District Council in givingsuch direction with respect to any Act maydirect that the Act shall in its applicationto such district or region or any partthereof have effect subject to suchexceptions or modifications as it thinksfit;"

Now, I do not know what more my friend, Mr. JaipalSingh, wants than the provision in paragraph 12 of the SixthSchedule. My fear is that he has not read the SixthSchedule: if he had read it, he would have realised thateven though the State may apply its law regardingprohibition in any part of the country, it has no right tomake it applicable to the tribal areas without the consentof the District Councils or the Regional Councils.

Mr. Vice-President: There are three amendments. One isby Mr. Mahavir Tyagi. That is No. 71 in List II. If I readthe situation aright, that has been practically withdrawn.Am I right, Mr. Tyagi?

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: I have not withdrawn my amendment.I have only accepted the words which Prof. Shibban LalSaksena intends to add to my amendment.

Mr. Vice-President: I want to know whether you wantthat your amendment should be put separately to the vote.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: Yes, Sir, of course. As I havesaid, I want to abolish liquor altogether. He wants to addthe words "except for medical purposes" Therefore myamendment is the original amendment.

Mr. Vice-President: I understand the situation. I shallnow put to the vote the amendment of Mr. Mahavir Tyagi asmodified by Professor Shibban Lal Saksena and furthermodified by Dr. Ambedkar.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: On a point of order, Dr. Ambekarhas added the word "particular" but he has not taken mypermission.

Mr. Vice-President: I take your permission on behalf ofDr. Ambedkar.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: I accept his amendment also, Sir.

Mr. Vice-President: This particular amendment asamended is now put to the vote.

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: Then, there is another amendmentwhich is No. 81 in List III moved by Sardar Bhopinder SinghMan to insert the word `tobacco' between the words `drinks'and `drugs'. I now put it to the vote.

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: I now put to the

vote article 38,as amended.

The motion was adopted.

Article 38, as amended, was added to the constitution.

Mr. Vice-President: We now come to new article 38-A - amendment No. 1002 standing in the names of Pandit ThakurDas Bhargava and Seth Govind Das.

Article 38-A.

Seth Goving Das: Sir, I have an amendment to theamendment of Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava which I will moveafter Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava has moved his amendment.

Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava (East Punjab: General):*[Mr. President, the words of the amendment No. 72 which Iam moving in place of amendment No. 1002, are as follows: -

"That for amendment No. 1002 of the lists of amendmentsto 38-A the following be substituted: -

`38-A. The State shall endeavour to organiseagriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientificlines and shall in particular take steps for preserving andimproving the breeds of cattle and prohibit the slaughter ofcow and other useful cattle, specially milch and draughtcattle and their young stock'."

At the very outset I would like to submit that thisamendment..........]

Shri S. Nagappa (Madras: General): Sir, on a point oforder, my honourable Friend, who can speak freely inEnglish, is deliberately talking in urdu or Hindustani whicha large number of South Indians cannot follow.

Mr. Vice-President: The honourable Member is perfectlyentitled to speak in any language he likes but I wouldrequest him to speak in English though he is not bound tospeak in English.

Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava: I wanted to speak in Hindiwhich is my own language about the cow and I would requestyou not to order me to speak in English. As the subject is avery important one, I would like to express myself in theway in which I can express myself with greater ease andfacility. I would therefore request you kindly to allow meto speak in Hindi.

*[Mr. Vice-President, with regard to this amendment Iwould like to submit before the House that in fact thisamendment like the other amendment, about which Dr. Ambedkarhas stated, is his manufacture. Substantially there is nodifference between the two amendments. In a way this is anagreed amendment. While moving this amendment, I have nohesitation in stating that for people like me and those thatdo not agree with the point of view of Dr. Ambedkar andothers, this entails, in a way, a sort of sacrifice. SethGovind Das had sent one such amendment to be included in theFundamental Rights and other members also had sent similaramendments. To my mind it would have been much better ifthis could have been incorporated in the Fundamental Rights,but some of my Assembly friends differed and it is thedesire of Dr. Ambedkar that this matter, instead of beingincluded in Fundamental Rights should be incorporated in theDirective Principles. As a matter of fact, it is the agreedopinion of the Assembly that this problem should be solvedin such a manner that the objective is gained without usingany sort of coercion. I have purposely adopted this course,as to my mind, the amendment fulfils our object and ismidway between the Directive Principles and the FundamentalRights.

I do not want that due to its inclusion in theFundamental Rights, non-Hindus should complain that theyhave been forced to accept a certain thing against theirwill. So far as the practical question is concerned, in myopinion, there will be absolutely no difference if thespirit of the amendment is worked out faithfully,wheresoever this amendment is placed. With regard to Article38 which the House has just passed, I would like to statethat Article 38 is like a body without a soul. If you failto pass Article 38-A which is the proposed

* [] Translation of Hindustani speech.

amendment, then Article 38 will be meaningless. How can youimprove your health and food position, if you do not producefull quota of cereals and milk?

This amendment is divided into three parts. Firstly,the agriculture should be improved on scientific and modernlines. Secondly, the cattle breed should be improved; andthirdly, the cow and other cattle

should be protected fromslaughter. To grow more food and to improve agriculture andthe cattle breed are all inter-dependent and are two sidesof the same coin. Today, we have to hang our head in shame,when we find that we have to import cereals from outside. Ithink our country is importing 46 million tons of cerealsfrom outside. If we calculate the average of the last twelveyears, namely, from 1935 to 1947, then it would be foundthat this country has produced 45 million tons of cerealsevery year. Therefore, it is certain that we are not onlyself-sufficient but can also export cereals from ourcountry. If we utilize water properly, construct dams, andhave proper change in the courses of rivers, use machinesand tractors, make use of cropping and manuring, then surelythe production will increase considerably. besides allthese, the best way of increasing the production is toimprove the health of human beings and breed of cattle,whose milk and manure and labour are most essential forgrowing food. Thus the whole agricultural and food problemof this country is nothing but the problem of theimprovement of co and her breed. And therefore I would liketo explain to you by quoting some figures, how far cattle-wealth has progressed and what is the position today.

In 1940, there were 11,56,00,960 oxen in India and in1945 only 11,19,00,000 were left. That is to say, duringthese five years, there was a decrease of 37 lacs in thenumber of oxen. Similarly the number of buffaloes in 1940,was 3,28,91,300 and in 1945, this figure was reduced to3,25,44,400. According to these figures, during these fiveyears, their number was reduced by four lacs. Thus duringthese five years there was decrease of 41 lacs in the sumtotal of both the above figures taken together.

Besides this, if we see the figures of the slaughteredcattle in India we find that in 1944, 60,91,828 oxen wereslaughtered, while in 1945 sixtyfive lacs were slaughteredi.e., four lakhs more. In the same year 7,27: 189 buffaloeswere slaughtered. I do not want to take much of your time.If you wish to see latest figures then I have got them upto1945. You can see them. I have got figures for Bombay andMadras. A look at these figures will show that there hasbeen no decrease in their slaughter, rather it is on theincrease. Therefore, I want to submit before you that theslaughter of cattle should be banned here Ours is anagricultural country and the cow is `Kam-Dhenu' to us - fulfiller of all our wants. From both points of view, ofagriculture and food, protection of the cow becomesnecessary. Our ancient sages and Rishis, realising herimportance, regarded her as very sacred. here, Lord Krishnawas born, who served cows so devotedly that to this day, inaffection he is known as "Makhan Chor". I would not relateto you the story of Dalip, how that Raja staked his own lifefor his cow. But I would like to tell you that even duringthe Muslim rule, Babar, Humayun, Akbar, Jahangir and even inthe reign of Aurangzeb, cowslaughter was not practised inIndia; not because Muslims regarded it to be bad butbecause, from the economic point of view, it was unprofitable.

Similarly in every country, in China, cow-slaughter isa crime. it is banned in Afghanistan as well. A year ago, asimilar law was passed in Burma, before that, under acertain law cattle only above fourteen years of age could beslaughtered. But eventually, the Burma Government realisedthat this partial ban on slaughter was not effective. On thepretext of useless cattle many useful cattle areslaughtered. I have read in newspapers that the PakistanGovernment has decided to stop the export of cattle fromWestern Pakistan, and they too have enforced a partial banon slaughter of animals. In the present conditions in ourcountry, cow-breeding is necessary, not for milk supplyalone, butalso for the purposes of draught and transport. It is nowonder that people worship cow in this land. but I do notappeal to you in the name of religion; I ask you to considerit in the light of economic requirements of the country. Inthis connection I would

like to tell you the opinion of thegreatest leader of our country - the Father of the Nation - onthe subject. You know the ideas of revered Mahatmaji on thistopic. He never wanted to put any compulsion on Muslims ornon-Hindus. He said, "I hold that the question of cow-slaughter is of great moment - in certain respects of evengreater moment - than that of Swaraj. Cow-slaughter and manslaughter are, in my opinion, two sides of the same coin."

Leaving it aside, I want to draw your attention to thespeech of our President, Dr. Rajendra Prasad. After this theGovernment of India, appointed a committee - an expertrepresentative committee-to find out whether for the benefitof the country the number of cattle can be increased, andwhether their slaughter can be stopped. The Committee hasunanimously decided in its favour. Seth Govind Das was alsoa member of the committee. The committee unanimously decidedthat cattle slaughter should be banned. Great minds wereassociated with the said committee. They examined thequestion from the economic view-point; they gave thought tothe unproductive and unserviceable cattle also. Afterviewing the problem from all angles they came to theunanimous decision that slaughter of cattle should bestopped. That resolution relates not to cows alone.Slaughtering of buffaloes, which yield 50 per cent of ourmilk supply, and of the goats which yield 3 per cent of ourmilk supply, and also bring a profit of several crores, isas sinful as that of cows. In my district of Hariana, a goatyields 3 to 4 seers of milk. Perhaps a cow does not yieldthat much in other areas. Therefore I submit that we shouldconsider it from an economic point of view. I also want tostate that many of the cattle, which are generally regardedas useless, are not really so. Experts have made an estimateof that, and they came to the conclusion that the cattlewhich are regarded as useless are not really so, because weare in great need of manure. A cow, whether it be a milch-cow or not, is a moving manure factory and so, as far as cowis concerned, there can be no question of its being uselessor useful. It can never be useless. In the case of cow therecan be no dispute on the point.] (Hearing the bell beingrung.) Am I to stop?

Mr. Vice President: Yes, I am asking you to stop.

Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava: Could you give me twominutes more?

Mr. Vice-President: You have already had 25 minutes.

Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava: *[As the Vice-Presidenthas ordered me to finish off, I shall not go into thedetails; otherwise I can prove by figures that the value ofthe refuse and urine of a cow is greater than the cost ofher maintenance. In the end, I would wind up by saying thatthere might be people, who regard the question of banningcow-slaughter as unimportant, but I would like to remindthem that the average age in our country is 23 years, andthat many children die under one year of age! The real causeof all this is shortage of milk and deficiency in diet. Itsremedy lies in improving the breed of the cow, and bystopping its slaughter. I attach very great importance tothis amendment, so much so that if on one side of the scaleyou were to put this amendment and on the other all these315 clauses of the draft, I would prefer the former. If thisis accepted, the whole country would be, in a way,electrified. Therefore, I request you to accept thisamendment unanimously with acclamation.]


* [] Translation of Hindustani speech.

Seth Govind Das: *[Mr. President, the amendment movedby Pandit Thakurdas Bhargava appears to be rather inadequateas a directive in its present form. I therefore move myamendment to his amendment. My amendment runs thus:

"That in amendment No. 1002 of the list of Amendmentsin article 38-A the words and other useful cattle, speciallymilch cattle and of child bearing age, young stocks anddraught cattle' be deleted and the following be added at theend:

'The word "cow' includes bulls, bullocks, young stockof genus cow'."

The object of the amendment is, I hope, quite

clearfrom its words. The amendment moved by Pandit Bhargavaprohibits the slaughter of cow and other useful cattle butaccording to it unfit or useless cows may be slaughtered.But the object of my amendment is, as far as cows areconcerned, to prohibit the slaughter of any cow, be ituseful or useless and in my amendment word 'cow' includesbulls, bullocks and calves all that are born of cows. AsPandit Thakur Das told you, I had submitted this earlier tobe included in Fundamental Rights but I regret that it couldnot be so included. The reason given is that FundamentalRights deal only with human beings and not animals. I hadthen stated that just as the practice of untouchability wasgoing to be declared an offence so also we should declarethe slaughter of cows to be an offence. But it was said thatwhile untouchability directly affected human beings theslaughter of cows affected the life of animals only - andthat as the Fundamental Rights were for human beings thisprovision could not be included therein. Well, I did notprotest against that view and thought it proper to includethis provision in the Directive Principles. It will not beimproer, Sir, if I mention here, that it is not for thefirst time that I am raising the question of cow protection.I have been a member of the Central Legislature for the lasttwenty-five years and I have always raised this question inthe Assembly and in the Council of State. The protection ofcow is a question of long standing in this country. Greatimportance has been attached to this question from the timeof Lord Krishna. I belong to a family which worships LordKrishna as "Ishtadev". I consider myself a religious mindedperson, and have no respect for those people of the presentday society whose attitude towards religion and religiousminded people is one of contempt. It is my firm belief thatDharma had never been uprooted from the world and nor can itbe uprooted. There had been unbelievers like Charvaka in ourcountry also but the creed of Charvaka could never flourishin this country. Now-a-days the Communist leaders of theWest also and I may name among them Karl Marx, Lenin,Stalin, declare religion "the opium of the People". Russiarecognised neither religion nor God but we have seen that inthe last war the Russian people offered prayers to God inChurches to grant them victory. Thus it is plain from thehistory of ancient times as also from that of God-denyingRussia that religion could not be uprooted.

Moreover, cow protection is not only a matter ofreligion with us; it is also a cultural and economicquestion. Culture is a gift of History. India is an ancientcountry; consequently no new culture can be imposed on it.Whosoever attempts to do so is bound to fail; he can neversucceed. Ours is a culture that has gradually developed withour long history. Swaraj will have no meaning for our peoplein the absence of a culture. Great important culturalissues - for instance the question of the name of thecountry, question of National Language, question of NationalScript, question of the National Anthem and question of theprohibition of cow slaughter - are before this Assembly andunless the Constituent Assembly decides these questionsaccording to the wishes of the people of the country,Swarajya will have no meaning to the common people of ourcountry. I would like to submit, Sir, that a referendum betaken on these issues and the opinion of the people beascertained. Again, cow protection is


* [] Translation of Hindustani speech.

also a matter of great economic importance for us. PanditThakur Das Bhargava has shown to you by quoting statisticshow the cattle wealth of the country is diminishing. Thiscountry is predominantly agricultural in character. I wouldgive some figures here regarding the position of our cattlewealth. In 1935 there were one hundred nineteen million andfour hundred ninety one thousand (11,94,91,000) heads ofcattle. In 1940 their number came down to one hundredfifteen million and six hundred ten thousand, and in 1945 itfurther came down to

one hundred eleven million and 9hundred thousand. While on one side our population isincreasing our cattle wealth is decreasing. Our Governmentis carrying on a Grow More Food Campaign. Millions of rupeesare being spent on this campaign. This campaign cannotsucceed so long as we do not preserve the cows. PanditThakur Das has given us some figures to show the number ofcows slaughtered in our country. I would like to quote heresome figures from the Hide and Skin Report of the Governmentof India. Fifty two lakhs of cows and thirteen lakhs ofbuffaloes are slaughtered every year in this country. Itshows in what amazing numbers cattle are slaughtered here.Thirty six crores acres of land are under cultivation here.These figures also includes the land under cultivation inPakistan. I have to give these figures because we have nofigure of the land under cultivation in India since thesecession of Pakistan from our country. We have six croresbullocks for the cultivation of the land. A scientificestimate would show that we need another one and a halfcrore of bullocks to keep this land under proper cultivation.

So far as the question of milk supply is concerned Iwould like to place before you figures of milk supply ofother countries as compared to that of our country.

In New Zealand milk supply per capita is 56 ounces, inDenmark 40, in Finland 63, in Sweden 61, in Australia 45, inCanada 35, in Switzerland 49, in Netherland 35, in Norway43, in U.S.A. 35, in Czechoslovakia 36, in Belgium 35, inAustralia 30, in Germany 35, in France 30, in Poland 22, inGreat Britain 39 and in India it is only 7 ounces. Justthink what will be the state of health of the people of acountry where they get only seven ounces of milk per head.There is a huge infantile mortality in this country.Children are dying like dogs and cats. How can they be savedwithout milk?

Thus even if we look at this problem from the economicpoint of view, we come to the conclusion that for the supplyof milk and agriculture also, the protection of the cow is necessary.

I would like to place before the House one thing more.It has been proved by experience that whatever laws we mayframe for the prevention of the slaughter of useful cattle,their object is not achieved. In every province there aresuch laws. There people slaughter cattle and pay some amoun towards fines and sometimes escape even that. Thus ourcattle wealth is declining day by day.

Sometime back there was a law like that in Burma butwhen they saw that cattle could not be saved under it, they banned cow slaughter altogether.

I would like to emphasise one point to my Muslimfriends also. I would like to see my country culturallyunified even though we may follow different religions. Justas a Hindu and a Sikh or a Hindu and a Jain can live in thesame family, in the same way a Hindu and a Muslim can alsolive in the same family. The Muslims should come forward tomake it clear that their religion does not compulsorilyenjoin on them the slaughter of the cow. I have studied alittle all the religions. I have read the life of ProphetMohammad Sahib. The Prophet never took beef in his life.This is an historic fact.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava pointed out just now thatfrom the time of Akbar to that of Aurangzeb, there was a banon cow slaughter. I want to tell you what Babar, the firstMoghul Emperor told Humayun. He said: "Refrain from cow-slaughter to win the hearts of the people of Hindustan."

Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava just now referred to theCommittee constituted by the Government of India for thispurpose. It recommended that cow slaughter should be totallybanned. I admit that the Government will require money forthe purpose. I want to assure you that there will be no lackof money for this purpose. If the allowance given to cattle-pounds and Goshalas is realised from the people by law, allthe money needed would be realised. Even if the Governmentwant to impose a new tax for this purpose every citizen ofthis country will be too glad to pay it. Therefore ourGovernment should not raise before us the financial

bogey sooften raised by the Brit ish Government. I have travelled alittle in this country and I am acquainted with the [viewsof the people.]

Sir, I wish to say a few words in English to my SouthIndian friends.

Mr. Vice-President: I am afraid that if I give you thatpermission, other speakers will not have sufficient time tospeak. You asked for ten minutes and I have given youfifteen minutes plus four. If you insist on more time I amprepared to give it but you could have addressed them inEnglish.

Mr. Shibbanlal Saksena - Amendment No. 87 of List 4.

Shri R. V. Dhulekar (United Provinces: General): Sir, Ihave sent a little request for permission to speak.

Mr. Vice-President: If honourable members will kindlytake their seats, I shall be able to say something. We haveadopted a certain procedure. The amendments have to be movedone after another.

Mr. Shibbanlal Saksena.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Sir, I had given notice ofan amendment in which I desired that cow slaughter should bebanned completely. But after the agreement arrived at aboutPt. Thakur Dass Bhargava's amendment, I waive my right tomove my amendment.

An Honourable Member: But what is the amendment?

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: It is No. 87 in list IV, butI am not moving it.

Mr. Vice-President: In that case you cannot speak.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: But there is no otheramendment. I may speak on the clause now.

Pandit Balkrishna Sharma (United Provinces: General):Sir, may we know where we stand? Is the Honourable Membermoving his amendment or is he taking part in the generaldiscussion of the clause?

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: I am speaking generally onthe clause.

Mr. Vice-President: In that case, you must wait tillShri Ram Sahai moves his amendment also, No. 88, list IV.

Shri Algu Rai Shastry (United Provinces: General): On apoint of order. Professor Saksena has copied out the wholeof Pt. Thakur Das's amendment and added only one or twowords. In such cases only those new words should be taken ashis amendment, and the whole of the amendment should not beowned by him.

Mr. Vice-President: But he has said he will be takingpart in the general discussion only.

Now, Shri Ram Sahai.

Shri Ram Sahai (United State of Gwalior-Indore-Malwa:Madhya Bharat): *[Mr. Vice-President. In regard to thismatter I have already tabled an amendment seeking to addthese words in article 9 of Part III "The State shall


* [] Translation of Hindustani speech.

ban the slaughter of cows by law". But for the very reasonsthat led Mr. Bhargava not to move his amendment, I have alsonow decided not to move mine. Still there is anotheramendment in my name in Part IV of the Draft Constitution.

My only object in tabling this amendment was to securecomplete prohibition of the slaughter of cows. But I findhere that a section of the House does not like this. I alsodo not like, on my part, to make any proposal that may notreceive the unanimous acceptance of the House nor a proposalwhich may lead to the curtailment of the freedom of theprovinces in this matter. Under the Directive Principles ofState Policy, Provinces will have the power to stop cowslaughter totally or partially. Though there is a ban in oneform or another on the slaughter of cows, in almost allcountries of the world, yet I would not emphasise that factbefore you.

I hope Honourable Dr. Ambedkar will appreciate andaccept the amendment moved by Mr. Bhargava because it is onthe basis of the assurance to this effect given by him thatthe amendment has been moved as a compromise.

In view of that assurance I am not moving myamendment.]

Mr. Vice-President: There is another amendment which Ihad overlooked. It is No. 1005, standing in the name of ShriRanbir Singh Chaudhari.

Chaudhari Ranbir Singh (East Punjab: General): Sir, Ido not propose to move that amendment. But I would like tospeak on the general clause.

Mr. Vice-President: All right. Professor Saksena.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Sir, there are two aspectsto this question. One is the

religious aspect and the otheris the economic aspect. I shall first deal with thereligious aspect. I am not one of those men who think thatmerely because a thing has a religious aspect, it should notbe enacted as law. I personally feel that cow protection, ifit has become a part of the religion of the Hindus, it isbecause of its economic and other aspects, I believe thatthe Hindu religion is based mostly on the principles whichhave been found useful to the people of this country in thecourse of centuries. Therefore, if thirty crores of ourpopulation feel that this thing should be incorporated inthe laws of the country, I do not think that we as anAssembly representing 35 crores should leave it out merelybecause it has a religious aspect. I agree with Seth GovindDas that we should not think that because a thing has areligious significance, so it is bad. I say, religion itselfsanctifies what is economically good. I wish to show howimportant cattle preservation is for us mahatma Gandhi infact, has written in so many of his articles about hisbelief that cow protection was most essential for ourcountry. From the scientific point of view, I wish to pointout that Dr. Wright who is an expert on the subject in hisreport on our National Income says that out of 22 crores ofnational income per annum, about eleven crores are derivedfrom the cattle wealth of India, representing the wealth ofmost of our people who live in the villages.

Sometimes it is supposed that we have too many cattleand that most of them are useless, and therefore, they mustbe slaughtered. This is a wrong impression. If you comparethe figures, you will find that in India there are only 50cattle per 100 of the population, whereas in Denmark it is74, in U.S.A. 71, in Canada 80, in Cape Colony 120 and inNew Zealand 150. So in New Zealand, there are about threetimes the number of cattle per head of population than wehave here. So, to say that we have too many cattle is notright. As for useless cattle, scientists say that theirexcreta has value as manure and its cost is more than theexpenditure on the upkeep of such cattle.


* [] Translation of Hindustani speech.

Then again, our agriculture depends mostly on cattle,as it is mostly of small holdings where the cultivatorscannot make use of tractors and other implements. Theydepend on bullocks, and if you compare the figures ofbullocks, you will find that although we have got an area of33 1/2 million acres of land to cultivate, we have only sixcrores of bullocks which works at about 16 bullocks per 100acres of land which is quite insufficient. Therefore, evenfrom the point of view of our agricultural economy, we needa very large number of bullocks. It has been estimated thatto meet our requirements, we would require about elevencrores more bullocks.

Then, coming to our requirements of milk and otherproducts, if we compare our milk consumption with that ofother countries, we find that it is only 5 oz. per head, andthat is very little, compared to the figures of othercountries. Therefore I think that we must have thisamendment incorporated in our Constitution.

The other important evils in our country are infantmortality and tuberculosis which have their origion indeficient milk diet. These evils can be remedied only if wepreserve our cattle and improve their breed, which is thepurpose of this amendment. I therefore think that thisamendment should be accepted.

Then there is the use of Vanaspati ghee, which hasbecome an economic necessity, because there is no pure gheeavailable anywhere. If we are able to give effect to thisamendment we can improve the breed of cattle and then wewill be able to do away with the use of Vanaspati, which isso injurious to the health of the nation.

Also from the point of view of the requirements of ourclimate this amendment is very necessary. I think theamendment is very well worded. it says that we shall try to"organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern andscientific lines and in particular take steps to

preserve,protect, and improve the useful breeds of cattle and ban theslaughter of cow and other useful cattle, especially milchcattle and of child-bearing age, young stocks and draughtcattle". I think the amendment of Seth Govind Das isincluded in it. I am sure, representatives of people electedon adult suffrage will surely incorporate in their statelaws legislation which will give effect to this amendmentand we shall then have in our land no cow slaughter. Itherefore support this amendment wholeheartedly.

Dr. Raghu Vira (C.P. and Berar: General): Sir, I thinkit my most bounden duty in this House to express thefeelings, feelings which no words can really convey, thatnot a single cow shall be slaughtered in this land.

These sentiments which were expressed thousands of years agostill ring in the hearts of tens of millions of this land.My friends tell me that it is an economic question, thatMuslim kings have supported the preservation of cows andbanned the killing of the cows. That is all right. But whenwe attain freedom, freedom to express ourselves in everyform and manner - our Preamble says 'There shall be libertyof expression' - is that merely expression of thought or isthat the expression of our whole being? This country evolveda civilization and in that civilization we gave prominentplace to what we call Ahimsa or non-killing and non-injury,not merely of human beings but also of the animal kingdom.The entire universe was treated as one and the cow is thesymbol of that oneness of life and are we not going tomaintain it? Brahma hatya and go-hatya - the killing of thelearned man, the scientist, the philosopher or the sage andthe killing of a cow are on a par. If we do not allow thekilling ofa scientist or a sage in this land it shall certainly beordained by this House that no cow shall be killed. I knowin my childhood we were not allowed to drink until the cowhas had its drink and we were not allowed to eat till thecow has had its meal. The cow takes precedence over thechildren of the family, because she is the mother of theindividual, she is the mother of the nation. Ladies andgentlemen in this House, I appeal to you to look back withserenity and to search your souls. We are representatives ofmillions of our people............

Mr. Vice-President: The Honourable Member must addressthe Chair. This is not a public platform.

Dr. Raghu Vira: Through you, Sir, I wish to convey thefeeling of this House and other people of this country thatthe cow shall be saved in the interests of the country andin the interests of our culture. And with these words, Sir,I take your leave.

Shri R. V. Dhulekar: Sir, I always believed from mychildhood that India had a mission and because India had amission therefore I wanted the independence of this country.many millions of the people, who died for this country, alsolike me had believed that India had a mission, and what wasthat mission? The mission was that we should go about theworld and carry the message of peace, love, freedom andAbhaya (freedom from fear) to every body in the world. Whenindependence was achieved I was happy to believe that Ishall carry out my mission, that I shall carry to the worldthis message, viz., that India has got no grudge against anycountry in the world, it has no expansionist ideas but thatit is going to save the whole world from the danger ofinternecine war, bloodshed and many other ills that humanityis suffering from. In the same way and for the same purposeI appeal to the House to discuss this subject from adispassionate point of view. It is not the crumbs, theloaves and fishes that we are fighting for. Loaves andfishes were left behind by some people thirty years back andby some others fifty years back. We did not want to achievethis independence for loaves and fishes. Those who want themare welcome but men like us who have a mission or a messagefor the world cannot love loaves and fishes. We do not wantambassadorship, premierships, ministerships or wealth. Wewant that India should declare today that the whole humanworld as well as the whole animal world is

free today andwill be protected. The cow is a representative of the animalkingdom, the peepal tree is the representative of thevegetable kingdom, the touchstone or the shaligram is therepresentative of the mineral world. We want to save andgive peace and protection to all those four worlds andtherefore it is that the Hindus of India have put these fourthings as representatives of this world - the human being,the cow, the peepal and the shaligram. All these wereworshipped because we wanted to protect the whole humantly.Our Upanishad says:

We do not want this property, we do not want this food;we do not want this raiment - not because we cannot take it;not because we are cowards; not because we cannot carryImperialism to the four corners of the world; but we may nothave it because we see the whole world identical with ourown soul. So our humanity which resides in this Bharatvarshafor several thousand years has marched forward and has takenthe cow within the fold of human society. Some people heretalked to me and said "You say that you want to protect thecow and want it to be included in the Fundamental Rights. Isthe protection of the cow a fundamental right of a humanbeing? Or is it the fundamental right of the cow?" I repliedto them and tell them suppose it is a question of savingyour mother or protecting your mother. Whose fundamentalright isit? Is it the fundamental right of the mother? No. It is myfundamental right to protect my mother, to protect my wife,my children and my country. In the Fundamental Rights youhave said that you will give justice, equity and all thesethings. Why? Because you say "it is your fundamental rightto have justice". What does that justice mean? It means thatwe shall be protected, our families shall be protected. Andour Hindu society, or our Indian society, has included thecow in our fold. It is just like our mother. In fact it ismore than our mother. I can declare from this platform thatthere are thousands of persons who will not run at a man tokill that man for their mother or wife or children, but theywill run at a man if that man does not want to protect thecow or wants to kill her.

With these few words, I wish to say that these twoamendments which have been put forward by Mr. Bhargava andSeth Govind Das should be dealt with dispassionately. Ishall appeal to you that only that amendment should bepassed which is very clear. If Mr. Bhargava's amendment isdoubtful, then certainly Seth Govind Das's amendment shouldbe passed.

Mr. Vice-President: Following my usual practice I mustgive an opportunity to people who hold different views fromthe majority view and I am therefore calling upon Mr. Larito speak.

Mr. Z. H. Lari (United Provinces: Muslim): Mr. Vice-President, I appreciate the sentiments of those who wantprotection of the cow - may be on religious grounds or maybe in the interests of agriculture in this country. I havecome here not to oppose or support any of the amendments butto request the House to make the position quite clear andnot to leave the matter in any ambiguity or doubt. TheHouse, at the same time, must appreciate that Mussalmans ofIndia have been, and are, under the impression that theycan, without violence to the principles which govern theState, sacrifice cows and other animals on the occasion ofBakrid. It is for the majority to decide one way or theother. We are not here to obstruct the attitude that themajority community is going to adopt. But let there notlinger an idea in the mind of the Muslim public that theycan do one thing, though in fact they are not expected to dothat. The result has been, as I know in my own Province onthe occasion of the last Bakrid, so many orders underSection 144 in various places, districts and cities. Theconsequence has been the arrests of many, molestation ofeven more, and imprisonment of some. Therefore, if the Houseis of the opinion that slaughter of cows should beprohibited, let it be prohibited in clear, definite andunambiguous words. I do not want that there should be a showthat you could have this thing although the

intention may beotherwise. My own submission to this House is that it isbetter to come forward and incorporate a clause inFundamental Rights that cow slaughter is henceforthprohibited, rather than it being left vague in the DirectivePrinciples, leaving it open to Provincial Governments toadopt it one way or the other, and even without adoptingdefinite legislation to resort to emergency powers under theCriminal Procedure. In the interests of good-will in thecountry and of cordial relations between the differentcommunities I submit that this is the proper occasion whenthe majority should express itself clearly and definitely.

I for one can say that this is a matter on which wewill not stand in the way of the majority if the majoritywants to proceed in a certain way, what ever may be ourinclinations. We feel - we know that our religion does notnecessarily say that you must sacrifice cow: it permits it.The question is whether, considering the sentiments that youhave, considering the regard which the majority have forcertain classes of animals, do they or do they not permitthe minority - not a right - but a privilege or a permissionwhich it at present has? I cannot put it higher. I won'tclass it as interference with my religion. But I do not wantthat my liberty should be taken away, and especially thepeaceful celebration of any festival should be marred by thepromulgation oforders under Section 144. I have come only to plead that.Therefore, let the leaders of the majority community hereand now make it clear and not leave it to the back-benchersto come forward and deliver sermons one way or the other.Let those who guide the destinies of the country, make ormar them, say definitely "this is our view", and we willsubmit to it. We are not going to violate it. This is theonly thing I have come to say. I hope you will notmisunderstand me when I say this. It is not due to anger,malice or resentment but it is out of regard for cordialrelations between the communities, and what is more, due tothe necessity of having a clear mind that I say this.Henceforward the Muslim minority must know where they standso that they may act accordingly, and there be no occasionfor any misunderstanding between the majority and theMuslims on this point.

In view of what I have said, I would not oppose norsupport any of the amendments, but I would invite a veryclear and definite rule instead of the vague phraseology ofthe clauses which have been put forward. It proceeds to saythat we should have modern and scientific agriculture.Modern and scientific agriculture will mean mechanisationand so many other things. The preceding portion of theclause speaking about modern and scientific agriculture andthe subsequent protion banning slaughter of cattle do notfit in with each other. I appreciate the sentiments ofanother member who said "this is our sentiment, and it isout of that sentiment that we want this article". Let thatarticle be there, but for God's sake, postpone thediscussion of the article and bring it in clear, definiteand unambiguous terms so that we may know where we stand andthereafter there should be no occasion for anymisunderstanding between the two communities on this issuewhich does not affect religion but affects practices whichobtain in the country.

Syed Muhammad Sa'adulla (Assam: Muslim): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, the subject of debate before the House nowhas two fronts, the religious front and the economic front.Some who want to have a section in our Constitution that cowkilling should be stopped for all time probably base it onthe religious front. I have every sympathy and appreciationfor their feelings; for, I am student of comparativereligions. I know that the vast majority of the Hindu nationrevere the cow as their goddess and therefore they cannotbrook the idea of seeing it slaughtered. I am a Muslim aseveryone knows. In my religious book, the Holy Qoran, thereis an injunction to the Muslims saying -

"La Ikraba fid Din", or

or, there ought to be no compulsion in the name of religion.I therefore do not like to use my

veto when my Hindubrethren want to place this matter in our Constitution fromthe religious point of view. I do not also want to obstructthe framers of our Constitution, I mean the ConstituentAssembly if they come out in the open and say directly:"This is part of our religion. The cow should be protectedfrom slaughter and therefore we want its provision either inthe Fundamental Rights or in the Directive Principles."

But, those who put it on the economic front, as thehonourable Member who spoke before me said, do create asuspicion in the minds of many that the ingrained Hindufeeling against cow slaughter is being satisfied by thebackdoor. If you put it on the economic front, I will placebefore you certain facts and figures which will show thatthe slaughter of cows is not as bad as it is sought to bemade out from the economic point of view. I have very vastand varied experience of the province of Assam and thereforeI will quote you figures from Assam only. In the year 1931,under the orders of the then Central Government a census ofthe cattle wealth of the province was undertaken. We foundthat in 1931, Assam had 70 lakhs of cattle as against ahuman population of 90 lakhs. It will stagger my friendsfrom the other partsof India when I place before them the fact that the averageyield of an Assam cow is but a quarter seer of milk dailyand that it is so puny in stature that its draught power ispractically nil. Assam is dependent for her draught cattleon the province of Bihar. During the last war, when therewas tremendous difficulty as regards transport, we could notget any cattle from Bihar, with the result that we werecompelled to use our own small cattle for the purpose ofploughing. In order to conserve this cattle, the Governmentof Assam passed a law prohibiting the slaughter of cattle inmilch or cattle which could be used for the purpose ofdraught. But, wonder of wonders, I personally found thatdroves of cattle were being taken to the military depots forbeing slaughtered not by Muslims, but by Hindus who had big"sikhas" on their heads. When I saw this during my tours Iasked those persons why, in spite of their religion and inspite of Government orders, they were taking the cattle tobe slaughtered. They said: "Sir, these are all unserviceablecattle. They are all dead-weight on our economy. We want toget ready cash in exchange for them".

My friend Seth Govind Das mentioned the case of cattlethat were killed. I questioned him privately. The figures inthe Hides and Skins Report are from the hides. I know thereis a community amongst Hindus themselves who go by the nameof `Rishi' in our part of the country whose sole occupationin life is to take away the skin from dead cattle. They havegot absolutely no objection even to flay the skin ofslaughtered cattle. The figures given by Seth Govind Dasinclude the numbers of both the dead and slaughtered cattle.Similarly the figures given by Pandit Bhargava are not thefigures of cattle slaughtered during normal times. Theywere, as Honourable Members know, war years and, on accountof the fact that the Japanese had invaded India throughAssam, Assam alone had to accommodate about 5 lakhs offighting men and an equal number of camp followers. Cattlefrom all parts of India were then taken to Assam to feedthese ten lakhs of people from America and elsewhere, whitesas well as blacks. Even the Chinese soldiers were there inAssam, not to speak of soldiers from every part of India.Therefore, those were abnormal years and you cannot base youarguments on the figures of the years 1945 and 1946.

Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava: But, during those years,there was a ban on the slaughter of cattle imposed by theGovernment of India. They had issued orders banning theslaughter of cattle. It is in spite of that that the figuresof slaughter have been so high.

Syed Muhammad Saiadulla: I do not want to be side-tracked. The point is that there are cattle and cattle. Wewere trying to get cattle from West Punjab just beforePartition. The cattle there on an average give half a maundof milk. The Assam

Government have been trying to improvethe milk yield of their cattle by introducing cattle fromEngland, Australia and the Punjab. We have yet touched onlythe fringe of the problem with our Government cattle farmsand we have succeeded only in Shillong. The milk yield therehas increased but in the plains the milk yield is onlyquarter seer daily.

The motion of Pandit Bhargava is that, in order toimprove the economic condition of the people, we should tryscientific measures. That presupposes that the uselesscattle should be done away with and better breedsintroduced.

Now, I ask you what is to be done with these seventylakhs of cattle that we have got in Assam? Therefore, Sir,if you place it on the economic front, you are met with thisproposition that we have got such a big number of uneconomiccattle that must be done away with before you can supplantthem with a better breed. Another point is.......

Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava: Does not the honourableMember know that many useless cattle have been turned intogood cattle by goshalas and other organisations and at least90 per cent can be salvaged by proper feeding and treatment.

Syed Muhammad Saiadulla: Sir, I do not know of goshalasin other parts and I do not want to reply to Pandit Bhargavaas I have only ten minutes to speak. I was telling the Housethat there is a lurking suspicion in the minds of many thatit is the Muslim people who are responsible for thisslaughter of cows. That is absolutely wrong.

Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava: Quite wrong.

Syed Muhammad Saiadulla: I am glad that the Mover ofthis amendment says that it is quite wrong. There are lakhsof Muslims who do not eat cow's flesh. I am not speaking inany sense of braggadocio when I say that I myself do nottake it. Before the partition the Muslims were only one-fourth of the total population. They did not raisesufficient cattle to kill. It is the majority people whosold their cattle to the Muslims to be killed. Now theMuslims form only one-tenth of the population of theDominion of India. Do you think that the Mussalmans canraise sufficient cattle to slaughter them? Muslims arepoorer than our Hindu brethren. The Muslims are as muchagriculturists as the Hindus and the cattle in their farmsform their capital asset, the natural source of their powerto till the land and produce the food which will maintainthem for the entire year. Therefore it is wrong to say thatthe Muslims kill the cows either to offend my Hindu friendsor for any other purpose. Fortunately or unfortunately theMuslims are a meat-eating people. The price of mutton is sohigh that many poor people cannot buy it. Therefore on rareoccasions they have to use the flesh of the cow. From my ownknowledge, it is only the barren cows that go to thebutcher. Speaking for Assam, it is the hill people who arethe worst culprits in this respect. In the town of Shillong,there is only one Muslim butcher against seventy from thehill people, who deal in beef. Sir, in these circumstances,in the name of the economic front, I cannot lend my supportto the motion moved by Pandit Bhargava. I am sorry that forthe reasons given already, I am compelled to oppose theamendment of Seth Govind Das.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I accept theamendment of Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava.

Mr. Vice-President: I shall now put the amendments oneby one to the vote. The amendment of Pandit Thakur DassBhargava. That is No. 72 in List II.

Seth Govind Das: What about my amendment which has beenmoved as an amendment to Pandit Bhargava's amendment? Thatshould be put to the vote first.

Mr. Vice-President: You moved your amendment as an amendment to No. 1002 which was not moved.

Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava: I substituted No. 72 forNo. 1002.

Seth Govind Das: My amendment is an amendment to theamendment which Pandit Bhargava just moved.

Mr. Vice-President: All right. I am willing to put youramendment to the vote. Now, the amendment of Seth GovindDas, i.e., 73 in List No. II, is now put to the vote.

The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1002 of the List of

Amendments,in article 38-A, the words and other useful cattle,specially milch cattle and of child bearing age, youngstocks and thought cattle' be deleted and the following beadded at the end: -

"The word `Cow' includes bulls, bullocks, young stockof genus cow.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: Now amendment No. 72 in List II byPandit Thakur Dass Bhargava is put to the vote.

The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1002 of the List of Amendments,for article 38-A, the following be substituted: -

`38-A. The State shall endeavour to organiseagriculture and animal husbandry modern andscientific lines and shall in particular takesteps for preserving and improving the breeds ofcattle and prohibit the slaughter of cow and otheruseful cattle specially milch and draught cattleand their young stocks.'"

The motion was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: Article 38-A will consist of theamendment of Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava. The questionbefore the House is:

"That article 38-A in the form just mentioned form partof the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 38-A, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

Article 39

Mr. Vice-President: Shall we now go on to the next itemin the agenda? No. 1003 has been covered by one of theprevious amendments. No. 1004 has also been disposed of.Then No. 1005. The first part of it cannot be moved, but thesecond part can be moved. (Not moved.)

Then the motion before the House is that article 39forms part of the Constitution. There are several amendmentsto this.

(Nos. 1006, 1007 and 1008 were not moved.) No. 1009 byDr. Ambedkar and his collegues.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move:

"That in article 39, after the words `from spoliation'the word 'disfigurement' be inserted,

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, Ibeg to move:

"That in article 39, after the word 'from spoliation'the word `disfigurement' be inserted, and all the wordsafter the words 'may be' to the end of the article bedeleted."

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Why do you want tomake a speech when I am going to accept it?

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: I am glad that Dr. Ambedkaris going to accept it. Because this article is to be adirective principle, it should not mention about laws ofParliament and so we must omit the words "to preserve andmaintain according to law made by Parliament all suchmonuments or places or objects."

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

Mr. Vice-President: There is another amendment in thename of Shri Ram Sahai, which is identical in words. I shallput this to vote.

Shri Ram Sahai: *[Mr. Vice-President, Sir, there aretwo amendments in my name, and one of them is covered by theamendment just moved by Mr. Shibban Lal Saksena. As Mr.Saksena's amendment has been accepted by Dr. Ambedkar, Ineed not move mine. Now I move my other amendment that seeksto replace the words "It shall be the obligation of thestate" in Article 39 by the words "The State shall". Myobject in moving the amendment is that the words "The Stateshall" should be in Article 39 just as they have been put inthe preceding article and the words "It shall be theobligation of the State" should not be put in here. I havemoved this amendment to bring all these Articles intoconformity. I hope Dr. Ambedkar will accept it and so willthe House.]

Mr. Vice President: I am now putting the amendments oneby one.

The question is:

"That in article 39, after the words `from spoliation'the word `disfigurement' be inserted."

The motion was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: There is the amendment of Prof.Shibban Lal Saksena.

* [] Translation of Hindustani speech.

Begum Aizaz Rasul (United Provinces: Muslim): May Iknow if Dr. Ambedkar has accepted Prof. Shibban LalSaksena's amendment? If not, I wish to oppose the secondpart.

Mr. Vice-President: There is no second part so far as Iam aware. It only refers to deletion of certain words. Thefirst part is the same.

Begum Aizaz Rasul: I wish to oppose that motion.

Mr. Vice-President: I am afraid it is too late now. Thequestion is:

"That in article 39, after the words `from spoliation',the word `disfigurement' be inserted, and all the wordsafter the words `may be' to the end of the article bedeleted."

The motion was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in article 39, for the words `It shall be theobligation of the State to', the words. The State shall' besubstituted."

The motion was negatived.

Shri Ram Sahai: I want to point out that Dr. Ambedkarhas accepted my amendment. I would request you kindly toagain call for voting.

Mr. Vice-President: I put the matter before the Houseand the House has rejected it, and whatever the reasonsmight be, it is not for me to reopen the matter.

I will put that clause in the form in which it nowstands before the House.

Shri Ram Sahai: *[My submission is, Sir, that Dr.Ambedkar has already accepted my amendment. I demanddivision on this question.]

Mr. Vice-President: It is too late now. Why don't youstand up in proper time and demand a division? The matter isnow closed. The question is:

"That article 39, as amended, do stand part of the Constitution.

The motion was adopted.

Article 39, as amended, was added to the Constitution.

Article 39-A

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. Vice-President,Sir, I move:

"That after article 39, the following new article beinserted: -

`39-A. That State shall take steps to secure that,within a period of three years from thecommencement of this Constitution, there isseparation of the judiciary from the executive inthe public services of the State.'"

I do not think it is necessary for me to make any verylengthy statement in support of the amendment which I havemoved. It has been the desire of this country from long pastthat there should be separation of the judiciary from theexecutive and the demand has been continued right from thetime when the Congress was founded. Unfortunately, theBrit ish Government did not give effect to the resolutions ofthe Congress demanding this particular principle beingintroduced into the administration of the country. We thinkthat the time has come when this reform should be carriedout. It is, of course, realised that there may be certaindifficulties in the carrying out of this reform;consequently this amendment has taken into consideration twoparticular matters which may be found to be matters ofdifficulty. One is this: that we deliberately did not makeit a matter of fundamental principle, because if we had madeit a matter of fundamental principle it would have becomeabsolutely obligatory instantaneously on the passing of the Constitution to bring about the separation of the judiciaryand the executive. We have therefore deliberately put thismatter in the chapter dealing with directive principles andthere too we have provided that this reform shall be carriedout within three years, so that there is no room left forwhat might be called procrastination in a matter of thiskind. sir, I move.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari (Madras: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, this is an after-though of Dr. Ambedkar or,shall I say, of the rump of the


* [] Translation of Hindustani speech.

Drafting Committee. I do not know why they did not think ofit at the time they drafted this particular Part of theDraft Constitution. Probably, he felt that in view of thefact that quite a number of new items have crept into thisPart which might be called a veritable dust-bin ofsentiment, he might also find a place in it for thisparticular amendment of his, I see no objection actually tothis or any other amendment coming in because this dust-binseems to be sufficiently resilient as to permit anyindividual of this House to ride his hobby-horse into it.But, I cannot understand Dr. Ambedkar's explanation when hesaid that he did not want to put this in the FundamentalRights. He only wanted to make it permissive; but this ininsists on a three-year limit within which this has to becarried

out! As a matter of fact, when he himself realisesit is not mandatory, what is the object of putting a three-year limit? The mere expression of the wishes of the framersof this Constitution that there should be separation of thejudiciary from the executive is quite enough. It ought to beput into practice by the various Provincial Governments asearly as possible. Where is the merit of the three-yearlimit in this particular matter? I personally would havefavoured the amendment proposed by my friend Pandit LakshmiKanta Maitra, amendment No. 960.

The learned Doctor said that this has been practicallyone of the basic demands of the Congress ever since it wasfounded. I believe it is so; I do not want to deny it. Ialso remember that an eminent Congressman, who was PrimeMinister of one of the major provinces in this country, oncesaid that ideas about the separation of the judiciary fromthe executive have changed, and that because a foreignGovernment was no longer in power, separation need not beeffected. This does not seem to be such a cardinal principleas politicians chose to believe it to be in the days whenthe Brit ish were in power.

The learned Doctor must have known that some provinceshave already taken some steps in the matter of separatingthe judicial and executive functions. I think three majorprovinces have moved in the matter. Actually they have notmade much progress, probably for various reasons, eitherother preoccupations or finance, or whatever it may be. I donot see why we should ask them to do this within three yearswhen probably it could be done in six or seven years. What Ireally feel about this amendment is that there is no rhymeor reason in Dr. Ambedkar seeking to tie the hands ofprovincial Governments by saying that this should be done inthree years, though actually, he cannot tie the hands of theprovincial Governments by this directive as the provincialGovernments can ignore this provision. We are merely voicinga pious wish and tying it up with a period within which weknow that it may not be carried into effect.

In this connection, I would like to strike a note ofwarning. There are several amendments tabled in regard tothis question of judiciary which are to be moved by the rumpof the Drafting Committee, which are in the nature of anafter-thought. For a Professor, it is all very good toenvisage a complete separation of the judiciary and theexecutive. But in actual practice, it might work out in adifferent way altogether. It might also be that in trying togive the judiciary an enormous amount of power, - a judiciarywhich may not be controlled by any legislature in any mannerexcept perhaps by the means of ultimate removal - we mayperhaps be creating a Frankenstein which would nullify theintentions of the framers of this Constitution. I have inmind the difficulties that were experienced in anothercountry where they have a rigid Constitution, the UnitedStates of America, not merely during the time of the NewDeal of President Franklin Roosevelt, but also at the timeof President. Theodore Roosevelt when the Progressive Partyfelt that the judiciary was interfering unduly with theliberalising of the administration. My feeling is that whileI have the greatest respect for Dr. Ambedkar's views on thismatter, to put the Constitution of the country in a straightjacket by giving undue powerto the judiciary at a time when we know that in the matterof recruitment to the judiciary, we are not able to get AClass men at all, is unwise. I see instances of judicialofficers, Judges of the High Courts becoming administrators,and coming back to the judiciary, because, I suppose, theGovernment is not able to find sufficient material from theBar to fill vacancies in the judiciary. It seems in everyprovince the type of people that come up to the top so faras judicial officers are concerned is not about the bestthat we could possibly get. In these circumstances, thistrend of empowering the judiciary beyond all reason andmaking it a regular administration by itself, will perhapslead to a greater danger than we can now

contemplate. I donot know if at this stage I can appeal to the mover of thisamendment to remove the three-year limit, which issuperflous and meaningless and which may not be carried intoeffect, and which would then be a matter of inducing theprovincial Governments to flout the Constitution, and allowthe view to be expressed as a mere sentiment as otherArticles in this Part happen to be. I do not know if Dr.Ambedkar will ever be persuaded, particularly in view of thefact, I think, that the Congress party has approved of thedraft in this particular form; but I think there is no harmin pointing out the obvious difficulty in the wording ofthis particular amendment, which perhaps is otherwise quiteunexceptionable.

Shri B. Das (Orissa: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir,I suggest to the House to postpone consideration of thisamendment of Dr. Ambedkar to a later date. The Congress ismeeting very shortly at Jaipur. When the people wereharassed by the former Brit ish Government, we thought we hadno justice from the Brit ish Government and we wantedseparation of the judiciary from the executive. Thatsuspicion does not exist now. We have to examine whetherseparation today is necessary.

Unfortunately, I find India is lawyer-ridden. In thisHouse, more than fifty per cent. of the members are lawyers.The Municipalities have more lawyers than are necessary. TheMinistry has got a large number of lawyers: I am speaking ofour own Government here. Though it is a pious wish of thisHouse that in three years the judiciary must be separatedfrom the executive, because it is not included in theFundamental Rights, we have to consider, and I think thisHouse will allow the Congress at Jaipur to consider, whetherthe huge expenses that would be incurred, the country canafford to bear.

There had been Pay Committees of Government of Indiaand the Provinces who have not thought of lowering thesalary level of the Executive or Judicial Officers. ThisHouse had accepted Village Panchayats. Dr. Ambedkar wasgenerous to refer to the Congress principles. Is itpracticable to-day? I support my friend Mr. Krishnamacharithat it is not possible in three years. It will take ten ortwenty years to give effect. Otherwise most of theProvincial Governments will go bankrupt if they pay thesalaries that the Judicial Officers are getting.Incidentally I will allude to one fact. I find even theGovernment of India recently increased the number of FederalCourt Judges from three to five. We go on generouslyproviding high judicial appointments and now we want toprovide separate judiciary from the executive, provide morelawyers and munsifs and district judges to allow morelawyers to argue the case on both sides. Where will the poorman be! I would respectfully suggest to this House to allowthis amendment to stand over and let us see what the JaipurCongress thinks on the subject after one year of freedom.Remember the Congress has not met since we won our freedomor so-called freedom from the Brit ish. If we have won ourindependence, let us try to think it out in our era ofindependence.

Mr. Vice-President: The House stands adjourned till 10A.M. to-morrow.

The Assembly then adjourned till Ten of the Clock onThursday, the 25th November 1948.