The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at Half Past Nine of theClock, Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee) in theChair.
TAKING THE PLEDGE AND SIGNING THE REGISTER
The following Member took the Pledge and signed the Register:
The Honourable Shri Krishna Ballabh Sahay (Bihar: General)
New Article 11-B.
Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee): We shall nowresume discussion on amendment No. 382. Shri Amiyo KumarGhosh.
Shri Amiyo Kumar Ghosh (Bihar: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I do not wish to make a long speech on the subject that is before us, nor do I propose to oppose the principle involved in the amendment which was moved yesterday by my Friend Mr. Lari, but, Sir, I oppose its being incorporated in the Constitution. By incorporating such a clause in the Constitution, practically we fetter the hands of the State for all time to resort to such punishment even if it is required by the exigencies of time.
Sir, it is true that the punishment is inhuman, it is true that the judges may err and there is the chance of innocent persons being sent to the gallows, but at the same time we will have to bear in mind that society does not consist of unmixed good elements only. There are evil elements too, and in order to check those evil elements from usurping the society or over awing the society at any time,the State may require such penalties to be imposed on persons who want to terroriz a the society.
I think that with the growth of consciousness, with the development of society, the State should revise a punishmentof this nature but the proper place of doing such a thing is not the Constitution. We can do it by amending the Indian Penal Code where such penalty is prescribed for different offences. We are now passing through a transitional period,serious problems are confronting us, different sorts of situations are aris ing every day, and so it is quite possible that at times the State may require imposition of such grave penalties for offences which may endanger it and the society. Therefore, Sir, on principle I agree that the capital punishment should be abolished, but the proper place for doing such a thing is not to provide a clause to that effect in the Constitution and tie the hands of the State,but it should be done by amending the Indian Penal Code or such other laws which impose such penalty. As I have already stated, the State may require the imposition of such penalties from the exigencies of circumstances and if such a clause is provided in the Constitution, the State will be unable to prescribe such a punishment without amending the constitution, which is a difficult matter.
Under these circumstances I oppose the amendment moved by Mr. Lari.
Shri K. Hanumanthaiya (Mysore): Mr. Vice-President,Sir, the amendment moved by Mr. Lari is sponsored on theground of consideration and following progressive ideas. The abontion of capital sentence is a matter open to argument, and I wish to differ from him. We have to look at this problem from two points of view: one from the point of view of the convict himself and the other from the point of view of the State. From the point of view of the convict, I had an idea that the convict would relish a lite sentence in preference to execution. Some days back,I happened to read one of Bernard Shaw's dramas; it was avery good drama concerning the great heroine of France and there she prefers to be burnt alive rather than be kept in prison for a life time. He brings out that idea very beautifully in the drama, I had to change my opinion that the convict would prefer to be kept alive almost untouchedby social inter course and aloof behind the prison walls. The convict would any day prefer to go out of the world instead of being kept almost like a dead person behind the prison walls for a life time.
Then from the point of view of the State, a man who has no consideration for human lives does not deserve any consideration for his
own life. Society is based not merely on reformation, but also on the fear instinct principle. To forget all other considerations except the question of reforming the convict does not hold the field and it has never held the field. If every man who takes away the life of another is assured that his life would be left untouched and it is a question of merely being imprisoned, probably the deterrent nature of the punishment will lose its value.The practice in prisons today is if a man is sentenced to life, he will be released, after concessions and remissions now and then given, in the course of about seven and a half years. Therefore, if a man who kil's another is assured that he has a chance of being released after seven or eight orten years, as the case may be, then everybody would get encouragement to pursue the method of revenge, if he has got any. For example, let us take this Godse incident.
Mr. Vice-President: No reference should be made to this particular individual.
Shri K. Hanumanthaiya: If a man who resorts to kill an important or a great man and if he is assured that he would be released after seven years or eight years, as the case may be, he would not hesitate to repeat what he has done,and conditions being what they are today, it would be very unwise from the point of view of the safety of the State and stability of society, to abolish capital sentence.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General): I do not accept the amendment.
Mr. Vice-President: I shall put the amendment to vote.The question is:
That after article 11 the following new article be inserted:--
"11-B. Capital punishment except for sedition involving use of violence is abolished."
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Vice-President: We can now go back to Article No.10. The motion before the House is:
"That Article 10 form part of the Constitution."
I shall now go over the amendments and then we may have a general discussion.
Amendment No. 326 is verbal and is disallowed.
As regards No. 327 perhaps Mr. Tahir will meet the objection which has been held by some people that the amendment is unintelligible.
Mr. Mohd. Tahir (Bihar: Muslim): Sir, I beg to move:
That in clause (1) of article 10, after the words "of employment" the word "acquisition be inserted.
In this connection, I do not want to make any long speech. I simply want to mention that there are two aspects,one of employment and one of acquisition. Employment has aready been mentioned; so I want that acquisition also should be added. That is all.
(No. 328 and No. 329 were not moved.)
Mr. Vice-President: Nos. 330 and 331 being verbal are disallowed.
(No. 332 was not moved.)
Amendments Nos. 333, 335 and 337 (first part), are the same. I can allow the first part of amendment No. 337.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim): Sir, I beg to move:
That clause (2) of article 10, for the words "ongrounds only" the words "on grounds" be substituted.
It is really a motion for deletion of the word "only"which seems to be redundant or rather causing some difficulty. The same difficulty has been felt by a large number of Honourable Members, as is evidenced as is evidenced by several amendments to the same effect.
Mr. Vice-President: The next one is No. 334.
Shri Lokanath Misra (Orissa: General): Sir, I beg to move:
"That in clauses (2), (3) and (4) of article 10, be deleted."
On this matter I need not make a long speech. To my mind clause (1) covers all cases and clause (2) is definitely included in clause (1), and clause (3) which refers to reservation of appointments to backward classes is really unnecessary because it puts a premium on backwardness and inefficiency. Everybody has a right to employment, food,clothing, shelter and all those things, but it is not a fundamental right for any citizen to claim a portion of State employments, which ought to go by merit alone. It can never be a fundamental right. If we accept that as one, it may be generous but this generosity will itself be a degradation to
those people who are favoured with it. I think clause (4) is quite unnecessary because ours being a secular State, it should keep its hands clean of all religious institutions and the State need not bother about the management of any religious institutions. Therefore,there should be no thought of reservation of appointments in committees with reference to those religious institutions which are outside the care of the State. For these reasons,I consider clauses (2), (3) and (4) unnecessary.
Mr. Vice-President: Amendments 336 and 341 are of similar import. I can allow 336 to be moved.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I beg to move:
That for clause (2) of Article 10, the following clause be substituted:--
"(2) Every citizen shall be eligible for office under the State irrespective of his religion caste, sex, descentor place of birth."
I have slightly altered my amendment in consequence of the form 'the State adhered to by the House.
The only reason for suggesting this amendment is that it is more direction form.
Shri H.V. Kamath (C. P. and Berar: General): I do not move amendment No. 341, Sir.
Mr. Vice-President: Mr. Tahir may now move the second part of his amendment No. 338; the first part being verbal,I disallow it.
Mr. Mohd. Tahir: I move:
That in clause (2) of Article 10, after the words `forany office', the words `or employment' be inserted.
Sir, the clause as proposed to be amended by me would read:
"(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion,race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth or any of them, be ineligible for any office or employment under the State."
It is very simple and clear that, so far as `office' is concerned, the clause is all right. But, as regards employment which in my opinion means also employment else where than in an office, there is no provision. I therefore think it necessary that the words `or employment 'should be added after `office'. I hope the Mover will accept it.
Mr. Vice-President: Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar may now move No. 342.
(Amendment No. 342 was not moved.)
Mr. Vice-President: Professor Shah may now moveamendment No. 339,
Prof. K. T. Shah (Bihar: General): I beg to move:
That in clause (2) of Article 10, after the words`place of birth' the words `in India' be added.
The clause as proposed to be amended by me would read:
"No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race,caste, sex, descent, place of birth in India, or any of them be ineligible for any office under the State."
Sir, the object of moving this amendment is to point out that this country is vast enough to meet from her own resources of manpower all that is needed to fill any office of responsibility and trust with efficiency in this country.We have examples of other dominions and countries making an implied reservation in their countries; that is to say,reserving offices, reserving posts, and reserving employment primarily for their own citizens and so we shall not be lacking in models to copy or precedents to follow. I suggest that if these words `in India' are added to the clause as it stands, it does not necessarily mean that discrimination shall be made against those not born in India. All that it wants to convey is that no discrimination shall be made against anybody born in India, on account of his place of birth. I consider this is not only a very reasonable suggestion, but also a very necessary one. In the short space of time that we have achieved this independence of ours, and given the influence that seems to be still working to pull us along the lines of commonwealth allegiance and association, we do not know how and where we may be getting to. Personally, I hold the view that by making a reservationof this kind, not only is no injustice or invidious discrimination intended, but what is necessary for our own protection, development and advancement can only be achieved by our own children, by the sons and daughters of the soil only. As such the first claim, a preferential claim for any available employment in this country, should be that of the
natives of the land.
Sir, it is unnecessary to point out that the citizens or the nationals of this country have been discriminated against, and discriminated against very shamefully, in certain parts of the commonwealth as it is called now, like South Africa. Elsewhere, if they do not say so openly in the Constitution, if they do not say so by any specific legislation, they nevertheless maintain a policy of "WhiteAustralia", or White Canada, impliedly conveving the desire that coloured people are not wanted; or if they go there,they shall be under disabilities that will for ever handicap them.
If this is the experience that we are getting even today, even after achieving our independence. I do not see why we in this country should not also takecare, that our Constitution primarily and preferentially reserves all available places of employment, of trust, or responsibility for the children of the soil.
As I started by saying, this does not at all mean that you shall make a categorical discrimination against the citizens of other countries, though there are plenty of examples of that kind even in the existing Constitutions of some of the leading countries of the world. We would certainly not be starting on a new track altogether, even if we were to make a provision of that kind. Given the history that we have, given the suffering that we have endured,given the exclusion of our own countrymen from our public service in all branches by the foreigners who ruled and distorted the requirements of country's advancement it would be, to me at any rate, not only nothing surpris ing, but nothing in proper if we do make a categorical and positive provision, making a clear exception in the case of those whohave exploited and abused their position in this country.
However, Sir, we have been told on good author ity that we should let bye gones be bye-gones, and that we must forget the unfortunate past of this kind. I personally would not be responsible for reviving unpleasant memories, if we can overcome them. It is, therefore, I want to add a clear injunction, that only those born in India, and owing allegiance to this country, shall get any place of responsibility or trust in this country. I would not,indeed, lay it down in the Constitution negatively, i.e., I would not require that no one born outside India shall hold any place of trust or responsibility, profit or power in this country, however justified one may feel from past experience. But while that amount of liberalism may well be shown even by us in spite of our memories, I should certainly think that the reservation I am suggesting is equally necessary, if not more so, viz., that the responsible employment in places of trust available in this country should be reserved for the nationals of this country only. We have in the recent past been obliged to use powers of this kind against those who have discriminated against our nationals in their own jurisdiction. This might be difficult to do hereafter under the new Constitution if a provision of this kind remains in the Constitution, and there was no author ity for us to make a discrimination of the kind I am conveying. I therefore think that there is nothing improper, that there is nothing out of order in making a suggestion that the places of employment,opportunities of service in the country should be reserved for the nationals of the country. I hope the House will accept it.
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar (Madras: General): Sir,I want to say a few words.
Mr. Vice-President: You can do it during the general discussion.
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: Sir, when you called out amendment No. 77 in List No. 2, I did not follow you. It also arises in connection with article 10. With your leave I beg to move:
"That with reference to amendment No. 338 of the List of Amendments........"
Shri H. V. Kamath: On a point of order. Sir, is the amendment now under discussion or the article and the amendments?
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: I am moving an amendment.
Mr. Vice-President: The position seems to be
that, when I called out his name previously to move his amendment, Mr.Ayyangar's mind was elsewhere and he did not follow what was happening. He wants to move his amendment now. Am I right?
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: Yes, Sir, that is the position.
Mr. Vice-President: You can move it as a special concession. I hope I have the support of the House behind me.
Honourable Members: Certainly.
Shri M. ananthasayanam Ayyangar: Sir, with your permission, I beg to move--
"That with reference to amendment No. 338 of the List of Amendments:--
(i) in clause (1) of article 10, for the words "inmatters of employment", the words "in matters relating to employment or appointment to office" be substituted; and
(ii) in clause (2) of article 10, after the words"ineligible for any" the words "employment or" be inserted."
This is only intended to clarify the position and alsoto include the word "office" so that it may be more comprehensive. This does not require any further elaborate speech. I request the House to accept this amendment.
Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor (United Provinces: General): Mr.Vice-President, Sir, I beg to move:
"That in clause (2) of article 10, after the word`birth' the words `or residence be inserted."
Thereafter the clause will read as follows:--
"No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race,caste, sex, descent, place of birth or residence, or any of them, be ineligible for any office under the State."
Sir, the object of my amendment is that every citizen of the country, where ever he might be living, should have equal opportunity of employment under the State. (Every citizen irrespective of his place of residence should be eligible for employment under the State anywhere in thecountry. Sir, there being only one citizenship for the wholecountry, it should carry with it the unfettered right andprivilege of employment in any part and in every book andcorner of the country.) A citizen residing in the provinceof Bengal, Madras, Bombay or C. P. should be eligible foremployment in the U. P. and similarly a resident of the U.P. should have the right and privilege of employment in anyother province of the country, provided of course hepossesses the other necessary qualifications for the office.Every citizen of the country, Sir, I think, must be made tofeel that he is a citizen of the country as a whole and notof any particular province where he resides. He must feelthat wheresoever he goes in the country, he shall have thesame rights and privileges in the matter of employment as hehas in the particular part of the country where he resides.Unfortunately, Sir, for some time past we have beenobserving that provincialism has been growing in thiscountry. Every now and then we hear the cry, "Bengal forBengalis", "Madras for Madrasis" and so on and so forth.This cry, Sir, is not in the interests of the unity of thecountry, or in the interests of the solidarity of thecountry. (We find that some provincial governments have laidit down as a rule that for employment in the province theperson concerned should have been living in the province formany years). One of the provinces, Sir, I am told, has laidit as a rule that they will employ only such persons as haveresided within the province for fifty two years. I do notknow how far it is correct. Possibly there is someexaggeration in the report that has been conveyed to me, butthe fact remains that (provincial governments are beingpressed by the citizens of the province to lay down suchrules in order to prevent residents of other provinces fromseeking service under that provincial government. I caneasily understand a provincial government laying it down asa rule that only those who possess adequate knowledge of theprovincial language shall be eligible for employment in theprovince. I can also understand, Sir, a rule being laid downthat a person who wants employment in the province shouldhave adequate knowledge of local conditions).
Mr. Vice-President: I am hearing other honourableMembers more than the Member who is occupying the rostrum.
Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor: I was submitting, Sir, that Ican easily understand provincial governments, in theinterests of efficiency of the services, laying it down as arule that only those who have adequate knowledge of the pro-vincial language shall have employment in the province. Ican also understand their raying down that persons seekingemployment in the province must have adequate knowledge of the local conditions. All that is easily understandable in the interests of emerency of the services, but to lay itdown as a rule that one should have resided in the provincefor fifty-two years to become eligible for employment seemsto me, Sir, to be simply absurd. It a man of fifty-two seeksemployment, he can serve only for three more years. Isubmit, Sir, that this is a tendency which must be checkedwith a strong hand. I, therefore, submit that in the matterof employment there should be absolutely no restrictionwhatsoever unless it is necessary in the interests of theefficiency of the services. The unity of the country must bepreserved at all costs; the solidarity of the country mustbe preserved at all costs. We must do everything in ourpower to preserve the unity of the country, and the amendment that I have moved arms at this and is a step in this direction; and I, therefore, commend it for theacceptance of the House.
Mr. Vice-President: There are two amendments to amendment No. 340. The first is Amendment No. 81 in listIII.
Shri K. M. Munshi (Bombay: General): I beg to move:
"That in amendment No. 340 of the List of amendments,in clause (2) of article 10, for the words `or residence'proposed to be inserted, the word `residence' be substituted."
This is a verbal amendment, because in the next phrasethe words "or any of them" are used. This is just to bringthe whole language of the clause to run in an appropriateway, I move this amendment.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Are not verbal amendmentsprohibited now?
Shri K. M. Munshi: It is for the Chair to rule whetherthis falls within this category or not.
Mr. Vice-President: I am very thankful to thehonourable Member for the suggestion he has made. It will betaken into account. Mr. Munshi, you may go not.
Shir K. M. Munshi: That is all I want to say. It onlyeliminates the word `or' which occurs after the word`residence' in the clause as it stands.
Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar (Madras: General): The amendment which I have the honour to move runs in theseterms:
That with reference to amendment No. 340, after clause(2) of article 10, the following new clause be inserted:--
`(2 A) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliamentfrom making any law prescribing in regard to a class orclasses of employment or appointment to an office under anyState for the time being specified in the First Schedule orany local or other author ity within its territory, anyrequirement as to residence within that State prior to suchemployment or appointment.)
The object of the amendment is clear from the terms and the wording of it. (In the first part of the article, thegeneral rule is laid down that there shall be equalopportunity for all citizens in matters of employment underthe State and thereby the universality of Indian citizenshipis postulated. In close 2 of article 10, it is expressed in the negative, namely that no citizen shall be ineligible forany office under the State by reason of race, caste, sex,descent, place of birth and so on. The next two clauses arein the nature of exceptions to the fundamental and thegeneral rule that is laid down in the first part of thearticle. Now what the present amendment provides for is thisthat in case of appointments under the State for particularreasons, it may be necessary to provide that residencewithin the State is a necessary qualification forappointment by and within the State. That is the object ofthis amendment and instead of leaving it to individualstates to make any rule they like in regard to residence, itwas felt that it would be much better if the Parliament laysdown a general rule applicable to all states
alike,especially having regard to the fact that in any matterconcerning fundamental rights, it must be the parliament alone that has the power to legislate and not the differentUnits in India. Under these circumstances, I propose this amendment for the consideration of the House.
Shri H. V. Kamath: On a point of clarification, Sir,may I know from my honourable friend, Mr. AlladiKrishnaswami Ayyar whether the words here expressed "anyState for the time being specified in the First Schedule"applies to all the four parts of the First Schedule"? Thefirst Schedule consists of four parts. Three parts refer to the States and the last part refers to the Andaman andNicobar Islands; and we have already adopted article I whichstates in sub clause (2) that "the States shall mean thestates for the time being specified in Parts I, II and IIIof the First Schedule. May I know from him whether "anyState for the time being specified in the First Schedule"means all the States and territories comprised in all thefour parts of the First Schedule? In that case the languageof this amendment will have to be modified. It will have toread "under any state or territory in the first four parts,I, II, III and IV of the First Schedule," and if you want toretain only the word `State', then it will be `under anystate specified in Parts I, II and III of the First Schedule.'
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: It is quite obviousthat we have not specified parts. We have merely said `FirstSchedule' and First Schedule includes all the States in theFirst Schedule.
Shri H. V. Kamath: Article I says `the States includedfor the time being specified in Parts I, II and III of theFirst Schedule.' The territories comprised in Part IV is nota State according to our Constitution.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: There should be noattempt to make any distinction at all.
Shri H. V. Kamath: If my point is unanswerable, I havenothing to say.
Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar: If you only refer to the First Schedule, you will find that Part I refers to theterritories known immediately before the commencement ofthis Constitution as the Governor's Provinces. Part II dealswith the territories known immediately before thecommencement of this Constitution as the ChiefCommissioners' provinces, of Delhi, Ajmer-Merwara and so on.Part III deals with Indian States. All these threecategories are referred to and described as `States' inArticle 1. Part IV of Schedule 1 are Andamans and NicobarIslands. These are not States but territories.
Shri H. V. Kamath: I do not know how you get over thisdifficulty; Andaman and Nicobar Islands is not a State.
Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar: The Andamans would beunder the jurisdiction of the Centre and they will be part of the Central jurisdiction. There this principle as toresidence within that particular locality does not apply toAndaman and Nicobar Islands. The idea is that so far asAndaman and Nicobar Islands are concerned, the Centre musthave a free hand. So far as States in parts I, II and IIIalone are concerned they must be invested with the author ityto provide `residence' within the State as a necessaryqualification.
Shri H. V. Kamath: It will be consistent if you say`under any State or territory comprised in Parts I, II, IIIand IV of the First Schedule,' or "any State specified inParts I, II and III of First Schedule". Otherwise it willnot.
Mr. Vice-President: I suggest that the House willkindly let me go on with the other amendments and in themeantime the honourable Member may go and try to persuadeMr. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar to accept his point of view. I think that is the most practical solution of our difficulty.(Interruption).
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I suggest that as this is only averbal amendment, the matter may be left over to theDrafting Committee.
Mr. Vice-President: Let me pass on the next amendment.We are not putting it to the vote just now.
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: Sir, I beg to move:
"That in clause (2) of article 10, after the word`meligible', the words `or discriminat against be
Sir, not only can discrimination be made at the outsetwhen a person is appointed, but after the appointment takesplace, he may be permanently kept in the first post which heoccupied originally. In the matter of promotions etc., theremay be discrimination. Ineligibility for appointment may notcover these classes of cases. Therefore, to make it clearand to give effect to the intention of the particularclause, the words "or discriminated against" are necessary.I request the House to accept the same.
(Amendment No. 343 was not moved.)
Shri Damodar Swarup Seth (United Provinces: General):Sir, I beg to move:
"That clause (3) of article 10 be deleted."
Sir, the reason for my submission is that though theclause on the face of it appears to be just and reasonable,it is wrong in principle. Who will not believe it, Sir, thatreservation of posts or appointments in services for thebackward classes means the very negation of efficiency andgood Government? Moreover, it is not easy to defineprecisely the term `backward'; nor is it easy to find asuitable criterion for testing the backwardness of acommunity or class. If this clause is accepted, it will giverise to castism and favourit ism which should have nothing todo in a secular State. I do not mean that necessaryfacilities and concessions should not be given to backwardclasses for improving their educational qualifications andraise general level of their uplift. But, Sir, appointmentsto posts should be only left to the discretion of the PublicServices Commission, to be made on merit and qualification,and no concession whatever should be allowed to any class onthe plea that the same happens to be backward.
Mr. Vice-President: Then, we come to amendments numbers345 to 349. These are of similar import.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: (West Bengal: General): Iam not moving amendment No. 345, Sir.
Mr. Vice-President: From amendments numbers 346 to 349,I have selected amendment No. 348 which stands in the nameof Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru.
Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru: (United Provinces: General):Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg to move:
"That in clause (3) of article 10, for the words `shallprevent the State from making any provision for thereservation' the words `shall, during a period of ten yearsafter the commencement of this Constitution, prevent theState from making any reservation' be substituted."
If this amendment is made, Sir, clause (3) would readas follows:
"Nothing in this article shall, during a period of tenyears after the commencement of this Constitution, preventthe State from making any reservation of appointments ofposts in favour of any backward class of citizenswho........etc."
Sir, I am not in principle against the protection of the interests of classes that are at present unable to lookafter themselves unaided; but this article, as it is,presents several difficulties. In the first place, the word`backward' is not defined anywhere in the Constitution.There is another article in the Constitution, namely article301, that provides for the appointment of a Commission toenquire into the condition of the backward classes. But, it is stated there that only those classes will come within thepurview of the enquiry that are educationally or sociallybackward. There too there is no enumeration of the
classes to which the enquiry will refer. This article iseven more indefinite. Whether any class is backward or not,should not be left to the law courts to decide. It istherefore our duty to define the term `backward' so thatthere may be no dispute in the future about its meaning.
My second point Sir, is this. While granting protectionto communities that have been left behind in the race oflife, is it desirable that any special provisions laid downfor them should operate indefinitely? Or is it desirableboth in the interest of the backward classes and the Statethat any special provisions made for these classes should beof limited duration? It this article remains as it is and ifreservation of appointment or posts can be made in favour of any
backward class indefinitely, the State might come tothink that it had done its duty by these classes by makingthis provision. I think and I believe that the House, ifleft to itself, would agree that it is desirable that theoperation of such a provision should come under review fromtime to time so that we may be able to see whether the Statehad taken such steps as were necessary in order to liftthese classes from their present position and enable them tocompete on terms of equality with the other classes.
Sir, my third argument is that the provision withregard to the reservation of seats in the legislatures for the minor ities, which must include the depressed classes and the scheduled tribes, according to the draft constitution isto be of limited duration. Now nobody can deny at thepresent time that a provision of this kind is necessary for these classes and it must be obvious to everybody here thatrepresentation in the legislature is of far greaterimportance than representation in services. If a communityis represented in the legislature, its representatives canvoice its demands from time to time and can see that anyinjustice done to that community either in the matter ofappointment to posts or in any other matter is rectified.But if it ceases to be represented in the legislature,whatever protection might be granted to it in this or thatmatter, it will be in a far more helpless condition than ifit were deprived of any other special aid. Now it has beenprovided in the Constitution that the reservation of seatsfor the minor ities which include the scheduled tribes anddepressed classes, who must according to any definition beregarded as backward, is limited to ten years. Article 305lays down that the provision for the reservation of seatsfor the minor ities which include the scheduled tribes anddepressed classes, who must according to any definition beregarded as backward, is limited to ten years. Article 305lays down that the provision for the reservation of seatsfor the minor ities according to their population shallcontinue in force unchanged for ten years and no more. Onthe expiration of then years from the commencement of the Constitution this "provision shall lapse unless it soperation is extended by an amendment of the Constitution.Now is it not desirable that a similar limitation should bellaid down in clause (3) of article 10? Indeed it can beapplied with greater force to article 10 than to thereservation of posts for the minor ities in the Central andProvincial administrations. If clause (3) of article 10 isto be in comformity with the scheme for the protection of the interests of the backward classes, I submit that it is not merely desirable but necessary that the amendment that Ihave proposed should be made.
Lastly, Sir, I should like to know what is therelationship between clause (3) of article 10 and article296. Article 296 provides that the claims of minor itycommunities shall be taken into consideration consistentlywith the maintenance of efficiency in the administration in the making of appointments to services and posts inconnection with the affairs of the Union or of a State for the time being specified in Part I of the First Schedule.Now in so far as clause (3) of Article 10 applies to allStates specified in the First Schedule, the differencebetween it and article 296, which applies only to Statesspecified in Part I of the First Schedule, is clear. Butbeyond that it is far from clear what the relationshipbetween these two articles is. Article 296 relates tominor ities. The claims of the minor ity communities can betaken into consideration in making appointments to servicesonly on the ground that they are backward. Though it is the word `minor ity' that is used, in article 296 and theexpression `backward classes' is used in article 10 (3), itseems to me that in fairness to the country protection canbe granted to any class, whether you call it a backwardclass or a minor ity, only on the ground that it is backwardand if left to itself, would be unable to protect itsinterests. This shows the need for
clearing up theconnection between the two articles that I have justreferred to. Apart from this, I should like to know whetherif clause (3) of article 10 were passed, it would bepossible for sections within the various communities to askfor special protection for themselves in the matter ofappointments to services or posts. It may be that if clause(3) of article 10 is passed, it will not be possible for theState to make any reservations in the services forminor ities as such. But will it not be a temptation tosections of these and other communities to claim that theyare backward in order to get the protection of clause (3) ofarticle 10? Sir, I submit that we should have a system thatwould not encourage fissiparous tendencies and under whichit will not be to the interest of any class to claim that it is backward. It is desirable therefore to limit theoperation of any special protection that we may grant--protection of whatever kind--that its duration should belimited, so that the legislature may from time to time beable to see how it has worked and how the State hasdischarged its duty towards the protected classes. Unlessthis is done, I venture to think that article 10 would notbe in conformity with the intention of the constitution toremove all those conditions on account of which specialprotection is necessary. We are all aware that when theReport of the Minor ities Committee was considered by theHouse, the entire House was anxious that reservations of whatever kind should be done away with as quickly aspossible. It was recognized that for the time being theywere necessary, but it was insisted on that whateverprotection might be considered necessary now, should begranted temporarily only, so that the population of thecountry might become fully integrated, and no community orclass might be tempted to claim special advantages for itself. On these grounds, Sir, I venture to put forward myamendment though I have no doubt whatsoever, that it willnot find favour with my friend Dr. Ambedkar.
Mr. Vice-President: The other amendments which areplaced in the same category are Nos. 346, 347, and 349. I want to know whether it is proposed that I should put themto vote.
(Amendments Nos. 346, 347, 349, 350, 351 and 352 werenot moved.)
No. 353 and 360 are of the same nature, and I wouldlike to have them considered together.
(Nos. 353 and 360 were not moved).
Shri V. I. Muniswamy Pillay (Madras: General): I do notmove amendment No. 353, but would like to make a statement.
Mr. Vice-President: You can do so during the generaldiscussion.
Then we come to No. 354 to No. 357.
(No. 354 and No. 355 were not moved).
Mr. Aziz Ahmad Khan (United Provinces: Muslim): *[Mr.President. I propose:
That in clause (3) of Article 10 the word "backward" be omitted.
Sir, I would like to submit that at the time when the minor ity Report was submitted to this House, the word"backward" was not there and we had finally decided that it is unnecessary to include the word "backward". Moreover, ifyou look at the Draft Constitution, you will find that thereare several articles
*  Translation of Hindustani speech.
of such a nature that, in case this amendment is notaccepted, those articles become opposed to article 10; Irefer to articles 296 and 299.
I have listened with attention the speech justdelivered by Shri Kunzru. His object was to emphasise thatunder the new conditions created in India, if any protectionis to be given, it could be given only to those particularclasses of people who are educationally or culturallybackward. Only such people require protection and not theminor ities. In his opinion, no class or group as suchrequires any protection under the existing conditions. In myopinion, however, only those people require protection whohave misgivings that in case protection is not given, theirrights will not be preserved. I think that in case stateservices are monopolised by one particular class, thenothers might think that their existence has been ignored.This very idea will
become a source of creatingunpleasantness in the country. To my mind, therefore, this amendment is essential. I am of the opinion that in the newset up which we have to make in the country, we shouldneither create nor multiply differences. Nevertheless, it isa fact that due to the changes which we are introducting in the country, there are minor ities who require protection.Safeguards should be provided for them and this can be doneeasily.
Sir, by article 296 such a safeguard has been providedand in article 299 also a similar provision has been made. I would like to submit that if as a matter of fact we areshaping this country in such a manner that there should notremain any difference, then it is necessary that thereshould not be any impediment that might create a feeling in the mind of an individual who has educational andcitizenship qualifications that his claims are beingignored. Therefore, if this Article is not amended, thenthere will be doubts and misgivings among the minor itiesthat they are being ignored. I do not say that it isnecessary to recruit 20 per cent. Sikhs, 15 per cent.Christians or 15 per cent Muslims in the public services of our country. I want only this much that if the Sikhs, theMuslims, the Christians and similar other groups living in the country, have educational and other requisitequalifications, then their claims should not be overlooked.Therefore, I think if this word be deleted from thisarticle, then we shall not be accused of overlooking theclaims of any particular class. To my mind if the word`backward' is deleted, then the hand of the Government willbe strengthened in such a way that it will enable theGovernment from time to time to make adequate arrangementsin case the claims of any particular group are overlooked inpublic services. I think that this article would fetter thepowers of the Government so tightly that they will not beable to remove the defects and the differences which existtoday and they will continue. On these grounds, I hope thatthe House will accept this amendment which is certainly inconsonance with the Minor ity Committee's Report.]
Mr. Vice-President: There is an amendment to this amendment, that is No. 43 of List No. 1. I see it is notgoing to be moved. Then there is amendment No. 357 standingin the name of Shri Shankar Rao Deo and Acharya JugalKishore; they are not in the House. We next come to amendment No. 358 which is a verbal amendment. I can allowamendments Nos. 359, 361 and 362 to be moved. No. 359 is in the name of Shri Ranbir Singh, he is not in the House. Thencomes No. 361--Shri Lokanath Misra.
Shri Lokanath Misra: I am not moving it.
Mr. Vice-President: Then 362 stands in the names of Dr.Pattabhi and others. They are not moving it. Then No. 363 in the name of Prof. Shah. The second part of this amendmentand amendment No. 366 are the same.
Prof. K. T. Shah: Sir, I beg to move:
"That in clause (4) of article 10, after the words `inconnection with' the word `managing' be added, and the words`or denominational' and `or belonging to a particulardenomination be deleted."
The amended article as suggested by me would read:--
"Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the ncumbent of an office inconnection with managing the affairs of any religiousinstitution or any member of the Governing Body thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion."
The other words would be deleted.
As I understand the purpose of this article, I thinkwhat is wanted is that any exclusive religious institution,specifically concerned with a particular sect ordenomination, should be conducted by people professing thatreligion, sect or faith, and that none not so professingshould be allowed to be associated with the management ofit. If you use the very much broader words, that is to say"in connection with"--"any person holding any office inconnection with"--I venture to think that those words mayalso include any honorary office or a mere place of honourin recognition of some donation, or some special gifts orsome
other service, which it would not be right and propershould go wholly unrecognised for mere reasons of differencein religious belief, especially if such institutions areconducting or having other activities besides merelyreligious or sectarian.
As illustration, may I give this. I can conceive of,let us say, educational institutions like universities orhospitals or other similar foundations, which may beregarded as devoted to or connected with a particularreligion, in the governance of which a provision like this,without the amendment I am suggesting, may work needlessmischief. In those bodies the mere holding of an honoraryfellowship, or senatorship, or some kind of an honorarylecturership should not be excluded. I am sure it was notthe intention of the draftsmen to exclude such merelyhonorary connection. But I feel that their wording, as itstands, is liable, at least in the laymen's judgment, to bemisconstrued; and at times offer opportunity to extra-cleverlawyers to make new capital out of such provision.
So, I for one would not like to leave any room for theexercise of such ingenuity at the expense of the Community,or of the interests or the ideals which we are acceptinghere. In making provision of this kind, it seems to me, if Imay make a general observation, that the draftsmen seem to be torn between two rival ideals: one suggesting the Constitution for a wholly secular State, in which religionhas no official recognition, and therefore trying to make,so far as the civic life of the community is concerned, noprovision or distinction in favour or in connection with areligion sect or a denomination.
On the other hand, there seems to me to be a pull--somewhat sub-conscious pull, if I may say so--in favour ofparticular religions or denominations, whose institutions,whose endowments, whose foundations, are sought to beprotected and kept exclusive by making exceptions of thiskind. After all, this clause (4) is an exception to the mainprinciple of the article; and, being an exception, it seemsto secure immunity or exclusiveness for the management of the institutions of particular denominations, which thedraftsmen somehow sub-consciously have sought to provide.That is to say, without denying the basic principle of a secular State, they have introduced by the back door so tosay new amendment or exceptions, which seem in my eyes totake away the spirit of the whole provision as contained in this article.
I think, therefore, that if it was made clear by theaddition of the words that I have suggested, namely, that noone not professing a particular religion need be associatedwith managing the affairs of that institution it wouldsuffice. It would serve the purpose, if such purpose is to be served, of the original Foundation; and at the same timeit would give you all the safety, all the unconcern, if Imay put it that way, of a State which favours no particularreligion.
There is nothing objectionable in my amendment that Ican see, though I shall listen with interest to anyopposition or objection which the draftsmen or theirchampions may have. Until they say so, and convince me to the contrary perhaps it would be just as well to commendthis amendment with these words to the House.
(Amendment No. 364 was not moved.
Mr. Vice-President: No. 365 is verbal and isdisallowed.
(Amendments Nos. 367 and 368 were not moved.
Mr. Vice-President: Regarding No. 82 on list II, therewas some objection raised by Mr. Kamath.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: He is satisfied with the explanation given by Mr. Munshi.
Shri H. V. Kamath: No, Sir. It has not removed mydifficulty. It has not removed the doubts in my mind. Letthem explain again, if they can. I do press my point.
The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta (C. P. &Berar): The point raised by Mr. Kamath is really ticklishand it requires some consideration. There seems to be nodoubt about it. Now, Sir, the amendment reads thus:
"Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament frommaking any law prescribing in regard to a class or classesof employment or
appointment to an office under the Statefor the time being specified in the First Schedule or anylocal or other author ity within its territory anyrequirement as to the residence within that State prior tosuch employment or appointment."
Now, the word "State" occurs in two places in the Draft Constitution. One is in Article 1 and the other is inArticle 7. The meaning of the word state in Article 1 iscomprehensive and mostly relates to the territorial side ofit, and in Article 7 it relates to the author itative side ofit, the Government part of it. I shall read the latter:Article 7 says:
"Unless the context otherwise requires, the Stateincludes the Government and the Parliament of India and theGovernment and the Legislature of each of the States and oflocal or other author ities within the territory of India orunder the control of the Government of India."
So article 7 which defines the word "State" does notdefine the territory but it defines the author ity of theState. Article 1 defines the territory of the State. The amendment speaks of both. So, when we say employment orappointment to an office under any State, there we say theauthor ity of the State; so there is nothing wrong becausearticle 7 would mean all the territories of the States inSchedule I. As soon as we say that "In this part, unless thecontext otherwise requires, the State includes all........"so far as this article 7 is concerned, the whole of ScheduleI is covered and there is no doubt about it. Then, Sir,article 10 refers to appointment to an office under theState,--there is nothing wrong because here "under theState" means as defined in article 7, and because thedefinition of article 7 covers the whole of the Stateincluding the territories in the First Schedule. That is allright. But when we come to the other part of it, as toresidence within that State, there the rub arises. Theresidence cannot be in the author ity; the residence must bein the territory and therefore we cannot invoke Article 7;we must necessarily go to Article 1 and when we go toArticle 1, therein part (4) of Schedule I becomes excluded.This is my point.
Mr. Vice-President: Before we start the generaldiscussion, I would like to place a particular matter beforethe honourable Members. The clause which has so long beenunder discussion affects particularly certain sections of our population--sections which have in the past been treatedvery cruelly--and although we are today prepared to makereparation for the evil deeds of our ancestors, still theold story continues, at least here and there, and capital ismade out of it outside India. Every time we seek to placediscussions in the international sphere on a high plane, it is at once thrown in our teeth that we have been treatingcertain sections of our brethren in a very unjustifiableway. I would therefore very much appreciate the permissionof the House so that I might give full freedom of discussionon this particular matter to our brethren of the backwardclasses. Do I have that permission?
Honourable Members: Certainly.
Mr. Vice-President: I will first call upon Mr. Gurung.
Shri H. V. Kamath: Before you proceed to the discussionof the article, won't you finalise the amendment of Mr.Alladi Krishnaswami Iyer? The difficulty raised by me hasnot yet been answered.
Mr. Vice-President: That will be taken up later on.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I have a preliminary matter. Thiscontravenes some amendment which has already been accepted.There is in line 3 in amendment No. 82 the expression "anyState." We have accepted the expression "the State."
Mr. Vice-President: I cannot permit you to speak now.Mr. Gurung may speak.
Shri Ari Bahadur Gurung (West Bengal: General) Mr.Vice-President, I thank you very much for the opportunitygiven me to speak on this occasion. I am particularly happyto note the provision in clause 3 of this article whichsays.
`Nothing in this article shall prevent the State frommaking any provision for the reservation of appointments orposts in favour of any backward class of citizens who, in the opinion of
the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.'
Sir, may I take it that the word `backward' includesthree categories of people, namely Scheduled Castes, andTribals and one particular class which is not included sofar, under the term `backward' although it is educationallyand economically backward? If I may say so, Sir, 90 percent. if not more of the Indian people are educationally andeconomically backward; the meaning of the word `backward'seems to be vague to me. I feel I shall be failing in myduty to a particular section of the Indian people, viz., theGurkhas, if I do not voice their feeling at this stage.
The Gurkhas, I must bring to the notice of the House,are three millions, if not more, domiciled in India. Theyare educationally and economically backward. I feel that theGurkhas who are domiciled in India should have the sameprivilege as other backward communities in India. Sir, it isa known fact that the Gurkhas have played their part in thepreservation of the independence of India and are nowactually fighting in Kashmir after fighting in Hyderabad.They have had their share of the work in the preservation ofIndia's independence. I assure the House that the Gurkhaswho are now domiciled in India owe their full allegiance to the Indian Government. There had been a deep-rootedsuspicion in the minds of many that the Gurkhas oweallegiance to the Government of Nepal. Today, on the floorof the House, I assure you that the Gurkhas who aredomiciled in India owe allegiance to the Government of Indiaand not to the Government of Nepal. These Gurkhas will nothesitate to shed their last drop of blood to preserve theindependence that we have got.
There has been a very good gesture since the 15thAugust 1947 regarding the Gurkhas. When the Brit ishers wereruling in India, the Gurkhas were given only Viceroy'sCommissions in the Army, but since 1948, many Gurkhas havebeen given emergency commissions as officers and Iunderstand some of them have risen to the rank of Colonels too. This grant orrecognition has been a very good gesture.
Now this clause in article 10 makes a provision infavour of the backward classes of citizens who in theopinion of the State are not sufficiently represented in theservices of the State. Today, I feel that the Gurkhas whohad their opportunity to serve in the army and are educated,with this provision, may be taken to the civil side of theadministration. I hope that the Gurkhas who have shown theirbravery and valour in the army would show equal intelligenceand integrity in the civil departments.
Thank you very much, Sir.
Shri R. M. Nalavade (Bombay: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I am very glad to express the support of thedepressed classes to article 10 which is now underdiscussion. In this article, particularly in clause (3)there is provision made for reservation in the services for the backward classes. But the words backward classes' are sovague that they could be interpreted in such a way as toinclude so many classes which are even educationallyadvanced. They are found mentioned in the list of backwardclasses. If the words `Scheduled Castes' might have beenused it would have been easier for the depressed classes toget adequate representation in the services. Our experiencein the provinces, though there are provisions forreservation in the services, is bitter. Even though thedepressed classes are educated and qualified, they are notgiven chances of employment under the ProvincialGovernments. Now that we have provided for this in the Constitution itself, there is no fear for the Scheduled castes. According to this clause we can be adequatelyrepresented in the provincial as well as in the Centralservices. I therefore support this clause on behalf of thedepressed classes.
Dr. Dharam Prakash (United Provinces: General): *[Mr.Vice-President, it is an undoubted fact that "backward"class has not been defined so far and there is nopossibility of its being defined in the near future. In factthere is no community which does not have a section ofpeople which is
backward, whether economically oreducationally or socially. Thus there are backward people inevery community. Personally I believe that if there is to beany reservation for backward classes in the services it isvery necessary to see as to what is the present position andwhat is to be the future of a particular class which hasbeen backward for centuries, whether religiously oreconomically or socially. This view needs carefulconsideration.
The first objectionable feature of this clause is thatit can be instrumental in bringing about a great crisis evenin the present circumstances. Every honourable Member knowsthat our national government has inherited an administrativemachinery which always had a very narrow communal,provincial or religious outlook. Even now it is anundeniable fact that whenever the question of reservation inservices arises, the people of any province holding amajor ity of posts or the person holding any office are ledby provincial or individual interests in makingappointments. If the person concerned belongs to theprovince of the officer he is favoured from the provincialpoint of view. If he belongs to his community, he isfavoured from the communal point of view and if he belongsto his caste, sub-caste or section, he is favoured from thatpoint of view. The officer does not take into considerationthe merit of the candidate but only sees whether he canserve his interest. Therefore he encourages such peoplealone to join the services. It cannot be expected of thismachinery of the old pattern, which is moving at its presentspeed with great effort, that it will act impartially inmaking appointments to the services. This is a great dangerand to remove it, I think, it is necessary to clarifyimpartially
* Translation of Hindustani speech.
as to who are the backward classes. This may remove thedifficulty. The atmosphere in the country today is such ascompels us to demand reservation not in the services butalso in the Legislatures. Otherwise I am of the opinion that in a country, which has become free and the constitution ofwhich is being framed with full freedom, there is nonecessity for reservation. But the great difficulty whichforces us to make a demand for reservation is that there isno such generosity and impartiality in our society as asociety needs for its welfare nor is there any possibilityof its being there in the near future. Therefore, as it hasbeen suggested by the amendment, I submit that the words`backward class' should be substituted by `depressed class'or `scheduled class' because the latter have a definitemeaning. Among the scheduled castes have been included anumber of those classes which are accepted by all to be`backward. Therefore I support this amendment in the formthat the words `backward class' should be substituted by the words `scheduled caste.' I think that reservation inservices too is necessary for them for some time. OtherwiseI do not even like to have any reservation in the legislatures. I personally hold the view that in this freecountry it is not proper to make reservation for Hindus,Muslims, Christians and Sikhs on the ground that they areminor ities. But in so far as that section of Hindus isconcerned who are called Harijans, and they are reallybackward,--it appears to be appropriate that there should bereservation for some time. That too should be for some timeonly. When they reach the same level of culture as othersections of the population have, I would be the first personto oppose any reservation whatsoever for them. So long asthey do not attain that position, I favour reservation.Therefore, I submit that with the addition of these wordsreservation in services will prove to be useful instead ofbeing harmful.]
Shri Chandrika Ram (Bihar: General): *[Mr. President, Irise to express my support for article 10. Severalamendments have been moved for inserting the words"Scheduled Castes" after the words "Backward classes" in this article. I would like this to be done. Members areperhaps aware of the fact that the
question of reservationfor Depressed Classes and Scheduled Castes was discussed bythe Advisory Committee but it was lost by a single vote.Otherwise there would have been, legally binding provisionsfor reservation in services for the Harijans. But as it is,I find that people are wondering why the expression"Backward Classes" has been put in this article and why isit that `Backward Class' has not been properly defined. Themembers of the House who have had occasion to go through theCensus Reports specially of the years 1921 and 1931, wouldhave found that the expression `Backward Class' has, in away, been defined therein. So far as I think, and thisopinion is borne out by these Reports, our society isdivided into three sections--The highest consisting of thatsection of our society which is known as `Caste Hindus' and the lowest of the section known as Scheduled Castes orHarijans, while the third occupying a middle positionbetween these two and consisting of a large portion of ourpeople is what may be termed as the Backward Class. I amsorry that this backward class for whose cause HonourablePandit Hirday Nath Kunzru has pleaded, has not been givenreservation in Legislatures, that is neither in theassemblies nor in the councils. I may cite Bihar as a casein point. According to the Census Report, the backward classconstitutes a major section of the population of theprovince. But you will find that with the only exception ofAhir community no other community has been givenrepresentation in the Council or Assembly of the province.Their population in the province is about five millions.There are altogether 152 seats in the Assembly and 30 seatsin the Council; but in both the Houses the Backward Classhas got only two seats. No doubt they are not treated asuntouchables. Moreover from the educational and economicpoint of view they are in a much better condition than theother communities. If a community, however, is to progressand occupy a high position in
* Translation of Hindustani speech.
society it is essential that it must possess politicalrights. If a community, howsoever large it may be within asociety and whatever pre-eminence it may have reached in thematter of its culture, does not possess political rights andhas also no political representation in the Council and theAssembly, I am afraid, I cannot see how it can have the samestatus as the other communities in the eyes of the State. I,therefore, think that just as we have provided forreservations for the Harijans in Services, in Assemblies andin Councils, it would be proper on our part to make similarprovision for backward classes also for whom Pandit HirdayNath Kunzru has argued so feelingly. We have provided somany privileges to Harijans on the ground that they arebackward and I fail to understand why the same argumentshould not be applied for providing reservations for thebackward classes. I think that this is a view requiringserious consideration. We are framing a constitution for ourcountry by which we intend, and this has been specificallystated in the preamble, to secure to all citizens `Justice,social, economic and political.' But I think that we areactually denying political rights to a large section of ourcountrymen who constitute in my opinion, a major ity of thepopulation. We profess to be providing equal opportunity toall but in fact we are denying this to the backward classes.Therefore, if we really mean to secure equal opportunity toall we should, in article 10, not only provide forreservation of appointments or posts in favour of backwardclass of citizens but should also provide for reservation ofseats in Legislatures for them. I would like to answer theobjection of many members against the retention of the words`backward class' in this article.
Particularly my socialist friends Seth Damodar Swarupand Pandit Lokanath Misra have moved amendments seekingdeletion of the word `backward class.' The first observationI would like to make in this connection is that I do notunderstand why Sethji who is a member of
the SocialistParty, which, as is well known, desires to securerepresentation for every section of the population, shouldbe rais ing an objection against the provision in this clausewhich is for the benefit of the `Backward Class.' To thosewho think that no backward class exists in the country, I would only say that they are blind to the facts of thehistory of our country, to the progressive society of todayand to the conditions obtaining at present. I thereforecommend wholeheartedly the labours of the Drafting Committeein this respect. With these words, Sir, I support the amendment as it is.]
Shri P. Kakkan (Madras: General): Mr. Vice-President,Sir, I am very glad to support article 10. The poor Harijancandidates hitherto did not get proper appointments inGovernment services. The higher officers selected only theirown people, but not the Harijans. Sir, even in the matter ofpromotions, we did not get justice. The Government canexpect necessary qualifications or personality from theHarijans, but not merit. If you take merit alone intoaccount, the Harijans cannot come forward. I say in this House that the Government must take special steps for thereservation of appointments for the Harijans for some years.I expect that the Government will take the necessary stepsto give more appointments in Police and Military servicesalso. For example, in Kashmir the poor Harijans are fightingwith great vigour. I say in this House that the Harijansmust be given more jobs in this Government and be encouragedby the Government. With these few words, finish my speech,Sir.
Shri V. I. Muniswamy Pillay: Mr. Vice-President, Sir,in the first two clauses of article 10, it has been madeclear that all citizens will have a general right for theservices, but when we come to clause (3), by putting theword `backward' which has already been pointed out by one of the honourable members, it has not been defined properly. Sothis throws me in confusion, whether the communities thatwere left out early in the administration for their due share have been provided for. Sir, in the great upheaval of making aConstitution for this country, I feel that the communitiesthat have not enjoyed the loaves and fishes of the servicesshould not be left out. It is for this purpose, I gavenotice of an amendment and a further amendment signed bymore than fifty members has been presented to this House,but for reasons well-known to you, Sir, I could not movethat amendment. But I wish to make it clear that unlessthere is an assurance that these communities--I speciallymean the Scheduled castes--are given a chance, unless thereis an assurance that these communities will at all times betaken into account and given enough and more chances inappointments, their uplift will still stand over. The otherday, Sir, our Honourable Deputy Premier, Sardar Patel, hasclearly said that not only justice must be done to theHarijans, but their case must be treated with generosity. It is in that view and spirit I request that a clear indicationshould be given by this House that the interests of theScheduled Castes will be looked after. Sir, some honourableMembers feel that reservation is not necessary. I think thisis unwholesome thinking, because so long as the communalcanker remains in the body politic, I feel there will becommunities coming up for reservation; but the case of theScheduled Caste is not pleaded on a matter of communalism,because they have been left in the lurch and due to theirlack of social, economic and educational advancement foryears and decades it is necessary, and I also feel thattheir case must be presented in this House vehemently, sothat we may get justice at all times. At the same time I maytell this House that it is not the object of any of theleaders of the Harijan community to perpetuate the communalbogey in this land for ever, but so long as they remain sobackward in getting admission into the services, it ishighly necessary that they must be given some protection.Sir, in the past, the Government of India had made provisionexperiencing their inadequacy in the
services; and even inmy own province the Government of Madras have issued acommunal G. O. and thereby they have given chances for theHarijans. Apart from that all those people who have beenrecruited from the Scheduled Castes have proved worthy of the choice. If I may say so, Sir, even in the Military, weknow that in Kashmir they have played their part mostefficiently and the very existence of the Chairman of theDrafting Committee here shows the ability that the Scheduled castes posses.
Shri T. Channiah (Mysore): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, theretention of the word `backward' in clause (3) of article 10has created some doubt among honourable members from theMadras province. It is a fact, of course, Sir, that the word`backward' has not been specifically defined in the Draft Constitution. Honourable Members coming from Northern Indiahave been puzzled to note that honourable members comingfrom the south are very particular about this word`backward.' In Northern India, for instance, the honourablemembers coming from Northern India are aware that there is aclear distinction between Hindus and Muslims; that much theyunderstand very clearly. They also know that among theHindus there are classes of people who are agriculturalclasses, and also people who are engaged in artisan works.They also belong to the backward class. In South India, Sir,the term `backward classes' is very distinct. The Backwardclasses in South India, as I am aware, are either sociallybackward or educationally backward. The only classes who donot fit in this context namely clause (3) of article 10 arethose who are economically forward. They feel that the wordbackward, if retained, will come in the way of theirinterest, namely, entertainment of these classes in theservices. Therefore, Sir, the backward classes of people asunderstood in South India, are those classes of people whoare educationally backward, it is those classes that requireadequate representation in the services. There are otherclasses of people who are socially backward; they alsorequire adequate representation in the services Theeconomically forward class of people are reallydis interested in the word `backward' appearing in clause (3)of article 10.
To give a clear picture of this, Sir, I would like tostate what obtains in Mysore. There are two classes ofvacancies, A and B classes. For the A Class vacancies, boththe Brahmins and the Non-Brahmins are competent to apply,whereas for the B class vacancies, only the backward classesare entitled to compete. Sir, these backward communitiessuffer from two disabilities, namely, social disabilitiesand educational disabilities. It is from these two points ofview, that the State Government has specifically providedthe appointments in the B class. Therefore, Sir, it is butright that the word "backward" appearing in clause (3) ofarticle 10 should be retained. As the Honourable Dr.Ambedkar has rightly said, the retention of the word`backward' will be very appropriate also for this reason,namely, that clauses (1) and (2) of article 10 would be nulland void if this word `backward' is not retained in clause(3) of article 10.
Mr. Vice-President: Sorry, there are other speakers whowant to speak.
Shri T. Channiah: I am really sorry that the honourablePandit Kunzru should have felt that the backward classshould be given this opportunity only for a period of tenyears. Sir, I want this reservation for 150 years which hasbeen the period during which opportunities have been deniedto them.
Mr. Vice-President: Mr. Channiah, will you please go toyour seat?
Shri Santanu Kumar Dass (Orissa: General): *[Mr. Vice-President, it is not my desire to say anything in connectionwith Backward classes which are being discussed here. Theevil effects of foreign rule in our country prevent us fromimmediately deleting all provisions relating to Reservationsfrom our Constitution. So long as these conditions continuein our country we will continue to demand reservations in the services for the Harijans and the scheduled castes, for these are covered by the term `backward class'. We
will goon scrutinis ing the number of Harijans, Muslims andChristians in the services. Nowadays a minor ity fears thatwithout reservation it would not be able to gain seats inElections or employment in services. You know that there aremany vacancies in the Railway and Postal Departments. Theseposts are advertised. We receive interview letters and ourcandidates come from distant places for interview, but theircases are not at all considered and they are totallyignored, whereas those who have been working as apprenticesare selected as they have a strong backing from theirdepartments. What do we gain by these advertisements? Whenthere is a chance we are ignored. Then, why do you advertiseat all? Is it only to please Panditji or Sardarji?]