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): Before we begin the work of the House, I am sure that honourable Members will agree with me if I ask them to stand for a minute in silence to show our gratitude to the Source of all life, and the Source of all energy whom we all worship in our different ways, that at last there has been this cease-fire arrangement at Kashmir.
(The Assembly stood for a minute in silence.)
Thank you all.]
We shall begin our work today by taking by taking up article 66 which has to be passed before we can pass on to article 67.
The motion before the House is:
"That article 66 form part of the Constitution."
Amendment No. 1353 to this article, standing in the name of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad is disallowed as it is not substantive.
Nos. 1354, 1335 and 1358 are of similar import and No.1355 may be moved. It stands in the name of Shri Brajeshwar Prasad.
(Amendments Nos. 1354 and 1355 were not moved.)
No. 1358 may be moved, standing in the names of Shri Lokanath Misra and Shri Mohan Lal Gautam.
Shri Lokanath Misra (Orissa: General): Sir, I beg to move:
"That in article 66 the words `and two Houses to be known respectively as the Council of States' be deleted."
If this amendment is accepted, the article would read like this:--
"There shall be a ParlI ament for the Union which shall consist of the President and the House of the People."
The effect will be that there will be no second Chamber to be called the Council of States.
Sir, I beg to submit that I am not against second Chambers on principle. But in the present temper of our people, and in view of the manner of the constitution of the second Chamber as has been envisaged in the Draft Constitution, I do not think there is any real need for the second Chamber, nor do I think that it will serve any useful purpose. Sir, so far as I have studied the Constitutional and the constitutional precedents, it is now admitted almost on all hands that second Chambers are out of date. The only argument that is generally advanced in favour of such a chamber is that it will have a sobering effect on the e Lower House which is more representative of the people and that the people are now restive. I therefore submit that unless the manner of the Constitution of this second Chamber is change and we are in a position to accept something which will be purely Indian based on Indian culture of deep, all-pervasive view and on Indian sentiment and temperament based and nurtured on our traditions which alone can have a sobering influence,the creation of an Upper House by itself will have no influence on the House of the People. But this is not to be and therefore I do not think there is a real need for the second Chamber. Its creation will only result in so much waste of public money and so much waste of time. I therefore submit that if the House is not prepared to change the Constitution of the second Chamber as proposed in the Draft Constitution, it will be much better for us to do away with the second Chamber alltogether. I am glad that my own province of Orissa has already decided against a second Chamber and we are going to have only one Chamber. I do not think that without a second Chamber the country will be any the poorer for it, as now we stand.
Mr. Vice-President: Amendments Nos. 1356 and 1359 are of similar import. Begum Aizaz Rasul may move amendment No.1356.
Begum Aizaz Rasul (United Provinces: Muslim): Sir, I beg to move:
"That in article 66, for the words "There shall be a ParlI ament for the Union which, the words `The Legislature of the Union shall be called the Indian National Congressand' be substituted."
The Article will then read:
"The Legislature of the Union shall be called the Indian National Congress and shall consist of a President and two Houses to
be known respectively as the Council of States and the House of the People."
Sir, my object in moving this amendment is that the word `ParlI ament' may be substituted by a name which will convey to the people of India and to the world the name of the party that instituted the struggle for the freedom of the country. If the words `Indian National Congress' are substituted for the word `ParlI ament', the participation of the Congress in the national struggle will be permanently commemorated. This will also save the congress from degenerating in course of time as all political parties are bound to do. It will liberate the Indian people from the glamour of the Congress and make it possible for them to exercise their vote democratically for otherwise the name of the Congress will unduly influence their emotions. This is more necessary because the Congress in the past was a movement rather than a party. It represented the Nation's urge to freedom and attracted people to suffering and sacrifice. Today, with its transformation into a party, it may become a happy hunting ground for political adventurers and successful black-marketeers.
The word `Congress' is not new. It is used for the American ParlI ament and if adopted for India will certainly convey to the world the ideals and principles for which the Indian National Congress stands for. I therefore think that it is in the fitness of things that in this Constitution of India, the words `National Congress' should be substituted for the word `ParlI ament. I hope that this suggestion of mine will receive the attention and sympathy it deserves.With these few words I move my amendment.
Mr. Vice-President: Now, in List I of the VI Week,amendment No. 1 standing in the name of Shri R. K. Sidhwa seeks to amend the amendment just moved. Mr. Sidhwa may move it. I see that Mr. Sidhwa is not in the House. The amendment is therefore not moved.
Prof. Shah's amendment comes next. Before I ask Prof.Shah to move I would like to know from Mr. Lari whether he wants amendment No. 1359 to be put to vote. I see that Mr.Lari is not in the House. Prof. Shah may now move amendment No. 1357.
Prof. K. T. Shah (Bihar: General): Mr. Vice-President,I beg to move:
"That in article 66, the words `The President, and' be deleted."
The amended article would then read:
"There shall be a ParlI ament for the Union which shall consist of two Houses to be known respectively as the Council of States and the House of the People."
Sir, in presenting this amendment to the House I want to bring to its notice the fact that the clause as it stands is merely an imitation, and, in my opinion, an unnecessary imitation, of the British system where the king still forms an integral part of the entire Governmental machinery, the entire Constitution, and particularly of the ParlI ament. All the laws are made by "the King's Most Excellent Majesty,with the advice and consent of the two Houses". Justice is administered in the name of the king. The Post Office functions in the name of His Majesty. The army, the navy,all defence forces, all civil services are in the service of His Majesty.
That, however, is a state of affairs, which is not quite suited to, and should not be imitated in, this country's Constitution. The King-in-ParlI ament is not only a traditional institution; but has some solid constitutional foundation to rest on, such as, for instance, the large margin of Prerogative powers which the king exercises. No doubt, he exercises those powers on the advice of His Ministers, but they still reside in the King only.
In the case of the President in India, on the other hand, it is I think, a very misleading analogy to make him the Indian counterpart of the King in England. The comparison is, therefore, very misleading to make the President an integral part of the Legislative organ of the Indian Union.
The President would not only not have the Prerogative authority in all respects that the King has; it is in my view, the basic idea of this Constitution, unless I have grievously mis understood it,
that the President would be only a figurehead, who will act everywhere and every time only with the advice off his Ministers and with the adviceof his Ministers alone. By himself he will be nothing but the ornamental head of the State.
If this conception of the President's place in our Constitution is correct, and 1 see noting in the Constitution to contravene that view, then I submit that the inclusion of the President in article 66, making him an integral part of the parlI amentary machinery, is utterly out of place; and as such it should be avoided.
This Constitution, Sir, is not like the British Constitution growing up from age to age, from generation to generation, from century to century. It is a Constitution which has been made by the authority of the King making one concession after another, surrendering one prerogative after another foregoing one power after another or consenting to use it only on the advice of his Minister. It is by the authority, and in the name of the people of India that the ParlI ament of India will function; and, as such, the President, even though the people's chosen representative,need not be--and should not be,--associated with the legislature as an integral part thereof.
I think a blind imitation of this kind of the British convention or British constitutional practice, carried to this extent, will only land us in difficulty. For the theory on which the British Constitution is formed is utterly different from that on which ours is based. The British Constitution is very largely based on convention and tradition. Large portions of these conventions are still unwritten and uncertified, leaving an indefinite margin for adoptation to circumstances. And those which have been written and codified are only the various legislative enactments of parlI ament, which, however, themselves are tounded only on accepted traditions, conventions or precedents.
In our case, on the other hand, we are writing this Constitution for the first time by our own efforts. As such for us to associate the President with our ParlI ament, in the same manner as the King is associated with the British ParlI ament is, I submit, utterly out of place.
I suggest, therefore, that these words should be deleted. Lest anybody should feel that this, again, arises out of my old idea and amendment about the separation of powers between the chief executive, the chief legislature,and the chief judiciary, let me assure you that is no longer my submission now; and that idea in no way affects this amendment now before the House. "The President" can very well be removed from this clause, without in any way infringing upon the doctrine of combined powers or collective responsibility on which this Draft Constitutionis based. Accordingly I trust that this amendment will commend itself to the House.
(Amendments Nos. 1360, 1361, 1362, 1363 and 1364 were not moved.)
Mr. Vice-President: The article is now open for general discussion.
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar (Madras: General): I am sorry, Sir, that I have to oppose all the amendments that have been moved. The amendments relate to three aspects.Number one and the most important of them seeks to restrict the scope of this article to the House of the People alone.That is, the mover of this amendment does not want an Upper House. Sir, it is common knowledge that in this country so far as we are concerned, there is so much enthusiasm and iff or no other reason, we must find opportunity for various people to take part in politics. Therefore it is necessary that we should have another reason is that whatever hasty legislation is passed by the lower House may be checkmated by the go-slow movement of the upper House. The third reason is that the upper House is a permanent body, while the lowerHouse is not. These are some of the reasons why, constitutedas we are at present, it is necessary that in the interests of the progress of this country we should have a second House.
Then, Sir, so far as the name is concerned, there has been a suggestion that has been moved by
my honourable Friend, Begum Aizaz Rasul and there is a similar amendment also standing in the name of Mr. Lari. Both of them want the name of the ParlI ament to be changed into the Indian National Congress. I appreciate their motives. It is theCongress which fought for the freedom of this country and therefore these friends who sympathies with the Congress,though they are not participants in this organisation,recommend that the name of this organisation should be associated with the name of the ParlI ament of the Union.However, laudable this may be, if it is accepted, it would lead to the accusation that a one-party government has been established in this country. The very same friends might say, "Look at what is happening. The Congress, the fighting organisation, has established a one-party rule in the country. It has even lent its name to the ParlI ament of the Union". If this suggestion is accepted, it may even prove to be the death-knell of the Congress, for it would no longer be able to function as a political party, to fight its way against the various reactionary political parties which are still raising their heads, mostly based on community and religion. Therefore, Sir, this is not at all acceptable.
Then, as regards the amendment moved by my honourable Friend, Prof. K. T. Shah, that the word `President' should be removed and ought not to be associated in any shape or form with the administration of the country. I would ask him to refer to article 42 which has already been passed andwhere it is laid down that the executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President of the Republic to be exercises by him in accordance with the Constitution and the law. The President has been made a very important functionary in the whole scheme of things, and in the Constitution he is the chief executive authority. Executive power is co-extensive with legislative power. Therefore it is not mere copying of the United Kingdom practice, but independently also we have to come to the same conclusion. Therefore it is necessary that the word`President' should be retained. Otherwise, there will be alacuna.
I submit, Sir, for the consideration of the House that the article as it stands may be accepted and that all the amendments should be rejected.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General): I do not accept any of the amendments nor do I think that any reply is called for.
Mr. Vice-President: I shall now put the amendments one by one to vote. Amendment No. 1358. The question is:
"That in article 66, the words `and two Houses to be known respectively as the Council of States' be deleted."
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1356. The question is:
"That in article 66 for the words "There shall be a ParlI ament for the Union which' the words `The Legislatureof the Union shall be called the Indian National Congress and' be substituted."
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1357. The question is
"That in article 66, the words "the President and' be delated."
The amendment was nagatived.
Mr. Vice-President: The question is:
"That article 66 stand part of the Constitution."
The motion was adopted.
Article 66 was added to the Constitution.
Mr. Vice-President: We next come to article 67. The motion is:
"That article 67 form part of the Constitution."
Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi (Madras: General): Mr.Vice-President, I have an humble suggestion to make in the matter of producer when we deal with this article. You will be pleased to see that this article relates to the composition of the Houses of ParlI ament, the two Houses ,namely, the Council of States and the House of the People.It contains nine clauses, and I would suggest that in the interest of clarity of discussion, this article may be split up into three parts: one relating to the composition of theCouncil of Statse-clauses (1) to (4); clauses (5) to (7)relate to the composition of the House of the People:clauses (8) and (9) are consequential,
relating to both the Houses, regarding the census and the effect on the enumeration of the census.
I talked this matter over with Dr. Ambedkar and he himself said that he had marked it like that in his book,and that he proposed to make certain changes of transposition during the third reading. It may not be therefore quite possible straightway to split it at present,but I would request you to have all the amendments to the Council of States, clauses (1) to (4), taken together and discussions may be concentrated regarding them first, and the article may be kept open for amendments. After the discussion is over, you may put the whole clause together.All this I suggest in the interest of clarity so that when honourable Members deal with the Council of States they may confine their discussion on it and later on they may concentrate their discussion on the part of the article relating to the House of the People.
Mr. Vice-President: Have you anything to say, Dr.Ambedkar, regarding this matter, namely, the suggestion of Mr. Bharathi?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am quite agreeable to the suggestion for the purpose of facilitation discussion.
Mr. Vice-President: Then we can take up the amendmentsin their particular order.
The first amendment is No. 1365. It is negative and is therefore disallowed.
Amendments Nos. 1366, 1367, 1379 and 1408 may be considered together.
Amendment No. 1366 may now be moved. It is in the name of Shri Mohan Lal Gautam.
Since he is not in the House, we pass over it.
The next amendment is No. 1367, in the name of Shri Lokanath Misra.
Shri Lokanath Misra: Since we have passed over amendment No. 1366, I do not want to move my amendment. It does not fit in now.
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: The question does not arise Mr. Vice-President: The next amendment is in the name of Prof. K. T. Shah--No. 1379.
Prof. K. T. Shah: Sir, I beg to move:
"That clause (2) of article 67 be deleted."
Clause (2) reads as follows:
"The members to be nominated by the President under sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of this article shall consist of persons having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of such matters as the following, namely,--
(a) literature, art, science and education;
(b) agriculture, fisheries and allied subjects;
(c) engineering and architecture;
(d) public administration and social services."
As the clause stands, Sir, it offends in my eye for tworeasons. First of all, the element of nomination introducedhere, however small, militates against the symmetry of the Constitution of our Legislative bodies. And it fundamentallymars the principle of election. I hold that with regard toboth these chambers, in the way we are making thisConstitution, the Legislative organ should be wholly electedand so the element of nomination should be completelyexcluded, however small it may be. Its being brought in, inthis way, only affects, as I have said, the internalsymmetry of the Legislative bodies. It must therefore, beavoided and excluded.
The second reason why I should not like this clause asit stands to be there in the Constitution is: that thevarious interests or elements selected by nomination arearranged in a somewhat mixed manner. It is not quiteconsistent intrinsically, logical or scientific.
For instance, "art" is mentioned separately and"science" is distinct--which it may very well be:"Engineering" and "architecture" are mentioned separately inanother sub-clause. Now it is generally agreed that"architecture" is one of the fine Arts; and if that is so,I, for one, fail to see the reason of its separate mention,after you have mentioned the generic term "Art".
Moreover, "science, literature and education"--arementioned each separately by name. These are, once more notlogically divided one from another. There, again, I reallyfail to understand what should be the purpose of thisseparate enumeration. For, consider this. If by "education"it is intended to include both "Art and Science", through,let us say, such institutions as the
Universities, I do notsee why they should not be mentioned by their names asuniversities, I do not see why they should not be mentionedby their names as universities; and why they should bespecifically stated, each apart from the other as Arts,Sciences, or Literature.
Literature again is usually included, at least in theUniversity terminology, in the Fine Arts or in the Facultyof Arts. Accordingly to mention Literature, Science and Artsseparately seems to be utterly incongruous, illogical andoverlapping........
Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi: May I submit that thereis an amendment to be moved by Dr. Ambedkar? It is No. 1380.It deletes all these portions, and includes only Arts andSciences with Social Service. If the honourable Member bearsin mind that it is likely to be accepted, the discussionneed not be concentrated on this matter. He may be pleasedto see amendment No. 1380, wherein Dr. Ambedkar is to movethe deletion of the whole clause and substitute only thefour categories. So I may request you to ask the honourableMember to cut short the discussion.
Mr. Vice-President: Have you been able to understand the honourable Member?
Prof. K. T. Shah: I have quite understood thehonourable Member's suggestion, but have certain points toadvance, which I may, if I am allowed to, though I do notinsist on it. I have seen Dr. Ambedkar's amendment; and Inot only think that it is probably going to be accepted, butI know that it is certain to be accepted. Still I feel that there are points of view which this House might be freelyallowed to hear, without such impatient attempts to smotherdiscussion. But if you do not wish it, I will not press myview.
Mr. Vice-President: Please go on.
Prof. K. T. Shah: Thank you, Sir. Take "Engineering".It is much more "Technology" or what used to be called in the United States Technocracy, which might be mentionedinstead of Engineering. It would include much more than"Engineering". As it stands, it creates a needless anomaly.
Take yet another illustration, Social Services, whichdo not include public utilities presumably: and then again"Public administration". I for one do not understand what ismeant by "Public Administration," in this connection ofcomposing a legislative body. Is it intended to bring in theCivil Service? By common consent it is thought best to keepthe Civil Service out of politics. Is it intended by "PublicAdministration" to bring in heads of departments, or theirnominees? The old Indian Constitution gave a place tosecretaries; but I think there is no room for them in the legislature now. Or does "Social Service" mean somethingdifferent from "Education", because Education has beenseparately mentioned already? One would have thought thatsocial service, among the most important of which isEducation, would be represented through all the categoriesin the ordinary system of election, and would not need aspecial mention by itself. But if you must make specialmention of it, then I do not see why you single out onlyEducation. You use a general word like "Social Service"; andyet include only that, presumably because you mention itseparately, and leave out "Health" which may also bementioned separately.
Accordingly it seems to me that this classification isnot quite logical. It also offends against the principle, atleast in my eyes, of the symmetry of the legislative body, by including in it the element ofnomination. For these two main reasons I think the wholeclause should be deleted, and substituted by somethingdifferent which Dr. Ambedkar's amendment no doubt providesfor to some extent; but does not provide for in the mannerthat I would have wished it to. As I would not have anyright to speak on this amendment again, or take part in thegeneral debate, I think it is just as well that the Houseshould be put in possession of my point of view on thematter.
Mr. Vice-President: You may also move amendment No.1408.
Prof. K. T. Shah: Sir, I beg to move:
"That Clause (4) of Article 67 be deleted."
Clause (4) of article 67 reads "the representatives of the States for the time
being specified in Part II of theFirst Schedule in the Council of States shall be chosen insuch manner as ParlI ament may by law prescribe".
Here, again, I take my ground on the principle ofequality amongst the constituent States. Whatever may be thevariety or the differences amongst themselves, in regard toarea, population, resources, or whatever other criterion youselect for judging of the importance of the several States,so far, at any rate, as you accept the principle of aFederal Union, you ought to make the States equal inter se.
On that basis I do not quite subscribe to the viewpropounded in clause (4) of the article, whereby it is leftto ParlI ament to distribute the seats amongst the States,and not provided for in the Constitution itself. I havetabled another amendment which would suggest that the statesshould be represented equally in the Council of States, thatis by the same number of delegates that any other State mayhave. On that ground also this clause seems to besuperfluous, and I move that it be deleted.
(Amendments Nos. 1368 and 1372 were not moved.)
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move:
"That for clause (1) of article 67, the following besubstituted:
`(1) The Council of States shall consist of notmore than two hundred and fifty members ofwhom--
(a) twelve members shall be nominated by thePresident in the manner provided inclause (2) of this article; and
(b) the remainder shall be representatives of the States."
The only important thing is that the number fifteen hasbeen brought down to twelve.
Mr. Vice-President: There are six amendments to thisamendment which I am calling out one by one. The first isamendment No. 2 on list No. 1 (Sixth Week) in the name ofMr. L. N. Misra.
Shri Lokanath Misra: Sir, I beg to move:
"That in amendment No. 1369 of the List of Amendments,in the proposed Clause (1) of article 67, for the word `two'the word `one' be substituted."
It comes to this that the council of State shallconsist of not more than one hundred and fifty Members. Inmoving this amendment reducing the number to one hundred andfifty I have only one intention and it is this, that fromour actual experience we find that such a huge number ofpeople either in the House of the People or in the Councilof States does not serve any very useful purpose. And weknow that there is real difficulty in finding out so manyMembers who will be qualified and quite interested in suchlaw-making. We see from the proceedings of this very Housewhich consists of more than three hundred Members that so few of us take real partin and are really useful to constitution making.
Mr. Vice-President: That is a reflection I cannotallow.
Shri Lokanath Misra: I am sorry, Sir. It is noreflection. I therefore submit that instead of having twohundred and fifty Members it will serve the purpose of thesecond Chamber if we have one hundred and fifty Members. Inthat case there will be a saving of money and time. Itherefore submit again that the number two hundred and fiftymay be reduced to one hundred and fifty.
Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 3 of List 1, standingin the name of Mr. L. N. Sahu may be moved.
Shri Lakshinaryan Sahu (Orissa: General): (Began tospeak in Hindi).
Mr. Vice-Presidnet: I wish only to make a request to the honourable Member. Many of our Members coming from SouthIndia do not know Hindi. Probably if he wants to convincethem it would be better if he speaks in English. But he isat perfect liberty to speak in any language he wants.
Shri Lakshminarayan Sahu: No, Sir. I will speak inHindi.
*[Mr. Vice-President: I rise to speak a few words insupport of the amendment which stands in my name and is nowbefore the House. It is:
"That in amendment No. 1369 of the List of Amendments,sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of article 67 be deleted."
My reason for moving it is that we do not favour thesystem of nomination. The truth is that under no conditionsand in no place do we approve of it. Therefore, when we areframing our Constitution afresh we must consider veryseriously
whether we should do away with this system or not.My submission is that nomination in whatever place or formit may be--and I may add that indirect election is also aform of nomination--should be abolished.
I submit that we should consider with all earnestnessthe grounds, if any, which justify the original provisionfor fifteen nominated members of as amended now, for twelvenominated members. We should think why this provision fornominated members is made. Is it because they are so highlytalented as to make us desire their presence as members in the said House? If that be so we can get such people fromUniversities--through election. I fail to understand whatprevents this being done. My submission is that we shouldmake some provision for the election of such talentedpersons who fail to get elected to the Legislature from thegeneral constituencies. Unless we keep this in view, the Constitution that we are framing would not be to the likingof the majority. If we authorise the President to nominatethese twelve members, he will always be accused offavouritism by quite a good number of people. People willcomplain that instead of nominating the right and ablepersons the President has nominated his own favourites. I amafraid that the danger of the President being subjected tounfair criticism would always be there. It is evident that it is the most undesirable thing that the Leader of ourNation, the Supreme Head of our Republic should thus be anobject of unfair criticism. I would, therefore, submit Sir,that the provision for nomination be deleted and in itsplace Functional Representation be provided. It is said bysome people that Functional Representation has been triedand found seriously defective in Ireland. But I submit, Sir,that it is bound to succeed if it is tried along with PanelSystem. I do not think that I need say much against thesystem of nominations, but in this connection I may drawyour attention to the fact that till recently, we members of the Assemblies and Councils in India used to go to oneperson--Mahatma Gandhi--for advice and used to manage ouraffairs in the light of his advice. Even if there be anyperson who is as
* Translation of Hindustani speech.
really great as Mahatma Gandhi was, and for bringing in whomthis system of nomination is being provided for and who isnot willing to come in through elections, well we can go tohim and have his advice. If there be any person of greatlearning or scholarship who may be unwilling to contestelection, well, for myself I can say that I would feel nohesitation in going to him for seeking his advice. We usedto go to Mahatma Gandhi for his advice. Similarly, if anyable and competent person does not seek election, we may goto him and have his advice. We may constitute a board ofsuch meritorious and learned persons to aid and advise us.The system of advisory board does exist in Russia. We mayconstitute an advisory board for every minister. Instead ofdoing what I have already suggested, if we authorise thePresident to nominate twelve persons, bitter allegations offavouritism and nepotism will be levelled against him andthat would not be desirable. Therefore, I propose, Sir, that the provision of nomination should be totally deleted. With these words I resume my seat]
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim): I do notwish to move Amendment No. 5 of List I (Sixth week), becauseit is merely verbal. I therefore, confine myself toAmendment No. 4.
Sir, I beg to move:
"That in amendment No. 1369 of the List of Amendments,in sub-clause (a) of the proposed clause (1) of article 67,for the words `twelve members' the words `not more than 6per cent of the total number of members of the House' besubstituted."
Shri S. V. Krishnamurthi Rao (Mysore): I suggest that this may be ruled out of order as the number originallyfixed is 15 and the total number is 250. Six per cent willbe again 15.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: It would not be fifteen. Isubmit, Sir, that the original clause of article 67 was to the effect
that the Council of States shall consist of 250members. By the amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar it nowstands as not more than 250 members.
Mr. Vice-President: He says he seeks to fix themaximum; therefore, it is slightly different. You need notlabour the point. He may go on.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: In the new clause you make the House one of not more than 250 members. Therefore, by Dr.Ambedkar's amendment, the number of members in the Councilof States would fluctuate. It may be less; it will neverexceed 250. The number of nominated members should bear aproportion to the actual number of members in the House.This number should also fluctuate in proportion. I have,therefore, suggested 6 per cent which would be 15 only ifthe maximum number of members in the House is taken.Otherwise, if the number of members is less, the number ofnominated members would also be less. They should, I submit,bear some relation to each other. In fact if the number bereduced to twelve, an arbitrary figure, that would bear norelation to the actual number. The actual number in the House may be considerably less. So, I think, sir, aproportion of 6 per cent of the total membership of the House would be more convenient and more logical.
(Amendment No. 6 in List I (Sixth Week) was not moved).
Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru (United Provinces: General):Mr. Vice-President, Sir, it has just been suggested to methat it would be better if instead of moving my amendmentnow, I move it as an amendment to Amendment No. 1378, whichis to be moved by Dr. Ambedkar. It is all the same to me,Sir, when I move this amendment. If you agree to the viewthat I have expressed, I can move this amendment a littlelater.
Mr. Vice-President: Yes; I agree.
I have admitted a short notice amendment standing in the name of Sardar Hukam Singh. It may be moved now.
Sardar Hukam Singh (East Punjab: Sikh): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg to move:
"That in amendment No. 1369 of the List of Amendments,in sub-clause (a) of the proposed clause (1) of article 67,for the words `in the manner provided', the words `fromamongst the categories of persons illustrated' besubstituted".
Sir, it might be thought that this is a very smallaffair; but I have to submit and I request that someattention might be paid to this, because I think there issome force in my amendment.
Amendment No. 1369 says that twelve members shall benominated by the President in the manner provided in clause(2) of this article. According to this amendment, we shouldexpect that some manner, which means method or mode of doingthings, will be laid down in clause (2) of this article.But, when we look to this clause, there is no method or modeprovided; no manner is provided there. What we find is that the members to be nominated by the President under sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of this article shall consist ofpersons having special knowledge or practical experience insuch matters as the following. Therefore, no manner ormethod is provided by this clause (2). Rather, there is aclass of persons or categories of citizens and thesecategories or classes are illustrative, they are notexhaustive. They are described here as the categories fromamongst whom the President shall nominate twelve membersthat are proposed to be selected under clause (1). Myobjection is that instead of putting in these words that these twelve shall be nominated by the President in themanner, it ought to be, from amongst the categories ofpersons illustrated in clause (2). This is the onlyamendment and I request that some attention might be paid tothis.
(Amendments No. 1370 was not moved.)
Mr. Vice-President: There are three amendments whichmay be considered together. amendments numbers 1371, 1373and 1374. Of these, the first seems to be the mostcomprehensive and may be moved.
(Amendments Nos. 1371, 1373 and 1374 were not moved.)
Amendments Nos. 1375 and 1376. Amendment No. 1375 maybe moved. Amendment No. 1376 is identical with amendment No.1375. So, I am not going to put it to vote. Amendment No.1375, Dr. Ambedkar.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. Vice-president,Sir, I beg to move:
"That the proviso to clause (1) of article 67 bedeleted."
With your permission, Sir, may I also move amendmentNo. 1378? It is in substitution of this proviso.
Mr. Vice-President: Yes.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I beg to move:
"That the following new clause be added after clause(1) of article 67:
`(1a) The allocation of seats to representativesof the States in the Council of States shallbe in accordance with the provisions in thatbehalf contained in Schedule III-B.'"
Mr. Vice-President: The amendment of Pandit Kunzru maynow be taken up. It is amendment No. 7.
Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, Ibeg to move:
"That to clause (1a) of article 67 as now moved, thefollowing words be added:
`Provided that the ratio of the total number of representatives of the States for the timebeing specified in Part III of the FirstSchedule to their total population shall notexceed the ratio of the total number of representatives of the States for the timebeing specified in Parts I and II of thatSchedule to the total population of suchStates.'"
Sir, the proviso to clause (1) of article 67, thedeletion of which has been moved by Dr. Ambedkar, runs asfollows:
"Provided that the total number of representatives of the States for the time being specified in Part III of thefirst Schedule shall not exceed forty per cent of thisremainder.
that is, forty per cent of the elected members of theCouncil of States. It has now been proposed by Dr. Ambedkarthat as many seats in the Council of State should beallocated to the States specified in Part III of the FirstSchedule as may be laid down in Schedule III-B. We have notgot this Schedule before us. We do not therefore know whatproportion the representatives of the States mentioned inPart III of the First Schedule will bear to therepresentatives of the States included in Part I of theFirst Schedule.
Sir, during the Round Table Conference, the Rulers of the States insisted that they should be given greaterrepresentation both in the Assembly and in the Council ofState than their population warranted. In other words, theyasked for weightage in both the Houses of the Centrallegislature and it was therefore laid down in the Governmentof India Act, 1935, that the representatives of the Statesshall be forty per cent of the total representatives in theCouncil of State whether elected or nominated and that in the Assembly, the number of representatives of the Statesshould be one-third of the total number of electedrepresentatives. The Union Powers Committee recommended that the proportion of the representatives of the Statesmentioned in Part III of the First Schedule should be 40 percent of the total number of elected representatives in theCouncil of States. In other words, in this respect itapproved of the provision contained in the Government ofIndia Act, 1935, but it departed from that Act in regard to the representation of the States in the LegislativeAssembly. The Draft Constitution follows the recommendationsof the Union Powers Committee which were accepted by the House last year. Dr. Ambedkar has now moved that nopercentage should be fixed for the representatives of the States specified in Part III of the First Schedule but that the seats allocated to the States should be as laid down ina schedule to be attached to the Draft Constitution. Now,Sir, when the Government of India Act, 1935, was passed bythe British ParlI ament, the situation was very differentfrom what it is now. The States were then not prepared tojoin the Federation except at a price. Apart from this, itsuited the British Government to give weightage to the States. In the new order, however, the position of the States formerly known as the Indian States, has completelychanged. Their representatives in this House themselves wantthat their position should be assimilated to that of theprovinces. There is no reason therefore why the weightagegiven to the States in the Government of India Act, 1935,should be continued
Sir, I have already said that the Draft Constitution,so far as the representation of the States in the House of the People goes, has not adopted the provision relating tothis matter in the Government of India Act, 1935. Ifhonourable Members will turn to clause (5) of article 67,they will find that the proviso to sub-clause (b) of thisclause lays down that the ratio of the total number of representatives of the States for the time being specifiedin Part III of the First Schedule to their total populationshall not be in excess of the ratio of the total number of representatives of the States for the time being specifiedin Parts I and II of that Schedule to the total population of such States. The Draft Constitution insists that the States shallbe represented in the House of the People in accordance with their population. What I want is that in the Council ofStates the representation of the States specified in PartIII of the First Schedule should also be fixed in accordancewith the same principle. Sir, I may be told that as theUpper Chamber will be known as the Council of States, itmeans that the number of the representatives of the Statesspecified in Parts III and Parts I and II cannot be fixed inaccordance with their total population. If such an objectionwere put forward, I should regard it as purely superficial.Had I said that in the proviso to sub-clause (b) of clause(1) of article 67 for the word 40, the figure 25 or 30should be substituted, no such objection could have beenbrought forward. I seek however to achieve the same purposein a different way. My amendment cannot really therefore beobjected to, on the ground that it would go against theprinciple that seems to underlie the composition of theCouncil of States.
Again, Sir, if honourable Members turn to clause (8) ofarticle 67, they will find that it has been laid down therethat "upon the completion of each census the representationof the several States in the Council of States and of theseveral territorial constituencies in the House of thePeople shall, subject to the provisions of article 289 ofthis Constitution, be readjusted by such authority, in suchmanner and with effect from such date as ParlI ament may, bylaw, determine." This shows that population is to be takeninto account in determining representation not merely in the House of the People but also in the Council of States. Myamendment is thus in complete accord with the provisions ofClause (8).
Sir, I have moved this amendment becausenotwithstanding the new proposal made by Dr. Ambedkar it isnot clear that the representatives allotted to the Statesspecified in Part III of the First Schedule will not be 40per cent of the total number of elected members of theCouncil of States or in excess of what their populationentitles them to. It is true that it is not going to be laiddown in so many words in the Constitution that therepresentatives of the States in Part III of the FirstSchedule should bear a fixed proportion to the total numberof elected members in the Council of States but theallocation of the seats may be such as to bring this aboutin practice. I want to prevent this and to ensure that asbetween the States specified in Parts III and Parts I and IIof the First Schedule, seats should be divided in accordancewith their population. We have already done away not merelywith separate representation in this Draft Constitution butalso with weightage. If we have done away with weightage in the case of the various communities, there is no reason whywe should retain it in connection with the representation of the States mentioned in Part III of the First Schedule.
For these reasons, Sir, I hope that my amendment willcommend itself to my honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar and therefore to the whole House.
Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 9 in List I, standingin the name of Prof. Saksena.
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena (United Provinces: General):Sir, I beg to move my amendment which is:
"That in amendment No. 1378 of the List of Amendments,for the proposed clause (1a) of article 67,
the following besubstituted:
`(1a) The allocation of seats to representativesof the States in the Council of States shallbe based on the following principles:
(i) one representative for every millionpopulation up to the first seven millionpopulation in each State in Schedule I,provided that no State shall have lessthan one representative in the Councilof States,
(ii) one representative for every two millionpopulation after the first seven millions.'"
Sir, I had, along with this amendment, given a chartshowing the numbers of seats to be given to each of the States, and I do not know why it is missing here. In fact,when we were discussing the Report of the ConstitutionCommittee, we had laid down that the maximum number of representatives from any province shall be twenty, and welaid down the numbers for each Province. The system thenenvisaged was not scientific or logical. I think that thenumbers should be laid down on the basis of population up toa limit and that is why I have laid down the limit of onerepresentative for every million up to seven millions, andafter that, one representative for every two millions of thepopulation. In this way, we can see to it that the biggerStates have lesser numbers of representatives and thesmaller States shall get a little weightage which we want togive them. That will be more scientific. Otherwise, it maybe that the U. P. will have twenty seats, and Bihar alsotwenty. If the chart I referred to, had been here, it wouldhave made the position clearer, by showing what is thenumber of seats I would allot for each State. Sir, I submitthe method I suggest is the proper method of distributingthe seats and I request that it may be accepted by the House.
Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 10 of List I,standing in the name of Shri Phool Singh.
(Amendment No. 10 of List I was not moved.)
Amendment No. 11 of List I, standing in the name ofShri Lokanath Misra.
Shri Lokanath Misra: Sir, I beg to move:
"That in amendment No. 1378 of the List of amendments,in the proposed clause (1a) of article 67, for the words "inaccordance with the provisions in that behalf contained inSchedule III-B" the words `on the basis of equalrepresentation to each of the component States, the numberof which representation shall in no case be more than three'be substituted."
Sir, the idea I have in my mind, when I move thisamendment to the amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar is this.Since the Council of States is going to represent the States, it is but fair to the States units that these unitsshould be dealt with as units and every unit is equallyrepresented. Otherwise, there is no sense in saying that the States shall be represented in the Council of States. Infact, in the United States of America and in other countrieswhere there are second chambers, representing the interestsof the States, the representation given to these units isalways the same. We also know that the elected members ofour Council of States will be returned by the Lower House of the State Assemblies, and if we say that the election willbe in some other form, either in proportion to theirpopulation or on some other basis and yet people with thesame qualification, the Council of States will serve no realpurpose, except a purpose of unnecessary duplication of the House of the People. In fact, the House of the People itselfwill be representative of the people of the Statesthemselves, because the States will be sending in theirrepresentatives to the House of the People on almost thesame basis. Therefore, if we do not accept this principle,that of taking every State as an equal unit, and sending in their representatives to safeguard or protect their specialinterests, there is no sense or meaning in having a Second Chamber to represent the States. Though we have ScheduleIII-B, the position, I feel, should be made clear that theCouncil of States will be representative of the Stateinterests, and therefore the States, as States, and asautonomous units, must be equally represented. On thisground, I suggest that the allocation of
seats to therepresentatives of the State in the Council of States shouldbe on the basis of equal representation to each of thecomponent States, the number of which representation shallin no case be more than three. Why I fix upon the figurethree is this. I feel that if three members come from everyState, that will be sufficient to safeguard the specialinterests of the States, and their special problems. Afterall, this is to be a sobering House, a reviewing House, a House standing for quality and the members will be exercising their right to be heard onthe merits of what they say, for their sobriety andknowledge of special problems; quantity, that is, theirnumber, is not of much moment, and I think three is justsufficient for the purpose.
Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 12 in List I,standing in the name of Shri Lakshminarayan Sahu.
*[Shri Lakshminarayan Sahu: Mr. Vice-President, myamendment runs thus:
"That in amendment No. 1378 of the List of Amendmentsafter the proposed clause (1a) of article 67, the followingnew clause (1b) be inserted:
`(1b) Steps should be taken to see that, as far aspossible, men from dicerent units arerepresented.'"
The reason why I move this amendment is that in view ofmy previous proposal to delete clause 1(a) of article 67 it is necessary that a proviso be made that every member of theCouncil of States should come there only as a representativeof some state. It is because of this that by this amendmentI have sought to include a proviso so that representativesfrom each unit may be able to get into the Council ofStates. No mention has been made there of the number of representatives from each province and each unit and therefore, we do not have any idea as to the composition of the Council of States, I, therefore, entirely endorse theamendment moved by Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru. The amendmentmoved by Shri Shibban Lal Saksena is, as I understand it,also intended to secure representatives in the Council ofStates for every State. But I find that there are threecategories of States. It would be better if we could put allof them in a uniform pattern. It is quite possible that thesmall states which are neglected now-a-days and areunrepresented may later on desire to have representation in the Council of States. But there are many such small Statesas will have no opportunity of securing any seat in theCouncil of States in the ordinary course of things. It isfor this reason that I am moving this amendment. I need notadd anything further.]
Prof. K. T. Shah: Sir, I beg to move:
"That the proviso to clause (1) of article 67 bedeleted and the following new clause be added after clause(1):
`(1a) ParlI ament may by law establish aconsultative Council of Representatives ofAgriculture (25), Industry (15), Commerce(10), Mining, forestry and Engineering (10),Public Utilities (5), Social Services (5),Economists (5), to advise ParlI ament and theCouncil of Ministers on all matters of policyaffecting Agriculture, Industry, Commerce,Mining, Forestry, Engineering, PublicUtilities and Social Services; and prepare orscrutinise proposals for legislationconcerning any of these items.
Explanation.--The number given in the bracketsafter each group is the total number of representatives from each section.
Members of this Council shall have, individuallyor collectively no administrative orexecutive duties, functions orresponsibilities. Every member of thisCouncil shall be paid such salaries,emoluments or allowances as ParlI ament mayfrom time to time provide.'"
Sir, this is an innovation, not borrowed, I can assurethe honourable Chairman of the Drafting Committee, from anyof the present Constitutions. Some thing similar to this wasto be found in the now defunct Weimar Constitution ofGermany; but even that precedent has been radicallymodified.
The suggestion here is three-fold: It is an advisoryCouncil, consisting of certain special interests elected byorganisations in those interests, like agriculture,forestry, mining, engineering, trade, industry,
socialservices and so on.
Dr. Jivraj N. Mehta (Baroda): May I know why Members of the Medical profession have been left out of the amendment?
*  Translation of Hindustani speech.
Prof. K. T. Shah: I would be very willing to accept anamendment to that effect provided you choose to move it. it is an oversight on my part, for which I personally apologiasto you. My amendment, however, does not mention either thelearned profession of law or the members of the ClericalOrder. If the House desires to rectify the omission I haveno objection. But I would like to make it clear that it isnot so much any profession that is sought to be represented,as the various interests, or the various items in which thecountry as a whole is interested, and not the exclusiveinterest, in an economic sense, of those bodies.
Sir, this will be an advisory council which will haveno executive or administrative functions according to theamendment I have tabled. It would advise in all matters onlegislative proposals that may be coming up beforeParlI ament, or which ParlI ament may direct them toscrutinise.
Sir, legislation is now-a-days becoming so extremelycomplex, so varied, and so numerous,--if I may speakindividually or severally of the Acts passed by Legislaturesnow-a-days, that an average member of ParlI ament would findit extremely difficult to make up his mind, or even tounderstand the special provisions couched in technicallanguage that grow up or that have to be sanctioned byParlI ament.
It is becoming more and more a fine art, not merely indrafting the legislative proposals, which by itself is anextremely complicated task; but also in laying out thevarious items and satisfying the various interests that haveto be provided for. It is even now a convention generallyestablished and commonly followed, whereby the variousinterests not directly represented in ParlI ament can putforward their case before the Departments and make their ownalternative proposal. Whether it is Insurance Legislation orLabour Legislation or Banking, or Shipping, or Trade markslegislation, those concerned see to it that their case isplaced before the authorities. The Minister in charge ofsuch legislation generally hears them before the final draftis made. If the Minister concerned does not so consult theinterests concerned, then the Select Committee on the Billsometimes hears representatives or representations from theinterests concerned, before the legislation is passed byParlI ament.
On this basis, I think it would be of the utmostbenefit to have this consultation, not only to the interestsconcerned, but also to the proper co-ordination of theparticular pieces of legislation with the rest of the socialeconomic framework under which the country is to live. Itdoes happen that, when individual items of legislation comeup, only those concerned or interested specially, directlyor personally, take any intelligent interest in the variousclauses as well as in the general principle underlying;while the rest of the House,--by far the large majority,--remains relatively indifferent. Whether by the guidance of the Party organization, or by personal loyalties, votes arecast not so much by the provisions and their implicationsunderstood properly, but by influences of the kind I havejust mentioned.
It is, therefore, not in the interests of properlegislation that we should have a body of laymen--andpopular representatives are bound to be laymen only in themajority of cases in law-making that come up beforeParlI ament-- who should be passing laws, without any adviceor guidance from recognised experts upon the complicatedpieces of legislation which almost every year come beforeParlI ament. They should have a non-interested, or dis-interested, and impartial body of advisers who are competentto advise by their study, training and experience in allsuch matters, who would have no executive or administrativefunction, who would not be law-makers themselves, and whowould be sufficiently respected outside to
influence thedecisions in the best interests of the country. Sir, thepractice is growing in many countries whereby ParlI amentpasses organic laws, of great social importance, but allowsmore and more powers to departments to make bye-laws, orrules under such laws, which enables the bureaucracy--I am not using the term inany objectionable sense, call it the permanent services,--tomake elaborate codes under these laws. These codes are notenacted by ParlI ament. These codes are, no doubt, sometimeslaid on the table of the House, in the presumption thatmembers if they have any objections to the rules, will pointthem out. But as a matter of fact, these codes are scarcelyever scrutinised by members when once they are enacted underthe authority of the law by the departments concerned and sothey become laws by fiat of the bureaucracy without anyproper understanding by members of ParlI ament.
This, Sir, is a practice which has led an eminentjurist, Lord Hewett, Chief Justice of the King's BenchDivision in England, to describe it as The New Despotism. Itreally amounts to arming the civil services, arming thepermanent officials, with a vast margin of power anddiscretion that practically amounts to a denial of civilliberties, or at any rate the ordinary freedoms of thecitizen.
This, Sir, I submit, is not in the interests of thefree institutions which we are planning for. I, therefore,suggest that it would be in the interests of the freedom of the people, and also the interests of sound legislation,that we should have a body of disinterested advisers chosenwith an eye only to their experience training andqualification, and not burdened with any other duties as ourMinisters are, not charged with any other administrative orexecutive functions and remunerated sufficiently to bebeyond any influence other than the interests of thecountry, and so able to devote their entire time to theparticular subjects that come up for legislation. I hopethis amendment will be accepted.
Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 1380 standing in thename of Dr. Ambedkar.
The Honourable Dr. B. R Ambedkar: Mr. Vice-President,Sir, I move:
"That for clause (2) of article 67, the following besubstituted:
(2) The members to be nominated by the Presidentunder sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of thisarticle shall consist of persons havingspecial knowledge or practical experience inrespect of such matters as the following,namely:
Letters, art, science and social services.'"
Mr. Vice-President: There are some amendments to thisamendment which I am calling out one after the other. No. 13in the name of Mr. Kamath.
(The amendment was not moved.)
No. 14 standing in the name of Mr. Lokanath Misra
Shri Lokanath Misra: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg tomove:
"That in amendment No. 1380 of the List of amendments,in the proposed clause (2) of article 67, for the words`special knowledge or practical experience' the words `realknowledge of or actual devotion for', and for the words`Letters, art, science and social services' the words`History of ancient Indian philosophy and culture, art andscience and social services towards reconstruction ofIntrospective India' be substituted."
Sir, I am really thankful to Dr. Ambedkar forintroducing this amendment and for placing the words"Letters, arts, science and social services" much betterthan the original. In fact, in my humble opinion as I haveconceived this Council of States, to me it represents ourpast, as the House of the People represents our present. Ourfuture no doubt is in the hands of God. I say that we canhave that sobering influence we need, only if we can buildour mind and our ideas on our past. I suggest that India tobe India must know her lofty past, and the members of theCouncil of States nominated by the President should bepeople who know our past, our history, our philosophy andour culture. Therefore, instead, of having letters, let ussay history, philosophy and culture. All our efforts shouldbe towards one direction and that direction can only be an ideal which will bring upIndia to her
past, i.e., to her own. The nominated membersby the President should represent these four things, and tobring home a justification of this point, I need not make aspeech of my own. I will only quote some lines from an essay"India and the Western World" by Captain Anthony M. Ludovici(England). He says:
"We are credibly informed by anthropologists that oftenall that is needed for the ultimate extinction of aparticular race is, not violence, disease, or some vicioushabit introduced by the European, but merely the despondencygenerated by the imposition of new forms of behaviour andbelief--a state of mind which by diminishing their zest andjoie de vivre, undermines their will to survive.
Now, when we grasp how deep attachment to nativeculture-forms may be, even among the random bred stocks ofEurope, need we be surprised to learn that among peopleswhose capacity for change and for suffering change has atempo different from our own, the impact of new and powerfulculture, sometimes imposed rapidly with every artifice ofproselytization, force and example has resulted in acomplete renunciation of every hope, belief and desire.
He (the European) was in a position to coercerecalcitrants and by means of the importunacies of hisproselytizing and commercial agents, to provoke acts ofhostility which often provided the excuse for retaliatorymilitary measures. If, therefore, certain races survived theimpact, not only as a united people, but also, above all, asa community still observing their traditional culture-forms,including the worship of the gods of their fathers thephenomenon partook of the nature of a feat so stupendous inrecuperative power are stamina as to amount almost to amiracle--a miracle of resistance, faith and loyalty.
Well, we now know that, up to a point, India performedthat miracle. Thanks to the relatively high evolution andintricacy of her own culture, her large population ascompared with the numbers of her invaders, and above all, of the high intellectual level of her leaders, and theirsteadfastness as custodians of the people's cherished habitsof mind and body, India should, in the millenniums to come,stand as a proverb and example among nations, as acountry.....
Mr. Vice-President: How long do you propose to readthis? It seems to have little connection with your amendment.
Shri Lokanath Misra: I will be short, Sir, it isrelevant, as a foreign appreciation of what we are:
"as a country which, against forces almost everywhereelse triumphant, contrived for centuries--in fact until theeve of the ultimate recovery of her freedom--to uphold andcontinue, without irretrievable loss, her own life and herown way of life."
Sir, I beg to submit, that in drafting thisConstitution we dare not forget our own. The Council ofStates should represent our past and that could be done onlyby the President nominating only those who represent ourgreat past of great intellectual fervour, high morals, deepand lofty flights of the spirit.
Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 15 standing in thename of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg tomove:
"That in amendment No. 1380 of the List of Amendments,in the proposed clause (2) of article 67 after the word`science' the words `philosophy, religion, law' beinserted."
Mr. Vice-President: Why not move amendment No. 17 also?That too stands in your name.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I also beg to move:
"That in amendment No 1380 of the List of Amendments,at the end of the proposed clause (2) of article 67, thewords commencing `Letters, art, etc.' be numbered as sub-clause (a) of that clause and the following new sub-clausebe added thereafter:
(b) journalism, commerce, industries, law.'"
Sir, I beg to submit that the original clause (2) ofarticle 67 contains a number of categories, representingdifferent intellectual spheres from which members could benominated by the President. In fact there is a number of such items, namely, (a) literature, art, science andeducation: (b) agriculture, fisheries and allied
subjects:(c) engineering and architecture: (d) public administrationand social services. Of this long list, only three have beenaccepted in Dr. Ambedkar's amendment, namely, "art, scienceand social services" and a new item has been added, namely,"letters". I submit, Sir, that there is a danger inrestricting the choice of the President in the matter ofnomination to only four classes and rejecting the choice of the President in the matter of nomination to only fourclasses and rejecting the others. There is no reason why thechoice should not be rather wide than restricted. However,my amendment (the first amendment which I have moved) wantsto introduce Philosophy, Religion and Law. Sir, I submitthat Philosophy is peculiarly Asiatic in origin. So isReligion. All the great Philosophies and all the greatReligions emanated from the East. There is no reason why weshould give up the Philosophers or the men who are theleaders of Religion. It is only the other day that at theinstance of Mr. Kamath we introduced the name of Almighty in the constitution. In fact the President is to take the oathof office in the name of God. Having agreed to give theAlmighty a place in the Constitution, I think that Religionwhich follows from God should also have some recognition inthis Constitution. It is often hinted that Religion is avery bad thing and that it leads to quarrels. I submit, Sir,that Religion never leads to quarrels. It is communalismthat leads to quarrels and not Religion. All the greatReligions are really good and supply a fundamental moralbasis for humanity to act. Therefore, Religion should not bediscarded; so also with Philosophy. A philosophical attitudeis particularly useful for a House like this; particularlywhen a Member finds that his amendments are not listened toor his speeches are not listened to by the Honourable theChairman of the Drafting Committee, he cannot but bePhilosophical. So for God's sake, do not discard Philosophytoo.
Then comes the matter of Law. I submit, Sir, Law shouldalso be represented. The legal talent of the Upper Houseshould particularly be strengthened, because the Upper Housewill rather be a revising chamber and Law should beparticularly represented. Men like Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru,Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar...
Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi: Sir B. N. Rau.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Yes, Sir. B. N. Rau too. I amthankful for the suggestion. These are very useful names. I think their names should not be shut out from the choice of the President. It may be that at any future election we maylose Dr. Ambedkar himself, and there should be some means ofbringing him in by a presidential nomination. Then there isthe Rt. Honourable Mr. Jayakar. These are really great menof the Law and their addition, or rather the choice of thePresident in their selection should be very useful. In thesecircumstances they should also have some place.
Then with regard to the second amendment: I have alsotried to introduce Journalism, Commerce, Industry and Law,Law has already been suggested in my previous amendment.With regard to Journalism, journalists have also a greatduty to perform. In fact, they are a kind of go-betweensbetween the Legislature and the people and between thepeople and the Legislature. Ideas which are expressed in the legislature are disseminated by the journalists, and ideaswhich prevail among the people are also brought to thenotice of the legislators by journalists. A democracy is runby the three States the Executive, the Legislature and theJudiciary. To these must be added the newspapers which havebeen described as the Fourth State. They also play a veryimportant part in the role of freedom of a country.Journalism should also be one of the categories from whichthe President could make his selections.
Then we come to Commerce. We want to associate thosegreat commercial magnates who are really the wealthproducers in the country and they should also be represented and their advice and counselwould be of great help. So also with Industry.
These are the different categories from which theselection
should be made.
I submit that the introduction of these classes willnot in the least compel the President to select or nominateanyone from any of them. The choice would be reasonably wideand I submit that this amendment should be accepted by thisHouse.
In making the suggestion about Journalism, Commerce,Industry and Law, I took them from a suggestion made by afew learned lawyers who considered the Draft Constitution in the "Indian Law Review" of Calcutta. It is a quarterlyjournal. It is in volume 2 at page 9 onwards. There, withregard to this very clause of this article, they havesuggested that Journalism, Commerce, Industry and Law shouldalso be represented. They said that there is no reason whythese important professions and callings should not beincluded as well. The great point which I wish to suggest to the House is that the choice should not be restricted, butshould be widened. It would be an advantage to havedifferent professions and callings in the list so as to makethe choice of the President easier and better.
Mr. Vice-President: The next amendment in our list isamendment No. 16 in List No. 1 standing in the name of Mr.Sidhwa.
Shri R. K. Sidhwa (C.P. & Berar: General): I am notmoving my amendment.
Mr. Vice-President: The next amendment is No. 18 inList No. 1 standing in the name of Shri B Das.
Since Shri B. Das is not in the House we pass it over.