CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME VII


Tuesday, the 9th November, 1948

As regards the defects in the Draft-Constitution Iwould now draw your attention to the Objectives Resolutionitself. Even that has been sought to be changed. The word'Independent' has been sought to be changed into'democratic' and the word 'republic' has also been sought tobe changed into 'State'. I think the Drafting Committeeshould not have done it. The very suggestion of such achange is repugnant to us and I hope that this thing willnot be accepted by the House.

Then, coming to the Fundamental Rights, we find thatwhile freedom of speech and freedom of association etc. havebeen given by one hand, they have been taken away by theother. The Clauses that follow have done away with all thoserights which have been given in the first clause of Article13. Similarly, if we look at the Directive Principles ofState policy, we find the same thing. You will remember thatI placed before you an amendment seeking to add the word'socialist' before the word 'republic'. I am sorry that atthat time Shri Seth Damodar Swarup did not think it properto support me. I am glad he had now come here as a championof socialism. But at that stage, I am sorry nobody supportedit and my suggestion was rejected. Anyhow, whether the word'socialist' is used or not we must try to see that, when weincorporate political democracy, we also incorporate economic democracy in the Constitution.

So far as the Directive Principles of State Policy asgiven in the Draft Constitution are concerned, there are nogrounds for thinking that they will at all affect thefuture structure of society in India.

There are certain other defects also which I shallpoint out when the amendments are moved and discussed.

But I would certainly like to mention some of the graveomissions in the Draft Constitution. There are three suchomissions which are very grave and important, and they are:the omission of National Flag, the omission of National songand the omission of National language. I think these threeomissions are very grave. The Drafting Committee ought tohave seen its way toincorporate all these three subjects in our Constitution. Sofar as the flag is concerned, there is no controversy. Thiscould have been easily incorporated in the Constitution.

There is some controversy about the National songbetween `Vandemataram' and `Jana-Gana-Mana'. I think"Vandemataram" which has been our song during the last 50years or so and which has been the beacon-light in ourstruggle for independence will become the National song ofour country.

Then there is the question of the National language.

Mr. Vice-President: If you go on speaking I will haveno time to give to other intending speakers.

Shri Vishwambar Dayal Tripathi: I shall conclude myspeech after a reference to the National language, Sir.

Our country is very big, and it has not therefore beenpossible so far to have one language for the whole of India.But, as an independent country, we have now to evolve somelanguage which may become the national language of India. Inthis connection I make the following suggestions: - Firstly,in every province the work of the Government and of thepeople should be carried on in the language or languages ofthe masses. Secondly, English, although it has been imposedupon us by the foreigners, should remain for sometime forour inter-provincial relations. Thirdly, we must have Hindias our National language written in Devnagri character.(Cheers). So, it is here and now that we should definitelydecide that Hindi written in Devnagri character is to be thenational language of our country; while English may remainas an alternative language for some time till we are able todevelop Hindi sufficiently both in northern and in southernIndia. As I said, in the provinces, the language of themasses should continue to be the language of the State.These are my observations about the National language.

The last point which I have to place before you is thatwe should, from cultural as well as from economic

point ofview, make provision for cow-protection. Our Congress partyhad already decided that this should be done. This wasprobably not known to the Drafting Committee. Therefore noprovision with regard to this has been incorporated in theDraft Constitution. I hope the Constituent Assembly will seeits way to incorporate this also in our Constitution.

With these few words, I hope the Assembly will considerthe amendments on these subjects when they come up fordiscussion and try to remove the defects and fill in theomissions that I have pointed out before the House, JaiHind.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad (Bihar: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I am opposed to federalism because I fearthat with the setting up of semi-sovereign part-States,centrifugal tendencies will break up Indian unity.Provincial autonomy led to the vivisection of the country.Federalism will lead to the establishment of innumerablePakistans in this sub-continent.

Our Ministers at the Centre have been at the helm ofaffairs since the last fifteen months. They know howdifficult it is to secure the approval of provincialMinisters on any measure of reform which they like tointroduce. Much time is wasted in securing their approval,which is rarely obtained.

The existence of provincial governments does notbenefit the common man in any special sense. Its abolitionwill not jeopardise his welfare at all. On the other hand, Iam convinced that his lot will improve considerably. Theprofessional politicians will of course be deprived of theirmeans of livelihood. The average man in the provinces has tobear the burden of a costly administration. Salaries toGovernor, Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and membersof the legislatures swallow a large part of the revenue. Thepoor man is exploited in order to maintain the dignity ofthe State.

Federalism is a conservative force in politics. Itchecks the rise and growth of radical economic movements. Itperpetuates economic inequality between one province andanother and this accentuates provincial rivalries andbitterness which lead to the demand for the formation oflinguistic provinces.

Federalism is entirely unsuited to the needs of acollectivist age. Vast plans of national development awaitimmediate enforcement. It will be a crime against the peopleof India to set up obstacles and hurdles in the form ofpart-States in the path of the Central authority which hasto tackle the fourfold problems of illiteracy, poverty,communalism and provincialism. Those who talk of federalism,regionalism, provincial authonomy and linguistic provincesdo not fully comprehend that they are talking the languageof a bygone age. These concepts were appropriate to theneeds of the 19th century when industrialism was in itsincipient stage. These instruments of political organisationsuit the requirements of agricultural communitiesinterspersed over a wide area. Today the picture is entirelychanged. We are thinking in terms of a world State whichmust be vested with all powers to regulate the problems ofmigration of people from overpopulated zones to areas whichare underpopulated. The world State will have all powers toregulate the entire economic wealth of humanity. Theexistence of Nation-States has become an anomaly and ahindrance in the path of human progress and welfare. Thedominant tendency of the age is towards greaterconcentration of power in the hands of some sovereigninternational authority. To talk of sub-national groups andfederalism is to put back the hands of the clock. We do notknow what will happen to India if a world war breaks out. IfIndia gets an opportunity to build up the nation for aperiod of ten years at least, she will be in a position tomeet the onslaughts of international powers. If Indiaproceeds on collectivist lines unhampered by any provincialor federal part-States, she may be in a position to meet thechallenge of the third world war. India lags centuriesbehind the Great Powers of the world. We must skip overcertain stages of development and compress centuries intomoments if we are to survive the forces of

reaction bothexternal and internal. By adopting parliamentary federalismwe shall be playing into the hands of our enemies. A dividedGermany, a vivisected Korea, pre-eminently fits into thepolitical plans of international gangsters. A divided Indiaprovides some security to those who have plans of their own.The incorporation of federal principles in that part ofIndia which has been left to us will provide hundred percentsecurity to those Jingoes and Junkers who survive on lootand plunder. No foreign power wants a strong CentralGovernment in India. A strong Central Government in Indiawill embarass all. It is suicidal to divide powers intofederal, concurrent and provincial. Any such division ofpowers will weaken the hands of the nation on all fronts.

Shri S. Nagappa (Madras: General): Can any HonourableMember read his manuscript speech?

Mr. Vice-President: I do not see any objection. Pleasego on.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: The Collector in the districtand the Commissioner of the Division must be broughtdirectly under the authority of the Central Ministry of HomeAffairs. The Governors, Ministers and the provinciallegislators must be asked to quit the scene. There should beonly one Government in India. All provincial and StateGovernments must be abolished. The Constituent Assemblyshould vest all executive, legislative, judicial andfinancial powers in the hands of its President. He shouldhave four advisers, Rajaji, Panditji, Sardar Patel andMoulana Azad. After having set up this system of government,the Constituent Assembly should be adjourned sinedie. The Assembly should be summoned only to give itsverdict in case there is sharp difference of opinion on anyissue between the majority of the Advisers on the one sideand the president on the other. If the President or anAdviser dies, the Constituent Assembly must be summoned toelect a successor. This system of Government should lasttill the end of the Third World War which may break out anymoment. The present Government of India Act should be abrogated.

I have advocated the rule of philosopher-kings becausePlato, whom I consider to be the Father of PoliticalScience, considered it to be the best system of government.We look back with pride to the days of Raja Ram of Ayodhyaand Raja Janak of Mithila. What Plato advocated in hisRepublic has always been practised in India. I haveadvocated the rule of philosopher-kings because this is thebest system of government. I have more faith in livingpeople than in the dead clauses of a written constitution. Ido not believe in a permanent constitution. We are at theend of an epoch. It is very difficult for us to sense theneeds of the coming century. The Americans framed theirconstitution at the beginning of the epoch of capitalism. Weare asked to frame our constitution at the end of thisepoch. The end of the third World War will decide the broadeconomic and political patterns of the coming age. Today weare in a state of ferment and decay. The whole of Asia is inthe melting pot. The nation stands in need of spoon-feeding.We are passing through the birth pangs of a new socialorder. Any constitution which we may frame today may becomecompletely out of date tomorrow. Power placed in the handsof the electorate may prove disastrous.

The traditions of the Khalifas of Islam - Abu Baqar andShah Omar - are worthy of emulation. Germany, Italy andTurkey rose to grand heights under Hitler, Mussolini andKemal Ataturk. The Soviet dictator has worked miracles. Thedays of Chandragupta Maurya, Asoka, the Guptas,Harshavardhana and Akbar were the best periods of ourhistory when India enjoyed peace and progress.

There is no parliamentary form of government worthmentioning in the whole of Asia. There are some deeperreasons for this. Any attempt to foist parliamentarism onIndia will only spell our ruin and misery.

I regard the parliamentary system of government as thedirect form of democracy. The system of government set up byHitler, Mussolini, Kemal Ataturk and Stalin represent theindirect forms of democracy. The whole of Germany, Italy

andTurkey were behind the dictators. What Pandit Nehru is tous, probably that or more is Stalin to the people of theSoviet Union. How can we call the Soviet rule undemocratic?The only conclusion to which we are driven is that the basisof all governments - both parliamentary and totalitarian - isdemocratic.

The essense of democracy is not franchise. Therepresentation of the real will of the people, as distinctfrom actual will, is the core of democracy. One man, whetherelected by the people or not, can represent the people as awhole if he stands for the real will of the community. Therule of the dictator is essentially democratic if he standsfor the greatest good of the greatest number. The substanceis always more important than the form.

One party rule is in perfect consonance with the idealsof democracy. This fact has to be grasped. We can haveperfect democracy only in a classless society. It is onlyafter war, and nation states and capitalism have beenliquidated, that we can achieve perfect democracy. Friendsmay retort that one party rule will lead to Fascism. To thisI would reply that parliamentary governments, as in Germanyand Italy, facilitate the rise of Fascism if the people arenot highly conscious of their political responsibilities.Are thepeople of India conscious of their politicalresponsibilities? The vast majority of the people of Indiaare sunk in the lowest depths of illiteracy, poverty,communalism and provincialism. Only philosopher-kings cantackle these problems. Both parliamentarism and federalismwill aggravate the malady.

Critics may urge that power corrupts and absolute powercorrupts absolutely. I do not believe in this maxim. WasHitler corrupt? Is Stalin corrupt? The records of MushtaphaKemal and Mussolini are as good as that of the leaders ofparliamentary democracy.

In this atomic age, the problems of the modern statehave become so complex and baffling that more and morepeople are beginning to realise that the affairs ofgovernment can only be tackled by experts. Parliamentarydemocracy has outlived its utility.

If we want to meet the challenge of Anglo-Americanimperialism in Asia, if we want to meet the demands ofinternational trade and commerce, if we want to meet thethreat of the third world war which is looming large on thehorizon, if we are to meet the onslaughts of internationalpolitics, we must hand over full power into the hands of ourleaders.

It is not possible for our foreign friends to meddle inthe affairs of Spain or the Soviet Union because they havehung an iron curtain around their frontiers. Parliamentarydemocracy facilitates foreign intervention into the internalaffairs of a people. If we want to be free from themachinations of our foreign friends, we should not provideany opportunity to them. Our constitution must be fool-proofand knave-proof. Parliamentary democracy must be discarded.

Dr. Ambedkar said the other day that our Constitutionis both federal and unitary. It is federal during times ofpeace and it is possible of being converted into unitarytype during times of war. The distinction between peace andwar is fictitious, because we are now living in a state ofcold war. If we want to meet the onslaught of foreign powersthe type of democracy which we are trying to build willperhaps obstruct us. The demands of peace time are as urgentand insistent as that of war. If we have an unitary type ofconstitution now, we may be able to meet the demands of thethird world war. I do not know whether there are morecompetent leaders than Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and SardarPatel. Then why are we wasting the time of the Government ofIndia by all sorts of criticisms? We must build up oureconomy. If we are not able to meet the challenge of war, wemay go down in history. I am not very sure what will be theoutcome or the fate of this country if a war breaks out. Thewhole of Asia is in the melting pot; let us not try toweaken the hands of our leaders. They are the best people;they are the only people who can govern this country. Is itnecessary that in order to keep them in control,

we must besitting in the legislature and talking all kinds ofnonsense?

The Assembly then adjourned for lunch till Three of theClock.

The Assembly re-assembled after Lunch at Three of theClock, Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee) in theChair.

Shri H. V. Kamath (C.P. & Berar: General): Before weproceed, Sir, with the further consideration of the Motion,may I ask for a railing from you as to whether the use ofthe word "nonsense" to describe the speeches of HonourableMembers of this House conforms to parliamentary practice?

Mr. Vice-President (Mr. H. C. Mookherjee): I do notthink it is in order.

Shri H. V. Kamath: This arises out of the speech madeby Mr. Brajeshwar Prasad. He did use the word 'nonsense' todescribe the speeches of Honourable Members in this House.That is why I am raising this point.

Mr. Vice-President: Is he present here?

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: I did not know it wasunparliamentary; if it is so, I withdraw it, Sir. I wouldreplace it by any other word which the honourable Member maysuggest.

Mr. Vice-President: We shall now resume furtherconsideration of Dr. Ambedkar's motion.

Shri Moturi Satyanarayana (Madras: General): *[Sir, youwill be surprised to know that a person from Madras has comehere to speak in Hindustani. The general belief so far wasthat all the Members from Madras would like to speak inEnglish. I am not surprised at this. It is my convictionthat all the speeches in this Assembly should be deliveredin Hindustani. It is, however, very unfortunate that eventhough people have worked for this cause for the last thirtyyears, Hindustani-speaking people have not secured electionto this House from the south, the east and the west. It doesnot mean that there are no Hindustani-speaking people inthese provinces. Only, Hindustani-speaking people have notbeen able to secure election to this Assembly. I see thateven the Members from the north speak in English only. Thereason may be that they want to have closer relations withthe people of the South and other provinces. Whatever may bethe reason, the fact is that they do speak in English.

The Constitution which is now on the anvil placesbefore us provisions of many kinds. It appears to me fromwhat I have been able to gather from these provisions thatit is being built from above and not from below, the base.If it had been built from the base upwards, our Constitutionwould have first been framed in the languages of ourcountry. The people know what that swaraj means for which wehave been labouring for the last thirty years, and they arealso conscious that the Constitution is being framed forthem and not for anyone else. But only the internationalview-point, and not the national nor the swaraj, nor eventhe villagers' view-point, and not the national nor theswaraj, nor even the villagers' view-point is being givenweight in the framing of this Constitution. We want that the Constitution for the whole country should first be framed inthe language of the country, that the Constitution should befor the people of the villages so as to ensure food andcloth for them, as it was the lack of these necessities thatled us to make our demand for swaraj. It would be very goodfor us if the Constitution is framed in the languages of thecountry. It may afterwards be translated into English orinto the languages of the countries whose constitutions wehave drawn upon, of those whose opinion we value. It wouldhave been much better if we had seen to this matter in thevery beginning. If this consideration had

----------------------------------------

* [] Translation of Hindustani Speech.

been kept in mind from the very beginning, we would not havehad occasion to listen to all the criticisms that have beenmade today in this House - that this Constitution is notsuited to the genius of our country, that it is not suitedto the people of the villages, that it is not in theinterests of the people of the cities and that it is not inthe interests of the poor. We did not keep that in mind inthe beginning and that is why there is all this criticism.

Ihold that if we have to provide food, cloth and shelter forour poor brethren, the villages and the village panchayats,should form the base of our Constitution. We should proceedwith our work keeping them in mind. It is because we havenot done this that we have to consider whether our provincesshould be strong or weak, Whether our Centre should bestrong or weak. These questions arise only because we havenot given due importance to our provinces and villages inframing our Constitution. The basic idea underlying thewhole constitution is as to how our country will competewith Britain, Russia or America and what relations it willhave with them. There is nothing in the whole Constitutionto show that our intention was to do something for theinhabitants of our country, for our villagers and for ourtownsfolk, and for the poor people.

So far as production is concerned, there is nothing init that would make the village people work their utmost inorder to produce the maximum quantity of wealth. I thinkthat it will be said in reply to this that later on whenthis Constitution would be enforced all these would be takento be implied by its provisions and would therefore be putinto practice but that these cannot be specifically includedwithin the Articles of the Constitution. But I hold thatjust as the face is to a man's character so also a mereglance at the Constitution should be sufficient to revealthe direction in which it tends to move the ptople.Therefore, I hope that at the time when the Constitutionwould be considered here clause by clause every attempt willbe made to include in it provisions for all that we havebeen promising to provide to our countrymen.

For the last four or five days a very importantproblem - the problem of the relations that should subsistbetween the State or national language and the variousprovincial languages - has been engaging our attention.

There has been ample discussion as to what should bethe position of the national language and the position to begiven to the various provincial languages. I hold thatunless we decide as to what would be the place of provinciallanguages, how they would be used in their respectiveprovinces, no decision can be taken about the nationallanguages. In my opinion, our provincial languages must nothave a less important place that of our national language.If a decision is not taken in regard to this matter therewill be a very powerful agitation in the country and manypeople will say that the people of northern India who holdHindi as national language are trying to make their ownlanguage the national language. This will have a seriousconsequence in the provinces and they will oppose it and asa result the country will be split up into many divisions,as of old. To prevent this, it is very essential to make itclear that in no case the state language would take away theimportance of provincial languages. If this is not done,there is a possibility of a very serious danger arising forthe country. It must be averted. The purpose for which aState language is needed is to establish unity within theState. Another function it fulfils is to facilitate thecarrying on of international relations. In my opinion it isvery essential for us to build up a composite culture, acomposite language and a composite society. The assimilationof the culture and the language and the dress of all thosewho come to our country has been a part of our tradition forcenturies. We did this and marched on the path of progress.We should adopt that practice for the futurealso. If we fail to do so, it is very possible we may notmake such rapid progress in international matters as ourPrime Minister has in view. On the contrary, it is quitelikely that we may remain involved in our own internaldisputes. It is better if we avoid it. Merely to hold thisview is not sufficient. We must also act upon it. Therefore,I hope, Sir, that the language which is going to be made ournational language, which is going to be used here, must bethe link of a composite culture, must have a mixedvocabulary, a mixture of phrases and

idioms and a compositescript so that we may have mutual understanding within thecoming ten or fifteen years, and thereafter be able to marchforward together. Till that time we should not take any stepto give up our composite culture. In short I would like tosubmit that our national language should be Hindustani andour culture should be Hindustani.

In regard to the national script I submit that untilall our people have learnt to write in a common script - andtoday they use two separate scripts - both the scripts shouldbe given recognition so that no one may have any occasion tocomplain that his script which he had been using forcenturies was being suppressed after the attainment offreedom and that thereby his culture and religion was beingsuppressed. If we are prepared to continue to use theEnglish language for the next fifteen or twenty years, I donot find any reason why the other current languages cannotbe kept on for that period. Today some people complain thatalien words are being imported into their language. But weshould not only keep these words but should also extendtheir meaning. I, therefore, think that both from the viewpoint of justice as from that of expediency it is essentialto be fully considerate in such matters.

I would like to discuss this subject much more fullyand perhaps it is not difficult to speak at length on it.But there have been so many longwinded speakers since thismorning - several of whom you pulled up rather sharply - thatI do not wish to take any further time of the House and Inow conclude my remarks. I would, if I get an opportunity,express may views at the proper time on the amendments thathave been tabled.]

Shri Suresh Chandra Majumdar (West Bengal: General):Mr. Vice-President, Sir, it is with deep humility in mayheart that I rise to speak a few words on the onerous taskwhich history has assigned to this Assembly namely, themaking of a democratic Constitution for this great andancient land whose civilization dates back to an age beyondman's memory. No nation has had such varied experience ofsuccess and failure, of happiness and which our history isreplete, there is one which in my opinion should command ourutmost attention as we are engaged in settling the forms ofour State and Government. It is this that throughout historyour finest glories in whatever field they might be, wereachieved precisely during those periods when India, strivingtowards political cohesion was most successful and suchcohesion always presupposed a strong unifying Centralauthority. The form of that authority was different atdifferent times and of course we shall have to evolve onethat will suit the conditions of the present age but thetruth remains that India's greatness depends as it hasalways done on the effective strength of a unifying Centre.I therefore want the Constitution to provide for a strongCentre and am glad that the Drafting Committee had kept thispoint prominently in their view. The time has now come tocurb the bias in favour of the so-called `provincialAutonomy' which arose from historical causes. When Alexanderattacked India we understand that India was divided into 52autonomous units and we know what consequences it produced.It might have had some justification when the Centre wasirresponsible and completely under alien domination. Evenso, `provincial autonomy' encouraged provincialism and thatthe curse did not assume greater proportions was due whollyto the unifying influence and control which the All-IndiaCongress exercised over the provincial ministries. Now thereis no foreign power in the land and there should be noconflict between the provinces and the Centre; and asbetween the provinces themselves, possibilities of conflictcan be best lessened by the Centre being given power tointervene effectively whenever and wherever provincialjealousies may threaten the unity, or impede the progress ofthe country as a whole. I therefore want that it is not onlyat times of war or other grave emergency that the Stateshould function as a unitary State but that in normal peacetime also the Centre

should have certain necessaryoverriding powers without which planned reconstruction ofthe country will not be possible.

While on the subject of delimitation of powers. Ishould like to make a very brief reference to Dr. Ambedkar'scomments on the role of the village community in India'shistory. It is true that at times the village communitystood still when history passed by. But this happenedinvariably in periods of national depression when everythingwas in a state of stagnation and the political life itselfwas disintegrating and the village community was indifferentto the main course of history. But there were other times - times of healthy national life - when the village communitydid supply strength. I believe the village community, if it is properly revitalised and made power-conscious, can becomenot only a strong prop of the State but even the main sourceof its strength.

India has been always proud - and I also share thatpride - of her achievement of cultural unity in diversity,but in matters political it is essential today that weemphasize unity and uniformity rather than diversity. Itherefore want a uniform political structure for the wholecountry. No praise can be too high for the wonderful work ofintegration which the States Ministry has done and is stilldoing under the creative, I should rather say, inspiredleadership of our Deputy Prime Minister and I hope this workwill proceed further to the point where the viable Statesand the States' Unions will have the same political andadministrative organisations as the other units - I mean thepresent Provinces - within the over-all political structureof the country. In view of the basic character of theseunits as recognised by the Chairman of the DraftingCommittee himself, I do not even like them to be called"States", because that may create an impression that Indiais a Federation of the type of the United States of America.All units, the present Provinces as well as the integratedStates, should be given the uniform nomenclature of"Province".

I am proud of the achievements not only of my ownlanguage but, as an Indian, also of those of the other majorlanguages of India. I certainly want a lingua Indica for thewhole country, but at the same time it will be anirreparable loss if we allow the major provincial languagesto languish by neglect. The lingua Indica that we may adoptshould not be a kind of imposition. It will be willinglyaccepted by all if it is allowed to make its way graduallyand naturally and without giving a rise to a feeling ofimposition. The previous speaker, Shri Satyanarayana, is anoutstanding example of this. Nobody imposed upon him Hindior Hindustani, but Honourable Members have heard the fluencywith which he spoke just now. As regards English we need notignore its usefulness as a medium of international exchange,and even in the sphere of internal use I am not in favour ofviolently throttling it but would like to see its gradualreplacement. It may not be wise to set a time limit in amatter like this.

It is unfortunate that the question of linguisticprovinces has become mixed up with provincialism. Theprinciple of linguistic provinces can be justified only ontwo grounds, namely, administrative and educational con-venience and the development of our great major languages.It would be wrong to introduce any other consideration intothis matter, which unfortunately has become a subject ofviolent controversy and even conflict. Possibly we are allsuffering from the hang-over of our depressed conditionwhich is only just over and under which our foreign rulersalways emphasized and encouraged the spirit of division. Ihope we shall be able to see things in their properperspective after some time. It is essential that at thisstage all internal conflicts should be avoided. If,therefore, the question of linguistic regrouping ofprovinces cannot be settled without bitterness and conflictnow, I think the question should be postponed for ten years.I would only urge that the Constitution should not containany such provision as will make a settlement of

thisquestion too difficult in the future. At the same time Iwould appeal to all my countrymen meanwhile to behave in amanner so as not to prejudice the rightful claims of anylanguage Hindi or Hindustani as the lingua Indica of India.It is due to my great love for all the major Indianlanguages as well as to the necessity I feel that all ourcountrymen should understand and follow the Constitution,that I have asked that the Constitution be made available inall the major Indian languages and approved by this Assemblybefore its final adoption.

One word more. I hope I will not be misunderstood insaying this in this Gandhian era. I want to say a few wordsregarding the right of the people to bear arms. We arepassing the Constitution today. But so far as I can seethere is no mention of that. I would like that the House mayprovide in the Constitution that as a fundamental right, alladults, irrespective of whether they are men or women, wouldbe allowed to bear arms for the defence of Mother Indiawhenever she would be in peril Jai Hind.

Pandit Mukut Bihari Lal Bhargava (Ajmer-Merwara): Mr.Vice-President, Sir, the Draft Constitution has been underfire for the last several days in the House. I would notdeal generally with the Draft Constitution but would confinemy observations to one particular aspect of the Draft Constitution, and that is what is incorporated in Part VIIof the Draft Constitution. It deals with what are known asthe Chief Commissioners' provinces under the presentGovernment of India Act of 1935. At the very outset I wouldrespectfully draw the attention of the House that in thisparticular case the Drafting Committee and its Chairman havebeen very unjust to the Chief Commissioners' provinces. Infact, in making the recommendations which the DraftingCommittee has made in Part VII of the Draft Constitution, ithas exceeded its powers. It is absolutely clear; ifnecessary, reference may be made to the resolution adoptedby the House on 29th August 1947, which brought the DraftingCommittee into existence. The powers of that Committee arespecified in the Resolution that was adopted by the House onthe occasion. It is simply to implement the decisions thathave already been taken by the House. When the question ofthe Cheif Commissioners' provinces came up before the House,from the Union Constitution Committee Report you will bepleased to find that in part VIII Clause 1 what wasrecommended by the Union Constitution Committee was that theChief Commissioners' provinces should continue to beadministered by the Centre as under the Government of IndiaAct, 1935. When this clause 1 of part VIII of the UnionConstitution Committee report was moved by the HonourableSir N. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar in the House, an amendment to itwas moved by my friend Mr. Deshbandhu Gupta and thatamendment was unanimously accepted by the House. Thatamendment sought the setting up of an ad hoc committeeconsisting of seven Members of this Honourable House, whichcommittee was to go into the question of the ChiefCommissioners' provinces and to make suggestions foreffecting changes in the administrative systems of theseprovinces on democratic lines so as to fit in with thechanged conditionsin the country. The fact that this amendment was unanimouslyaccepted by the House clearly implies that the House standscommitted to bringing about suitable administrative changesin the set up of these provinces on democratic lines so asto fit in with the Republican Constitution of free India.Inspite of this mandate from the House, one is staggered tofind the recommendation of the Drafting Committee inArticles 212 to 214 of the present Draft Constitution. Myrespectful submission would be that these recommendationsare absolutely ultra vires inasmuch as the DraftingCommittee could not set at nought the recommendations of thead hoc Committee. The ad hoc Committee consisted of threevery distinguished Members of this House, - Sir N.Gopalaswamy Ayyangar, Mr. Santhanam and Dr. PattabhiSitaramayya. Inspite of this the unanimous recommendationsof the ad hoc Committee have

been set at nought by Articles212 to 214. What Article 212 does is to provide that theChief Commissioners' provinces shall continue to beadministered by the President to the extent he thinks fit,through a Chief Commissioner. What the Drafting Committeehas done in this Article 212 is simply to repeat the wordsof the Government of India Act, 1935 Section 93 (3). Thesewere the very words, which by the acceptance of theamendment of Mr. Gupta, were set at nought by the House.Consequently, my submission is that the present Articles 212and 213 are absolutely ultra vires and the House should notgive any consideration to them. The ad hoc Committee aftergoing into the question of the Chief Commissioners'provinces has incorporated certain recommendations to makecertain administrative changes in the present constitutionof the Chief Commissioners' provinces. In fact, in themodern age when India has attained the goal of fullindependence and when we have assembled here to draft aconstitution befitting a free Republican India, it isimpossible to think of a recommendation of the characterincorporated in Articles 212 to 214. These recommendationsseek to perpetuate a regime of autocracy. The ChiefCommissioners' provinces have been enclaves of bureaucraticand autocratic regimes and even today, fifteen months afterhaving attained full independence, we find there isundiluted autocracy prevailing there. For political andstrategic reasons the Brit ish Government ignored the claimsof the Chief Commissioners' provinces to responsiblegovernment. The only concession they made was in 1934 when asingle seat was allotted in the legislature. Beyond this,the administrative set up in these provinces continue to bethat of one man's rule. The Advisory Councils to the ChiefCommissioner which were set up immediately after theformation of the National Interim Government at the Centrehave served no useful purpose. Inspite of them, one man'srule. The Advisory Councils to the Chief Commissioner whichwere set up immediately after the formation of the NationalInterim Government at the Centre have served no usefulpurpose. Inspite of them, one man's rule is prevailing. Sofar as Ajmer-Marwara is concerned, the administration thereis a hot-bed of corruption, nepotism, favourit ism andinefficiency. How can this deplorable state of affairs bebrought to an end until and unless the accreditedrepresentatives of the people are given a voice and a handin the administrative set-up? The demand for theestablishment of responsible government in these ChiefCommissioners' provinces has been repeated from every one ofthem. No less than three Conferences convened during he lasttwo years in Ajmer-Merwara have separated this demand forimmediate establishment of responsible government. TheProvincial Congress Committees have also done so in everyplace. Notwithstanding this, the autocracy has prevailed andthese three Articles - 212 to 214 of the Draft Constitution - aim at perpetuating this system of autocracy. I appeal tothis august House, how on earth can this state of affairs beto erated by an Assembly which has assembled to draft aconstitution for free India? Yesterday there was referencemade to One-Rajputana Union. We all want territorialintegration and administrative cohesion of the differentRajputana States into one single unit and every one desiresthat this should be an accomplished fact as soon aspossible, but till that takes place, why should thepresent administrative set-up be allowed to remain? We donot know what is going to be the future picture of RajputanaUnion. If and when it comes, Ajmer-Merwara would alwayswelcome any such move and Ajmer will be glad to join in anysuch Rajputana Union provided its historical, geographicaland cultural place, which has always been its own since thedawn of history, throughout the Pathan, Moghul, Maharattaand the Brit ish periods, is retained in the future set-up ofsuch Union. But because the existence of such a Union is apossibility or even a probability it does not mean that theautocratic system should be allowed to

continue. To theother Chief Commissioner's province, i.e., Delhi, areference was made about it yesterday. Regarding Coorg, itsposition is also identical and analogous. The LegislativeCouncil there has only advisory functions and it has neitherlegislative power nor any voice in the day to dayadministration. There also the demand of the people has beenthe establishment of responsible government. I fail tounderstand what can possibly be the difficulty for thisHouse to accept in toto the recommendations of the ad hoccommittee. The ad hoc committee has been careful in itsrecommendations. It has recommended that, looking to thefinancial difficulties of those tracts, it will be necessarythat the Centre here should have greater powers than it hasin Governors' provinces. We, the representatives of theChief Commissioners' provinces, in spite of ourunwillingness, agreed to accept those restrictions only as acompromise measure. Fiseal autonomy is conceded only inname, because all the financial proposals will have to bepreviously approved by the President of the Union.Similarly, in the legislative sphere also what has beenrecommended is that every Bill before it becomes law must beassented to by the President of the Union. It has also beenprovided in the ad hoc committee's report that in case ofany difference of opinion between the Lieutenant Governorand the Ministers, the President will have the final voice.Consequently there cannot be room for any apprehension inaccepting the recommendations and granting some form ofresponsible government to Ajmer-Merwara and the other ChiefCommissioners' provinces.

One argument that has been repeated often is that it isnot a viable unit, that it is not self-sufficient and thatit is a deficit province. I would respectfully ask who is tobe blamed for this? Ajmer-Merwara people never wanted thanthey should be segregated and left as an island in the midstof the Rajputana States. It was the responsibility and thedecision of the then Government at the Centre that Ajmer-Merwara should remain as a separate entity in order that itmay be the citadel of the Centre to keep its clutch firmlyon the neighbouring States. Therefore why should the peoplebe subjected to any penalty now? As I said, it was forstrategic and political reasons that it was left as anisland. That being so, may I ask why the Central Governmentwas giving subventions to N. W.F.P. of about a crore ofrupees and subvention also to Sind? Now if it decides togive today subventions to Assam, Orissa and also West Bengaland East Punjab, it is for strategic reasons and forprotecting the frontiers. If that is the case, why shouldnot Ajmer-Merwara also be given subvention? For the reasonsplaced before the House by me, Articles 212 to 214 areabsolutely ultra vires of the powers of the DraftingCommittee and the recommendations of the ad hoc committeeappointed by this Honourable House, which already standscommitted to a policy of accepting suitable administrativechanges in the set-up of this province, should be accepted.

With these remarks I support the motion for theconsideration of the Draft Constitution by the House.

Mr. Vice-President: There is an established conventionthat in the case of a Member who is not present when hisname is called by the Chair to participate in the debate, heloses his right to speak. That happened to one of ourcolleagues at the beginning of today's sitting of thisAssembly. He has ex-plained to me that his absence was due to unavoidablereasons. If I have the permission of the House, I will givehim a second chance to speak. As no one objects I give himpermission to speak and call upon him to address the House.

Shri S. V. Krishnamurthy Rao (Mysore): Mr. Vice-President, I thank you for giving me an opportunity to speakon the Draft Constitution. I join the various speakers whohave paid a chorus of tribute to the Drafting Committee andits Chairman, Dr. Ambedkar.

An attempt has been made in this Draft Constitution toput in the best experience of the various democraticconstitutions in the world, both unitary

and federal. Ofcourse no Constitution can be perfect and even ourConstitution will have to udergo some modifications beforeit finally emerges from this House.

I shall first refer to the Directive Principles ofpolicy. I submit that this contains the germs of asocialistic government. I submit that this Chapter shouldcome in immediately after the Preamble. As objectiveprinciples of the Union, we will be giving it greatersanctity than to others and it will stand as the ObjectivePrinciples of the future Government. With certainmodifications they can be adopted as a socialist programmefor the future Parliament of India.

The next thing I wish to refer is the FundamentalPrinciples. I find certain conspicuous omissions here. Inmost of the democratic constitutions, the freedom of thepress is guaranteed, but in our Constitution I find it isnot there. Of course there is freedom of expression. But Ifeel in a country with 87 per cent illiteracy, our press hasto play a very important role both in the political anddemocratic spheres in the education of the masses. I feelthat a specific provision should be made in the FundamentalPrinciples guaranteeing freedom of the press. In fact in the Constitution of the United States of America it is enactedthat the State shall not pass a law restricting the freedomof the press. Similarly, the inviolability and the sanctityof the home should be granted. Similarly again, I feel thatno citizen of India should expelled from the State. Such aprovision should find a place in the Chapter on FundamentalRights.

One thing I would like to see omitted is the provisionfor freedom to propagate religion. This right which has beenclaimed by some has been the bane of our political life inthis country. Probably it might have been thought proper toinclude it in the old set-up of things. In a secular State,such a provision, especially with the guarantee for the freeexercise of religion and freedom of thought, is out of placein our Constitution and I submit to this House thatprovision should be omitted.

Then there is the question of the redistribution ofprovinces. I am not one of those who see something red inthis question. If the linguistic provinces have beenbastions of strength in our fight for freedom, I do notunderstand how they can be damned as showing fissiparoustendency when we ask for linguistic provinces. In fact,every citizen should feel that he has got freedom. I feelthat the language of the Parliament of the particular regionshould be the language of that area. In fact there is noplace for multilingual provinces like Bombay and Madras.

The provinces should be distributed on a linguisticbasis. We are not going to break our heads over thisquestion. It can be settled amicably by mutual understandingand co-operation.

Similarly about language. The southern languages ofIndia have borrowed freely from Sanskrit. We have got bothTatsama and Tadbhava words in our Dravidian languages. Ifeel that Hindi with the Devanagri script would beacceptable to us, but I think that it should not be forcedon us all at once, especially the vast numbers of peopleinhabiting the Deccan peninsula. It should be graduallyintroduced. We are prepared to accept Hindi with theDevanagri script as the official language of India, but timeshould be given to us to pickup Hindi. This Constitution should reflect the cumulativewisdom of every section of this House. If you want to takeus with you, we must understand your arguments, we mustunderstand your points of view and we must hammer out thisConstitution and make it acceptable to all. So also, thesections of the people who have got the Urdu script shouldalso be given time to pick up the Devanagri script as BegumAizaz Rasul suggested.

One other point I would like to touch upon is regardingthe provisions in Part VII for the states in Part II of theFirst Schedule, that is, Sections 212 to 214. I think theyshould not be made a permanent feature of the Constitution.In fact, the policy of the Government of India has been tomake the States into viable units. Sections

212 to 214 withthe various amendments suggested by the Drafting Committeewill simply increase the number of these uneconomic smallStates in the country. Provision is made for Lieut.Governors, Council of Ministers and so on. If these areallowed to remain a permanent feature of the Constitution, Iam afraid they will divide the country into smaller units.Within a short time these smaller units must be induced tomerge with the larger provinces or States amidst which theyare situated. Take for example the province of Coorg. It hasan area of only 1,500 sq. miles and the population is about160,000. I learn that ever since the Coorg budget wasseparated from the Central Budget, they have not been ableto undertake any development project. They have not beenable to repair a bridge which would cost only about Rs.5,000.

Then about the capital of India, I agree with myHonourable friend from Mysore who stated that before vastsums of money are expended over the capital for the EastPunjab and also the extension of Delhi, we should considerlocating the capital in a more centrally situated place.

There may be some justification for Delhi to continueas a Centrally administered area because it is the capital,but there is absolutely no justification to increase theseCentrally administered areas. In fact the Central Governmentwill be functioning in two capacities, one as the CentralGovernment and the other as a provincial government for theCentrally administered areas. I do not see any justificationfor the Centre spending large sums of money on theseuneconomic units.

Both Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar and Professor Rangaasked why there should be Constituent Assemblies for theStates. I submit that this is none of our fault. As soon aswe came here in July last, some of us Members representingthe States tabled a resolution before this august Assemblythat a committee be constituted to evolve a modelconstitution for the States. If the archives of the SteeringCommittee are searched, such a resolution will be foundthere, but unfortunately this Assembly did not take anysteps and things so developed that we had to demandConstituent Assemblies in our States when we fought forresponsible government in our States. I do not see any harmin this because no constitution drawn up by theseConstituent Assemblies can be at variance with the Constitution that is going to be adopted by this House. Theymust fit in with the all India picture. So long as they dothis, I do not see why they should not be allowed to finishtheir job.

Another suggestion was made that there should beuniform powers both for the States and the provinces. Inthis connection, I would like to submit, Sir, speaking onbehalf of States like Travancore and Mysore, that we are farahead of some provinces industrially, economically andfinancially. In bringing about uniformity between provincesand the States, I would submit to this House that thereshould be no levelling down. There should be only levellingup. Mysore has co-operated in all all-India matters and isstill co-operating, and I am sure it will co-operate also inbringing about uniformity, provided there is onlylevelling up and no levelling down. In fact, I am one ofthose who believe that there should be uniform powers bothfor the States and the provinces. I want the Supreme Courtto be given appellate powers not only in constitutionalmatters but also in civil and criminal matters. I am gladthat the Drafting Committee has made provision for this andI am sure that this provision will be taken advantage of bythe States.

Another point I would like to touch upon is Section 258as regards the financial powers of the President. Power isgiven to the President to terminate any agreement enteredinto between a State in Part III and the Union after aperiod of five years. I submit, Sir, that five years is tooshort a time. The clause itself says that such an agreementwould be valid for a period of ten years. If such anagreement is terminated, after five years it may disturb thefinancial position of the State concerned. In fact, for

longrange planning, five years is too small a period. I submitthat it may be altered with the consent of the State. Ifafter the report of the Finance Commission the Presidentfeels that it is necessary to terminate such an agreement,he may do so in consultation with the State concerned. Mypoint is it should not be one-sided, as this would work as agreat financial handicap to the State concerned.

Then, Sir, as regards the power to amend the Constitution. I do not agree with my Honourable friend, Mr.Santhanam, that it should be rigid. It should be as flexibleas possible because the integration of smaller units intobigger units is still going on and bringing about uniformitybetween the States and the provinces also is still going on.Perhaps it will take some time before there is some sort ofuniformity between the various units of the Federation, andduring the initial period it should be as easy as possiblefor the future Parliament to amend the Constitution to suitthe circumstances of the time. The power to amend the Constitution should be made flexible, but even here adifference is made between the States and the provinces. Isubmit that this difference between the States and theprovinces as regards the number of votes should be done awaywith. Equal rights should be given both to the States andthe provinces so far as amendments to the Constitution areconcerned.

With these words, I support the motion for theconsideration of the Draft Constitution.

Shri N. Madhava Rau (Orissa States). - Mr. Vice-President, I had not intended to join in this discussion,but in the course of the debate, several remarks were madenot only on the provisions of the Draft Constitution, but onthe manner in which the Drafting Committee had done theirwork. There was criticism made on alleged faults ofcommission and omission of the Committee. Mr. AlladiKrishnaswami Iyer who spoke yesterday and Mr. Saadulla whowill speak on behalf of the Committee a little later havecleared or will clear the misapprehensions on which thiscriticism is based. I felt that as a member of the Committeewho participated in many of its meetings, after I had joinedthe Committee I should also contribute my share in removingthese misapprehensions if they exist among any large sectionof the House.

It is true that the Draft Constitution does not providefor all matters, or in just the way, that we wouldindividually have liked. Honourable Members have pointedout, for instance, that cow-slaughter is not prohibitedaccording to the Constitution, Fundamental Rights are tooprofusely qualified, no reference is made to the Father ofthe Nation, the National Flag or the National Anthem. Andtwo of our Honourable friends have rightly observed thatthere is no mention even of God in the Draft Constitution.We have all our favourite ideas; but however sound orprecious they may be intrinsically in other contexts, theycannot be imported into the Constitution unless they aregermane to its purpose and are accepted by the ConstituentAssembly.

Several speakers have criticised the Draft on theground that it bears no impress of Gandhian philosophy andthat while borrowing some of its provisions from aliensources, including the Government of India Act, 1935, it hasnot woven into its fabric any of the elements of ancientIndian polity.

Would our friends with Gandhian ideas tell us whetherthey are prepared to follow those ideas to their logicalconclusions by dispensing, for instance, with armed forces;by doing away with legislative bodies, whose work, we havebeen told on good authority, Gandhiji considered a waste oftime; by scrapping our judicial system and substituting forit some simple and informal methods of administeringjustice; by insisting that no Government servant or publicworker should receive a salary exceeding Rs. 500 per monthor whatever was the limit finally fixed? I know some of theCongress leaders who sincerely believe that all this shouldand could be done. But we are speaking now of the Constitution as it was settled by the Constituent Assemblyon the last occasion. Apart from the

Objectives Resolution(which is otherwise known as India's Charter of Freedom) andthe enunciation of Fundamental Rights, the decisions of theAssembly dealt, sometimes in detail and sometimes inoutline, with questions relating to the composition andpowers of the Legislature, the executive authority and thejudiciary of the Union and of the provinces, thedistribution of legislative powers and administrativerelations between the Union and the units, finance andborrowing powers, the amendment of the Constitution and soon. Is there any instance in which a decision of theAssembly embodying Gandhian principles has not beenfaithfully reproduced in the Draft Constitution? If it isthe contention of these critics that the decisions of theAssembly itself have fallen short or departed from thoseprinciples, that is of course another matter.

Then those of our friends who wanted indigenous ideasof polity to be embodied in the Constitution would have toadmit that while (as has been pointed out by an honourablemember today) there might have been republics in thenorthern India in the days of Alexander, by and large,kingship was an integral part of Indian polity. At a timewhen the institution of kingship is so unpopular, when evenIndian rulers are barely tolerated although they have shedall power, when formal elections and ballot boxes unknown toour ancestors are regarded as the sine qua non and authenticsymbols of democracy, it would be unreal to pretend to seekguidance for our immediate task in the ancient politicalphilosophy of India. A more pertinent point is this. Why didnot the exponente of these fine ideas press them on theattention of the House at the proper time and secure theiracceptance when the Constitution was more or less settledduring the last session? Why do they not do so even now ifthey have any feasible suggestions to make? Why should theyblame the Drafting Committee for not incorporating in theDraft what can only be described as belated second thoughts?

There is undoubtedly a feeling among some Congresscircles and others that the National Government in theCentre and the people's Government in the provinces are bothdeparting from the principles of Gandhiji, that they arecarrying on the much the same bureaucratic way as theiralien predecessors and that the promised Ramrajya is nowherenear being realised. In these circumstances, "back toGandhi" has become a sort of militant slogan and a challengeto the authorities. It might or might not be right, but ithas to be addressed to the proper quarter. To apply thatslogan in the context of the very restricted ask entrustedto the Drafting Committee seems to be entirely pointless. Iam reminded of a couplet written about an archaeologist ofthe name of Thomas Hearn. This is how it runs:

"Quoth Time to Thomas Hearn

What I forget you learnt."

"You learn what I forget" seems to be rather naiveadvice.

Shri B. Das (Orissa: General): On a point of order,Sir, Members of this House asked the Drafting Committee todraft the Constitution and each of us is giving out ourviews now. It is no use for a member of the DraftingCommittee to tell the House that we use slogans. I stronglyprotest against such language by a member of the DraftingCommittee.

Mr. Vice-President: Mr. Das, you do not propose tocurtail the liberty of expression allowable to a member ofthe Drafting Committee? You and I may not agree with him.Surely he is entitled to give out his views. Is it not?

Shri N. Madhava Rau: It is very unfortunate that a gooddeal of controversy arose in regard to village panchayats.Dr. Ambedkar's strong remarks on the subject were apparentlybased on his own experience. But, like Mr. AlladiKrishnaswami Ayyar, I wish to speak for myself in the lightof my own experience. For over thirty years, the MysoreGovernment have put the revival of village communities andthe improvement of the working of village panchayats in theforefront of their activities. A great deal of publicexpenditure has been incurred on this account. All officersconcerned from the Dewan to the Tahsildar

have, according totheir lights, given personal attention to the condition ofthe villages. The present popular Government in Mysore, are,I understand, making still more intensified efforts in thesame direction. The results are, in my opinion encouragingand in some cases, quite gratifying. It is true somevillages are chronically faction ridden and indulge in pettytyrannies, or remain the strongholds of untouchability. Aconsiderable number are apathetic or even moribund. Butabout thirty per cent could be classed as good; that is tosay, they has held regular meetings, collected panchayattaxes, undertaken some optional duties and carried out worksof public utility and weekly cleaning by voluntary labourcontributed by the villagers and had taken steps to ensurethe vaccination of children and so on. The success that hasbeen achieved such as it is, is largely conditioned by theinitiative of a good headman or other influential land-lord.I am sure that experience in other parts of the country ismore or less the same. In certain small Indian States, wherethe bureaucratic system of administration had notpenetrated, I found remarkable self-help and organisedeffort in the villages. With sustained effort on the part ofthe provincial and State Governments, the resuscitation ofvillage communities may well be hoped for. As the Members ofthe Assembly are aware, Gandhiji was very particular aboutconstructive work in the villages. This is what he said onone occasion. "If the majority of congressmen were derivedfrom our villages, they should be able to make our villagesmodels of cleanliness in every sense. But they have neverconsidered it their duty to identify themselves with thevillagers in their daily lives." There is nothing in theDraft Constitution to prevent provincial Governments fromdeveloping the village panchayats system as vigorously andas rapidly as they are capable of doing. The only pointwhich has now come into prominence is whether the electoralscheme for the legislatures should be founded on thesepanchayats. If the House comes to the decision that thisshould be done, two Articles in the Draft Constitution haveto be slightly amended. But, before taking such a step, theAssembly will have very carefully to consider whether bythrowing the village panchayats into the whirlpool of partypolitics, you will not be destroying once for all theirusefulness as agencies of village administration.

In curious contrast with those Members who found faultwith the Drafting Committee for not presenting to them aConstitution according to their own ideas, although they hadnot been approved by the Assembly, there were others whocriticised the Committee for having exceeded itsinstructions. This is an aspect of the matter which will bedealt with by the next speaker. I have only to say, in viewof the criticism of Mr. B. Das, that by accepting member-ship of the Drafting Committee, Members have not given uptheir freedom to express their views either from thecommittee room or the floor of this House.

The Draft Constitution is nothing more than a detailedagenda for this session, it is to serve as the basic workingpaper so to speak. There are other papers too, such as theReport of the Expert Committee on Finance and the Report ofthe Committee on Centrally Administered Areas. This is notthe only paper before the House. If the Draft Constitutionis viewed in this light, I am sure Members will appreciatethat the charge that the Committee has, in any way exceededits instructions is unfounded.

One of the honourable Members observed that thisConstitution if adopted would become a fruitful source oflitigation. So long as the Constitution is of a federaltype, the possibilities of litigation cannot be excluded. It is all the more necessary, therefore, that all Articles andClauses are closely scrutinised to ensure that litigationand consequent uncertainties of administration are minimisedif they cannot be avoided.

Sir, there are one or two points which I should like torefer to in this connection. One is this: when any federalconstitution is in the

process of making, there are alwaystwo opposing sets of views, namely, the views of those whowant to make the Centre strong, and the views of those whowould plead for the utmost extent of State autonomy. Theprovisions of the Draft Constitution are necessarily acompromise, tentatively suggested, of these opposing views.My own feeling is that the scales have been tilted a littletowards the Centre. If this feeling is shared by any largesection of the House, it should be possible to adjust thebalance in the direction desired. The second point, Sir, isthat the provisions relating to the accession of States aremeagre. There have been so many different kinds of mergersof late and the final pattern, so far as we know, has notyet emerged. The exact procedure by which the States willaccede to the Union has to be determined at an early date sothat the names of the acceding States may be mentioned inthe appropriate Schedule and other relevant parts of the Constitution finalised.

There is a good deal of wisdom in the saying; "Forforms of Government let others contest; whatever is bestgoverned is best." However, things being what they are,unfortunately, we have to have some sort of writtenconstitution and it has inevitably, to be a lawyer'sconstitution. If it is possible for any honourable Membersto animate the Draft Constitution by a Promethean breath ofancient political wisdom or exalted patriotic sentiment manyof us in this House would surely welcome such an effort.

Shri Biswanath Das (Orissa: General): Sir, May I have aword of elucidation from my honourable Friend, as to why thehonourable Members of the Committee modified even decisionsarrived at by the Constituent Assembly as also byCommittees?

Shri N. Madhava Rau: I think if a specific instance isgiven, the next speaker will explain.

Shri T. Prakasam (Madras: General): The Honourable Mr.Madhava Rau said that the ballot box and ballot paper werenot known to our ancestors. I would like to point out tohim, Sir, that the ballot box and the ballet papers weredescribed in an inscription on the walls of a temple in thevillages of Uttaramerur, twenty miles from Conjeevaram.Every detail is given there. The ballot box was a pot withthe mouth tied and placed on the ground with a hole made atthe bottom and the ballot paper was the kadjan leaf andadult franchise was exercised. The election took place notonly for that village but for the whole of India. This wasjust a thousand years ago. It is not known to my honourableFriend and that is why he made such a wrong statement - agrievously wrong statement and I want to correct it.

Syed Muhammad Saadulla (Assam: Muslim): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I rise with some diffidence to sum up thisdebate and general discussions of the Draft Constitution forI was a member of the Drafting Committee. I do not mean tocover all the grounds that have been advanced during thelast four days on the floor of the House but I will speakgenerally on the trend of the criticism and try to show byfacts why the Drafting Committee took a certain line ofaction. Many honourable Members have been kind enough togive us a meed of appreciation for the tremendous trouble wetook in the task of preparing the Draft Constitution.Certain honourable Members were not in a position tocongratulate the Drafting Committee and I welcome that also.For it is well known that in the midst of sweet dishessomething briny, something salty adds to the taste. I havelistened very carefully during the last three days to thecriticisms that have been advanced. My task has been greatlylightened by the intervention of my friends, colleagues inthe Drafting Committee - I mean Sir Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyarand Mr. Madhava Rau - in this debate. The criticisms thatwere levelled against our labours boil down really to threeonly, one that we have travelled far beyond ourjurisdiction, secondly that we have flouted the opinionsexpressed by various committees by not accepting theirrecommendations, and thirdly, that we had made adiscrimination between the provinces and the Indian States.Sir,

if human memory is short, official memory is shorterstill. The Drafting Committee is not self-existent. It wascreated by a Resolution of this House in August 1947, if Iremember aright. I personally was lying seriously ill at thetime and I could not attend that session. But, Sir, I findfrom the proceedings that as the Drafting Committee has beenasked to frame the Constitution within the four corners ofthe Objective Resolution, we will be met with the criticismswhich we have heard now. Wise men even in those days hadanticipated this and to the official Resolution an amendmentwas moved by the learned Premier of Bombay, Mr. Kher,wherein we are given this direction. I will read from hisspeech. He moved an amendment to the original Resolution forConstituting this Drafting Committee and there he said - "That the Drafting Committee should be charged with theduties of scrutinising the draft of the text of the Constitution of India prepared by the Constitutional Advisergiving effect to the decisions taken already in the Assemblyand including all matters which are ancillary thereto orwhich have to be provided in such a Constitution, and tosubmit to the Assembly for consideration the text of thedraft Constitution as revised by the Committee". This washis amendment. In his speech he said:

"We have laid down a principle that all the action tobe taken in the Provincial Constitution will be taken in thename of the Governor. There are a number of things whichhave to be put in order to give effect to this decisionwhich the Assembly has taken and which have been given aplace in the Government of India Act. Then there areprovisions which are ancillary in the other constitutionsand some other provisions which must usually find a place inthe Constitution. All these will have to be included in ourdraft even though they may not have been discussed ordecided here upto now. We have taken decisions on almost allimportant points. Those will be given effect to but thedraft will also contain things which are ancillary to theseand also, all such things as are otherwise necessary."

That was the amendment which was accepted by the House. Sir,after this amendment of the Honourable Mr. Kher which wasaccepted by the House, it does not lie in the mouth of theMembers of the Constituent Assembly to say that we have gonefar beyond our jurisdiction.

Shri Biswanath Das: Sir, May I know whether thisdirection includes the accepting of Committee's reports,modification of such reports and rejection of importantrecommendations of such Committees?

Syed Muhammad Saadulla: I would request the HonourableMr. Das, ex-Premier of Orissa, not to disturb me during thecourse of my speech. Ipropose to meet his ground towards the end of my statement.I will also make the same request to other HonourableMembers of the House, for otherwise I will lose the trend ofmy thought. I am not a seasoned orator like my friends here,and I speak from no notes. So I would appreciate theirsilence. If they want to ask me any questions, I will gladlyreply to them if I can at the end of my speech.

The yard stick to measure the contents of the Draft Constitution is really the Objectives Resolution that wasaccepted by this House universally when it was moved by ourlearned Prime Minister. That Objectives Resolution containedonly eight Articles, the last of which need not find a placein a Constitution. Let anyone here say that we have notconformed to the principles that are enunciated by thatObjectives Resolution. We cannot say that those eightArticles form our Constitution: they gave us the barestskeleton. The Drafting Committee was charged with the dutyof filling in the canvas and producing a complete picture ofwhat the Constitution should be. At the time of moving thatObjectives Resolution our popular Prime Minister said thatthis is an expression of our dream, this is the target ofour aspirations and that it is nothing but a "Declaration".A declaration in such bold terms cannot form a Constitution.Therefore the Assembly, at the instance of Government - forthe Resolution was moved by the

then Chief Whip of theGovernment party - decided that the actual framing of the Constitution should be left in the hands of the Committee. Ipersonally had no hand in my inclusion in that Committee. Asa matter of fact, very strenuous attempts were made to oustme from the personnel of the Drafting Committee. I see fromthe proceedings that our stalwart friend Mr. Kamath raised atechnical objection that I was not a Member of theConstituent Assembly at the time when my name was proposed.Probably he took that ground without knowing the facts. Iwas a Member of the Constituent Assembly from the veryfirst. But he was correct that after the referendum in thedistricts of Sylhet, part of Sylhet was transferred toEastern Pakistan, and the number of Members to be sent fromAssam to the Constituent Assembly had to be reduced andthere was a fresh election. But if I remember aright at thisdistance, we were electing Members of the ConstituentAssembly, in the Provincial Legislative Assembly in August1947, and, if I remember aright, I was again elected aMember at the time when Mr. Kamath had raised that technicalobjection.

Shri H. V. Kamath: On a point of personal explanation,Sir. My point was that my Honourable friend Mr. Saadulla hadnot taken his seat in the Assembly; he had not taken theoath nor signed the Register, and therefore he was not aMember of the Assembly technically.

Syed Muhammad Saadulla: Sir, in spite of my request Mr.Kamath has chosen to interrupt me.

Shri M. Thirumala Rao: May I know how all this isrelevant to the subject under discussion?

Mr. Vice-President: Let us proceed with the subject.

Syed Muhammad Saadulla: Sir, what I was driving at wasthat these people of the Drafting Committee were reallyelected by the unanimous vote of the Constituent Assembly,and it does not lie in the mouth of anyone now to say thatthey are not competent, that they did not belong to acertain party, and that barring one none of the Members hadthe hall-mark of jail delivery. How can I tell HonourableMembers that we toiled and moiled that we did our best, thatwe ransacked all the known Constitutions, ancient and recentfrom three different continents, to produce a Draft whichhas been termed to be nothing but patch-work? But those whoare men of art, those who love crafts, know perfectly wellthat even by patch-work, beautiful patterns, very lovabledesigns can be created. I may claim that in spite of thedeficienciesin our Draft we have tried to bring a complete picture, togive this Honourable House a document as full as possiblewhich may form the basis of discussion in this House. TheDrafting Committee never claimed this to be the last word onthe Constitution, that its provisions are infallible or thatthese Articles cannot be changed. The very fact that thisDraft has been placed before this august House for finalacceptance shows that we are not committed to one policy orthe other. Where we had differed from the recommendations ofCommittees, or where we had the temerity to change a wordhere or a word there from the accepted principles of thisaugust House, we have given sufficient indication in foot-notes, so that nothing can be put in surreptitiously there.The attention of the House has been drawn so that theirideas may be focussed on those items in which the DraftingCommittee thought that they should deviate from theprinciples already accepted or from the recommendations ofthe Committees.

As regards the Committees, we were in a difficultposition. Some Committees' recommendations were placedbefore the House and there they were discussed and adecision was taken, but reports of certain other Committees--notably the Financial Experts Committee or the CentrallyAdministered Areas Committee - were not placed before theHouse. They could not be discussed by the Honourable Membersand no decision could be arrived at. We have taken libertyin the Drafting Committee to put our own view on somematters. If we have done it, we have done it with the bestof intentions. As regards two other matters, I willelaborate a little later, but please for

God's sake, do notgo with the uncharitable idea that the Drafting Committeewere not amenable to the vote of this House.

The main point of criticism, at least in regard tothose two Committees, is firstly that the Drafting Committeedid not give any consideration to the recommendation of thead hoc Committee on the Centrally Administered Areas. We hadvery able exponents from those areas - Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara. We listened with the greatest respect, but we haveheard the criticism on the very floor of this House thatIndia should not multiply very small localities and convertthem into units of the Union. We had the recommendations ofthis ad hoc Committee before us but we were perplexed whatto do with them. Take Delhi, for example. It has got apopulation of 20 lakhs. If it is converted into a separateunit - and it cannot but be separated into a distinct unit,call it Lieutenant Governor's province or put it under theCentre - in that case, what are we to do with the otherlocalities which are now centrally administered, Ajmer-Merwara, for instance? According to 1941 census figures,Ajmer-Merwara had only 6 lakhs population, but Mr. MukutBihari Bhargava was good enough to tell me now that thepopulation has increased to 9 lakhs. Let us put the presentpopulation at 10 lakhs. In that case, if we give a separateLieutenant Governor's province to Delhi, how can we refuseit to Ajmer-Merwara? Then what about Coorg? It is anothercentrally administered locality with a population of lessthan 2 lakhs. Then again there is the Andaman islands whichalso boasts of a Chief Commissioner. Therefore, we thoughtit best that this matter should be left to be decided by thebigger body - the Constituent Assembly. Were we wrong inadopting this course? We drew specific attention of this august Assembly to this in Part VII of the Draft Constitution. In the foot-note there you will find that we have said:

"The Committee is of opinion that it is not necessary to make any detailed provisions with regard to the Constitution of the States specified in part II of the FirstSchedule which are at present Chief Commissioner's provinceson the lines suggested by the ad hoc Committee on ChiefCommissioner's provinces in their recommendations. Therevised provisions proposed in this part would enable therecommendations of the ad hoc Committee, if adopted by theConstituent Assembly, to be given effect to by the Presidentby order."If we wanted to neglect these areas, if we wanted to give acold shoulder to their aspirations, we would not have saidthat it is up to the Constituent Assembly whether theyshould give them a constitution on the lines recommended bythe ad hoc Committee.

I now come to the greater charge - of practicallyrefusing to accept the recommendations of the ExpertsFinance Committee. I can quite appreciate-may, sympathize - with all those members from East Punjab, West Bengal, Orissaand Assam who have criticised this part of ourrecommendations. But I would leave it to the decision ofthis august House to judge whether the provisions that wehave made are not far better ultimately than therecommendations made by the Expert Finance Committee. I wassurprised to hear one particular criticism from anHonourable Member from Madras that we were either carelessin going through those recommendations or we wereincompetent to appreciate the principles underlying them. Toboth of these accusations I register an emphatic "No". Onthe other hand, we gave the closest attention to therecommendations of the Expert Committee. I will show fromtheir report as well as by figures that if therecommendations of that Committee had been accepted, theprovinces will stand to lose, especially the poorerprovinces like Assam, Orissa and Bihar. Again, it is notcorrect to say that the Drafting Committee has not acceptedthe majority of the recommendations of the Expert FinanceCommittee. I have that Committee's report in my hands andanybody who has it in his hands will find that on 41,Appendix VI, the Committee recommended certain amendments inthe Draft

Constitution. I am glad to say that 95 per cent ofthose amendments have been accepted by the DraftingCommittee and will be found in our provisions. What we didnot accept is the figures that the Expert Finance Committeesuggested that we should include in our recommendations.

Now, to turn to specific points, first I take therecommendation of the Expert Committee regarding the sharein the jute export duty which is now available to the jute-growing provinces of India. This subject is very vital forthe Republic of India. Jute, as is known, is the worldmonopoly of these four provinces only. I am glad to see fromPress reports that attempts are being made to grow jute inMadras, but taking the position as it is, the undividedBengal used to produce 85 per cent of the world's jute,Bihar 7 per cent, Assam 6 per cent and Orissa 2 per cent butthese proportions have been changed by the partition ofBengal into East and West Bengal.

East Bengal used to produce 75 per cent of the totaljute produced in Bengal. Therefore the present West Bengalproduces only 10 per cent or 12 per cent of world jute. Thisposition has changed the percentages of Assam, Bihar andOrissa. Yet, what do we find in the recommendations of theFinancial Experts' report? Their recommendation is that theshare - which under the Government of India Act of 1935, is62-1/2 per cent of the proceeds of the jute export dutywhich was given to this account to the provinces. But theyrealised that the poor provinces will be hard hit andtherefore recommended that for ten years, the contributionshould be made by the Government of India ex-gratia and inthe following proportion: -

West Bengal - one crore,

Assam - fifteen lakhs,

Bihar - seventeen lakhs and

Orissa - three lakhs.

Now, I request this Honourable House to consider seriouslywhether this distribution is just or equitable for aprovince like Assam or a province like Orissa or Bihar.Bihar has got its production ratio increased from 7 per centto very nearly 35 per cent of the jute grown in India now.Similarly the percentage for Assam has gone up to 30 percent and proportionately for Orissa. Yet, the FinancialExpert Committee wants to perpetuate the injustice that wasdone during the bureaucratic days and divide the proceeds inthe same fashion, giving West Bengal which produces only 10or 12 per cent of the total jute production as much as onecrore.

One argument advanced by the Committee is that jute maybe grown in the other provinces, but the mills convertingthe jute into finished products are situated in Bengal. It is perfectly correct that the export duty is levied not onlyon raw jute but also on the finished product. But considerthe effect. West Bengal cannot increase its acreage. There,all the available waste lands are being requisitioned forrefugees from East Pakistan. If any province can increasejute production it is Assam and Orissa. But if we do not getany return, if the share in the jute export duty is stopped,what is the incentive for Assam to increase the juteacreage? Jute is vital for India in the sense that all thejute produced in West Bengal is sold either to the continentof Europe or America by means of which we get the much-needed sterling or dollar exchange. If tomorrow theprovinces of Assam and Orissa cease to produce jute, thejute mills in Bengal would not have anything to do and theywill have to close down. It is on this account that theDrafting Committee thought that we should not accept thoserecommendations of the Expert Committee and let the statusquo run.

The next recommendation of the Expert Finance Committeeis that, in order to make up the loss which these provinceswill suffer by the stopin the share of jute export duty, theGovernment of India which now shares on a 50-50 basis theincome-tax from the provinces should increase the divisiblepool of the provinces to 60 per cent or an increase of 10per cent. Sir, most Honourable Members here do not know howunjustly and iniquitously this provision of division ofincome-tax has fallen on the poor provinces of Bihar andAssam. Bihar produces the

raw material; Bihar has thegigantic steel works and offices, but their head offices areall in Bombay and hence the income-tax is paid in Bombay.Bihar therefore does not get any credit for this income-tax.Bihar has been crying hoarse to get this changed, but hasbeen unsuccessful so far. In Assam, the condition is worse.Before Partition, Assam had some 1,200 tea gardens Evenafter the removal of a large part of Sylhet to EastPakistan, Assam has got a thousand tea gardens. That is theonly organised industry of Assam. But out of those 1,000 teaestates, the head offices or the offices of the managingagents of as many as 800 are in Calcutta or London. Up tillnow. Assam has been making insistent prayers to the CentralGovernment from the time this system was introduced tochange the system. The division under this system is on thebasis of collection and not of origin.

Now, do you think, Sir, that if we accept thisprovision of the Finance Committee, justice would be metedout to Bihar and to Assam? We wanted revision of the entiresystem and the Finance Committee was compelled to accept theforce of our arguments. But they tried to compromise andtheir compromises are put down in Section 55 of theirrecommendation.

They say: "We recommend that the provincial share, thatis 60 per cent of the net proceeds, be distributed among theprovinces as follows: -

20 per cent on the basis of population,

35 per cent on the basis of collection, and

5 per cent in the manner indicated in paragraph56."

Paragraph 56 says: "The third block of 5 per centshould be utilised by the apportioning authority as abalancing factor in order to modify any hardshipthat may arise in the case of particular provinces as aresult of the application of the other two criteria."

Sir, of the present provinces, after the merger of thenative States with Orissa, Assam is the least populatedprovinces in India. We had a population according to the1941 census of 102 lakhs, but now the population hasdwindled to 72 lakhs. The population of Orissa hasincreased. Therefore if twenty per cent of the divisiblepool of income-tax is divided on population basis, we getvery little. Rather, Assam would get a reduced sum.

Then they say that 35 per cent should be distributed onthe basis of collection. This way both Assam and Bihar willsuffer, because the place of collection in the case of Assamis Calcutta and for Bihar, Bombay and naturally the majorportion of the 60 per cent will go away from the provincesconcerned. Only a little 5 per cent is left to mitigate anyhardships that may arise in the case of particularprovinces. Ours has been a cry in the wilderness; our voicesare never heard at the Centre. However hoarse we may cry andhowever much our Premier may try, we do not get a hearing.Therefore, the Drafting Committee thought that it is not inthe interests of the poorer provinces to accept thisrecommendation of the Expert Committee.

Again, the Committee has stated that the excise duty ontobacco should be divided amongst the provinces on the basisof estimated consumption. That would not help either Assamor Orissa for want of numbers. Although the Expert Committeemade a reference about this in their main recommendations,they omitted this from the list of amendments which theyhave put down in Appendix VI. Therefore when they themselveshave not recommended this, no blame can be attached to theDrafting Committee if they have not adopted it.

Lastly, Sir, the Expert Committee recommended thatthere should be a Finance Commission appointed immediatelyto go into the finances of the provinces and the Centre. Wehave not accepted that it should be appointed immediatelybecause we felt that the appointment of such a Commission atthis juncture would be fair neither to the provinces nor tothe Central Government. Moreover, they will have nothing togo by. The Expert Committee themselves have stated:

"In this country the lack of sufficient economic andfinancial statistics and other similar data is a greathandicap. Therefore, the allocation of resources has to bemade largely on

the basis of a broad judgment, at any rateuntil the necessary data become available. We attach greatimportance to the collection of these statistics and toconnected research, and trust that the Government will makethe necessary arrangements without delay......."

An Honourable Member: For how long does the HonourableMember propose to continue? Is there no time limit for him?

Syed Muhammad Saadulla: I am finishing in a fewminutes, if my friends will allow me.

Mr. Vice-President: I think he is entitled to as muchtime as he wants in order to answer the various criticismsthat have been levelled against the Drafting Committee.Surely you should give him time to do it.

Syed Muhammad Saadulla: We find that even on therecommendation of the Expert Committee, there are no dataavailable at the present moment. From the figures which theyhave published at 27 of the brochure, we find that theCentral Government's budget has been a deficit onecontinuously since 1937-38. According to the revisedestimate for 1946-47, their deficit is a small one of about45 lakhs, but I am sure, Sir, that when the final figuresare published, the deficit will increase. That is the reasonwhy, I presume, the Central Government without consultingthe provinces concerned, by a stroke of the pen, havereduced the share of the Jute Export Duty to these fourprovinces from 62-1/2 per cent. to 20 per cent. They wouldnot have taken this extraordinary step if they were nothard-pressed for finance.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam (Madras: General): Ona point of order, Sir, the Drafting Committee, I suggest,have nothing to do with the Government of India's financialadministration. I think the Honourable Member should confinehis remarks to the Constitution itself.

Syed Muhammad Saadulla: But, Sir, the DraftingCommittee has been charged with neglect in this matter.

For the past ten years the Government of Indiathemselves are having deficit budgets, and now they areincurring very huge expenditure on the rehabilitation ofrefugees, the war in Kashmir and the police action inHyderabad. On account of these, they are not in a positionto give sufficient help to the provinces, whereas theprovinces are crying hoarse over the financial neglect fromthe Centre. Sir, I will just address one point about theparticular position of Assam, as Assam's position is notappreciated by most Members of the House. It is not merely afrontier province of the Republic of India but it is abulwark against aggression from the East. (Interruption).

Sir, if you do not allow me to speak I am subjectingmyself to your Ruling But I wish to say a few words as aMember coming from Assam.

Mr. Vice-President: You are speaking as a Member of theDrafting Committee.

The Honourable Shri B. G. Kher (Bombay: General): May Isuggest that he may continue this subject tomorrow, so thatwe may have more time?

Syed Muhammad Saadulla: I bow to your ruling, Sir, Ithought that I have my three functions before this House, asa member of the Drafting Committee, also as a member fromthe neglected and benighted province of Assam and also ascoming from the Muslims. I wanted to speak just two thingsabout Assam and the Muslims, but I will reserve it for afuture occasion.

Mr. Vice-President: I understand that Mr. Kamath hadsome kind of amendment. Is the Honourable Member pressingit?

Shri H. V. Kamath: I am not pressing it, as it ispurely of a verbal nature.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That the Constituent Assembly do proceed to take intoconsideration the Draft Constitution of India settled by theDrafting Committee appointed in pursuance of the resolutionof the Assembly dated the 29th day of August, 1947."

The motion was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: I have to say something about ourfuture programme of work. Naturally we shall get two days,tomorrow and the day after, for submitting amendments. Iunderstand that a Member had written a letter to ourPresident, asking for ten days' time. It is impossible togrant this extension of time without seriously jeopardizingthe existing

programme which we have set ourselves tofulfil. So the last date will be Thursday and the time 5P.M. on the 11th.

I further understand that already three thousandamendments have been received and I am quite certain thatwithin the next two days further amendments will come in. Itake my courage in my hands and make a suggestion for theconsideration of the House. It is this: that instead oftrying to go through the amendments one by one on the floorof the House, it would be much better for those who havesuggested these amendments to meet the Drafting Committee asa whole or certain members of the Drafting Committee and todiscuss matters. In this way it is possible to expedite thework. It is for you to reject it at once without listeningto my suggestion or to come to some sort of understanding.It may be that the Drafting Committee maybe persuaded to accept certain amendments; it is quitepossible on the other hand that certain amendments will notneed any further consideration. If this meets with yourapproval, then I suggest that the arrangement may come intoeffect from, say, Friday and the time fixed by 10-30 A.M.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari (Madras: General): May I ask,Sir, if the Drafting Committee is in existence?

Mr. Vice-President: It may not be in existence, but thepeople in it are very much alive and they are prepared totake this trouble in order to reduce the work of the House.

Prof. N. G. Ranga: I dare say you are aware of thesystem that we have followed in the past. Anyhow so far asthose people who belong to the Indian National Congress areconcerned and those who are associated with it, we used tomeet every day for three or four hours in order to lessenthis work as you have suggested and make it easier for youto get through the allotted work. In addition to this, if weare to accept your suggestion it would mean that we wouldhave to be sitting here with the Drafting Committee and begthem to accept this amendment or that. In addition we wouldhave to meet again for three or four hours every day.Therefore, I wish to submit to you with all respect thatthis suggestion will not be very practicable and may not bequite acceptable to several of us. Therefore, we would likeyou to relieve us from this suggestion.

Shri R. K. Sidhwa (C.P. and Berar: General): I endorsethe suggestion made by Prof. Ranga. The suggestion made iscertainly not practicable and it is better to leave theMembers to help expediting these amendments. I thereforesuggest that the usual practice may prevail and the Membersshould be given the right to move their amendments in thisHouse if they do not come to an agreement with the DraftingCommittee.

Mr. Vice-President: If you do not agree, then you neednot accept the suggestion. Further, the Drafting Committeeis not defunct.

There is something more. Friday will be a closedholiday on account of Mohurram and the Honourable thePresident has given us Saturday to consider for the study ofamendments, so that we shall meet on Monday the 15th at 10A.M.

Shri H. V. Kamath: On a point of procedure, may I knowwhether the preamble will be taken first or last?

Mr. Vice-President: I am not in a position to give anydecision on the matter.

The Assembly then adjourned till Ten of the Clock onMonday, the 15th November 1948.