Wednesday, the 17th November, 1948

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


The following Members took the pledge and signed theRegister:

1. Shri B. H. Khardekar (Kolhapur State).

2. Shri A. Thanu Pillai (Travancore State).

Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee): We shall now go on with the amendments. Amendment No. 126 - Prof. Shah.

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

"That at the end of sub-clause (c) of clause (3) of article 1, the following be added: or as may agree to join or accede to or merge with the Union'."

The clause, as amended, will read:

"such other territories as may be acquired or as may agree to join or accede to or merge with the Union."

I think this is a very simple amendment. It tries to include within the territories of the Union not only those which are at present in it, or which, under the provisions of this Article, come under its scope; but also those which after the Constitution is passed may agree to join, or accede to,or merge with, the Union. I confess that I am not very enamoured of the term acquired'. I do not suggest that acquisition is necessarily by conquest. I agree that acquisition may take place by other means than conquest. Ihave, therefore, not suggested any alteration of the word"acquired".

At the same time, however, I feel that the term is not sufficiently inclusive. It does not take account, for instance, of the addition to the territory by voluntaryagreement, or by accession of States, which, at the time the Constitution is passed, had not yet acceded and/or were not merged with the Union. I have in mind two particular instances which have led me to table this amendment. There are neighbouring territories even today which are independent States, with which, however, we have much affinity. They may find in a closer union with us much greater chance of their own advancement or prosperity; and as such it is possible that they also may like to join this Union, and take all the benefits that joining with such a great State, with such resources as we have, may bring to them as well. There is in this suggestion no intention of coercion or conquest by any use of force, or aggressive designs upon any neighbouring territory, in an amendment of this kind. This is only a provision that, without any necessity to amend the Constitution. if some such contingency arose, we could simply under the existing provisions accept the joining or accession of such States as today are independent, sovereign States in their own name,in their own right; and which may yet feel the necessity of much closer union than any treaty or alliance may provide. Itrust, therefore, that this provision which is only permissive and facilitating the joining of other States,will find no objection in any part of this House.

Then there is the accession of States, which, at the time I put in this amendment, had not acceded to the Union.Everybody would understand the example I have in mind. Even now I am not clear whether that particular State has, in point of technical, constitutional law, actually acceded tothe Union even today. Whatever that may be, here is a provision that the territories of the Union will include also such a State if and when it accedes.

The third contingency is of merger. This contingency ofStates completely identifying themselves to the point ofsacrificing their own identity and becoming part and parcel,integral units, of this Union should I suggest also be provided for so that in the long run the Union should consist of parts which I hope would be equal inter se,making the components of the Union.

These three contingencies I have sought to provide for by this amendment, viz. States joining voluntarily, States acceding - which have not yet acceded, and States becoming merged in the Union, may arise at

any time; and so I do not think this amendment will in any way be objectionable in any part of the House. The merger problem is ticklish, rather delicate, and we do not yet know what final shape this great development will take. But whatever that shape may be, the integrity of the Union, the integral association, if I may put it that way, of States which are still retaining somehow their separate identity, will help to make this Union territory much more uniform under single jurisdiction and the parts thereof much more equal inter se than is the case today. On these grounds, therefore, Sir, I think this amendment ought to commend itself to the House.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General):Sir, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

That at the end of sub-clause (c) of clause (3) of article 1, the following be added: -

"or as may agree to join or accede to or merge with theUnion."

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: As regards the next amendment, No.127, standing in the name of Sardar Hukam Singh, I do not think it arises out of Article 1. It may be discussed at the proper time and place.

I think the same objection applies also to amendmentNo. 128, standing in the names of Shri B. A. Mandloi andThakur Chhedi Lal. It can be discussed hereafter.

Now we come to amendment No. 129. Professor K. T. Shah.

Prof. K. T. Shah: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, this amendment which stands in my name is as follows:

"That the following proviso be added to article 1:

`Provided that within a period not exceeding ten yearsof the date when this constitution comes into operation, the distinction or difference embodied in the several Schedules to this Constitution and in the various articles that follow shall be abolished, and the member States of the Union ofIndia shall be organised on a uniform basis of groups of village Panchayats co-operatively organised inter se, and functioning as democratic units within the Union'."

This also is part of the general idea I am trying to propagate. It tries to realise the ideals which I hope wil lcommend themselves to the House, namely that, in the longrun, this Union must consist of locally autonomous units,equal inter se, which will be the strength as well as the salvation of this country in my opinion.

Sir, it appears to me that in the various Schedules as well as in the various articles that follow, there is an obvious distinction between not only the old-time Provincesas they were called, but the old-time States whosedesignation is now sought to be applied to all the Membersof the Union which are amongst themselves clearly not on an equal footing.

Now, there may be reasons why at the present time it is not possible to make them all, with one stroke of the pen so to say, equal by themselves and amongst themselves. I recognise the difficulty. I notice, however, that even in the Constitution, and in the reports of the ExpertsCommittee and others, the intention obviously is to see that even though at the present time there may be these difficulties, within a given period-I have given here the period of ten years - within a given period these differences, should disappear, and the country reorganisedon a uniform basis. These differences, at the present time,hinder not only the uniformity of jurisdiction of authority and of working but I suggest it will also impede the developing of the country for lack of this very uniformity.Whatever, therefore, may be the heritage of the past, and whatever may be the restricting, conditioning factor of today which compels us to recognise these inequalities between the member States, I suggest that we must make upour mind, and this Constitution should provide that these differences, these inequalities, these variations, must disappear, and that too within a pre-determined, within a given period of ten years.

The ten-year period suggested is sufficiently long not to cause any difficulty in smoothing away the present differences. The ten year period would be sufficient to readjust

the tax systems, the ten year period would be sufficient to readjust if necessary the judicial systems,the legal and fiscal systems, the ten year period would be sufficient to readjust all differences in communications,transport, and other common factors which at the present time do cause a great deal of variation, and, in may opinion, a great deal of hardship, impediment and heart-burning as between the various units. To give you but one instance, it has been recently held by many people that the existence of the States as independent jurisdictions leads to considerable evasion of taxation; or, what is worse, that it leads to an artificial attraction of industry from one area into another, where the taxes are believed to be lower or where other facilities for the growth of industry are easier or greater. These arise not from the inherent qualities, resources, or peculiarities of those regions;these arise not from the natural differences that cannot be abolished by human effort; they arise simply and solely because there are varying jurisdictions, which permit all these differentiations to go on accumulating.

As I have already suggested, their presence is bound to work against the best long range interests of the country,which seeks to march forward, which seeks to make a uniform plan for all-round development within a given period. And therefore it is but right and proper that we should try and eliminate these traditional differences, so that within the stated period we should attain the goal that we have in view.

I have already stated that these differences are of human creation They are legacies of the past. But as these are impediments in the way, they must be removed at the earliest opportunity. The period of ten years is long enough for making constructive efforts to readjust and make more or less uniform the various units that compose the country as between themselves.

In trying to reconstruct and readjust these various units, I have further suggested that they should be re-organised. The moment we have an opportunity to do so, we must re-organise them into autonomous village groups, which would have more natural geographical affinity amongst themselves and more economic sympathy amongst themselves than happens to bethe case in the ad hoc creations which we call either provinces or States.

We have in this regard a burning problem already causing considerable amount of difficulty in there construction of the units or provinces on what is called linguistic basis. The constitution of the provinces on a linguistic basis is not by itself a guarantee that the intrinsic unity of each region or group will be properly developed; and, what is more, that the principle of democratic self-government of the people, by the people, for the people, would be equally promoted, if these various units are reconstructed on any other basis but that of local unity, local affinity, and local identity of interest. It is for that reason that I am suggesting the regrouping, there-construction and the re-adjustment on a village basis.

The constitution of the villages on a co-operativebasis, enabling them to make common cause, make of them asort of internal republics so to say, - imperium in imperio,if I may use the expression, - would be the best guarantee for the development that we have in view. They would be able to take note of the local resources, the local talent, and the local possibilities much better than any distant Government, like the one at the Centre or even at the provincial headquarters even of the size that many of them in our country are.

Sir, remarkable is the emphasis that our great leaders have laid upon the re-vitalisation of the villages. As suchI think I am following very honoured foot-steps, if I put forward this ideal before you, and invite you to consider the possibility of re-developing the State in the only manner in which in my opinion it can be assuredly developed,e.g., on the basis of co-operative village reorganisation,forming groups sufficiently strong and big to enable them to

progress among themselves, and realise the ideal of a better standard of living that we have been hoping and striving forall these years. I commend this proposition to the House.

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar (Madras: General): Sir,I agree with the suggestion that, early or late, we must re-organise this country on a system of village panchayats. But today there are not such panchayats. That being so, if today we are told that within a period of ten years, to be provided for in the Constitution itself, all distinction should be abolished, it would not be a practical proposition. Myself and Professor Ranga have given notice ofan amendment to the Directive Principles to the effect that the State shall take care to see that village panchayats are re-organised and re-established every-where, so that, as faras possible, in the interests of democracy, the villages may be trained in the art of self-government, even autonomy. In that way there may be development of villages. But, in the substantive portion of the Constitution itself, to say that the distinction between State and State should be abolished and the whole country re-organised on the village autonomy basis, is a different thing. We cannot do this immediately.The villages are unfortunately torn by factions and there is nothing like responsibility there now. Under the circumstances I do not want to say anything more than what Dr. Ambedkar has said. He is a bit too pessimistic; I do notagree that we can never reform the villages and develop themfor self-government. We must be able to reform the villages and introduce democratic principles of government there. It will all take time. Therefore, now to say that all the existing differences should be abolished at once, is too much to accept. We also expect that, with the indefatigable energy shown by Sardar Patel, the distinction between theStates and Provinces will automatically disappear. But let us not rush matters too much. The differences aredisappearing fast and popular Governments are coming into existence everywhere. At this rate I am sure that before ten years elapse there will be no difference between either Prof. K. T. Shah or any one sitting on the other benches as regards the ultimate goal that we should reach.

The only question is about the method and pace with which this object should be achieved. I would appeal to him not to press the amendment. We are all engaged on the common task of attaining the absolute sovereignty of the people including those in States. We must devise different methods to suit local needs and conditions. This country will ultimately consist of a number of village republics,autonomous as far as possible, knitted into a number of State with a Union at the Centre. We do derive all authority from the people who must be trained in the art of government and the responsibility must flow from them. But this amendment is premature. I therefore request Professor Shah not to press his amendment. If he does not do so, I am sorryI shall be obliged to oppose it.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena (United Provinces: General):Sir, in this amendment, Professor Shah has enunciated two important principles: one is that after ten years he expects the Government of India to attain a particular shape and hopes that it shall be organised on the basis of groups of village panchayats, organised inter se, and functioning subordinately to the Union. Sir, with these two principles I think most Members will agree. I have myself given notice of certain amendments wherein I have stated that after ten years, many of the principles embodied in the Constitution would be in operation and would have the force of law.Similarly, also we have provided elsewhere in our amendment that the present system of village administration should beorganised on the basis of village panchayats. It was pointed out to the House the other day that we want the Republic ofIndia to be based on small village republics having autonomy. But I do feel that the law as it stands here isvague and should be amplified. Therefore I suggest

that instead of putting this in this omnibus form, Mr. Shah should bring in amendments to the various clauses where these should be inserted. I personally agree with the two principles, firstly, that the distinction embodied in the several schedules should be abolished, and secondly, that village panchayats should find a place in the Constitutionand that everywhere a uniform method of forming village panchayats should be adopted. In fact in the Gandhian Constitution which is proposed by Professor Aggarwal, he points out that Mahatma Gandhi wanted that there should be village republics. He envisaged that for about every 20,000 people there should be a panchayat and these units should elect the Taluk panchayats and the district panchayats. I agree that these panchayats should find a place in the Constitution and should also have some voice in the election of the Upper House, but I think in this place it is not proper to say that the distinction embodied in the schedules should be abolished. That, I think, is going too far, apart from its being very vague. Instead of this, I would suggest that Mr. Shah should table amendments to the various schedules when they are taken up. I hope Mr. Shah will not press his amendment.

Maulana Hasrat Mohani (United Provinces: Muslim): Sir,I beg wholeheartedly to support the amendment proposed by Professor Shah where he says that the member States of theUnion of India shall be organised on a uniform basis of groups of village panchayats co-operatively organised. I would like to go a step further and say that instead of making the village panchayat a unit, we should make a village Soviet as the unit of our Constitution. It will not be out of place to point out to you that I approached Mahatma Gandhi and presented to him the Soviet Constitution and discussed with him all the points contained in that Constitution. He agreed and at least accepted two principlesof that Soviet Constitution. One of those two principles was, "No work, no vote". The second thing was that our unit must be a village Soviet and he said that the Constitution of the Soviet was quite similar to the Constitution of the All-India Congress Committee here, as we have got village Congress Committees which elect representatives to the Tehsil Congress Committees; the Tehsil Congress Committees elect their representatives to the District Congress Committees, the District Congress Committees to the Provincial Congress Committees and the Provincial Congress Committees to the All-India Congress Committee. The same process has been adopted by the Soviet Constitution. Every village there is a self-sufficient Village Soviet. It sends its representatives to the higher Soviets. If we give up this idea of the village panchayats and accept the village Soviet as our unit, all these absurdities which exist in the Constitution by way of provision for minorities, etc. will disappear. With this suggestion, I wholeheartedly approve and support the amendment proposed by Professor Shah.

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

Mr. Vice-President: I will now put the amendment to the vote. The question is

That the following proviso be added to article 1: -

"Provided that within a period not exceeding ten years of the date when this constitution comes into operation, the distinction or difference embodied in the several Schedules to this Constitution, and in the various articles that follow shall be abolished, and the member States of theUnion of India shall be organised on a uniform basis of groups of village Panchayats co-operatively organised interse, and functioning as democratic units within the Union

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The next one is number 130. Mr.Mandloi.

Shri B. A. Mandloi (C. P. & Berar: General): Sir, I am not moving it.

Mr. Vice-President: Let us now go back to the amendments which we did not take into consideration on Monday. No. 83.

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: I suggest that these may be allowed to be held over and that article 1 may be put to the

vote now.

Mr. Vice-President: Please allow me to proceed. No. 83 deals with script and language. This may be discussed at the proper time when we discuss the question of language and script under article 99. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad.

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

"That at the beginning of the heading above article 1, the word and Roman figure `CHAPTER I', be inserted."

Sir, I submit this raises an important question ofdrafting. Honourable Members will find that in the Draft Constitution chapter numbers are not continuous. There are many places where there is no chapter number but there are some cases where are several chapters and they are numbered separately. The result of this is some amount of confusion.If we number the chapters consecutively apart from the Parts to which they appertain, the advantage will be that, if werefer to a particular chapter, it will be enough indication of the chapter belonging to that particular Part. If we however retain the existing numbering, the result would be that we have to say Chapter I of Part III, Chapter III ofPart IV, etc. I submit, Sir, it would be more advantageous to adopt running chapter numbers in the Draft Constitution.That would be highly advantageous from a practical point ofview. Sir, I have before me many samples of Indian enactments. The practice in India has been uniform in this respect, though I must point out so far as the existing Government of India Act is concerned, the present draft follows the practice in England. There is in that Act no contiguous running chapter numbers as in Indian practice.

Coming, Sir, to the various enactments, with whicheverybody is familiar, namely, the Civil Procedure Code, theCriminal Procedure Code, the Evidence Act and all otherActs, Members will find that these Acts are divided intoseveral parts. The chapter numbers are not individually andseparately numbered and although there are several parts,the chapter numbers are continuous. The result is anenormous simplification in the matter of citation. In theCriminal Procedure Code and in the penal Code and in otherActs, we refer to certain chapter number without referenceto the parts to which they belong. I submit this is theuniversal practice in India. There are many other Acts whichare divided into Parts but the chapters bear runningnumbers. Considered, therefore, from the point of view ofestablished practice in India and the point of conveniencein the matter of citation, I think the chapters,irrespective of the Parts to which they belong, should bearconsecutive numbers. This is a matter of convenience and Ithought it my duty to place my views before this House. Withthese few words I commend my amendment to the acceptance ofthe House.

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

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That at the beginning of the heading above article 1,the word and Roman figure `Chapter I', be inserted."

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: I find that so far as item No. 85is concerned the first part of it may be moved as the otherportion has been disposed of already. I therefore call uponMr. Lokanath Misra to move the first part.

The Honourable Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant (UnitedProvinces: General): Sir, I move that we now pass on theArticle 2 and postpone discussion on the remainingamendments to Article 1. So far we have not been able toreach unanimity on this important point. I am not withouthope that if the discussion is postponed, it may be possibleto find some solution that may be acceptable to all. So,nothing will be lost. After all we have to take thedecision, today, tomorrow or the day after: nobody willsuffer thereby, but if we can find something that satisfieseverybody, I think the House will feel all the stronger forfacing the tasks that lie ahead of it. I hope there will beno difference of opinion on this point and I do not see whythere should be any opposition from any quarter. After all,we will take the decision. Nobody else is going to add to ordiminish the strength

of any section or of any group here,and we are not here as sections or groups. Everyone of us ishere to make the best contribution towards the solution ofthese most intricate, complicated and difficult problems andif we handle them with a little patience, I hope we will beable to settle them more satisfactorily than we wouldotherwise. So, I suggest that the discussion on the rest ofthe amendments to Article 1 be postponed.

Shri H. V. Kamath (C. P. & Berar: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I appreciate the arguments that have beenadvanced by my honourable Friend, Pandit Govind BallabhPant. I only wish to know from you, Sir, for how long a timethese amendments Nos. 85 to 96 both inclusive are going tobe held over. It will create, I submit, Sir, a very badimpression in the outside world and in our own country, ifwe go on postponing the consideration of the amendmentsdealing with the very first word in the very first clause.

Honourable Members: No, no.

Shri H. V. Kamath: And if we go on postponing theconsideration of these amendments indefinitely, it wouldcertainly create a bad impression. I want to know,therefore, for how long i will be held over.

Shri R. K. Sidhwa (C. P. and Berar: General): Sir, I amrather surprised at the argument advanced by my honourableFriend, Mr. Kamath that if wepostpone this matter indefinitely the outside world will berather surprised. On the contrary, if we come to asatisfactory solution and a unanimous decision on thismatter, the outside world will have really a very highopinion of this House. I feel, therefore, that thesuggestion made by my honourable Friend Pandit Pant shouldcertainly be accepted unanimously. I am rather surprisedthat of all persons Mr. Kamath should have come forward tospeak in this manner. what Pandit Pant stated was really avery fin solution and I was expecting from this House thatinstead of creating any kind of dissension, if we reallycome to a unanimous decision, it will be really a record inthe history of this Constitution. I therefore, very heartilyand strongly support the motion moved by my honourablefriend, Pandit Pant.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I support thesuggestion made by Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant.

Seth Govind Das (C. P. & Berar: General): Sir, Iwholeheartedly support Pandit Pant's proposition. The Housevery well knows how clear I am for naming our countryBHARAT, but at the same time, we must try to bring unanimityof every group in this House. Of course, if that is notpossible, we can go our own ways; but up to the time therewas any possibility of reaching a unanimous decision by anycompromise, that effort must be made. Sir, I Support thisproposition, and I hope that by the efforts of our leaders,there will not be any division on fundamental points likethis, and not only this proposition, but other propositionsalso, like that our national language, national script etc.,we shall by able to carry unanimously. I, therefore, supportthe views just expressed by the Honourable Pandit Pant.

Shri H. V. Kamath: I only wanted to know for how longthe amendments will be held over.

An Honourable Member: It may be a day, a week or afortnight.

Mr. Vice-President: I hold that a discussion of thesefew clauses should be held over till sufficient time hasbeen given for arriving at some sort of understanding. Thiswill be to the best interests of the House and of thecountry at large.

Shri Lokanath Misra (Orissa: General): Sir, I have asubmission to make. If it is your decision, Mr. Vice-President, Sir, that may amendment is not to be moved, orthat it is to be held over, I have no objection. Of course,I agree that may amendment consists of two parts, changingthe name of India, and some other things. I am very gladthat this change of the name is being held over so that wemay come to some unanimous decision which will be pleasantto all. But, I submit, I should be allowed to move the restof the amendment. that is in no way similar to the amendmentmoved by Professor K. T. Shah. If i had really known that, Iwould have said what I have to say

when he moved thatamendment. I, therefore, request you kindly to allow me tomove the rest of the amendment, without amending the name ofIndia.

Mr. Vice-President: Apart from the language employed, Iconsider that what is said in your amendment issubstantially the same as what was said in the amendment ofProfessor K. T. Shah. It has been discussed. It cannot bediscussed again.

Shri Likanath Misra: That is taking one by surprise.

Article 2

Mr. Vice-President: the next motion is:

That Article 2 stand as part of the Constitution.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Article 1 may be put to vote.

Mr. Vice-President: That Article has been postponed. Icannot be put to vote now till all the amendments areconsidered.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Amendment No. 131.

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

"That for Article 2 and Article 3, the following besubstituted:

'2. Parliament may be law -

(a) admit into the Union new States;

(b) sub-didide any State to form two or moreStates;

(c) amalgamate any two or more of the following classesof territories to form a State, namely -

(i) States,

(ii) part or parts of any State,

(iii) newly acquired territory;

(d) give a name to any State admitted under item (a) orcreated under items (b) and (c) of this article;

(e) alter the name of any State:

Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall beintroduced in either House of Parliament except on therecommendation of the President and unless -

(a) where the proposal contained in the Billaffects the boundaries or name of any Stateor States for the time being specified inPart I of the First Schedule, the views ofthe Legislative Assembly or in the case of abi-cameral Legislature, of both Houses of theLegislature of the State, or as the case maybe, of each of the States both with respectto the proposal to introduce the Bill andwith respect to the provisions thereof havebeen ascertained by the President; and

(b) where the proposal affects the boundaries orname of any State or States for the timebeing specified in Part III of the FirstSchedule, the previous consent of the State,or as the case may be, of each of the Statesto the proposal has been ascertained'."

Sir, in introducing this amendment, I should submit thatmany points are involved in this. The two Articles, Articles2 and 3, are to a certain extent overlapping. In Article 3there are certain redundancies, and there are one or twominor gaps. I shall deal with them just now. An analysis ofArticle 2 shows that Parliament may admit into the Union newStates and establish new States. These are the two points inArticle 2. In Article 3 power has been given to theParliament to (a) form a new State by separation ofterritory from a State or by uniting two or more States orparts of states, (b) increase the area of any State, (c)diminish the area of any State, (d) alter the boundaries ofany State, and (e) alter the name of any State. I submit,Sir, that the first element in Article 2, admitting into theUnion a new State, is covered by the first part of Article3. With regard to Article 3, the three elements ofincreasing the area of a State or diminishing the area of aState, or altering its boundaries, I submit, are redundant.If you subdivide a state, you decrease the area. If you addto one State another or a part of a State, you necessarilyincrease the area, and a re-adjustment of territoriesinvolves necessarily alteration of boundaries. I be tosubmit that the three elements of increasing the area ordiminishing the area or altering the boundaries are sonecessarily implied in the other part of the Article and itwould be meaningless and practically useless to embody themin the Constitution, I submit, Sir, that if you have thepower to divide one State into two or more parts, or unitetwo States or parts of States, these three elements arenecessarily implied and therefore, they need not berepeated. This element of increasing the area, diminishingthe area and altering the boundaries are consequences of theother powers given. These consequences need not

bementioned. They are necessarily involved in the process ofdivision, addition and subtraction. So to that extent these three elements must go.

Then the condition of separation of territories from aState in Article 3 (a) - for this I think a better way wouldbe, to say, we "sub-divide" any State and form into two ormore States. I think this would be a better expression; andthen the element of uniting two or more States, etc., abetter expressionwould be "amalgamating any two or more States or parts ofStates". Then there is no power given in the existingarticle of amalgamating newly acquired State. The powers ofthe Parliament in this respect are specifically given in my amendment but this is entirely absent in the Draft Constitution.

Kazi Syed Karimuddin (C. P. & Berar: Muslim): Mr. Vice-President, the Honourable Member Mr. Naziruddin has moved an amendment to Articles 2 and 3. Article 2 has been taken upfor discussion now and not Article 3. So unless both aretaken up for discussion, the amendment as it stands cannot be moved.

Mr. Vice-President (to Mr. Naziruddin): Please go on.

Kazi Syed Karimuddin: What is your ruling, Sir?

Mr. Vice-President: When I said he is to go on, thedecision should be understood.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: That is why I have attempted toincorporate into the amendment the following points:

(a) admit into the Union new States,

(b) sub-divide any State to form two or moreStates;

(c) amalgamate any two or more of the followingclasses of territories to form a State, viz.,

(i) States,

(ii) Part or parts of any State.,

(iii) newly acquired territory;

(d) give a name to any State admitted under items(b) and (c) of this article;

and then again the power to alter name is already given. Isubmit that these embody the essential features, of clauses2 and 3. It avoids repetition and it eliminates parts ofarticles which are redundant, viz., which are necessarilyimplied. That disposes of the body of the proposedamendment. Then with regard to the present clause 3, . . . .

Shri H. V. Kamath: On a point of Order. How can herefer to Article 3 when it is not under discussion?Amendment to Article 3 cannot be taken up at this stage.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I submit that a ruling hasalready been given that the amendment is in order, viz.,that for Articles 2 and 3 the following article besubstituted. This is certainly an amendment to Article 2although it incorporates in the amendment also article 3. Sothe Honourable the Vice-President has already ruled that theamendment is in order.

I submit that the phrase `increasing area' or`diminishing area' would not be very appropriate. You do notincrease an area by addition or diminish it by means ofsubtraction. The words are mostly used in an intransitivesense. As an instance you can increase the area of a balloonby inflating and decrease it by deflating. Therefore isubmit that these words are not appropriate. If theseelements are to be retained, the words `enlarge' and`reduce' would be more appropriate. The increase of an areaby addition or reduce it by subtraction is not in currentuse, but at any rate the other objection is that they areabsolutely redundant. i therefore submit that the body ofthe proposed new Article 2 should be accepted.

With regard to the proviso, the only effect of theamendment would be that in the proviso (a) in part I thereis a condition of representation in the Legislature. In No.2 there is the question of the resolution. I submit Part 1of proviso (a) should be deleted. A Resolution as mentionedin Part 2 of clause

(a) of the Proviso is better. So the only effect of thechange of proviso is to eliminate Part 1 of proviso (a).These are the essential changes proposed in this amendment,viz, elimination of some of the points which seem to me tobe redundant. There are one or two points which seem to havebeen overlooked. In proposing this amendment I do so withgreat respect. I do not in the least disparage the highquality of work which the Drafting Committee has done.

My next amendment which I shall move in

this connectionis as follows: -

"That in Article 2 the words `from time to time' bedeleted.'

The words `from time to time' have caused some amountof trouble before. These words have been provided for in theGeneral Clauses Act. Under that Act if any power or right isgiven, it is understood that unless the contrary isspecifically indicated that the power or right may beexercised "from time to time as occasion arises". It followsthat if any power is given, unless the contrary isdefinitely stated, that power may be exercised from time totime. This expression appears again and again the Draft Constitution. We have put specific provisions in the Draft Constitution itself in Article 303, Clause (2) whichprovided that in the interpretation of this Constitution,the provisions or the General Clauses Act shall apply. Ishall read out this clause -

"Unless the context otherwise, the General Clauses Act,1897 (X of 1897), shall apply for the interpretation of thisConstitution."

The Government of India Act was controlled in thisrespect by the U. K. Interpretation Act of 1889, and thisclause (2) of Article 303 is similar to that provision inthe Government of India Act. It, therefore, follows that inthe interpretation of this Constitution, we should haveregard to the General Clauses Act. And the General ClausesAct definitely provides for this thing, that the words "fromtime to time" need not be repeated again and again. If wesay that the President can give a ruling on points of order,it implies that he can give the ruling as and when occasionsarise, from time to time. So in practical life, and in dailydrafting of Statutes, we find it as an invariable rue thatthis phrase is not repeated, here and there, and now andagain. In this Constitution itself, the words "from time totime" do not appear everywhere. The House will see that inArticle 2, line 1, the expression 'from time to time'appears. "Parliament may, from time to time..." do certainthings. But coming to Article 3, we merely find "Parliamentmay, by law......" and no 'from time to time' occurs there.There are numerous other places where the words 'from timeto time' in a similar context do not appear. I submit thatthe drafting should be uniform. If in one place we introducethe phrase 'from time to time', and if we do not introduceit in another analogous place, the argument may be made thatin one place the power may be exercised from time to time,and in the other place it may not be exercised from time totime. It is this reason that I say that there should be someuniformity in the matter of drafting. The words 'from timeto time' must be excluded. But if they have to be introducedat all, they have got to be introduced in all other similarplaces.

With these few words, I submit may amendment for theconsideration of the House. I merely wanted to raise thesepoints for discussion, and if necessary for redrafting ofthe article, if the points are worthy of consideration.

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: Sir, I oppose theseamendments. These are verbal matters and I would even appealto you not to allow such amendments. I request you to put itto vote now.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I oppose theamendments.

Mr. Vice-President: I will put the amendments nos. 131and 132 to vote. Dr. Ambedkar has spoken already and therecannot be any further discussion.

Kazi Syed Karimuddin: Sir, on a point of order. If thisamendment is accepted, it will amend Article 3. Therefore,unless a ruling is given that Articles 2 and 3 should bediscussed and taken into consideration in regard to thisamendment, this cannot be put to vote now. If it isaccepted, as I said, it will amend Article 3 also.

The question is: -

"That for article 2 and article 3, the following besubstituted:

`2. Parliament may by law -

(a) admit into the Union new States;

(b) sub-divide any State to form two or moreStates;

(c) amalgamate any two or more of thefollowing classes of territories to forma State, namely -

(i) State,

(ii) Part or parts of any State,

(iii) newly acquired


(d) give a name to any State admitted underitem (a) or created under items (b) and(c) of this article;

(e) alter the name of any State;

Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall beintroduced in either House of Parliament except on therecommendation of the President and unless -

(a) Where the proposal contained in the Billaffects the boundaries or name of any Stateor States for the time being specified inPart I of the First Schedule, the views ofthe Legislative Assembly or in the case of abi-cameral Legislature, of both Houses of theLegislature, of the State, or as the case maybe, of each of the States both with respectto the proposal to introduce the Bill andwith respect to the provisions thereof havebeen ascertained by the President; and

(b) where the proposal affects the boundaries orname of any State or States for the timebeing specified in Part III of the FirstSchedule, the previous consent of the State,or as the case may be, of each of the Statesto the proposal has been ascertained; and

That in article (2), the words "from time to time" bedeleted'."

The amendments were negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 133, I find isconnected with the Preamble, and so it may be taken uplater, this is not the appropriate place for it.

Amendment Nos. 134 and 135, are not moved.

Amendment No. 136 has been disposed of.

Amendment No. 137 is a verbal change and I rule it outof order.

Amendment No. 138 is not moved.

Then I put Article 2.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Sir, I wish to speak on Article 2.

Mr. Vice-President Sir, it appears to me that there isa little lacuna in this Article which may Honourable friend,the able jurist and constitutional lawyer that he is, willrectify, when it is finally drafted by the Committee. If weturn to the report of the Union Constitution Committee - I amreading from the reports of the Committee, Second Series,from July to August 1947, copy of which was supplied to eachmember last year - there Article 2 begins thus: - "TheParliament of the Federation of course, we have changed theword Federation into Union but here you import the word'Parliament' suddenly in Article 2 without saying to whichParliament it refers. This is a lacuna, because there isnoting so far in the previous article regarding Parliament.So we must say here the "Parliament of the Union". Thislacuna, I hope, will be rectified.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: We shall take noteof what Mr. kamath has said.

Mr. Vice-President: Then the question before the houseis that Article 2 form part of the Constitution.

The motion was adopted.

Article 2, was added to the Constitution.

Article 3.

Mr. Vice-President: Now we come to Article 3.

Amendment No. 139 is a negative amendment and is out oforder.

Then we come to Amendment No. 140. Not moved.

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam (Madras: General):Sir, I move:

"That in clause (a) of article 3, the following wordsbe added at the end:

`or by addition of other territories to States or partsof States.'"

I need not take up the time of the House. It only makesclause (a) logically perfect, because a new State can beformed by having a part of one of the acceding States andadding to it other territories which may be acquired byIndia.

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: I request the House toaccept the amendment because by this addition alone will thearticle become complete.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. Vice-President,I am agreeable to the principle of the amendment moved bymay friend Mr. Santhanam. The only point is that I likeslightly to alter the language to read "or by uniting anyterritory to a part of any State".

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: I am agreeable to thechange.

Mr. Vice-President: the question is:

"That in clause (a) of article 3, the following wordsbe added at the end:

`for by uniting any territory to a part of any State.'"

The motion was adopted.

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

"That the following new proviso be added after clause(e) of article


`Provided that every proposal for legislation whichincreases or diminishes the area of an existing State, oralters its name or boundaries, shall originate in theLegislature of the State concerned or affected, in such formas the rules of procedure in the Legislature concernedconsider appropriate.'"

Sir, here is a proposal to consult first theLegislature of the State, Whose name or boundaries areproposed to be altered, or whose areas are proposed to beincreased or diminished. We are all aware that the existingUnits which make up this Federation are not equal inter seare not logical, are not happily constructed so as tominister to the development of the country or even of theareas themselves. It is necessary, and it will soon perhapshave to be implemented in some form or another, that theseareas be reconstructed. That would mean that theirboundaries, perhaps even their name, and their territories,may be altered, upwards or downwards. If that becomesnecessary, then I submit the proper course would be toconsult the people themselves who are affected, if not by adirect Referendum to the people affected, at least by aconsultation of the legislature, rather than that the changebe imposed from above, as in may opinion the clause as itstands requires. The parties primarily affected are thepeople themselves of the areas whose boundaries or name isto be altered, or whose position has in any way to bereconstructed. And it is but a simple proposition - a merematter of fundamental principle I submit - that you should ina democratic regime consult the peoples affected, and notmerely lay it down from above. I recognize that the articleas it stands provides that in any such event you should haveeither a representation from the representatives of thepeople in the Central Parliament to suggest such analteration, or alternatively the President should havereceived some such re-presentation from the people concerned. But it will be theact of the Central authority, and not of the peopleprimarily affected to suggest this variation. I submit thatis in principle a wrong approach.

I am afraid that the general trend of the Draft Constitution, as I view it, seems excessively andunnecessarily to place power and authority in the Centre, tothe serious prejudice not only of the Units, but even of thevery idea of democracy as we flatter ourselves we areembodying in this Constitution. If it is a democraticConstitution, if we desire that the people should governthemselves, or that, even if they are not prepared today todo so, they should learn necessarily by mistakes, to be fitfor and practice self-government, then I think it is of theutmost importance that a provision like this should beinsisted upon.

Any question which relates to the alteration of thepresent units, their territories, boundaries or name, shouldbegin with the people primarily affected, and should notcome from the authority or power at the Centre. Theauthority at the Centre obviously is not familiar with localconditions; or they may have other outlook, may have otherconsiderations, other reasons, for not accepting or agreeingto such a course. The authority at the Centre, even if movedby the representatives of the areas concerned by someresolution or other procedure, may be guided by the very fewpersons which, under any scheme of election, will constitutethe representatives of those areas in the CentralParliament; and not really consult the entire population,the adult voters of the areas concerned, which I submit isthe first requirement of any such readjustment.

Lest I should be misunderstood, I would at once addthat I am certainly not in love with the present position,or the continuance of the alignment of the provinces andStates as they stand today. They need to be altered, theymust be altered. But they must be altered only as and howthe people primarily affected desire them to be altered, andnot in accordance with the preconception, the notion, ofsuch adjustment that those at the Centre may have, even ifsome of those at the Centre are the representatives of

thepeople concerned.

I make it imperative, therefore, that the firstproposition, the initiation of the movement either tointegrate or to separate, either to readjust the boundariesor to bring about any new form of configuration, mustcommence with the people themselves. There is anotherconsideration in the matter, which also should not beignored, namely that in any such readjustment, it will notbe one single group that will be affected or concerned;there may be at least two or more which are likely to beaffected; and as such the representatives of those twogroups, or those more than two groups in the Central, maynot be quite competent to reflect the views of the people asa whole. I admit that in democracy majority rule shouldprevail. But the majority has not the monopoly of beingalways right and still less to be always just. If that isso - and I strongly believe it is so - then I submit that theonly cure, if you wish to retain democracy, is to secure theassent in advance, to make the initiation, from thebeginning, from or by the people concerned in suggesting such readjustment.

The actual readjustment of boundaries, the actualformation of new units, may be left to competent BoundaryCommissions, or to any other body or authority that may beset up, either ad hoc for the particular purpose, or ingeneral terms as a kind of a statutory, constitutionalauthority, semi-judicial in character, that may decide uponand settle these matters. but in the absence of any suchprovision, and apart altogether from such mechanism that maybe set up hereafter, I think the principle must never belost sight of that the matter should originate, and shouldoriginate alone, with the peoples concerned. I personallywould advocate a direct Referendum rather than merelya vote of the Legislature, but lest the suggestion of areferendum sound too revolutionary to be entertained by arespectable House like this, I suggest - and I have put inthe amendment - the idea only of the Legislature beingconsulted, and not necessarily the people as a whole. Itrust this evidence of may intense, ingrained moderationwould commend itself to the House, and allow the amendment - not merely to be opposed by a simple formal "I oppose", butby some sort of a reasoned answer rather than a fiat. Sir, Icommend this proposition to the House.

Rai Bahadur Syamanandan Sahaya (Bihar: General): Sir,may I make a submission. I think that if Dr. Ambedkar moveshis next amendment things will be clarified and such of usas have amendments in our names will be able to decidewhether we should move them or not.

Mr. Vice-President: I agree with you fully. Dr.Ambedkar may move his amendment.

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

"That for the existing proviso to article 3, thefollowing proviso be substituted:

`Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall beintroduced in either House of Parliament except on therecommendation of the president and unless -

(a) where the proposal contained in the Billaffects the boundaries or name of any Stateor States for the time being specified inPart I of the First Schedule, the views ofthe Legislature of the State, or as the casemay be, of each of the States both withrespect to the proposal to introduce the Billand with respect to the provisions thereofhave been ascertained by the President; and

(b) where such proposal affects the boundaries orname of any State of States for the timebeing specified in Part III of the firstSchedule, the previous consent of the State,or as the case may be, of each of the Statesto the proposal has been obtained.'"

Mr. Vice-President, if one were to compare the amendedproviso with the original proviso as it was set out in the Draft Constitution, the Members will see that the new amendment introduces two changes. One is this: in the original draft the power to introduce the Bill was givenexclusively to the Government of India. No Private Member ofParliament had the power, under the original draft, topropose any legislation of this sort. attention of the Drafting Committee was drawn to the fact

that this was asomewhat sever and unnecessary curtailment of the right ofthe members of Parliament to move any motion they liked andin which they felt concerned. Consequently we deleted this provision giving the power exclusively to the Government ofIndia, and gave it to the President and stated that any such Bill whether it was brought by the Government of India or byany private Member should have the recommendation of the President. That is one change.

The second change is this: under the original Article3, the power of the Government of India to introducelegislation was restricted by two conditions which arementioned in (a) (i) and (ii). The conditions were thatthere must be, before the initiation of any action,representation made to the President by a majority of therepresentatives of the territory in the Legislature of theState, or a resolution in that behalf passed by theLegislature of any State-whose boundaries or name will beaffected by the proposal contained in the Bill. Here again,it was represented that there might be a small minoritywhich felt very strongly that its position will not be safeguarded unless the boundary of the State were changedand that particular minority was permitted to join theirbrothers in the other State, and consequently if thesebrothers remained there, action would be completelyparalysed. Consequently, we propose now in the amendeddraft, to delete (i) and (ii) of (a) and also (b) of theoriginal draft. These have been split up into two parts, (a)and (b). (a) deals with reorganisation of territory in sofar as it affects the States in Part I, that is to say,Provinces and, (b) of the new amendment relates to what arenow called Indian States. The main difference between thenew sub-clauses (a) and (b) of myamendment is this: In the case of (a), that is to say,reorgaisation of territories of States falling in Part I,all that is necessary is consultation. Consent is notrequired. All that the President is called upon to do is tobe satisfied, before making the recommendation, that theirwishes have been consulted.

With regard to (b), the provision is that there shallbe consent. The distinction, as I said, is based upon thefact that, so far as we are at present concerned, theposition of the provinces is different from the position ofthe States. The States are sovereign States and theprovinces are not sovereign States. Consequently, theGovernment need not be bound to require the consent of theprovinces to change their boundaries; while in the case ofthe Indian States it is appropriate, in view of the factthat sovereignty remains with them, that their consentshould be obtained.

As regards the amendment moved by Prof. Shah, I do notsee much difference between my amendment as contained insub-clause (a) of the new proviso and his. He says that thediscussion shall be initiated in the States. My sub-clause(a) of the proviso also provides that the States shall beconsulted. I have not the least doubt about it that themethod of consulting, which the President will adopt, willbe to ask either the Prime Minister or the Governor to tablea resolution which may be discussed in the particular Statelegislature which may be affected, so that ultimately theinitiation will be the local legislature and not by theParliament at all. I therefore submit that the amendment ofProfessor Shah is really unnecessary.

The Honourable Shri K. Santanam: Mr. Vice-President, Iwounder whether Professor Shah fully realises theimplications of his amendment. If his amendment is adopted,it would mean that no minority in any State can ask forseparation of territory, either for forming a new provinceor for joining an adjacent State unless it can get amajority in that State legislature. I cannot understandwhich he means by `originating'. Take the case of the madrasProvince for instance. The Andhras want separation. Theybring up a resolution in the madras legislature. It isdefeated by a majority. There ends the matter. The way ofthe Andhras is blocked altogether. they cannot take anyfurther step to constitute an Andhra

province. On the otherhand, as re-drafted by the honourable Dr. Ambedkar, if theAndhras fail to get a majority in the legislature, they cango straight to the President and represent to him what themajority did in their case and ask for further actionremoving the block in the way of a province for them. Ifthey are able to convince the President, he may recommend itand either the Government of India may themselves sponsorlegislation for the purpose or any private Member or a groupin the Central legislature can take up the question.Therefore, by Mr. Shah's amendment instead of democracy wewill have absolute autocracy of the majority in everyprovince and State. That is certainly not what professorShah wants. But, unfortunately, in his enthusiasm for whathe calls the principle, he has tabled an amendment whichaltogether defeats his object. I therefore suggest that theamendment shall be rejected and the proposition moved by Dr.Ambedkar should be accepted.

Mr. Vice-President: Mr. Sidhwa.

Shri R. K. Sidhwa: Mr. Vice-President.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Sir, are we considering amendments149 and 150 together? There are tow amendments to amendment150.

Mr. Vice-President: Let us hear what Mr. Sidhwa has tosay. we will certainly take up the amendments to which mr.Kamath has drawn attention.

Shri R. K. Sidhva: I do not accept the argumentsadvanced by Mr. Santanam against the amendment moved byProfessor Shah. He stated that if in the madras legislaturea motion for the separation of the Andhra is lost by amajority, the Members affected will have the right torepresent their case to the President at the Centre, underthe proposition moved by Dr. Ambedkar. If, Sir, that is theeffect of the proposition, I do not welcome it. It will beunfair to seek the aid of the President against theexpressed wish of the majority under democracy. If themajority say that they do not want separation of theAndhras, the minority should not have the right to go to thePresident by the backdoor and urge separation.

But Sir, I do not share the views of Professor Shah inthis matter. Dr. Ambedkar's amendment is very clear andcomprehensive. It states that if anybody wants a change ofname or separation, he can move for that in the locallegislature. This is what Prof. Shah wants too. But I dofeel that dr. Ambedkar's official amendment is morecomprehensive and should be supported. Though Professor Shahsays that he has in mind referendum on matters of this kind,the amendment does not mention it. If a referendum is to betaken, the legislature has the necessary power to ask thatit be done. The arguments advanced by Mr. Santhanam do notappeal to me. But, as I said, Professor Shah's amendmentrestricts the utility of the Provision. I therefore commendthe amendment of Dr. Ambedkar to the House.

Mr. Vice-President: Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad may move hisamendment.

(The amendment was not moved.)

Mr. Vice-President: Pandit Hirday Nath kunzru.

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru (United Provinces: General):Mr. Vice-President, I beg to move:

"that in the amendment of Dr. Ambedkar as just moved,for the words 'the previous consent' the words 'the views'and for the words 'has been' the words 'have been' besubstituted respectively."

Sir, the object of may amendment, as honourable memberswill clearly see, is to place the States specified in PartIII of the First Schedule on the same footing as the Statesspecified in Part I of the Schedule so far as thereorganisation of the territory of any State is concerned.Dr Ambedkar has told us why the amendment that he hasproposed deals differently with the States mentioned in PartI and the States mentioned in Part III of the Schedule. hehas expressed the opinion that the States mentioned in PartIII of the Schedule are sovereign States and that theytherefore enjoy a higher status than the provinces.Consequently, while the consent of the provinces is notnecessary to a reorganisation of their territory, theconsent of the States in Part III of the Schedule isrequired if their boundaries are to be altered in any way.

Now, I submit, Sir,

that there are several provisionsin the Draft Constitution that do not proceed on the theoryjust now outlined by Dr. Ambedkar. Take Article 226 forinstance. This Article lays down that, when the Council ofStates has declared by the prescribed majority that it isnecessary or expedient in the national interests thatParliament should make laws with respect to any matterenumerated in the State List specified in the Resolution,"it shall be lawful for Parliament to make laws for thewhole or any part of the territory of India with respect tothat matter". It is clear from this provision thatnotwithstanding the sovereignty of the States mentioned inPart III of the Schedule, the Dominion Parliament can incertain circumstances legislate on subjects in regard towhich legislative power has not been made over by theseStates to the Dominion Parliament in their Instruments ofAccession. I know that this clause has been amended by theDrafting Committee. It has been provided that thedeclaration made by the Council of States in regard to thenecessity or desirability of legislation of the Kindmentioned in Article 226should be limited to three years at a time, but it can berenewed from time to time. But whatever the duration of thepower that the Dominion Legislature will acquire underArticle 226 may be, it is clear that notwithstanding anydifference between the provinces and the Indian States, theDominion Parliament will in a certain eventuality be able tolegislate in regard to a subject in connection with whichthe Indian States have not parted with their own legislativepower. I see no reason therefore why, proceeding on theprinciple on which Article 226 of the Draft provides, weshould not provide that in the case of the reorganisation ofterritories too, the provinces and the Indian States shouldbe placed on the same footing.

Article 226 does not provide the only instance in which theStates and the provinces will be dealt with in the samemanner, whatever the Instruments of Accession may say. Foranother illustration, I would ask the House to refer toArticle 230 which deals with the implementation ofinternational treaties, agreements and conventions. Thisarticle lays down that Parliament has power to make any lawfor any State or part thereof for implementing any treaty,agreement or convention with any other country or countries.Now, I could have understood, if Dr. Ambedkar's theory wasto be acted upon consistently, the exclusion of the Statesspecified in Part III of the Schedule from the operation ofArticle 230; but as a matter of fact this Article, ifaccepted by the House, will affect not merely the provincesor the States mentioned in Part I of the First Schedule butalso the Indian States, i.e., the States mentioned in PartIII of the Schedule. Whatever the Instruments of Accessionmay say, the Dominion Parliament will have the power tocarry out international treaties, agreements andconventions, even though they may relate to subjectsspecified in the State List.

Sir, there is yet another example that may be given toshow that the draft Constitution has, in an importantmatter, given power to Government to direct the States toact in a particular manner. I refer to Article 294 of thenew Draft. Article 294 as previously drafted provided forminority representation in the Legislative Assemblies of theStates specified in Part I of the First Schedule. TheArticle as drafted now compels the Assemblies of the Statesspecified in Part III of the First Schedule also to reserveseats for the minority communities mentioned therein in theLegislative Assemblies of the States. This is anotherillustration of the manner in which the draft Constitutionhas imposed liabilities or responsibilities on the Statesmentioned in Part III of the first Schedule, notwithstandingwhat Dr. Ambedkar has said about their sovereign status.

Now it may be said, Sir, that the examples that I havegiven from the draft Constitution do not indicate that theDominion Legislature will be able to exercise any power inregard to the States mentioned in Part III of the

Schedule,notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Instrumentsof Accession. It may be contended that the Instrument ofAccession will be accepted only when the states accept theresponsibilities mentioned in Articles 226, 230 and 294. Ifthat is so, why cannot Government go further and require theStates to agree to a re-organisation of their boundaries insuch manner as might be considered desirable by thePresident in consultation with them? I am not asking thatthe States should have no voice in connection with mattersrelating to their territorial limits. All that I am askingfor is that the consent of the States should not benecessary for a re-organisation of their territories.Consultation with them should be quite enough. Normallytheir legislatures should be consulted, but as we are notcertain that every State has or will soon have alegislature, I was unable to table an amendment requiringthat in the case of the States, too, the opinions of thelegislatures concerned should be obtained, before anyaction is taken. I do not see, why the previous consent ofthe States should be required in connection with Article 3and more than it is required in connection with mattersdealt with in Articles 226, 227 and 294. If Governmentdesire to be consistent, it is incumbent on them, in mayopinion, to accept the amendment that I have placed beforethe House. They cannot in conformity with the position takenup by them in the draft Constitution raise any objection onprinciple to the amendment that I have moved.

Sir, if my amendment is as I think free from alltheoretical objections, one any practical grounds be urgedfor dealing with the States differently from the provinces?I do not think that there is any reason whatsoever why theStates specified in Part III of the Schedule should have thepermanent right to veto their territorial re-organisation,however necessary or desirable it may be in the publicinterest. There are unions, Sir, that are very small; theirrevenues are too limited to enable them to fulfil the dutiesthat Governments have to shoulder in modern times. Is itdesirable that these States should in utter disregard of theinterests of their citizens always rule out all proposalsrelating to the re-organisation of their territories? IfGovernment bear in mind the interests of the people, notmerely in the States specified in Part I of the FirstSchedule but also of the States specified in Part III of theFirst Schedule, it is necessary for them to take power intheir own hands to deal with the question of territorial re-organisation, whether it concerns the provinces or theIndian States, in any manner they like. If they fail to doso, they may justly be accused by the inhabitants of theStates specified in Part III of the First Schedule oftreating them in a step-motherly manner and leaving them tocarve out their future as they best may with their ownunaided resources. The whole principle on which the Draft Constitution is based is that in certain essential matters,the Central Government should have adequate powers to arriveat decisions and to execute them in the interests of theentire territory of India. My amendment, Sir, proceeds onthe same basis and I submit that it would be inconsistentand unjust on the part of the Government if they were toreject my proposal merely on the ground that the States,though they will be compelled to bow to the wishes of theIndian Legislature in certain matters, should not becompelled to fall in line with the provinces in regard tothe re-organisation of their territories, however urgent thematter may be.

Rai Bahadur Syamanandan Sahaya: Mr. Vice-President,Sir, the desire for the formation of provinces and the re-distribution of boundaries of existing provinces and Statesis, in my opinion, assuming the proportions of an epidemic,I feel that the two words "linguistic" and "cultural" havenever been more misused than in recent times. In framing alegislation, and particularly a legislation of the type weare considering, it is necessary for us to decide what typeof tendencies we should encourage and what types

oftendencies we should not encourage. It is from this anglethat I am making a few submissions in connection with thisArticle and the amendments before us.

I have no doubt that the amendment proposed by Dr.Ambedkar to his own draft has been guided by some suchconsideration that I have just placed before you and theHouse. The Draft as it stands only lays down that a Bill forre-distribution of boundaries or for re-naming a State wouldbe introduced if the majority of the representatives of theterritory expressed a desire to hat effect. Of course, thelanguage of the Draft as it stands is, in may opinion,ambiguous. Because, representatives of the territory, as itstands in the Draft, may mean the territory of the wholeprovince, and the representatives of the entire provinceunder the existing Draft may be required to give theiropinion before legislation of the type could come intoparliament. Since then, Dr. Ambedkar has moved an amendmentwhich makes a distinction between the manner of ascertainingthe views of the Provinces, and the States specifiedin Part III of the First Schedule. Although I agree with oneobservation which has recently been made by Pandit Kunzruthat there is no reason for this differentiation, I do notagree with the amendment which he has proposed. I feel thatin both the cases of the Provinces and the Indian States,the words `previous consent' should occur. In part (a) ofthe Proviso as suggested by Dr. Ambedkar, the words are:"where the proposal contained in the Bill affects theboundaries of any State of States for the time beingspecified in Part I of the First Schedule, the views of thelegislature of the State or as the case may be of each ofthe States both with respect to the proposal to introducethe Bill and with respect to the provisions thereof havebeen ascertained by the President." This is, Sir, relatingto the Provinces. When he comes to part (b) of this Proviso,concerning the States referred to in Part III of the FirstSchedule, (ii) the Indian States he says: "the previousconsent of the State or as the case may be, of each of theStates to the proposal has been obtained." Now, Sir, thereis a difficulty which I envisage in this amendment.Supposing the re-distribution of boundaries concerns oneState referred to in Part I of the First Schedule andanother State referred to in Part III of the First Schedule,the result would be that in the case of the State referredto in Part I of the First Schedule the views of the Assemblywill be ascertained and in the other case, the consent ofthe State will be required so that, if the State referred toin Part III of the First Schedule does not give consent,even though the province may agree, the re-distribution willnot take place. I, therefore, feel with Pandit Kunzru thatthere should be no distinction between the two provisions;but instead of leaving the door very wide open in theprovinces, I would submit that Dr. Ambedkar should considerif it would not be proper that the word `consent' used inthe case of States reterred to Part I of the First Schedulealso. I had an amendment in my name, being number 161 on thelist. But, I feel that this amendment of Dr. Ambedkar willreceive a great deal of support in this House and theamendment suggested by me in the Draft as it stands willhave no chance. I therefore make a request that even at thislate stage, if the mover has no objection, you may kindlyaccept an amendment to use the word " consent" for the word"views" in part (a) of the proviso as moved by Dr. Ambedkar.

Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava (East Punjab: General):*[Mr. Vice-President, I have come here to express my viewson this amendment and on the amendment moved by Prof. K. T.Shah. The amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar on this Bill ismore stringent than the original one.

The first point which I would like to submit is thatevery part of India should be given this facility, that,should it decide to secede from one part and to accede toanother, then there should be no impediment in its way.India of ours, which was under the domination of theBrit ish, is sub-divided into

un-homogeneous parts which havegrown in haphazard manner. Not only there are districts,which want to secede from one province and to accede toanother, but there are even Tahsils and parts comprising tento twenty villages who want to secede from one part and toaccede to other parts. This Article is sufficient tothrottle them. For example, I would like to mention thatHariana, which is at present included in East Punjab, hasbeen trying for the last forty years to get itself attachedto areas whose language, customs and traditions are similarto its own and to get itself constituted into a separateprovince. But it could not succeed. The reason was that whenthis was discussed with U. P. leaders they at once statedthat this was a device to parcel out U. P. They did not evenconsider whether it was a right thing to do or not.


* [] Translation of Hindustani speech.

Provincialism and other ideas have become so ingrained in usthat nobody is prepared to judge a thing on its own merits.I would like to know why in a part of Narnaul Area wherethere is not a single Sikh, teaching of Gurmukhi has beenordered. Today, in 1948, orders have been passed to teachGurmukhi in an area where not a single Sikh resides and theresult will be that children of that area will be forced tolearn Gurmukhi. This Article, now sought to be moved, willmake impossible the position of those leaderless areas, whowish to find a way out of this confusion. There will noattractive life to them, because according to this Articlethe right which should vest in every Member of Parliament isbeing given to the President. I would like to submit mostrespectfully that to-day, there are several provisions inthe Government of India Act which debar a member fromintroducing a bill of a particular nature. Whenever I hadwanted to introduce a Bill regarding joint Hindu family withthe object of exempting the family from taxation, I foundthat it could not be done without prior sanction. Whenever Iapplied for sanction, that was refused. I am aware that themethod of work of all the Governments is the same. Thesanction of the President implies that Member, having theright to introduce a Bill, will not get the requisitesanction. Dr. Ambedkar has just said that this point wasraised before him and that is why he has made the changethat instead of Government introducing the Bills, Membersalso should be able to do so. But he has made the law morestringent than heretofore. If Government takes theresponsibility for the bill, then it could get it passed.But since the giving of sanction will entirely depend on itsrecommendation, no moral influence will be there. If thePresident and the Cabinet do not want it and do notrecommend it, then Parliament, not to talk of theindividual, can do nothing. Recommendation means that thepower of originating such a bill has been taken away fromthe Members. Therefore I submit that this provision is mostundemocratic. Similarly, I would like to state that underarticle 34, which gives the discretion to Parliament todelegate any of its powers to the President or to anyoneelse, Parliament will not be competent to bring anylegislation for changing the boundaries of provinces unlessthe President's recommendations is there. This is a right ofa Member and it will be taken away by this provision. Sincethe war we have been hearing that everyone has got the rightof self-determination. This provision takes away that right.If the people of an area want separation, then the right ofself-determination should be given to them. Prof. K. T. Shahwhile elaborating his amendment has stated that he is afraidof referendum, but the proposal put forth by him strikes atthe very root of self-determination. For example, if anypart of a big province wants to break away then the onlycourse before it is to bring the matter before the Members.But by doing so the very purpose would be defeated becausethe majority would always reject such a proposal. Theprinciple, underlying the amendment of the learnedProfessor, is right but his suggestion

is wrong. In myopinion a provision should be evolved whereby separation maybe effected by holding a referendum of the people of thearea desiring to separate. I know the result will be thatmany areas would like to go out and the provinciallegislature would never agree to that. Therefore, therewould be no use in taking the vote of the whole House assmall areas will not get a vote. In the old Government ofIndia Act a similar provision existed. In 1946, I had tableda resolution in the Assembly for the appointment of aCommission for redistribution, but unfortunately it couldnot be taken up. A proposal was also put before the CabinetMission for appointing a Commission for the redistributionof the provinces. Now a linguistic commission has beenappointed. I hear attempts are being made to shelve itsactivities. I would like the Congress Government to respectthe wishes of the areas, which desire to separate from anyprovince and that no hurdles are placed in their way; on theother hand, all legal aid should be given for the formationof a new province. But so long this Section exists areascomprising even two or four districts, will not be heard atall. The previous condition that only the vote of therepresentatives of the territory, which wants separa-tion, should be taken, has now been deleted. Now it isproposed that the vote of the legislature should be taken.No provincial legislature would agree to the separation of apart, and the representatives of the affected area will beso influenced that they would not be able to give freeexpression to their views. Therefore, holding of areferendum is necessary. Parliament, and not the President,should have the right to determine the matter after takinginto account the opinion of the people of the area concernedand of the vote of the provincial legislature. It istherefore necessary that every Member of the parliamentshould have the right to give notice of such a bill. Viewsof the provincial legislature may be taken but the changesshould be effected in accordance with the wishes of thepeople of the area, who want separation. If this is not donethen the principle of self-determination would be nowhere.We used to hear that after the attainment of Swaraj theright of self-determination would be given to all. ThisSection will put an end to that right, and no justice wouldbe done to the people. I belong to a small district, Hissar.It is an epitome of India. Boundaries of many provinces meetin Hissar, e.g., Jind. Jind State having 88 per cent Hindupopulation, and only 1 per cent Sikhs has been included inthe Eastern Punjab States. Formerly, Delhi was a part of U.P. Six districts of Ambala Division were also included init. In 1857, Lawrence, who had annexed this area, was madeGovernor of the Punjab and so this territory was included inthe Punjab Province. For a very long time we tried thatDelhi and Ambala Division be separated from the Punjab,because this territory had nothing in common with thePanjab, but our efforts bore no fruit. Now, after thepartition it remains to be seen as to what would happen tothis area; with whom will Delhi and Ambala Division betagged and whether Punjabi or Hindi would be its language.Now, we hear that we are to be included in a Punjabispeaking province. Our children, who have nothing to do withPunjabi language, will have perforce to read Punjabi.Nothing could be more cruel than this. This provision givesno freedom. The Constitution is being forged to enablepeople of every part of the country to live in peace, and toevolve an organic life for themselves. But under Article 3and this amendment, each and every part would not be able toattain freedom for itself. Therefore, I say that theprovision is undemocratic, and that it restricts the rightsof the Parliament. Views of the legislatures may be invited,and may be taken into consideration; but the determiningfactor should be the vote of the people of the area, whichwants to separate. For this, there is no provision under thepresent law. With these words, I would like to emphasis thatit should be so amended that even the

smallest areas in thecountry may be able to achieve full freedom.

Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhari (Assam: General): Sir, it is my misfortune to have to oppose the amendments moved bythe two stalwart Members of this House, namely, Prof. Shahand Pandit Kunzru. I oppose them not because I like themless, but because I like Dr. Ambedkar's amendment more, asit meets the present situation very well. Sir, I do notobject to Prof. Shah's amendment on the ground of itswording or its unsatisfactory character or to the word'originate'. I entirely agree with him that no such motionshould be considered in any House if the State which isaffected is not at all in favour of it. I say that if thereis not a single Member of the legislature in a State whocountenances the idea of separation, it is unthinkable thatthe Central Legislature would take up that matter. To thatextent, I agree with Prof. Shah. But I am opposed to hisamendment on the ground that is very restrictive. It doesnot allow a motion to be moved by any other authority or bya private Member other than the Government of India itself.On that point I consider that this amendment should beopposed.

Then coming to the amendment of Pandit Kunzru, Iconsider that his amendment lays down a rather dangerousprinciple, dangerous at this stage. Itsmacks of a repetition of Dalhousie's annexation policy. Itgives to the Central Legislature the power to alter name ofa State, to change, increase or diminish the boundaries of aState, without any previous consent of that States - thanksto Sardar Patel. We have not asked for any merger oraccession without the consent of the State itself, exceptprobably in the case of the police action in Hyderabad - andwe do not know how it will end after all. So, what I say is,if at this stage we give the idea to the States that it willbe open to the majority of the Central Legislature at anymoment they think fit to take one part of a State and tag iton to another province or to saddle it with an unprofitablepart of a province, that will be a most unwise thing andthat will put the States on their guard, and that will endthe amity with which they are now coming in and joining us.Certainly, I agree that some powers of interference havebeen reserved in our Constitution by articles 226 and 230.But they also show how cautiously we are proceeding in thismatter. After all, you must not ask your host to give up hisbed for you, merely because he has allowed you shelter.Merely because the States now are showing their inclinationto come and join us in all matters, we must not ask them toagree to a proposition whereby you will be able to altertheir name, diminish their area, or change their boundary ordo anything of that kind, without their consent.

With these words, I support the amendment moved by thehonourable Dr. Ambedkar. I would only ask him, or anyone inthe House to tell me whether the word 'President' means thatthe recommendation of the President would be given with theconsent of the Government, or whether the President canindependently act in exercise of his discretion. The word'discretion' is not used, of course, but I would like toknow if he can exercise his discretion in allowing a motionof that kind. I consider that it will be more reasonable toallow the President to exercise his discretion, rather thanthat he should be guided by the opinion of his Government inthis matter. There are other provisions in the Draft Constitution where the President undoubtedly uses hisdiscretion, without consulting the Government or the CentralLegislature, though the word 'discretion' has not been used.For instance, in the matter of remission of sentences, thePresident will never be called on to take the consent of hisMinistry in remitting a sentence or refusing to remit asentence. All the same, that Article is there, without theaddition of the word 'discretion'. Therefore, I considerthat the interpretation which Dr. Ambedkar puts is correct,and when the word 'President' stands alone, it means he willbe able to exercise discretion in such matters.

Shri Gopikrishna

Vijayavargiya [United State ofGwalior - Indore - Malwa (Madhya Bharat)]: Mr. Vice-President,Sir, I am not going to speak against or for any of thesemotions. I have only to make certain observations, as I comefrom an Indian State and want to give expression to thefeelings of the people of the States in this matter. Ithink, Sir, that the people of the States do not want anydiscrimination in the matter of consent or no consent (Hear,Hear). In fact, our wish is that the States must be put onthe same level as the Provinces (Hear, hear), and therefore,there is no question of taking the consent of the States. Infact, I would be very glad if this article could have beenamended in some such way, at least, to the effect that theStates Legislatures might be consulted. I think, mereconsultation would be sufficient in the matter of the Statesalso as it is in connection with the Provinces. I think,Sir, the question of the sovereignty of the Rulers or of theStates should not be brought up. I think, Sir StaffordCripps when he came to India also gave a definition of theStates and thought that the Rulers are the States, and nowsome such anomaly may be created again. I say the wish ofthe States' people is that there should not be anydiscrimination in favour of theStates, and consent is not necessary. You might put theStates on the same level as the Provinces. The people of theStates have always contested the sovereignty of the rulers - they do not accept the sovereignty of the rulers. Most ofthe States have been tiny; now they have merged with some ofthe Units but the question would crop up again ifsovereignty were given to the rulers. The people of theStates are fully the kith and kin of the people of theProvinces - they are the same as those in the Provinces. Wedo not like to further fragment our country on the same oldlines. The distinction of the Indian States and theProvinces is still being maintained, but now we think thatthis distinction must go. The House must consider anythingthat may help in the States being brought on a par with theProvinces. I think the States Ministry ought to have donethat a little earlier. This is really worth while doing,because we are making a Constitution and it will be verydifficult to change it afterwards. I therefore think will bevery difficult to change it afterwards. I therefore thinkthat this discrimination must go. I request Dr. Ambedkar tofind out some way for this. In this matter I voice thefeelings of the people of the States. I am not speaking onany particular amendment.

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: Sir, the question may now be put.

Mr. Vice-President: What is the feeling of the House?

Shri H. V. Kamath: No, no. This is a very importantmatter.

Mr. Vice-President: Prof. Shibbanlal Saksena.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Mr. Vice-President, Sir,this is a fundamental matter, and the amendment tabled byDr. Ambedkar is a very important one. In his explanation hehas said that his amendment enables any Member to givenotice of private Bills for changing boundaries, and onreceipt of that Bill the President will take certain stepsto ascertain the opinion of the Legislature concerned, andthen on the advice of the Prime Minister recommend that theBill be brought up. My friend Shri Thakur Dass Bhargava justnow said that this amendment is really far more stringentthan the original clause. I do not agree with that view.Under the original clause, only the Government of Indiacould have brought such a Bill, whereas under thisamendment, on the recommendation of the President any Membercan bring it. The only condition is this, namely, that thePresident after he receives notice of such a motion from anyMember will try to take the opinion of the area concernedand then, of course after consulting his Ministry, give hisrecommendation for moving the Bill or otherwise. But if theoriginal clause had continued, no private Bill could havecome; under the new amendment a private Bill can come, withthe limitation I have already described. I personally thinkthis is a much better form than the original

clause.Probably Shri Thakur Dass Bhargava wants to go much further.He wants that any private Member should have liberty tobring in the House a Bill asking for the change ofboundaries. Change of boundaries is a very vital matter andit should not be made so easy that everyday any Member shallbring forward motions for changing the boundaries and theLegislature should discuss that question. It will createunnecessary heat and create friction which I think should beavoided. I think that so far as the language of theamendment is concerned it meets the wishes of Shri ThakurDass Bhargava. Of course the Member will have to secure therecommendation of the President, and probably if thePresident feels that the people of an area - the majority ofthem - are of the opinion that they would be happier if theygo to some other State or Province, he would advise thePrime Minister, and probably the PrimeMinister also will agree with him that the motion should beallowed and that Parliament should be allowed to discuss thequestion. I think that gives full liberty and opportunity toevery area which desires a change of boundaries.

There is one aspect of this amendment which is really avery unfortunate aspect, to which Dr. Ambedkar had givenvent in his lucid address in the beginning when he said thatin this Constitution we have been forced to treat the IndianStates on a separate footing from the Provinces. In theFirst Schedule, the Indian States have been put in Part IIIwhile the Provinces have been put in Part I. And here inthis Article 3, Part I and Part III are separately treated.Whereas in respect of the States under Part I theirLegislatures will only be consulted, in respect of theStates under Part III their consent will be required. Sir, Ihad given notice of amendments which really sought to doaway with this distinction, and I am sure that our learnedDr. Ambedkar also wishes the same thing from the bottom ofhis heart. There should be no difference between a Provinceand a State and we all wish that this distinction shoulddisappear. My honourable friend Pandit Kunzru has alsoargued that there should be no differentiation at least inthis matter namely about consent and consultation. He wantsthat the States should only be consulted just like theProvinces. He has also pointed out Sections in the Draft Constitution where the States have been asked to fall inline with the Provinces, and I think he has made out a verygood case. I am very much in agreement with all that hesaid. But I personally feel that in this matter our leader,the States Minister, Sardar Patel, feels that it will be abreach of faith if we made provisions in the Constitutionwithout securing the prior agreement of the Indian Statesalso. He has promised us that he will make his efforts toget their consent and before the Bill goes into thirdreading he will try to have this. We all very much wish himsuccess in his efforts.

Shri H. V. Kamath: On a point of order. Sardar Patelhas made no statement on this issue and I do not know if myfriend is in order in referring to any statement made by himin private.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: I am only expressing hiswish - he has made no statement like that - I only say that hewill make his efforts and that before the Bill comes up forthird reading he would be able to secure their consent. Ifhe does not, then of course we will have to fall back on ourown resources. But by making a provision like this in the Constitution we are making it very difficult for any changeafterwards. When it becomes part of the Constitution, a two-third majority will be required for making any change and itwill be very difficult. I suggest that some way should befound out for this. If before the third reading is passedthis consent is not achieved, then this Article should atleast be changeable not by a two-third majority but by asimple majority. Or if the learned Doctor can make theamendment that this part will not be treated as a change inthe Constitution, I think our difficulty may be met. TheHonourable Member who preceded me also said that the peopleof the States do want

that the States should fall in linewith the Provinces. It is a matter of fundamental importancethat the States should not remain something separate, havingseparate sovereignty. There should be only one sovereigntyand that should be the sovereignty of the Republic; and theStates should be part of the one single Sovereign Republic.I therefore hope that the Princes themselves will agree tothis patriotic consummation and if they do not, I hope therewill be a provision that when the Indian States people comeinto their own, they will be able to make the requiredchanges. But I hope that the Constitution will not lay downthe two-thirds majority. I do hope that if a simple majorityis laid down for a change in this clause, when the IndianStates people come into power in their Legislatures theywill seethat they are governed on the same lines as the Provinces;but so long as that is not done, we will not be wise inmaking a breach of faith with those Indian States with whomwe have made agreements. Sir, I support the amendment.

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi (Madras: General): Mr.Vice-President, Sir, I fully support Dr. Ambedkar'samendment and the principle underlying it. He said that inthe case of Provinces, that is Part I States, mereconsultation is enough, in the case of Indian Statesprevious consent is necessary. But the reason that he gavefor this distinction is unacceptable and I have no doubtthat the House will entirely repudiate that. If I heard himaright, Sir, he said that the States are sovereign. This isa very dangerous doctrine at this time of the day to laydown; two States particularly, Travancore at one stage, andHyderabad, till recently, claimed that they were Sovereign,and we have all along been repudiating that position anddeclaring that the States are not at all sovereign in anyaccepted sense of the word, and that was the fundamentalissue at the United Nations Organisation Council at Paris.

Sir, I think it may be his personal view. If we accepthis amendment it is not because of that argument. I entirelyagree that it is very necessary to make this distinction. Wewant to go slow, and the States are governed by theInstruments of Accession. We shall certainly get the consentof the people when it is necessary. But to say that theStates are sovereign is laying down a dangerous doctrine andif this House accepts this amendment, it is not because ofthe reason that he advocates but because of other weightyconsiderations.

Shri Raj. Bahadur (United State of Matsya): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I stand here to voice what I think to be theuniversal feeling of those of us who happen to come fromthat part of India which hitherto has been called as theIndian States. When we read this amendment which has beenproposed to the Draft Constitution by the DraftingCommittee, two points emerge. Firstly, that the necessity isthere for a provision in the Constitution under which there-distribution, readjustment or re-alignment of theboundaries of the various units of the Union, may be madewhenever needed. Secondly, that in this matter there is somedistinction provided in this provision between the IndianStates of the present day on the one hand and the Provinceson the other. I may respectfully submit that the distinctionin the wordings of the provision contained in provisos (a)and (b) of the amendment has not made us who come from theStates any whit happy. On the other hand, we feel a littlesmaller and we feel as if full justice has not been done. Weknow that this word "State" has been outrageouslyinterpreted ever since the day of the first Round TableConference. We have seen that from the days of the RoundTable Conference to the declaration of August 8 by LordLinlithgow in 1940, again from that date to the CrippsProposals and from the Cripps Proposals to the CabinetMission, and even after that during the deliberations of theNegotiating Committee, there has always been the tendency, Ishould say the definiteness, to interpret the word "State"as NOT the people of the State but "the Ruler" of the State.I am sure that when I

voice my protest against thisinterpretation, I voice the universal feeling of the peopleof the States. May be that our sacrifices in the strugglefor independence have been considered by some to be somewhatsmaller in magnitude but that is no reason why we should bedeprived of equal rights and opportunities and of thefeeling that we are one with the country, that we are notwhit different from the rest of the people of the country.That is why I say we are not happy over this distinction.

It has been argued before us - it is always, so to say,used as a militant argument against us - that because of theCovenants that have been signedbetween the Indian Princes and the States Ministry, and alsobecause duly constituted Legislatures are not yet existingin many of the States or States Unions, this distinction inthe proviso cannot be avoided. But I think that things arenow different. Time was when sovereignty vested in thePrinces, but it is a hard fact today that sovereignty hasbeen transferred to the people in all cases, I should rathersay invariably. There might still be an exception or two butthat exception too will soon disappear and if that is notgoing to disappear willingly it shall have to take a lessonfrom what has happened in Hyderabad. The united will andaction of the people of the Indian Union will bring roundthe recalcitrant elements, if any, as also those who are notgoing to disappear willingly it shall have to take a lessonfrom what has happened in Hyderabad. The united will andaction of the people of the Indian Union will bring roundthe recalcitrant elements, if any, as also those who are notgoing to fall in line with the tendencies of the rest of thecountry. I repeat that sovereignty today vests in the peopleand so it vests in this Constituent Assembly. Thesovereignty of the Constituent Assembly is unqualified, andundiluted in respect of any and every part of the IndianUnion. If there be anyone who objects to that sovereignty orwho casts any doubt about that sovereignty, the people ofthe States are as much behind this august Assembly as thepeople of the rest of the country for the defence andsupport of - the sovereignty of the Assembly. There should,therefore, be no difference whatsoever. I suggest that itwould have been better that this amendment also might havebeen allowed to stand over because the matter is of urgentimportance, or shall I say, of utmost importance to thepeople of the Indian States. Even if it be supposed thatthis amendment has got to be taken up, my suggestion is thatis should be taken up at the time when all othercontroversial points are decided by this Assembly. In casemy suggestion does not find favour and the amendment ispursued, then it will be accepted by the representatives ofthe States in this Assembly with the mental reservationswhich I have just referred to.

I may conclude by saying that so far as this Assemblyis concerned, we have been committed to two definiteprinciples: the principle of unification and ofdemocratization of the entire Union and as such it cannot becontemplated by any provision of the Draft Constitution thatthere can be some sort of a different treatment between theProvinces and the States. The word "State" has been definedin Article 7 of the Draft Constitution as under:

"In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,'the State' includes the Government and Parliament of Indiaand the Government and the Legislature of each of the Statesand all local or other authorities within the territory ofIndia."

The word that has been used is "includes" that means theremight be something more which may come within the purview ofthe word "State". I think the word "Ruler" may becontemplated there. That is why we are not happy over theuse of the word "State" in proviso (b) to the amendmentproposed by the Drafting Committee itself.

Sir, I respectfully submit that my suggestions andremarks will be taken in the light they are made and will beconsidered.

Chaudhari Ranbir Singh (East Punjab: General): *[Mr.President, while supporting Dr. Ambedkar's amendment

Icannot help remarking that the amendment undoubtedlyprovides some freedom to the members of the CentralLegislative to move private bills as also some freedom andopportunity to the minorities, based on religion or caste,to have their say in the matter of the formation of anyprovince of their choice. But I want to submit in thisconnection that the aim of our country being theestablishment of a secular State our non-religiousGovernment should follow the rule that all


* [] Translation of Hindustani speech.

such reservations based on religion or community should be abolished. On theother hand I fear that if this suggestion is accepted, acommunity which is in a majority in a territory but is inminority in a State will have neither the same weight northe same opportunities as it had under the previousprovisions.]

Shri H. R. Guruv Reddi (Mysore): May I suggest, Sir,that further discussion may be continued tomorrow?

Mr. Vice-President: The House stands adjourned till 10A. M. on Thursday the 18th November 1948.

The Assembly then adjourned till Ten of the Clock onThursday, the 18th November 1948.

Wednesday, 17th November, 1948