Thursday, the 18th 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.

Taking the Pledge and Signing the Register

The following Members took the Pledge and signed the Register:

1. Dr. Jivraj Narayan Mehta (Baroda);

2. Shri Chimanlal Chakkubhai Shah, United States of Kathiawar (Saurashtra).

Shri Lokanath Misra (Orissa: General): Sir, before we resume the discussion, I would like to raise a fundamental point of order. It refers to the rights and privileges of Members of this House. With all respect to you, may I beg tosubmit that by your not allowing me to move my amendment yesterday, I feel that I have been deprived of my rights inmoving that amendment which, as a member, I always have. consulted the Rules and I see that there is no provision any where which can disentitle me from moving that amendment. You had been pleased to disallow that amendmenton the ground that my amendment was the same as the amendment moved by Professor K. T. Shah. I do not see how these two amendments can be the same. Professor Shah's amendment is economic while my amendment is political. He anticipates 10 years ahead, my proposition has immediate application, valid and enforceable here now. He wants to break up the 'States', I want to keep the States, describe them completely. Mine is based on the sovereignty of the people which is inherent in them, and not a proviso. Again these two amendments are so very different in the sense that.....

Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee): Is it necessary for you to go into all those arguments?

Shri Lokanath Misra: The number of my amendment is 85,while the number of Professor Shah's amendment is 129.

Mr. Vice-President: This point of order was raised and a decision was given. It is unfortunate that my position compels me to arrive at certain decisions. That particular decision was given and I am not prepared to revise it.

Shri Lokanath Misra: The point is what is the remedy in such cases?

Honourable Members: Order, order.

Mr. Vice-President: Kindly take your seat and oblige me.

Chaudhari Ranbir Singh (East Punjab: General): *[Mr.Vice-President, I pointed out yesterday that according tohis amendment a minority, whether based on religion or caste, which is not in majority in any State or any are a thereof might undoubtedly secure such alteration in the boundaries of a State as it chooses through the President or the Government of India. But I am afraid the amendment would reduce the chance of success of any community which is in majority in any area but happens to be in minority in that State and I am afraid it would also reduce the importance of their demand and narrow the opportunity of their having a say in the matter. I hold so because, according to this amendment, the matter would be referred to the State Legislature for consideration and as the people of that are a would be in minority in the State although they may be in majority in their own area, it would naturally be recorded that only a few members of the State Legislature desired a change in the boundary of the State. The provision as it stands in the draft lays down that if the majority of the people in any area demand that their area be joined to anyother State or to a new State, their demand can be taken into consideration but under this amendment, I am afraid their demand would lose some of its weight, and particularly this would be the case of the people of such areas as have no leader of their own, no press of their own and no other means to make their voice heard. We may take U. P. as a case in instance. When in the last session, the constitution was being discussed, it became quite clear from the discussion held in the Party that U.P. people realise that their province is rather too big. At that time the U. P. people had expressed a fear that their Legislature would beun manageable as it would have 600 members, if like other

provinces, each lakh of the population sent one member to it. While legal and administrative difficulties of this nature are recognised, even then it is said that no area should be given to the province of Delhi or Haryana. Though the people of this area wanted that their region should be jointed to Delhi or Haryana yet nothing happened as they had no leader of their own nor any Press of their own. The loyalty of those people of U. P. who had made this demand,was doubted and their voice was stifled to an extent beyond description. A ban was laid on them by the Provincial Congress Committee not to make such a demand, and they were asked not to raise any voice for any alteration in the boundaries of the province.

Therefore, I am afraid, Sir, this amendment will prevent any action for achieving their union on the part of those people and areas that have the


* [ ] Translation of Hindustani speech.

same culture, the same language and the same way of life,and whose union is advantageous to the country from legal,administrative and other points of view. I may repeat, Sir,what Shri Thakurdas Bhargava stated yesterday that when a demand was made for forming Haryana into a Province the loyalty of some of those who made this demand was suspected and it was alleged against them that they wanted to form a separate province of Jats. But the truth is that if Haryana had been formed into a Province - and I may point in this connection that under the British regime, when the RoundTable Conference was being held, there was the Corbett Scheme for the formation of a new province of Haryana which fell through for want of a spokesman of Haryana while today its formation is being opposed on the alleged ground that the Jats are seeking to have a separate Province of their own - so as I was going to say, the fact would have been that the Jats would be a minority there and even if each community was taken singly into account the Jat community would not be in majority in comparison to the others. If there be any community which has a large population it is that of Harijans - Chamars. So if this province is to be formed at all it would be a province of Chamars. But since they have no Press of their own, they cannot give voice to their demand.

I no doubt support the amendment but at the same time I want that it should be changed so as to include without any doubt the provision that when the Centre consults the provincial legislature the opinion of the majority of the representatives of the territory, which wants to separate itself and join another province, should also be on record and that their recorded opinion should appear before the Central Assembly so that it may know what that particular territory desires.]

Shri H. V. Kamath (C.P. and Berar: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I hope that the former Indian States will not derive undue encouragement from the doctrine of sovereignty which my honourable friend, Dr. Ambedkar,propounded yesterday. I do not know whether he meant that their status is something like Imperium in Imperio. I thinkit is a dangerous doctrine to propound at this time of the day. If we turn to Part III of the First Schedule, we will find there are two divisions in this Part, Division A and Division B. Many of these States have already merged themselves in the adjacent Indian Provinces. Some have integrated among themselves and formed bigger unions and some are still single States. In terms of the amendment moved by my honourable friend, Dr. Ambedkar, sub-clause (b)of the proposed amendment lays down that where such aproposal affects the boundaries or the name of any State orStates for the time being specified in Part III of the FirstSchedule, it means to say that it refers to all States mentioned in Part III of the First Schedule whether they are single States, whether they are integrated States or whether they are merged States. I wonder whether for little principalities which have merged themselves in the provinces, whether for these States too this

doctrine of sovereignty will be extended and whether for the unions of these States the consent of each of the States will have to be obtained. Apart from that, whether the single States should be regarded as sovereign in this regard is to be considered. I can understand if Dr. Ambedkarsays that in terms of the Instrument of Accession of these States to the Union of India, so far as this matter is concerned, you will have to obtain their consent, but I trust, Sir, that within the next two or three months at the end of which we will adopt this Constitution, by that time,the hope that Dr. fAmbedkar expressed in his speech on the motion for the consideration of the Draft Constitution, that the States will fall in line with the provinces in all respects, will be realized; and I have no doubt that the strenuous efforts of Sardar Patel in this regard will bear fruit, and that by the time we adopt this Constitution,there will be no distinction, the amendment of my honourable friend, Pandit Kunzru has come force. If this equal status of the various provinces and States does not come about by the time the Constitution is adopted, then we have got to think why we should attach undue importance to the so-called sovereignty of the States; if at all, it is a nominal sovereignty that the rulers of the States have got in this regard. I am inclined to agree, therefore, with Pandit Kunzru's argument that if the States do become equal in status to the provinces, even then we should not go beyond obtaining the views of the rulers of the States or the legislatures of the States, whatever the case may be. It isunderstood when we obtain the views of the rulers of the States, or the Rajpramukhs or the legislatures of theStates, if their views are in conflict, with the proposal,then that proposal will not come up. So also if the provinces are consulted and if their views are against such a proposal, then that proposal will not be made in the Union Parliament. So, I do not understand why this distinction should be made at all. If you consult a certain authority or a certain Government, it means that if that Government is opposed to the proposal, that proposal will not be made in the Union Parliament. Therefore, it is desirable, that at this time, when Sardar Patel has been telling us for the last so many months that we will abolish all distinctions between the provinces and States and that the provinces shall be brought into line with the States, if you want merely to consult the provinces, just consult the States also, and if you want to get the consent of the States,certainly get the consent of the Provincial Governments also.

Lastly, Sir I would request Dr. Ambedkar to consider this matter from this aspect, namely, in view of the hope expressed in his first speech in the Assembly that the States should be brought into line with the provinces at the earliest possible date and considering the several articlesin the Constitution which Pandit Kunzru pointed out yesterday, seeking to abolish such distinctions, whether in this regard also this distinction should not be abolished. I hope, Sir, that at a very early date, we shall administer the coup de grace, put an end to the doctrine of sovereignty which has been propounded for the States, so far as this matter is concerned.

Shri R. K. Sidhwa (C. P. & Berar: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, several members have stated that this amendment deprives the right of a member to move a Bill to the effect mentioned in this amendment. I am rather surprised at the argument advanced by certain members to this effect. Sir, I yield to none in my desire to protect the privileges and rights of members to move motions or Bills in a legisla-ture. But, while the amendment of Dr. Ambedkar says that the consent of the President should be obtained, it should not be understood that it deprives the member of any right. By way of an illustration, I would say, that every citizen has a right to walk on the highway. Any person can walk as he likes. But, when he walks, he has to be governed by certain elementary rules,

so that he may not cause obstruction in the road, or cause accidents or death to others. If a man has to drive a motor car or a vehicle, he has to obtain a license. He is governed by certain elementary rules; if the elementary rules are not followed, there will be chaos. To state that the rights of members have been deprived by this motion of Dr. Ambedkar is incorrect. On the contrary,nowhere is it stated that no member can bring forward a Bill. This is a very important measure and therefore it has been stated that the President should be consulted and his recommendation taken. This is to the benefit and advantage of those who get the opinion of the President, which would mean, the Government of India. They would be armed with very great strength behind them in moving such a proposition.

It has been argued by my honourable friend Mr.Bhargava, yesterday that some of the minor provinces which would like to cut off from the major provinces, would have no right to do so under this amendment. I said yesterday and I repeat today that if a majority does not want a particular territory to be divided, it would be unfair for a minority to encroach upon the rights of the majority. If you want the majority to be ruled over by the minority, then it is autocracy; democracy means rule of the majority. I therefore contend that the amendment that has been proposed is very salutary. It does not deprive any member of his right; on the contrary, I feel that when the recommendation of the President is taken on an important measure like this, his case is greatly strengthened.

Sir, only one point about Pandit Kunzru's amendment. Iam really unable to understand why a difference has been made between the States in Part I of the First Schedule,that is provinces, and the States in Part III of the First Schedule. In one case it is stated that the views of the legislature should be obtained and in the other case, i.e.,the States, he has stated that the previous consent should be obtained. View means "observations", consent means"unanimity and decision on a matter." You are aware, Sir,that this Constitution was sent to various provinces and the various provinces discussed them in their legislatures and their views have been sent to this House and we have be ensupplied with copies. That is the right course. No decisionhas been taken in any legislature. The legislatures in Bihar, Bengal, Bombay, all have discussed the matter and copies of the printed proceedings have been supplied to us.But, consent means consent of the State. I do not agree with those who say that consent means the consent of the State. I do not agree with those who say that consent means the consent of the Ruler. Consent means consent of the legislature of the State. State does not mean the Ruler.Just as the President does not mean himself personally, but the Government of India, if the Ruler gives consent, he has to take the consent of the legislature of the State. I want to know why in the case of the States, it is stated that consent should be obtained, and I would like Dr. Ambedkar to enlighten the House as to why this difference has been made between States and Provinces. I feel that in the case of the states, it is very necessary that their views should be obtained rather than consent. I therefore, think, that unless there are valid reasons, - the valid reasons, may be that the Ruler has to beconsulted, the States having come into the Union by compromise - no impediment could exist or no compromise question arises. The rights of the people of the States are identical with the rights of the people of the provinces.The zeal of the people of the States is so great that they want to come into the Union straight away and merge with the various provinces. As we are told that without consent or compromise it is not desirable, we yield to that. But, weexpect that on the question of obtaining their opinion, a similar procedure should prevail as in the case of the provinces.

With these observations, I support the amendment strongly and I hope Dr. Ambedkar will clear the

point why a differentiation has been made in the case of the States, why he has stated that the views of the legislature should be ascertained in the case of the provinces, whereas in thecase of the States he has stated that their previous consent should be obtained.

Mr. Vice-President: Dr. Ambedkar.

An Honourable Member: The question be now put, Sir.

Maulana Hasrat Mohani (United Provinces: Muslim): Sir,I rise to a point of order. Dr. Ambedkar has only moved an amendment and therefore, I submit, he has not got any right of reply. I have got a ruling of this House in which it is said definitely.....

Shri R. K. Sidhwa: I understand the whole article is under discussion. If the article is under discussion, Dr.Ambedkar has a right of reply.

Maulana Hasrat Mohani: Dr. Ambedkar has already spoken;he has no right to make any further speech.

Mr. Vice-President: Please address the Chair.

Maulana Hasrat Mohani: Sir, I beg to point out that the Ruling says - I am quoting from the printed proceedings of this House - the mover of an amendment has no right of reply.He cannot make a second speech.

Mr. Vice-President: I hold that the Article as well as the amendment are under discussion. Dr. Ambedkar.

The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta (C. P. &Berar: General): Sir, the mover has a right of reply.

Mr. Vice-President: That makes my position stronger.

The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta: What I meanto say, Sir, is this. There are two sets of rules, one,rules of procedure on the legislative side and the second,rules of procedure on the constitutional side. The rules of procedure on the legislative side do say that the mover of an amendment shall have no right to reply. That rule has been purposely omitted in the rules of procedure on our constitutional side. Therefore, I submit that every mover of an amendment has got a right of reply.

Mr. Vice-President: You do not object to Dr. Ambedkar replying?

The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta: Not only do I not object, but I want to establish this practice that themover of an amendment has a right of reply, because our rules differ widely from the rules that have been framed for the legislative side.

Mr. Vice-President: We shall decide that later on afterDr. Ambedkar has made his reply.

Shri Lakshminarayan Sahu: (Orissa: General): Sir, there is an amendment in my name.

Mr. Vice-President: Kindly take your seat, Mr. Sahu,Dr. Ambedkar.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General):The amendment moved by my friend Mr. Kunzru is an amendment which carries a great deal of my sympathy but unfortunately in the circumstances in which we stand, I am not in a position to accept the same. The arguments urged by my friend in supporting his amendment was that when I had stated originally in moving my amendment was inconsistent with some of the other clauses or articles contained in the Constitution. He said that the plea I had urged in justification of the distinction between the provinces and the States in the matter of the provisions contained in Article 3 was inconsistent with Articles 226, 230 and 294.Now my submission is this that there is no inconsistency whatever in the plea I have urged in supporting a distinction between the provinces and the States and the various articles to which he has made reference.

With regard to Article 226 which gives power to the Central Legislature to pass legislation on matters included in Provincial list, my submission is this that that authority will be exercised by Parliament by virtue of a Resolution passed by two-third majority of the Upper legislature. He will realize that the Upper House or Council of States will include representatives of the States as much as the representatives of the Provinces. They will undoubtedly participate in the proceedings of that particular Resolution which seeks to confer power upon Parliament to legislate on the matters included in that Resolution. Consequently it is hardly fair to say thatArticle 226 automatically usurps the sovereignty of the

Indian States. It is really a measure which confers sovereignty by a special resolution passed by the Upper Chamber in which the States are fully represented. That is therefore no illustration of inconsistency at all.

With regard to Article 230, my submission is also the same. My learned friend will remember that the Indian States apart from what they do after the Constitution is passed have at any rate for the present, acceded on the basis of three subjects and one of the subjects is Foreign Affairs.Obviously implementation of the treaty is nothing but an exercise of the power conferred upon the Central Parliament for implementation of the treaty which is the subject matter covered by Foreign Affairs. Therefore that again cannot be said to be an usurpation of their sovereignty rights.

With regard to 294 which deals with the extension of the provisions of the protection of minorities in Indian States, that undoubtedly may appear for the moment to be asort of encroachment of their sovereignty but it is nothing of the kind. It is merely one of the proposals which we shall be making to the Indian States that when they seek admission to the Indian Union they will have to accept Article 294. I might say that this extension was made by theDrafting Committee because the Drafting Committee heard that the Constituent Assemblies of some of the Indian States were making provisions in this regard so diverse and so alarmingthat the Drafting Committee thought it best to lay down what sort of arrangements for minority protection the Union Government will accept and what it will not accept.

Now, Sir, with regard to this question of ifferentiation between the Indian States and the Provinces of Brit ish India a great lot has been said, and I quite realise that the House is terribly excited over the distinction that the Constitution seeks to make but I should like to tell the House two things. One is this that we are at the present moment bound by the terms of agreement arrived at between the two Negotiating Committees, one appointed by the Indian Constituent Assembly representingthe Brit ish provinces and the other of representatives nominated by the Indian States for the purpose of arriving at certain basis for drafting a common constitution which would cover both parts. Now I do not wish to go into the details of the reports made by the Negotiating Committees but if my honourable Friend Pandit Kunzru would refresh hismind by going over the report of that committee, he willfind that here is a distinct provision that nothing in theNegotiating Committee report will be understood to permitthe Indian Union to encroach upon the territories of theIndian States. My submission is, if that is anunderstanding - I do not mean to say a contract or agreement--arrived at between the two parties, at this stage we woulddo well in respecting that understanding. I would like topoint out another thing, - another article in the Constitution to which I am sorry to say my friend Mr. Kunzruhas made no reference - that is Article 212 which is a veryimportant article, and I should like to explain what exactlyare the possibilities provided by the Indian Draft Constitution with regard to the Indian States. Honourablemembers must have seen that Article 3 provides for theadmission of the Indian States on the basis of suchInstrument of Accession as may be executed by the IndianStates in favour of the Indian Union. When a State as suchis coming into the Indian Union, its position vis-a-vis theCentral Government and vis-a-vis the provinces would andmust be regulated by the terms contained in the Instrumentof Accession but the Instrument of Accession is not the onlymethod of bringing the Indian States into the IndianConstitution. There is another and a very important articlein the Constitution which is 212. 212 provides that anyRuler of an Indian State may transfer the whole of hissovereignty to the Indian Union with respect to hisparticular State. When the whole of the sovereignty istransferred under the provisions of 212, the territory

ofthat particular ruler becomes so to say the territory ofIndia, with complete sovereignty vested in the Indian Union.Power is then given under Article 212 so that thatparticular territory the sovereignty over which has beenfully transferred by the ruler to the Indian Union can thenbe governed as a province of India in which case Part II ofthe Constitution which defines the Constitution of theIndian provinces will automatically applyto that Indian State or it may be administered as aCentrally Administered area; so that the President and theCentral Parliament will have the fullest authority to deviseany form of administration for that particular territory.Consequently my submission to the House is that there is nonecessity - if I may use an expression - to be hysterical overthis subject. If we have a little patience I have not theleast doubt about it that our Minister for the IndianStates, who has done so much to reduce the chaos thatexisted before we started on the making of our Constitution,will exercise the de facto of paramountcy which the UnionGovernment has obtained and reduce the chaos further andbring about an order either by inducing the Indian States toaccept the same provisions which we have applied to IndianStates or to follow the provision of section 212 andsurrender to us complete sovereignty so that the IndianUnion may be able to deal with the Indian States in the sameway in which it is able to deal with the provinces.

For the present I submit we shall be acting wisely byrespecting the agreement which has been arrived at by thetwo Negotiating Committees and following it up until byfurther agreement we are in a position to change the basisrather with goodwill, peace and honour to both sides Sir, Ioppose the amendment. (Cheers).

Mr. Vice-President: I shall now put Amendment No. 150,as modified by the amendment of Pandit H. N. Kunzru to vote.(Interruptions). Kindly permit me to conduct the proceedingsin the manner I wish it to be conducted.

The Honourable Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant (UnitedProvinces: General): Sir, I do not know how you are puttingthe amendment as modified by the amendment of Pandit Kunzruto the vote of the House I think, first of all you might putthe amendment proposed by Pandit Kunzru to vote, and thentake the other amendment; to take it up at the outset andcombine the two will not be quite in the proper order.

Mr. Vice-President: Please come to the mike.

The Honourable Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant: Mysubmission is this. This amendment of Dr. Amedkar asmodified by the amendment of Dr. Kunzru is being put tovote, and that is exactly what I wish you not to do. Isuggest that you might be pleased to put to vote first theamendment of Dr. Kunzru. If it is rejected, then you have toput the original amendment of Dr. Ambedkar to vote. Tocombine the two together will be to create some confusion.

Shri H. V. Kamath: What about amendment No. 149 ofProf. K. T. Shah?

Mr. Vice-President: If the amendment of Dr. Ambedkar iscarried that will automatically rule out the amendment ofProf. K. T. Shah. That is why I am taking Dr. Ambedkar'samendment, that being the easier course No. 149 seeks forcomplete substitution.

We shall then first of all vote on the amendment ofPandit Kunzru.

The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta: Sir, Ishould like to submit an important point. I think theHonourable Pandit Kunzru has got the right to reply. Theordinary rule is that one who initiates adebate has the right to reply, if it is not curtailed. TheRules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of this House onthe legislative side, Rule 111 says that.........

Mr. Vice-President: Does that rule apply here?

The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta: No, becausewe have not got any corresponding rule, and the reason isobvious. Here we are dealing with a very important matter inwhich the mover of an amendment who really brings asubstantial proposition before the House may have to saymuch, after he hears the debate in the House. Therefore, thevery fact that in our Rules of Procedure there is no

rulecorresponding to Rule No. 111 shows very clearly that themover of the amendment to the Constitution has the right toreply. And that is but natural, because the matter being ofvery vital importance, the ordinary rules of debate mustgovern our procedure also. That is my submission.

Shri R. K. Sidhwa: Sir, I feel that the HonourablePandit Kunzru has no right of reply in connection with hisamendment. My reason is that the rule which has been pointedout by my friend Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta says that themover of an amendment has no right of reply. He argues thatin our Assembly there is no rule, and so we have to say thatthe mover has the right to reply. On the contrary, I havenot heard in any important legislature or assembly such aright given. When there is no rule for this Assembly, thenthe rules of the Constituent Assembly (Legislative) shouldprevail, that being the highest body in our country forlegislative purposes. We in this Assembly have no rules tothis effect. Therefore, the second highest, i.e., theLegislative Assembly rules should prevail. I feel that thisis a very important matter. We must be governed by certainrules. I have not heard of any important legislature orother body or even local bodies where the mover of an amendment has been given the right to reply. I submit,therefore, that the contention and the argument advanced byMr. Gupta, do not hold water, for the simple reason that weare governed by another and a parallel body which says themover has no right of reply.

The Honourable Shri Purushottam Das Tandon (UnitedProvinces: General): Sir, my friend Mr. Sidhwa has been toobold. He has touched a subject of which, you will permit meto say, he has not full knowledge. He has said he does notknow of any important legislature which gives the mover ofan amendment the right to reply. I submit, Sir, the UnitedProvinces is a sufficiently important province in thecountry, and I can tell you, that the Legislative Assemblyof the United Provinces has a definite and specific rule tothe effect that the mover of an amendment has the right ofreply. (Hear, hear). This is in regard to bills. The moverof an amendment to a clause in a Bill has the right toreply. Of course, the Minister in charge of the Bill hasalways the last word. But that is a different matter. Thepoint is that the mover of an amendment to a clause in abill has been given the right to reply.

I submit here we are dealing with an important matter,as a friend has rightly pointed out. I feel that it would bevery proper that the mover of an amendment be given theright to reply to the animadversions that are made on amatter that he has brought before the House. If you choose,you can permit the Minister in charge to have the last word.But I do submit that the mover of the amendment may bepermitted to reply to the criticisms that are made againstthe views that he puts forward.

Shri R. K. Sidhwa: How many provincial legislatureshave such a rule?

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru (United Provinces: General):Mr. Vice-President, may I make my point a little clearer sothat there may be no misunderstanding about it. The Draft Constitution was placed in our hands some time ago. There isa provision in it relating to the redistribution of theterritories of States of various kinds. Dr. Ambedkar did notplace before the House the provision contained in the Draft Constitution. The proposition to which he invited ourattention was an amendment of the original provision, and inmoving his proposition he spoke not merely on the merits ofhis proposal but also on the original proposition containedin the Draft Constitution. It cannot therefore be said thatin speaking for the second time he was dealing withsomething that he had not spoken on originally. He had, itseemed to me, exhausted his right to speak. Nevertheless, he was allowed to reply to the observations made by the other members. I was personally very glad to hear him though I donot agree with all that he said or with much of what hesaid. But this raises an important question regarding therights of the members who move

amendments, and it is this point that I would like to be cleared up. If a Minister who moves an amendment has the right to reply, may not another member of the House have the same right in similarcir cumstances?

Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta: On a point of order....

Mr. Vice-President: I am going to give my ruling. Underthe Rules of the House I am not aware that there is anythingwhich gives a right to the mover of an amendment to give areply. If I asked Dr. Ambedkar to give a reply it wasbecause he was asked certain questions and I thought itright and proper and fair that he should be given anopportunity of explaining his position. That is my ruling.

Now I shall put Pandit Kunzru's amendment to the vote.

The question is:

"That in amendment No. 150 of the List of Amendments,in clause (b) of the proviso to article 3, for the words`the previous consent' the words `the views' and for thewords `has been' the words `have been' be substitutedrespectively."

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"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 Bill affectsthe boundaries or name of any State or States forthe time being specified in Part I of the FirstSchedule, the views of the Legislature of theState, or as the case may be, of each of theStates both with respect to the proposal tointroduce the Bill and with respect to theprovisions thereof have been ascertained by thePresident; and

(b) where such proposal affects the boundaries or nameof any State or States for the time beingspecified in Part III of the First Schedule, theprevious consent of the State, or as the case maybe, of each of the States to the proposal has beenobtained'."

The motion was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: It seems to me that the amendmentof Prof. K. T. Shah, as well as the next set of amendmentsup to No. 175 fall through after the acceptance of Dr.Ambedkar's amendment. Then we may pass on to No. 176.

Shri Lakshminarayan Sahu: I would like to moveamendment No. 154 which is in may name.

Mr. Vice-President: That is an amendment forsubstitution to an article which has been droppedaltogether. Therefore it cannot be discussed here.

(Amendment No. 176 was not moved.)

We have here an amendment No. 176 (a) from Begum AizazRasul. That is concerned with the National Language. Likeothers it may be postponed to the proper place.

That finishes Article 3. Is there anyone who wishes todiscuss the Article as a whole?

Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (West Bengal: General):What will be the position if the honourable member isallowed to speak on the Article as a whole? Will Dr.Ambedkar be called upon to reply to that again?

Mr. Vice-President: Most certainly not.

Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: This whole article has notyet been disposed of and Dr. Ambedkar has so far repliedonly to the amendment and not to the whole article.

Mr. Vice-President: We shall listen to the honourablemember and if he traverses old ground, we shall ask him todesist.

Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: Therefore Dr. Ambedkar isnot entitled to reply as a right?

Mr. Vice-President: No.

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyanar (Madras: General): Thatis hypothetical. It does not arise.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad (Bihar: General): The Article isdesigned to serve the following three purposes...

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: (United Provinces: General):An important question of procedure is involved. To thisArticle there have been tabled a number of amendments butyou allowed two of them or three of them to be moved andthen you took votes upon two of them. There was no chance ofmoving the other amendments. I think all the amendmentsshould have been allowed to be moved and then votes shouldhave been taken. Otherwise other members will have nooccasion to assess them. If they were moved in the House,the House might

accepted some of them.

Mr. Vice-President: What are the amendments which havenot been moved?

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: All the amendments up to No.174.

Mr. Vice-President: They do not arise. They have beenpractically rejected on account of the acceptance of Dr.Ambedkar's amendment.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: But they should have beenallowed to be moved.

Mr. Vice-President: Why did you not point this out atthe proper time?

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: It may be kept in view infuture.

Mr. Vice-President: That point will be kept in mind.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: The Article is designed toserve the following three purposes:

(a) To wipe out the existence of any Province or State;

(b) To strengthen the hands of Sardar Patel;

(c) To create new provinces.

The Article is silent on two fundamental points: viz.,(1) the constitutional powers of the new States formed underthe provisions of this Article. It has been left to themajority party in the future Parliament of India todetermine by the most convenient process of simple majoritywhether the new State thus formed will be placed in Part I,II, or III of the First Schedule. (2) the conditions underwhich the Parliament can function under the provisions ofthis Article. The Parliament has the legal power to unite orbreaks up States without any rhyme or reason. Its hands havenot been fettered by any conditions under the provisions ofthis Article.

Let me illustrate my point. If the majority party inpower at the Centre takes into its head to wipe out theProvince of Bihar it can easily do so in either of thefollowing two ways open to it under the provisions of thisArticle, namely:

1. Bihar can be divided into parts and the wholeterritory placed under the direct jurisdiction andadministration of the Government of India. Theplain meaning of the Article is that theGovernment of India has got the power of placing aState, put in either Part I or Part III, in PartII of the First Schedule.

2. Bihar can be merged with Orissa and the new statethus created can be brought entirely under thedirect governance of the central power.

The Government of India must have the power to takeover the administration of a State into its own hand, if itdoes not govern well or in accord with spirit of the Constitution. Similarly it must have the authority to punisha recalcitrant state which under the stress of centrifugalforces tends to drift away from the Centre.

As stated above the second purpose for which theArticle has been incorporated is to strengthen the hands ofSardar Patel. The constitutional position of the NativeStates is still in the melting pot.......

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru: Indian States and not NativeStates.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: It would be far better to callthem Native States than Indian States. The native stateshave always been the weakest link in the chain of IndianNationalism. Special care and attention must be bestowed intackling these problems. The present craze for constituentassemblies in the native states must be checked.State armies must be wiped out. The native states must bebrought under the direction, supervision and control of theMinistry of States and the Government of India. It will bedesirable to place them in Part II of the First Schedule.The line of least desistance was adopted in amalgamating alarge number of states into unions. The formation of theseunions will encourage fissiparous tendencies. It lies withinthe power of Sardar Patel to bring all these territoriesunder the direct government of the central authority. Toobviate the danger of any misconception in the minds of thestate people that we are tending towards absolutism anddespotism I suggest the appointment of a Deputy Minister ofStates from the ranks of those who are representing thestates people in this Constituent Assembly.

The third purpose for which this Article has beenconceived is to make some room for those who are the greatchampions of Linguistic Provinces. I am opposed to thisArticle to the extent it tends to serve this purpose.

A great fuss is being

made that it is undemocratic tooppose the cherished ambitions, hopes and aspirations of aconsiderable section of the community. But a thing must beintrinsically sound to carry weight. No standard of sounddemocracy can justify the great wrong that has been done tothis country by the tragic partition of August 15,1947...........

Mr. Vice-President: This has nothing to do with theArticle under consideration. The Honourable Member isgetting into stride and five minutes have already gone.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: Sir, I said at the beginningthat I wanted ten minutes and I have taken only five minutesso far. I am however entirely in your hands.

Mr. Vice-President: I am equally in your hands.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: Nationalism is more dear to methan Democracy. It is a very poor conception of democracy tosay that it is very necessary to secure approval and obtainconsent at all levels of administration. Such a notion willonly lead to utter chaos and anarchy..........

Srijut Rohini Kumar Chaudhari (Assam: General): On apoint of order, Sir, I do not know under what provision youhave allowed this sort of speech being made after theamendments have been carried in the House. I have seen noprecedent where an amended resolution or amended provisionof a Bill can be allowed to come up before the House anddiscussion allowed. If everybody here is allowed to write acriticism of the debate on this clause and inflict thatspeech on the House there will be no end to it. There is noprocedure which allows a speech like this after theamendments have been carried out.

Mr. Vice-President: I may point out that there is aprecedent for it when Mr. Kamath spoke at the end of thesecond Article and there was no objection at that time fromany quarter.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: The essence of democracy isthat people must aspire after higher goals of politicallife. Any demand of the people which does not fulfil thisessential pre-requisite is not democratic.

Mr. Vice-President: This is wasting the time of theHouse.

The question is:

"That Article 3, as amended, form part of the Constitution."

Sardar Hukam Singh (East Punjab: Sikh): The Articlecannot be put to the House unless those amendments that havebeen held over are decided upon.

Mr. Vice-President: They have been left, as they arenot in order after the acceptance by the House of theamendment of Dr. Ambedkar.

Shri Raj Bahadur (United State of Matsya): Sir, Iinvite your attention to the fact that the Honourable MemberMr. Brajeshwar Prasad has used the words "Native State" inrespect of the Indian States. I seriously object to the useof the word "Native" and would request you to rule out suchwords.

An Honourable Member: They should be expunged from theproceedings.

Mr. Vice-President: That question does not arise.

The question is:

"That Article 3, as amended, from part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Article 4

! Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: Sir, may I suggest apoint of procedure just to avoid unnecessary waste of time.You have called out article No. 4 and you have asked Mr.Naziruddin Ahmad to move his amendment. All members who wishto take part in the discussion may be allowed to speak onthe article also along with the amendments, so that thereneed not be a repetition once again when you put the articleas a whole. If all the amendments are exhausted there maynot be any speeches again. It is open to you and there isnothing to prevent you from giving such a ruling as this.

Mr. Vice-President: I accept your suggestion.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (Bengal: Muslim): Sir, I beg tomove:

"That the words `of this Constitution' be deleted inclause (1) of article 4 and throughout the Draft Constitution wherever the said words occur in the samecontext; and a new definition (bb) be inserted in clause (1)of article 303: -

`(bb) "article" means article of the Constitution'."

In the ordinary legislation of this country whenever werefer to a section we never repeat the word "section" ofthis Act. So far as this Constitution is

concerned we haveused the word `article' instead of `section', and thewording of the Act is due to the fact that it is impliedunder the General Clauses Act. I submit that we should applya similar device in this Constitution by the adoption of anew definition (bb). I have suggested in the amendment thatthe words are absolutely unnecessary. Whenever we refer toan article it is obvious that an article of thisConstitution is always meant. I would point out respectfullythat in this draft Constitution, in many places, the Articlenumber has been given without the addition of the words `ofthis Constitution'. Even in this very Article in one placewe have these words of this Constitution' and in anotherplace, these words are not there. We may uniformly omitthese words in all places.

Mr. Vice-President: The Honourable Member may move allhis amendments to Article 4, one after the other, up toamendment No. 181 on the Order Paper, and be as brief aspossible.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I shall be brief, Sir. But itmust be noted that this amendment of mine will dispose of noless than 68 amendments. With reference to the Schedule wehave omitted the repetition of the words `of thisConstitution'. Whenever you refer to the Schedule you referto the Schedule Number and do not say, such and suchSchedule `of this Constitution'. This is because of aspecial definition which has been provided in the Draft Constitution itself. I draw the attention of the House toArticle 303, clause (1), item (v): `"Schedule" means aSchedule to this Constitution'. This is a very necessaryprovision. On this analogy, `Article' should also mean anArticle of this Constitution. I submit that the amendment Ihave suggested is similar to item (v) of 303 (1).

Now I shall move the other amendments, 178 to 181.

I move:

"That in clause (1) of Article 4, for the words`article 2 or article 3', the words and figures `article 2or 3' be substituted".

I submit that the word `article' need not be repeatedas it is done in clause (1) and, in fact in many places inthis Draft Constitution.

Then I move:

"That in clause (1) of article 4, for the words andfigures `article 2 or article 3', the word and figure`article 3' be substituted."

I move next:

"That in clause (1) of article 4, for the words `shallcontain such provision for', the words `shall also providefor' be substituted."

This is a very simple amendment.

I now move my last amendment to this article:

"That in clause (2) of article 4, for the words `forthe purposes of', the words `within the meaning of' besubstituted."

This is only a verbal amendment.

Mr. Vice-President: The subsequent amendments may nowbe moved one after the other. Amendment No. 182 in the nameof Prof. Shibbanlal Saksena is the next in order. Though it is for the deletion of clause (2) and hence cannot beallowed, I would give him an opportunity to speak on thisArticle.

Discussion will henceforth be on the concerned Articleas a whole.

Prof. Shibban lal Saksena: I am not moving 182 for theomission of clause (2).

Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur (Madras: Muslim): Sir, Imove amendment No. 184:

"That in clause (2) of article 4, for the words `forthe purposes of article 304', the words `under article 304'be substituted."

The retention of the existing words will lead to somesort of complication. Therefore we should substitute thewords `under article 304.'

Shri H. V. Kamath: Mr. Vice-President, by your leave, Ishall make a very brief observation on amendment No. 177 ofmy Honourable friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. Before you callupon Dr. Ambedkar to reply, may I request him, in case heholds that amendment No. 177 should be rejected, to give ussome reasons for his opposition and not merely repeat thetrite formula `I oppose this amendment'? Because, apart fromthe arguments advanced by my friend the mover of theamendment and the instances quoted by him, I have gonethrough the constitutions of the Commonwealth of Australia,the Union of South Africa, the Swiss Confederation and theGerman Reich which have all been supplied to us

in a bookletof the Assembly Secretariat, called ConstitutionalPrecedents - Second Series. I have gone through them all veryclosely and I find that this sort of repetition of thephrase "of this Constitution" does not find a place in anyone of them.

After all, to my mind, brevity is the soul or essenceof a Constitution, and we should try to avoid overburdeningthe Constitution with redundant and unnecessary words orphrases or expressions. I find in our draft Constitution`of this Constitution' repeated ad nauseam. I think theamendment is a reasonable and harmless one. We should paysome attention to the language of the articles of the Constitution. In conclusion I repeat my request to Dr.Ambedkar not to merely repeat the formula `I oppose', butgive reasons as to why he does so.

Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhari: I have come to the rostrumto honour my friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad by opposing thisamendment. (Laughter). I regret that he has wasted some ofour time and I curse myself that I cannot resist thetemptation to oppose him and waste some time of the Housealso by doing so. I would be failing in my duty if I do notrecord here the appreciation which we must give to thatnoble band of thieves which operates in the East IndianRailways between Howrah and Delhi. We must give our thanksto this noble gang that is responsible for stealing only thebrief-bag containing various other answers of our friend Mr.Naziruddin and, but for that fortunate fact, there wouldhave thousands more of amendments of the kind we are dealingwith now. I would warn my friend Prof. Shah that this noblegang may be operating between Bombay and Delhi as well.

Mr. Vice-President: I am afraid this has no bearingupon the matter on hand.

Shri Rohini Kumar Choudhari: The point is that if therehad been no theft of his brief from his compartment when hewas coming this time to attend the Assembly there would havebeen more such amendments which could be easily left to thedraftsmen and not brought before the House. I will also say,Sir, that in dealing with amendments from Mr. NaziruddinAhmad, although some of them are very good ones, becausethey are tabled in his name, they are often opposed withoutany comment. Therefore I would request my honourable Friend,if he comes forward with very serious amendments, to tablean amendment to change his name also, so that his amendmentsmay be seriously considered.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Sir, I gave notice of an amendment that clause (2) of article 4 be omitted but youhave ruled it out of order. I think that an amendment forthe deletion of a clause can be moved, but your ruling isthere and I bow to it. I feel that we must bear in mindone particular aspect of Article 4 to which I wouldespecially wish to draw the attention of Dr. Ambedkar. Inthis article Dr. Ambedkar has provided an easy method forchanging boundaries because in clause (2) he says that "nosuch law as aforesaid shall be deemed to be an amendment ofthis Constitution for the purposes of article 304." Inarticle 304 it is laid down that any change in the Constitution must be passed by a two-thirds majority,whereas here it is provided that so far as any law referredto in article 2 or 3 of the Constitution is concerned, itshall not be deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution.Sir, I personally feel that changes in boundaries of Statesare matters of much consequence and they should not beallowed to be carried out by a mere majority, because theboundaries of a State should be stable and it should not bepossible for every majority in Parliament when it comes topower to alter boundaries which this clause (2) will enablethem to do. I think this is a wrong provision, but still Ithink that in the first ten or twenty years it may probablybe allowed. My honourable Friend, Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayyaand others have given notice of an amendment to that effect,but they are not moving it. I do not want to move anyamendment but I do feel that it should not be made easy forboundaries of States to be changed by a mere majority. If weallow this clause to remain as at present,

we should atleast set a time limit. This should not be made a permanentpart of the Constitution. I hope Dr. Ambedkar will say howhe feels about this very important matter.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. Vice-President,Sir, I did not think that this was a matter which requiredany speech from me, but as Mr. Kamath has expressed a desirethat I must not merely negative the amendment but shouldoffer an explanation as to why I was not prepared to acceptthe amendments suggested by my honourable Friend, Mr.Naziruddin Ahmad, I have come here to make my explanation. Ithink it will be agreed that in matters of this sort, whichrelate merely to phraseology and not to the substance of thearticle itself, it cannot be stated that it is a matter ofprinciple at all. It is a mere matter of precedent howdifferent Constitutions have used language in matters whichare analogous. My submission is that in the language we haveused we are absolutely covered by precedent with regard tothe question of repeating the phrase "of this constitution".My friend, Mr. Kamath, stated that he has examined severalconstitutions such as that of Australia and of some othercountries but not find this phrase "of this Constitution"contained therein. I am sorry that he did not extend hisresearches to the Irish Constitution. If he had, he wouldhave found that the phraseology used in the Draft Constitution is the same as is used in the IrishConstitution. For his reference, I would like to draw hisattention to Article 19 of the Irish Constitution, article27, sub-clause (4), article 32 and article 46, sub-clause(5) where he will find that, wherever the word "article"occurs, it followed by the phrase "of this Constitution".

I may also point out to Mr. Kamath that in this respectwe have also followed the phraseology contained in theGovernment of India Act 1935. I am sorry I have not had thetime to examine all the sections of the Government of IndiaAct but I have just, fortunately for myself, found onesection which is 142-A where similar phraseology has beenused. So far therefore as the first part of the amendmentmoved by my honourable friend, Mr. Naziruddin, is concerned,my submission is that we have not acted in any eccentricmanner but that whatever phraseology we have used is coveredby the Constitutions of other countries as well.

With regard to his second amendment that we should notrepeat the word "article" after the word "or" and that weshould merely say, "article 2 or 3", my submission is againthe same. There again we have followed well-knownConstitutions and if my friend will examine them, he willfind that similar phraseology occurs elsewhere also. For hisinformation, I would ask him to refer to section 69, sub-clause (3), of the Government of India Act. The word usedthere is "paragraph". It says, "paragraph (d) or paragraph(e)". It does not merely say, "paragraph (d) or (e)".Therefore this can hardly be a matter of debate or a matterof difference of opinion so far as the principle isconcerned. It is a mere matter of precedent and the questionto be asked is: Have we done something which is not coveredby precedent? And my submission is this, that whatever wehave done in the matter of using phraseology is covered byprecedent and therefore, there can be no objection to anyclause as it stands in the draft.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Then what about clause (2) ofArticle 4? I think there should be a short notice amendmentto use the words "of this Constitution" in clause (2) inorder to make the draft clear.

Mr. Vice-President: We cannot create a bad precedent byadmitting a short notice amendment.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I cannot accept it.Sir.

Mr. Vice-President: In that case, I shall put theamendments to vote one by one.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

That the words `of this Constitution' be deleted inclause (1) of article 4 and throughout the Draft Constitution wherever the said words occur in the samecontext; and a new definition (bb) be inserted in clause (1)of article 303: -

`(bb) "article" means article

of this Constitution';"

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (1) of article 4, for the words`article 2 or article 3', the words and figures `article 2or 3' be substituted."

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (1) of article 4, for the words andfigures `article 2 or article 3', the words and figure`article 2' be substituted."

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (1) of article 4, for the words `shallcontain such provisions for', the words `shall also providefor' be substituted."

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (2) of article 4, for the words `forthe purposes of', the words `within the meaning of' besubstituted."

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

That in clause (2) of article 4, for the words `for thepurpose of article 304', the words `under article 304' besubstituted."

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

That clause (1) of Article 4 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That clause (2) of Article 4 stand part of the Constitution."

The motion was adopted.

Mr. Vice-President: That finishes Article 4. The nextfew amendments, No. 185 and the following are concerned withnational flag, national language, script and so on. Iunderstand that there is an attempt made to arrive at somesort of understanding and I think that it would be to theinterest of the House and it will save the time of theHouse, if we postpone their consideration for the presentand pass on immediately to Part IV.

Seth Govind Das (C. P. & Berar: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, before you proceed to take up Part IV, Iwant to bring it to your notice that these new clauses dealwith the national flag, the national language, script andthe name of the country and so on. I have no objection ifthey are held over for future, but at the same time, I wantyour ruling on one point and that is that whenever thesequestions are taken up in future, suppose when the questionof the language of parliament comes in Article 99, then weshould be allowed to raise the question of nationallanguage, national script and other matters also which areincluded in the various amendments which are not being movednow. Let it not be ruled out at that time because Article 99deals only with the language of the Parliament and similarthings these amendments cannot be moved then. Therefore,Sir, I want this to go on the record as a ruling that infuture these questions can be raised and if certain thingsare decided by the House, then those articles may beinserted in the Constitution wherever it is thought properto be inserted. (Interruption).

The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam (Madras: General): Mr.Vice President. Sir, on a point of procedure, I submit, it is for the Chair to regulate what sections will be taken andin what order. Therefore, I do not think there should be anydebate on your ruling that Part IV should be taken up first.It is not for any honourable member to choose and say whereand when an article is to be put in. However, you have askedthat Part IV be taken up now and therefore, I suggest weought to proceed with the articles of that part, withoutconsidering any other interpolation.

Mr. Vice-President: I am an unworthy occupier of thischair and I do not think that anybody here need have anyapprehension about these amendments being ruled out. We arehere so far as I understand it to arrive at commonunderstanding and to pass a Constitution that will beto the benefit of us all. Here every opportunity, I think,should be given to every Member of the House to place hispoint of view before the rest of the members and I canassure Seth Govind Das that if I am here, I shall see thatno injustice is done to any one.

Shri Damodar Swarup Seth (United Provinces: General): Iwish to move amendment No. 187 which has nothing to do withthe language

controversy going on. My amendment reads likethis. (The Honourable Member began to read his amendment).

Mr. Vice-President: I rule your amendment isinappropriate here. We pass on to Part IV.

Shri R. K. Sidhwa: Before you proceed to Part IV, Ihave got to offer my personal explanation. The HonourableShri Purshottam Das Tandon levelled a charge against me whenI mentioned that no important legislature has got a rulegiving the right of reply to the mover of an amendment. Ihave got a ruling from the Bombay Provincial LegislativeAssembly which reads:

"That mover of a motion, but not the mover of an amendment [Interruption].

Mr. Vice-President: We are not concerned with that justnow and I must ask the honourable member to sit down.

Now, we go on to Part IV. I rule amendments 831 and 832out of order. The first part of amendment No. 833, I ruleout of order. Mr. Mahboob Ali Baig, if you like, you maymove the second part.

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: Sir, I think thisamendment is not in its proper place. This amendment reads:"or alternatively. That the following proviso be added toArticle 35: - etc." This should come in after amendment No.835.

Mr. Vice-President: You can bring in your objectionlater on.

Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur: Sir, I will move thisafter amendment No. 835. May I be allowed to speak generallyon Part IV, Sir?

Mr. Vice-President: No; you can speak only withreference to this particular amendment.

Shri Lokanath Misra: Mr. Vice-President. Sir, we arenot prepared to discuss part IV. From Part I to Part IV thisis a big jump. We came prepared only for the discussion ofParts II and III. I think we should be given time and thediscussion should be adjourned.

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: Sir, Part IV consistsof Directive Principles. There are not very many amendmentsto this Part. Part II relates to Citizenship and Part IIIrelates to Fundamental Rights which are of a justiciablenature. A number of amendments have been tabled to these twoParts. To bring about agreement as to which amendments haveto be moved and which need not be moved, takes some time. Sofar as Part IV is concerned, it does not take much time.They are only Directive Principles: they have been alreadyconsidered and we have spent long hours over them when wediscussed these principles. In these circumstances, I feelnobody need complain of want of notice so far as Part IV isconcerned.

Mr. Vice-President: Did you get the lists ofamendments?

Honourable Members: Yes.

Shri Amiyo Kumar Ghosh (Bihar: General): Sir, thegeneral practice is that discussion proceeds seriatim butinstead we are now jumping from Part I to Part IV. We haveseveral amendments to Parts II andIII. We are prepared to move them but we are not preparedwith the amendments to Part IV. We are taken aback and thatis our difficulty. We have several amendments to Part IV.

Mr. Vice-President: You will agree that we shouldexpedite the business of the House.

Shri Amiyo Kumar Ghosh: But there is a method, Sir.

Mr. Vice-President: You will also agree that it is inthe interests of the House that before we come here thosewho have sent in amendments have an opportunity ofdiscussing them with the members of the Drafting Committeeand arriving at some kind of understanding. This is in thelarger interests of the House and with the idea of savingthe time of the House. These are the factors which haveinduced me to give further time for the consideration ofParts II and III. I believe, on the whole I have the supportof the House.

Shri Amiyo Kumar Ghosh: May I request you, Sir, toadjourn the House now and again sit after the recess. It isabout twelve o'clock; we may sit again at three o'clock.

Mr. Vice-President: I shall consider that.

Kazi Syed Karimuddin (C. P. & Berar: Muslim): Sir, thatwe are going to discuss Part IV should have been intimatedto the members yesterday. We have not even brought theamendments to be moved to Part IV. We are taken unawares. It is very difficult for us to move the amendments, because weare not prepared with

the amendments. It would be unfair forthose of us who are not ready, Sir.

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: Sir, it is strangethat Mr. Karimuddin should have raised a complaint likethis. Every member is generally ready with his amendments.

B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur (Madras: Muslim): Sir, it isvery unfair on the part of Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar tosay that each and every member should be ready with hisamendments to any of the 300 or 400 Articles of thisConstitution. It is impossible for anybody to be so, Sir. Isubmit, Sir, it is unfair to pass over these important Partsand go to a Part which many of us did not expect at allwould be taken up. It is only proper that we go in order, orthis House should be adjourned till such time as isconvenient. (Interruptions).

Shri Lokanath Misra: Sir, so much is happening behindthe scenes that we are not only puzzled, we cannot even runthe race. This is unworthy of us. On banded knees, I wouldask you to save us from such situation and help us toundertake our task with regularity and proper direction. Ifsuch things are to happen and things go on behind us, kindlyus to get out and then let things go on as they like. Iwould but request you, Sir, to give us time to prepare andthink about these amendments. We should be in a position todo justice to our constituents, to the great goal and toourselves and to this august House.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi (United Provinces: General): Sir,may I request the party leaders and the Whips of themajority party to be considerate and take a charitable view?I understand that it is rather unfortunate and unfair thatfor the failure of the Congress Party to decide issues amongthemselves, they should force the whole House to accommodatethem in this manner. I feel that either the House should beadjourned or some such business be taken up as the membersare prepared to discuss.

Mr. Vice-President: If the majority of members areunable to proceed with the business of the House, I am fullyprepared to adjourn the House now. We may meet tomorrow atTen of the Clock.

Honourable Members: Yes.

Mr. Vice-President: The House stands adjourned till 10a.m. tomorrow.

B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur: May I know, Sir, what Partwill be considered.

Mr. Vice-President: We shall deal with Part IV firsttomorrow. If there is time, we will proceed further.

The Assembly then adjourned till Ten of the Clock onFriday, the 19th November 1948.

Thursday, 18th November, 1948