Dated: September 03, 1949
The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at Nine of the Clock. Mr. 'Vice-President (Shri V. T. Krishnamachari) in the Chair.
List III (Concurrent List) Entry 2-A
Mr. Vice-President (Shri V. T. Krishnamachari) We are now doing entry 2-A of the Concurrent List.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim) Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I would seek your permission to make a verbal change in my amendment No. 290. No. 289 has been moved by Mr. Kamath. I wish to move the next entry and I seek your permission to make a slight verbal alteration. I know that the amendment will never be accepted-that it will not even be considered. So there is no harm in making the amendment look better. May I have your permission to substitute for the words "overthrow of the Government by force" in my amendment, the words "security of the State" ?
The wording "security of the State" seems to be more proper and the change is only verbal.
Mr. Vice-President: Yes.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I beg to move
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General) : Sir, may I suggest to my Friend that if he is prepared to accept the wording as I suggest now, namely, "connected with the security of the State" instead of the words "connected with stability of the Government established by jaw" I shall be prepared To accept it, because I find that that is exactly the language we have used in amended entry 3 in List I-We have. used he word "security of India" there. If my Friend is satisfied with the wording I have now suggested I shall be prepared to accept it.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I am grateful to Dr. Ambedkar, but this is exactly the change which I was asking to the Vice-President to permit me to make.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Your words were different.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I was going to move an amended amendment and that is exactly on the lines, word for word, as the one that Dr. Ambedkar now
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Then there is nothing to speak about it. If my honourable Friend will move the amendment as I have suggested then I am prepared to accept it.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I must move my amendment.
Mr. Vice-President.: As Dr. Ambedkar is accepting it, is it necessary for the Honourable Member to move the amendment and speak on it?
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: If my honourable Friend fails to recognize that I was going to move an amendment which is correct and exactly corresponds to his ideas, I cannot help it. But let me move my amendment.Sir, I beg to move :
That in amendment No. 124 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed new entry 2-A of List III, for the words "stability of the Government" the words "security of the State" be substituted.
The expression "stability of the Government" is not proper.....
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I do not think any argument is needed as I am accepting the amendment.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I know. But there is the House. I will say only one or two words. The expression "stability of the Government" is rather vague in the context of the new entry proposed by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, namely, "preventive detention for reasons connected with the stability of the Government". "Government" and "State" are different things.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: That is the reason why I have accepted it.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: But, Sir, he has not made it clear as to why he has accepted it.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I have said that "security of the State' is the proper expression. So there is no necessity of an argument.
Mr. Vice-President: The amendment proposed by the honourable Member having been accepted, there is no need for elaborate arguments.
Mr.Naziruddin Ahmad : But the House should know. Why should there be so much nervousness about the exposure of bad drafting ? That is the point.
The Honourable Dr B. R. Ambedkar: If my honourable Friend is satisfied with an admission on my part that I have made a mistake I am prepared to make it.
Mr.Naziruddin Ahmad: It should be appreciated not merely by the House but by the world at large. Drafted as it is,- "stability of the Government"' may mean insecurity of the Ministry for which they might imprison the opposition.
The Honourable Dr. B. R.Ambedkar: Very well, we have bungled. Is that enough ?
Mr. Vice- President: I do not think there is any other amendment.
Shri Brajeshwar Prasad (Bihar : General): I want to speak on the amendment. Mr. Vice-President, I rise to offer a few remarks on this new entry which has been proposed by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee.
This entry vests power into the hands of the Government of India to detain persons for reasons connected with the security of the State established by law and the maintenance of public order and services or supplies essential to the life of the community.
The power vested, in the hands of the Centre is of a very limited character. Over and above preventive detention, the Government of India has got no other power till the situation has deteriorated to such an extent that emergency provisions come into operation. The Government of India ought to, have been vested with more powers to nip the mischief in the bud. If the Government of India feel's that without its co-operation and assistance a State Government is not likely to deal effectively with outbreak of lawnessness, than it must have the power to step in and take command of the situation. It is sheer folly to circumscribe the limits of its jurisdiction. Concurrent powers over maintenance of public order is necessary in order to strengthen the forces of law and order. if we want that emergency provisions should not come into operation at all, it is necessary to enlarge the scope of the Central jurisdiction. Where there is a conflict between the forces of law and order and the claims of provincial autonomy, there should be no hesitation in choosing the former as against the latter.
I regret I do not find myself in agreement with Mr. Kamath here as well. His political doctrines are a strange mixture of Individualism Ind Philosophical anarchism. Both these doctrines have no place in our life. The challenge of the forces of collectivism are so strong and insistent that no political being, unless be wants to live in the land of lotus-eaters, can afford to pay even lip homage to the memory of Mill and Bakunin the torch-bearers of Individualism and Philosophical anarchism.
Mr. Vice-President: I will now put the amendment to vote.
The question is:
"That in amendment No. 124 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed new entry 2A of List III, for the words 'stability of the Government' the words 'security of the State be substituted."
The amendment was negatived.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, the amendment as amended has to be put and not as in the Notice Paper.
Mr. Vice-President: I will now put amendment No. 124 as revised by Dr. Ambedkar. The question is :
"That after entry 2 of List III, the following entry be inserted:-
'2-A. Preventive-detention for reasons connected with the security of the State and the maintenance of public order and services or supplies essential to the we of the community; persons subjected to such detention.'
The motion was adopted.
Entry 2-A, as amended, was added to the Concurrent List.
Entry 3
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
Sir, I move
"That for entry 3 of List III, the following entry be substituted:-
'3. Removal from one State to another State of prisoners, accused persons and persons subjected to preventive detention for reasons specified in entry 2A of this List."'
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I am not moving amendment No. 291.
Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 292. The Member is not present and the amendment is not therefore. moved.
I will put Dr. Ambedkar's amendment to vote. The question is:
"That for entry 3 of List III, the following entry be substituted:-
'3. Removal from one State to another State of prisoners. accused persons and persons subjectedto preventive detention for reasons specified in entry 2A of this List."
The amendment was adopted.
Entry 3, as amended, was added to the Concurrent List.
Entry 4
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I move:
"That in entry 4 of List III, the words and figures for the time being specified in Part I or Part It of the First Schedule' be deleted. "Mr. Vice-President : There are no other amendments to this entry.
I will put the amendment to vote. The question is:
"That in entry 4 of List III. the words and figures 'for the time being specified in Part I or Part 11 of the First Schedule' be deleted."
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. Vice-President: The question is:
"That entry 4. as amended, stand part of List III."
The motion was adopted.
Entry 4, as amended, was added to the Concurrent List.
Entry 5
Mr. Vice-President: Mr. Kamath is not in his place. The amendment standing in his name (No. 293) is not moved.
Entry 5 was added to the Concurrent List.
Entry 6
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh (C. P. & Berar: General) : Sir, I move:
"That in entry, 6 of List III, after the word 'infants' the words 'care and protection of destitute and abandoned children and youth' be inserted."
or, alternatively,
'That in entry 6 of List III after the word 'infants' the words 'protection of childhood and youth against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment' be inserted."
Sir, this is my second attempt to bring in the care of children and young ones who are likely to be exploited or abandoned either morally or materially. Last time I moved an amendment that this entry be included in the exclusive powers of the Union. It may be said that it was a subject which need not be in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Centre. But I am now moving to include it as an item in List III so that both the States as well as the Centre can have concurrent jurisdiction in regard to this. It is likely to be urged that the words. "infants and minors" can be interpreted to include what I propose and that there would be sufficient scope to look after children and youthful persons under the entry as it is in the original draft as entry No. 6.
I had pointed out before and I beg to reiterate now that infants have a specific meaning and the word can by no means include all children. Again minors are persons who do not include all minor children ipso facto. "Minority" is something of a legal nature and it will therefore refer only to those persons who are minors under the law. Moreover, Sir, all these five words that you find in this entry "marriage and divorce; infants and matters; adoption" refer to their legal status and do not refer in any way whatsoever to their being given any care and protection.
Secondly, it will be found that there are provisions and entries so far as assisting religious organisations or literary, scientific and cultural institutions is concerned. Some of my friends drew my attention to entries 42 and 43 in the State List. Those two entries will be confined to giving financial assistance to these institutions. What I wish the Centre and the States to take up, however, is direct responsibility for looking_ after the welfare of the destitute and abandoned children. For this there is no specific provision and it will be very wrong at the present moment and under the present circumstances not to have a specific provision to this effect. If we examine legislation in foreign countries, we will find that every care is taken of this subject. As late as 1946 and 1948 the British Parliament passed new legislation on this subject.
There are two aspects of this question. We have had legislation in the provinces so far as delinquent children are concerned, but so far as the responsibility either of the provinces or of the Centre in respect of the abandoned and' destitute children are concerned, there has been no legislation whatever. The wording of article 31 is exactly what I have put in my amendment, "that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral 'and material abandonment." It is said that the very fact that this is included in the Directive Principles of State Policy will give the Centre jurisdiction. I am not a at all convinced of this argument and I feel convinced as a matter of fact of the inadmissibility of this argument. The mere inclusion of this in the Directive Principles of State Policy does not mean that power for legislation has been given, more especially because ours is going to be come- sort of a Federation and it will always be arguable whether the responsibility for this is that of the Centre or the. provinces; and since this ambiguity will be there, I think, Sir, that it is very necessary that there should be some provision for this in the Concurrent List so as to make the responsibility for this both that of the States as well as of the Centre.
I have already given notice of a Bill to be moved in the Legislative Assembly and I have taken MY stand on the Directive Principles which have been embodied in the Constitution. If we do not have this entry, it may be urged that this is a thing which does not fall within the purview of the Centre; since Borstal institutions are subject-matters for the States, it is the States alone who are competent to deal with this and therefore legislation must emanate from the provinces. In order to avoid this ambiguity, in order to avoid this difficulty, in order to remove any obstacle in the way of looking after these children and youthful persons by the Centre also, I have urged that this entry should be there. If we examine legislation in other countries, we will find that they take care not only of children up to the age of 14 but that the age has been taken right up to 25. Their contention is that the State has now ceased to be a mere policeman and a judge and that it is becoming more and more of a social corporation and in a social corporation nothing can be more important than the care and protection of children and youthful persons.
From that point of view, it is absolutely necessary that this entry should be there. I hope that we will not have to waste time in bitter discussion over this matter as we did yesterday in trying to convince the sponsors and leaders of the Drafting Committee to accept the item with regard to the adulteration of food. This is more important, if I may say so, than even that entry and it will be a disgrace if for any technical reason or for any other reason this entry is opposed and is not accepted. I know that a large number of honourable Members of this House wish to support this entry and I hope therefore that without much discussion or debate it will be possible for the honourable Doctor to accept either of my two amendments. I would prefer the second to the first.
Shrimati G. Durgabai (Madras : General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by my Friend, Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh. I wish to say and also I appeal to the Drafting Committee and this House to realise the great importance of this subject. viz. the protection of children from exploitation or abandonment, and accept the principle behind it; I appeal more especially to the Drafting Committee to find a suitable entry for this subject. Unless the State takes up a direct responsibility to pass legislation on this matter, I do not think there will be adequate attention given to this subject. I know that they have not neglected this matter and the Chairman of the Drafting Committee would come forward to say that there are a large number of entries to this effect in all the three Lists and that sufficient protection is being given to the protection of children and the destitutes and the abandoned. I know that they have accepted this principle under the Directive Principles. Article 31. clause (vi), lays down the principle in the terms of the amendment now moved. It is the protection of children and youth against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment. Sir, this is exactly the language of the amendment which is moved by Dr. Punjabrao.
No doubt this principle has been recognised under the Directive Principles. I should say that there is no use in simply recognising this principle under the Chapter on Directive Principles., It will remain a really pious declaration or intention on our part to do something in the matter of protection of children, but 'that is not sufficient. None of the entries has mentioned this subject. I' you examine all the three Lists, you do not find a definite entry to this effect in anyone of these Lists. In the absence of a definite entry on this matter, really there will not be adequate protection given to children. It will leave this matter in great confusion. You do not know who will legislate on this matter, whether it will be the Centre or the State or both.
Therefore, Sir, I would appeal to the Drafting Committee to see its way to include this matter in this Concurrent List or any other List.
Unless the State undertakes a direct responsibility there will be no good. , It is open to the State to come forward and make some subsidy or give some donation or some contribution to an Association either started by private enterprise or by a philanthropist for the protection of infants. We know how these associations are struggling for their daily existence and for lack of fund-, they are not able to get on well and in this manner these poor homes could no longer serve the cause of poor children. I do not know what kind of help they will get if the State does not take direct responsibility. This is not a matter which could be left to private enterprise, but the State must take direct responsibility. There is no good in our stating the Directive Principles, which will remain as pious declarations unless given effect to by the State.
It may be argued that there is penal law which deals with the matter. I ]mow that the criminal law deals with this matter of abandonment. I also, know, because I am conversant with it, how deep matters are going on. it is true that the persons who is charged with the offence of abandoning is really punished and he or she is sentenced for that offence. But what happens to the child that is abandoned ? That is the question. Where,, is it to go ? How long is it going to wait in search of somebody to come forward and take it for protection ? 'Therefore, Sir, it is a very dangerous thing. If only we leave the children to themselves, they will take to,beggary and also to 'many vices such as stealing and they would cultivate very bad habits. Therefore it is the duty of the State to come forward and help these children sufficiently in time, to see that they are developed well, because these children are our future hope and the nation depends upon these children, their good-manners, their upbringing, their good health and their strong character.
Sir, I tell you that if the Drafting Committee could find its way to make an entry for the protection of wild birds, I do not know whether the children could not come under the classification of even wild birds. 'therefore, if you see your way to give a particular place in the Constitution for wild birds, I appeal to you to see your way also to give protection to the children that are abandoned, by a suitable entry in the Constitution.
Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : 'Sir, I would like to speak before Dr. Ambedkar is allowed to reply on this entry.
Mr. Vice-President: Shrimati Durgabai, have you finished?
Shrimati G. Durgabai : I have finished. I have nothing further to say. I only wish that Dr. Ambedkar assures us that he will see his way to examine all the clauses in the Constitution for this purpose. Certainly he will find it easier to accept our proposition. He can include it in any list, we do not mind, but let us be assured that this entry finds its way into the Constitution and also there will be no further difficulty in accepting this principle. Sir, I appeal to the Drafting Committee and to the House to give recognition to this matter, realizing the great importance of this subject.
Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: Sir, I 'rise to support the amendment moved by my honourable friend Dr.
Deshmukh and supported by Shrimati Durgabai. If there is to be protection of childhood and youth against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment, the Government of India must be vested with the necessary powers. The Government of India must provide necessary facilities for birth-control, if we are to protect the future generation from exploitation both moral and material.
Secondly, Sir, I am definitely of the opinion that the profession of prostitution must be regulated on sound scientific lines. Sir, in 1938 I moved a resolution in the Gaya Municipality, when I was a member of that Municipal Board. The resolution was on the lines of amendment No. 252 standing in the name of Dr. P. S. Deshmukh. The resolution which I tabled in the Board was for the regulation and control of prostitution and maintenance of public houses. This resolution is on similar lines. But I am sorry to say that the resolution was disallowed by the President of the Municipal Board on the ground that it did not fall within the purview of the Municipal Board. Sir, I want that the Government of India and the Provincial Governments must take an interest in this matter regulate this profession so that the youth of the country may be protected from moral abandonment. There is another argument that I wish to place before this House. It is the duty of the State to nurse every child from the moment of its birth till he or she reaches the age of maturity. The State must provide education, medical facilities and means, of livlihood to each and every citizen living within the ambit of the Indian Union. The institution of family is undergoing rapid transfomation. I do not know what ultimate form it will assume, But I am quite clear in my own mind that today it is not in a position to protect childhood and youth against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment. It is incumbent therefore on the State to protect the youth of the country from all evil influences. Family, according to Plato, circumscribes the horizon of a man's love and affection. One nursed in the cradles of family life cannot but be an intellectual and moral dwarf. If man is to rise to the height of his being, be must be protected from the pernicious influences of family life. If he is to rise to grand heights and to develop all that is latent in him the institutions of private property and marriage, in conformity with the doctrine-, of Plato's Republic, will have to be wiped out. I support the amendment moved by Dr. P. S. Deshmukh.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, there can be no doubt that the. amendment of my honourable Friend, Dr. Deshmukh, in so far as it seeks to interpolate certain words dealing with the protection of children in entry 6 are out of place because entry 6 no doubt refers to infants and minors, but it has to be borne in mind that taking the entry as a whole, that entry deals with status. In so far as the status of infants and minors are concerned, these categories arc included in entry 6, but "care and protection of destitute and abandoned children and youth" are not germane to their status.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: That was exactly why I had wanted to introduce an independent entry. There is an amendment already in my name which seeks to have an additional entry separately.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I was just going to deal with the amendment moved by him. These words could not be interpolated in this entry 6, without seriously damaging the structure of that entry No. 6. Therefore at this stage I certainly cannot accept the proposition of interpolating these words.
Now, Sir, I will deal with the general question of the protection of children. There can be no doubt about it that every Member in the House including myself and the members of the Drafting Committee could ever take any exception to the protection of children being provided for by the State, and there can be no difference of option, but the only question is whether in the list as framed by the Drafting Committee that matter is not already covered. In framing these entries, what we have done is to mention and categorize subjects of legislation and not the objects or purposes of legislation.
Protection of children is a purpose which a legislature is entitled to achieve if in certain circumstances it thinks that it must do so. The question is whether under any of these entries, it would not be possible for the State to achieve that purpose, namely, the protection of children.
It seems to me that any one of these entries which are included in List I I could be employed by the State for the purpose of framing laws to protect children. For instance, under entry 2 of List II, administration of justice, it would be open for the State to establish juvenile courts for children.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: That is not what I meant. I never referred to juvenile Courts.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: For instance, take prisons and formatory and Borstal institutions, they may be emplowered to establish special kinds of prisons where there would be, not the principle of punishment, but the principle of reformation. 'rake the case of education.
Shrimati G. Durgabai.: May I submit, Sir, the case of delinquent children stands absolutely on different tooting and from destitute and abandoned children ?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: As I was saying entry 18, which deals with education in List II, could be used by the State for the purpose of establishing special kinds of schools for children including even abandoned ,children. Under entry 42, dealing with the incorporation of societies and so on, it would be open to the State to register societies for the purpose of looking ,after children or they may themselves start some kind of corporation to do this.
Therefore, if my friends contend that the statement, which I am making in all sincerity, that there is every kind of provision which the State may make for the purpose of protecting children under the entries which are include in List II, I think there is no purpose in having a separate entry dealing with the protection of children. As I stated, protection of children cannot be a subject of legislation; it can be the object, purpose of legislation.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: You have made provision for the protection of wild birds, even
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I can quite see both of my Friends are very persistent in this matter. I would therefore request them to withdraw their amendment on the assurance that the Drafting Committee in the revising stage will go into the matter and if any such entry can be usefully put in any of the Lists, they will consider that matter and bring a proposal before the. House. At this stage, I find it rather difficult to accept it because I have not had sufficient time to devote myself to a full consideration of the subject which is necessary before such an entry is introduced.
Mr. Vice-President: Does Dr. Deshmukh wish to. press his amendment?
Dr. P. S. Dashmukh : I would like to request Dr. Ambedkar at least to say that by the time my next amendment for in independent entry is reached, he will be able to say something more favourable than be has been able to say now.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I will consider the whole matter.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: I do not press this amendment here in view of the fact that I am moving the Other amendment.The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.
Mr. Vice-President:
The question is"
That entry No. 6 stand part of List II."
The motion was adopted.
Entry 6 was added to the Concurrent List
Entries 7 to 14
Entry 7 was added to the Concurrent List.
Entry 8 was added to the Concurrent List.
Entry 9 was added to the Concurrent List.
Entry 10 was added to the Concurrent List.
Entry 11 was added4 to the Concurrent List.
Entry 12 was added to the Concurrent List.
Entry 13 was added to the Concurrent List.
Entry
14 was added to the Concurrent List.
Entry 15
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move:
"That for entry 15 of List III, the following entry be substituted
'15. Actionable wrongs-"
The words which I seek to omit are really unnecessary.
Mr. Vice-President: The question is:
"That for entry 15 of List II, the following entry be substituted '
15. Actionable wrong$'.,,
The amendment was- adopted.
Mr. Vice-President: The question is:
"That Entry No. 15, as amended, stand part of List III."
The motion was adopted.
Entry 15, as amended, was added to the Concurrent List.
Entry 16
Entry No. 16 was added to the Concurrent List.
Entry 17
Shri R. V. Dhulekar (United Provinces: General) : Sir, I want to speak on the entry-entry 17. Entry 17 deals with legal, medical and other professions. With your permission, Sir, I shall try to make some observations on the medical subject alone leaving the other portion of the entry to other gentlemen to deal with.First of all, I wish to submit that the word "medical" that is being used in India for some time past has been laying too much stress on the medicinal side, of the health problem of this country. The word 'medical is a misnomer. It simply means medication and therefore we have come to a position when we feel that the administration of the medical department could only be seen and looked at from the point of view of what medicines are useful in the country. I would submit, Sir, that having studied the medical question from different points of view, I have come to the conclusion that it is the duty of the State to see that every individual, every. human being who possesses of body, must know something about the preservation, protection and prolongation of life. The word "medical" is a wrong word. I would submit that the word in India was Ayurveda, science of life.
Looked from that point of view, I feel, that this subject has not been given the importance which it deserves during the British regime and today also. I feel that the Government of India is not doing any thing towards imparting the knowledge of the science of life. The science of life, Ayurveda, is a basic science in the country and it has been taught for a long number of years, thousands of years. But the foreigners came and foreign education came and Ayurveda has been relegated to the background. It has been made out from Platforms and platforms by Health Ministers and other people that Ayurveda that was taught in India in ancient times and which is existing in India today and' ministering to the needs of 85 per cent. of the people of this country' is not a science at all. I would say that this word "medical" is a word which should be eschewed from our vocabulary.
Lately some attempts are made to join the word 'health' with medical department. There are Health Departments in the provinces and there is Health Department in the Centre also. As this is a Concurrent List, I would say, that sufficient attention should be paid to the medical or I would say, the life problem of the country. I am not one of those who fix all responsibility for preservation of health of individuals on the State. I do not feel that, just like the Bhore Committee report, all emphasis should be laid only on the State. If we take into consideration the Bhore Committee report we find, crores on rupees, even if they are spent annually, will not solve the problem of the health of India. So I feel that the words as they are put-"`profession of medical" etc. would not serve the purpose. The science of life cannot be a profession. I wish to draw the attention of the Assembly to the important fact that unless and until we take to the principle that every human being knows something about his life, something about his body and health 'and hygiene we cannot solve the problem.
Therefore, I say that where you put legal, medical and other professions I would say that you will lay more emphasis on the medical education that is to be imported to a human being than on the profession itself. What I am driving at is, if you want to control the medical profession, then it does not mean that registration of medical profession is the only thing you should do; Medical profession has become a profession of loot. It is not a profession of helping humanity; and therefore where you can call the medical profession, I would advise the Assembly to bear in mind, when the time comes, these observations of mine that the medical profession will be controlled not from the point of view of only allowing the people to fleece others but from the point of view of helping humanity.
Mr. Vice- President: The question is:
"That entry 17 stand part of List III."
The motion was adopted.
Entry 17 was added to the Concurrent ListNew Entry 17-A
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move:
"That after entry 17 of List III the following entry be inserted:-
"17-A, Vocational and technical training of labour'."
Mr. Vice-President: Amendment 249 is not moved. The question is:
"That after entry 17 of List III the following entry be inserted:-
'17-A. Vocational and technical training of labour'."
The motion was adopted.
Entry 17A was added to the Concurrent List.
Entry 18
Entry 18 was added to the Concurrent List.
Entry 19
Entry 19 was added to the Concurrent List.
Entry 20
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir,, I move
"That for entry 20, the following entry be substituted:
'20. Drugs and poisons. subject to the provisions in entry 62 of List I with respect to opium'..,
(Mr. Kamath did not move his amendment.)
Mr. Vice-President: The question is:
"That for entry 20, the following entry be substituted:-
'20. Drugs and poisons, subject to the provisions in entry 62 of List I with respect to opium'...
The amendment was adopted.
Entry 20, as amended, was added to the Concurrent List.
Entry 21
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move:
"That for entry 21 of List III, the following entry be substituted:-
'21. Mechanically propelled vehicles including the principles on which taxes on such vehicles are to be levied'."
Mr. Vice-President: 'The question is:
"That for entry 21 of List III, the following entry be substituted:
'21. Mechanically propelled vehicles including the Principles on which taxes on such vehicles are to be levied'."
The amendment was adopted.
Entry 21, as amended, was added to the Concurrent List Entries 22 to 25
Entry 22 was added to the Concurrent List. Entry 23 was added to the Concurrent List. Entry 24 was added to the Concurrent List Entry 25 was added to the Concurrent List. New Entry 25-A
The Honourable Dr. B. R.Ambedkar : Sir, I move
"That after entry 25 of List III, the following new entry be inserted:25-A. Vital statistics including registration of births and deaths,."
Mr.Vice-President : The question is:
"That after entry 25 of List III, the following new entry be inserted:
"25-A. Vital statistics including registration of births and deaths"
The motion was adopted.
Entry 25A was added to the Concurrent List.
Entry 26
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedker: Sir, I beg to move:
"That for entry 26 of List III the following entry be substituted:-
'26. Welfare of labour including conditions of work, provident funds, employers liability, workmen's compensation. invalidity and old axe pensions and maternity benefits'."
Mr. Vice-President: I now place amendment No. 132 before the House The question is:
"That for entry 26 of List III the following entry be substituted:
'26. Welfare of labour including conditions of work, provident funds, employers,liability, workmen's compensation, invalidity and old age pensions and maternity benefits'."
The amendment was adopted.
Entry 26, as amended, was added to the Concurrent List.
New Entry 26-A
Mr. Vice-President: Now Dr. Deshmukh may move his new item 26-A.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: Sir, I move:
"That in amendment No. 133 of List I (Sixth Week), after the proposed new entry 26-A of List III, the following new entry be added:-
"26-B. Welfare of peasants, farmers and agriculturists of all sorts'."
Mr.Vice-President: I am sorry. I should have first rested Dr.
Ambedkar to move his amendment regarding entry 26.-
Aamendment No. 133. After that you may move your new entry.
The Honourable Dr. B. R.Ambedkar: Sir, I move:
"That.after entry 26, of List III, the following entry be inserted:-
'26-A Social insurance and social security."
Mr. Vice-President: I do not think there is any amendment to this. I put it to the House. The question is :
"That after entry 26 of List III, the following entry be inserted:-
26-A. Social insurance and social security'."
The motion was adopted.
Entry 26A was added to the Concurrent List.
New Entry 26-B
Mr. Vice-President: Now Dr. Deshmukh may move his amendment No. 250.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: Sir, I move:
"That in amendment No. 133 of List I (Sixth Week), after the proposed new entry 26A of List III, the following new entry be added-
'26-B. Welfare of peasants, farmers and agriculturists of all sorts."
Sir, it is really unfortunate that it should be necessary to remind the House regarding the welfare of this section of our people and to bring forward an amendment to this effect. India is known to be and is still proclaimed to be the land of agriculturists, where the agriculturists predominate, not only by numbers, but also by the importance of the interest they serve. It is this class of persons who are the real and legitimate masters of India; and yet their welfare is the concern of nobody. There can be only two explanations for this. Either that it is a colossal responsibility, which no one is capable of looking after or, that it is so unimportant that there is no necessity for any specific provision, no need of any special effort nor any specific entry in our Constitution required.
Sir, I am really surprised and cannot suppress my sense of utter dissatisfaction of the way in which the Drafting Committee seems to have made up its mind on many matters of very vital importance and the- attitude with which it looks at all of them. I think they are suffering from an obsession, and from a certain false conviction, as if these are the very people who are going to be perpetually in power, that there. is going to be no other side to the question, and that these entries are not capable of being interpreted in more than one way. God forbid, but they may themselves have to rue the day and repent the power they are giving to the President and progressively reducing the sovereignty of Parliament every day. It may be that they do not continue in power for long, and when other people come and sit on judgment and exercise those very powers, these may be the very people probably, who will have to resort to black flag processions and protests and walk-outs in Parliament. I would not be surprised if this happens. At the present moment their attitude is so obstinate. I am sorry it-is not one of compromise, not one of adjustment, but one of resisting each and every new suggestion and in this case the inclusion of any new entry. Even the suggestion to include an entry for the protection of children was so strongly resisted; one regrets to have to say, by having recourse to such farfetched arguments. Dr. Ambedkar flung the same arguments in my face which I had myself put forward before and which he then refused to accept. The interpretation of entry 6 which he has given now is exactly the same as I had advanced yesterday. Then he said infants and minors covered every thing. Now he says children cannot appropriately even be mentioned along with infants. That is very curious very disappointing, but I hope that so far as this amendment of mine is concerned.......
Mr. Vice-President: We are not dealing with entry 6, but with entry 26.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: I have come back to entry 26, Sir. I hope that so far as this amendment is concerned, the Honourable Doctor will take up a different attitude.
It is very necessary to have this amendment, because it is a matter of concrete fact that the welfare of peasants and farmers seems to be the concern of none. But look at the case of labour. From the time we have had special labour representation, from the time we have had labour representatives and labour Ministers, the welfare of the labourers has been an integral part of the labour portfolio and of our administration. Labourers form only a small number compared to agriculturists, but still we are solicitous that there should be hospitals for them, air-conditioned factories for them, provision for their medical relief, sanitation and all these things. And this huge mass of humanity, the agriculturists, on whose sweat all of us prosper live and maintain ourselves, for these persons, not a single welfare officer has yet been appointed. I am sorry to say-and I am glad also, in a way-that I was the first, as a member of the Standing Committee for Agriculture at the Centre to press that the Ministry of Agriculture at the Centre also should include in it the welfare of agriculturists. That suggestion I learnt went to the Law Ministry-I do not know what the wonderful Law Ministry has to do with it-and they appear to have given an interpretation that it cannot form part of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Centre, because the subject 'agriculture' was a provincial subject.
These are the difficulties and as the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar knows them fully, I hope he will rather err on the side of having more entries than having less, I hope even now he will consider the matter with a sympathetic heart and be prepared to accept this amendment-although I have very little hope as I have seen him advance most wonderful arguments such as when he said that the welfare of children can be included in the Police list-the strangest and the most surprising argument that could be used. But he is in power and he has got the authority and the backing of the whole House and whatever be says is law. Even so, I would request him to concede a little and err on the side of having even a superfluous entry, since so many Members of the House feel so strongly about it, and not turn down the suggestion.
I hope he will look at this entry from that point of view. I have found that it is not included anywhere. Nowhere has it been considered or regarded as the duty of the agriculture Minister to look specifically to the welfare of the peasants and farmers. And nobody can gainsay the fact that the education of the labourers is better, their sanitation is better, that their welfare is better looked after than those of the innumerable peasants and farmers in our villages That is simply because so much has been (lone for the former, but hardly anything has been done for the latter. It might be said that the whole Government after all, is directing its attention to them. But if you think that for a few million labourers, special welfare officers are necessary, why not have at least tell you few more of such officers for the farmers and peasants who will at least tell you from time to time what is necessary ? The situation is tragic and I feel nothing will be lost by making a provision here by which the State and the Legislature will be made responsible for the welfare of the peasants and agriculturists in a special way. I am certain that if we had some officers of this nature. the condition of the agriculturists would not have remained what it is. We have appointed welfare officers even for Scheduled Castes. Why did we do it ? Because we know that they suffer from special and very serious handicaps.
Shri S. Nagappa (Madras: General): Sir, my honourable Friend says, "We have, appointed labour officers even for Scheduled Castes." Only Scheduled Castes require those officers. Why should he use that word "even" ? I take objection to that word : he should withdraw it.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: These special officers are only for special classes of people.
Shri S. Nagappa: They, the Scheduled Castes, are the people who require them.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: If they arc appointed only for the Scheduled Castes, these officers have certainly contributed to the welfare and progress of the Scheduled Castes. It' they could help the Scheduled Castes ....
Mr. Vice-President: The honourable Member has already exceeded his time.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: All right, Sir. If the Scheduled Castes could be helped and their uplift secured, may be even in the smallest of measures by the appointment of these officers, why not the same be done so far as the peasants, the farmers and agriculturists are concerned? We know they too are handicapped for want of education, for want of sanitation and have innumerable other difficulties to face. If it was possible for these Ministries to take account of their condition and look after the welfare of the peasants, much more progress than what we find today would have been achieved.
Sir, I do not wish to take more time, but that does not mean that I have not other arguments by which to convince the somewhat unconvinceable Dr. Ambedkar. But I hope that so far as this entry is concerned, he will be sympathetic and accept my amendment because as a matter (if fact this is a thing which is not regarded as the legitimate duty by any of the Ministers for Agriculture and I have heard at least the Honourable Minister for Agriculture at the centre say that the provisions of the Government of India Act come in their way. That lack of provisions could have reference to nothing else except this Schedule. From that point of view, Sir, I think the entry is absolutely necessary.
Shri R. K. Sidhva (C. P. & Berar-General) : Sir, I do not think the idea here is to redress the grievances of labour or of agriculture. I only want to know from Dr. Ambedkar whether-in entry 26, 'Welfare of labour'- whether "labour" includes agriculturists and peasants or only industrial labours. As I have understood the term, 'labour' means industrial labour and not agricultural. If that is so, I wholeheartedly support Dr. Deshmukh's amendment.
Sir, if you enact legislation for industrial labour, you cannot exclude agricultural labour. Therefore, peasants and farmers must be included either in entry 26 or in a separate entry as Dr. Deshmukh has suggested. The peasants are the backbone of the country. We cannot look after the welfare of only industrial labour which is vocal and whose grievances, could be heard and redressed by Government; we cannot certainly ignore the peasants who are not local and who are not well organised. I personally feel that this labour legislative should be in List I. I know that being in the Concurrent List, each Province will have its own legislation. At present Bombay has enacted legislation which is in conflict with that of U.P., and U.P.'s legislation is in conflict with that of Bengal. If there had been a central labour Organisation, I am quite confident that the condition of labourers would have been different.
I, therefore, even go to the length of saying that labour legislation of all classes should be entered in List I : but if that is not possible, I certainly feel, Sir, that you cannot under any circumstances ignore that section of labour known as agricultural labour, the peasants, the farmers etc. You are particularly mentioning industrial labour and giving it a place in the Constitution. How will it be understood ? It will be understood that the House ignoredthe peasants when they were giving a preference to industrial labour. Because labour can make tremendous noise and approach the Ministers and Government and get their grievances redressed, this has been done. It is most unfair. I therefore strongly support the amendment moved by Dr. Deshmukh, unless my friend Dr. Ambedkar is prepared to satisfy us that 'labour' includes agricultural labour also. If he by any means wants to convince the House that it does include agricultural labour, I am prepared to accept his wording, and oppose Dr. Deshmukh's, amendment.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Mr. Vice-President, I beg to support the amendment moved by Dr. Deshmukh. The cause, of the peasants, farmers and agriculturists is going by default. So far as industrial labour is concerned, that is well cared for. In fact, they are the pampared children of the Government. But so far as agricultural labour are concerned and the peasants, farmers and agriculturists, they are being sacrificed at every step. There are the capitalists at the top, there is the labour at the bottom and the middle classes between the two are going to be squeezed out of existence. This entry, if accepted, will at least make it incumbent on the part of the Government to look into their case, to frame adequate legislation and to chalk out an administrative programme. I submit that this subject is highly important and an entry to this effect will cause no harm-it will draw attention of Government and of the Legislature to the need for focussing Government and public attention on this subject. So, from this point of view, this entry should be accepted.
Ranbir Singh: (East Punjab: General): *[Mr. Vice-President, I support the amendment moved by Dr. Deshmukh. If you compare the present conditions of workers with those of the agriculturists you will find a glaring difference between the two. We are going to include in the Draft Constitution an exclusive clause relating to Labour, which lays down that if there be even twenty-five children having the same language, the State shall provide them with schooling facilities. But in contrast to this, no school or hospital facilities are provided for the children of millions of agriculturists. I have all sympathy for such brethren as have migrated from West Punjab or other regions. School and hospital amenities should be provided for them and their children. I am second to none here in supporting their cause. But it would be a pity if no facilities with regards to schools and hospitals are provided for the children of agriculturists. 'It is not a question of merely a single entry; rather, I say it is a question of life and death for the peasants. If this item is included in the list it will offer them some hope and consolation. Millions and millions of peasants of India are looking today to you. I mean, to the Members of this House with the expectation that the new Constitution would certainly contain some specific provision for their welfare and that when it comes into force they will be benefited. If you do not include in the Constitution any specific provision for their, welfare, it will give them a very cruel disappointment, the extent of which, perhaps, you cannot imagine.
I, therefore, without taking any more time of the House, lend my wholehearted support to the amendment and hope that Members of the House who have to approach the electorates for the, coming election will keep their future in view].
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, may I explain ? There stems to be a certain amount of confusion and misunderstanding about the entries. in the List. With regard to my Friend Dr. Deshmukh's amendment, he wants welfare of peasants, farmers and agriculturists of all sorts. Well, I would like to have some kind of a clear conception of what these omnibus words, "agri-
*[] Translation of Hindustani speeches.
Culturists of all sorts" mean. Does he want that the State, should also undertake the welfare of zamindars who pay Rs. 5 lakhs as land revenue ?
Shri R. K. Sidhva: You can drop those words.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: It will also include malguzars. Before I accept any entry, I must have in my mind a clear and consistent idea as to what the words mean. The word "agriculturists" has no precise meaning. It may mean atrack-renter. It may mean a person who is actually a cultivator. It may mean a person who has got two acres. It may also mean a person who has five thousand acres, or five lakhs acres.
Dr. P. S., Deshmukh: I am prepared to omit that particular expression.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : That is one difficulty I find.
The second point is my Friend Dr. Deshmukh does not seem to pay much attention to the different entries and what they mean. So far as agriculture is concerned, we have got two specific entries in List II-No. 21 which is Agriculture and No. 24 which is Land. If he were to refer to these two entries he win find.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: What fallacious arguments are being advanced I For that matter, Labour welfare is a specific entry and yet you wanted separate provision for their vocational training ? Do not advance fallacious arguments.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: It is not my business to answer questions relating to the faults of administrations. I am only explaining what the entries mean. As I said, we have already got two entries in List II. Entry 21 is there for Agriculture "including agricultural education and research, protection against pests and prevention of plant diseases".
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: Then why do you want "welfare of labour" ?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Why can't you have some patience? I know my job. Do you mean to say I do not know my job ? I certainly know my job.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: I know your attitude also. Do not try to fool everybody
The Honourable Dr. B. R.Ambedkar : There is already an entry which will empower any State to do any kind of welfare work not merely with regard to agriculture but with regard to agriculturists as well. In addition to that we, have entry 24 where it is provided that laws may be made with regard to "rights in or over land, land tenures including the relation of land-lord and tenant". All the economic interests of the peasants can be dealt with under this entry. Therefore, so far as entries are concerned there is nothing that is wanting to enable the Provincial Governments to act in the matter of welfare of agricultural classes.
Then I come to the question raised by my Friend Mr. Sidhva which, I think, is a very legitimate question. Hill question was what was the connotation of the word 'labour' and he asked me a very definite question whether 'labour' meant both industrial as well as agricultural labour. I think that was his question. My answer is emphatically that it includes both kinds of labour. The entry is not intended to limit itself to industrial labour. Any kind of welfare work relating to labour, whether the labour is industrial labour or agricultural labour, will be open to be undertaken either by the Centre or by the Province under entry 26.
Similarly, conditions of work, provident funds, employers' liability workmen's compensation, health insurance, including invalidity pensions.--all thesematters.-would be open to all sorts of labour, whether it is industrial labour or agricultural labour. Therefore, so far as this entry, No. 26, is concerned, it is m no sense limited to industrial labour and therefore the kind of amendment which has been proposed by my Friend Dr. Deshmukh is absolutely unnecessary, besides its being-what I might call-vague and indefinite, to which no legal connotation can be given.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: Is there no class of persons except agricultural labour in this country ? Has Dr. Ambedkar ever heard of a class called "farmers" and "peasants" ?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Their welfare will be attended to under entries 21 and 24 of the Provincial List, as I have already explained.
Mr. Vice-President: I now place amendment No. 250 (Dr. Deshmukh's amendment) before the House.
The question is:
"That in amendment No. 133 of List I (Sixth Week), after the proposed new entry 26A of List III, the following new entry be added:-
'26-B. Welfare of peasants, farmers and agriculturists of all sorts'."
The motion was negatived.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: Sir, I demand a division.
Mr. Vice-President: I shall ask Members to hold tip their hands.
The Assembly divided by show of hands.
Ayes : 26
Noes : 42
The amendment was negatived.
Entry 27
Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move:
"That for entry 27 of List III, the following entry be substituted:-
'27. Employment and unemployment."'
Mr. President: The question is:
"That for entry 27 of List III, the. following entry be substituted:-
'27. Employment and unemployment."'
The amendment was adopted.
Entry 27, as amended, was added to the Concurrent List.
Entry 28
Mr. Vice-President: There are no amendments to entry 28.
Shri S. Nagapppa: Before it is put to vote I want to say a few words. Mr. Vice-President : The honourable Member will finish in three minutes.
Shri S. Nagapppa: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, the term "trade union" denotes, as far as its currency goes, only those as regards industrial labour. The Honourable Dr. Ambedkar was kind enough to say that the word "labour" includes agricultural labour also. When this article was passed in this Constitution I gave an amendment that "labour" should mean also agricultural labour, He was kind enough to accept that and to say definitely that it would mean agricultural and other classes of workers.,
Again, with regard to "labour disputes" there may be a dispute among the labourers themselves. My friends who have been good enough to vote foragricultural labour now have misunderstood the position they do not draw a line or difference between agriculturist and agricultural labour. The agriculturist also does work hard. But for whom does he work? For himself. On the other hand agricultural labour labours for the sake of others. The agricultural labourer is a wage-earner, whereas the agriculturist labours for himself and acquires the property for himself. There is a difference between agriculturist and agricultural labourer which should be understood. Now, if my friends are reasonable and if they come forward and press this august Body to include a clause to defend that agricultural labour and to give it all sorts of privileges, I am one with them. Otherwise I cannot understand why the agriculturist should be given 'this sort of facility. After all agriculture, or land has been given by nature to all the children of the soil. But by their greediness and avocation somehow or other the agriculturists have grabbed it. Now they want still more facilities to be given to them. It is unjust and going out of the way to agree to it. I do not think the agriculturists require any such protection in this country. I do not think any agriculturist has a right over the land. " He has only the right to cultivate the land and pay land-revenue to the State.
Mr. Vice-President: I am afraid the honourable Member has exceeded the time-limit.
Shri P. S. Nagappa: This is an important thing. About 70 per cent of the population of this country are agricultural labourers.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: It has nothing to do with agricultural labour.
Shri S. Nagappa: It has everything to do with agricultural labour. H you? organise them into a union they will get the right to claim Government support and the Government will be bound to give it So far as the agricultural labourer is concerned, it is not easy to organise it. Almost all agricultural labourers are illiterate and ignorant people. I think it is the duty of the future Government to come forward and do what is necessary for these people. I hope the Government in future will be composed of these very people under the system of adult suffrage. They will be the right royal owners and wield power hereafter. But I think it will be the duty of every sane, just and benign Government to see that these people are given their just rights.
Mr. Vice-President: I will now put the question.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I want to say a word. The words "trade union" with regard to welfare of labour have a very wide connotation and may include trade unions not only of industrial organisations but may also include trade unions of agricultural labour. That being so, I am rather doubtful whether by introducing the word 'industrial' here, we are not trying to limit the scope and meaning of the term 'trade union'. But I am not moving any amendment. I would like to reserve an opportunity to the Drafting Committee to examine the term and to consider this. I want the entry to stand as it is now. I have expressed my doubt that in view of the wide connotation of 'trade union', a part of the entry may require amendment.
Mr. Vice-President: Subject to what Dr. Ambedkar says, I put entry 28 to vote. The question is:
"That entry 28 stand part of List III.
The motion was adopted.
Entry 28 was added to the Concurrent List.