Constituent Assembly Of India - Volume VII
Dated: December 02, 1948
The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at Half Past Nine of the Clock, Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee), in the Chair.
Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee): We shall resume discussion of Article 13.
I should like to know the views of the House as to the way we should deal with the following amendments--we postponed consideration of these amendments yesterday:
Amendments No. 442, No. 499, second part of No. 443,No. 468 and No. 501.
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar (Madras: General): May I suggest that in as much as these relate to the free choice of vote and some other matters which are not already prescribed in article 13, these may stand over and be allowed to be moved as a separate clause later on in the Fundamental Rights, and that we need not delay the passing of article 13, amendments with respect to which have already been moved, and the discussion may start?
Mr. Vice-President: Is that the view of the House?
Honourable Members: Yes, yes.
Mr. Vice-President: Then we shall proceed with the general discussion of the article. A large number of honourable Members desire to speak on this article. Therefore, with the permission of the House, I would like to limit the duration of the speeches to ten minutes each ordinarily. I shall extend the time wherever I consider necessary. Have I the permission of the House to fix this time-limit?
Honourable Members: Yes.
Shri H. V. Kamath (C. P. and Berar: General): On a point of order, Sir, Two amendments have been held over. Unless they are moved, how can general discussion on the article as a whole go on?
Mr. Vice-President: What are those amendments please?
Shri H. V. Kamath: No. 499 and No. 442.
Mr. Vice-President: They will form part of a new clause.
Sardar Bhopinder Singh Man (East Punjab: Sikh): *[Mr. Vice-President, I regard freedom of speech and expression as the very life of civil liberty, and I regard it as fundamental. For the public in general, and for the minorities in particular, I attach great importance to association and to free speech. It is through them that we can make our voice felt by the Government, and can stop the injustice that might be done to us. For attaining these rights the country had to make so many struggles, and after a grim battle succeeded in getting these rights recognised. But now, when the time for their enforcement has come, the Government feels hesitant; what was deemed as undersirable then is now being paraded as desirable. What is being given by one hand is being taken away by the other. Every clause is being hemmed in by so many provisos.
To apply the existing law in spite of change conditions really amounts to trifling with the freedom of speech and expression. From the very beginning we have stood against the existing laws, but now you are imposing them on us. You want to continue the old order so that there should be no opportunity of a trial, of putting up defence and of an appeal. If a meeting is held, then for breaking it up lathis may be used, and people may be put into jail without trial; their organisations may be banned and declared illegal. We do not like this shape of things. If you want to perpetuate all that, then I would like to say that by imposing all these restrictions you are doing a great injustice. There are a few rights to which I attach very great importance. You have included them in the articles relating to directive principles of State policy, and so we cannot go to a Court of law for their enforcement. You are diluting these rights with the result that nothing solid remains.
Mr. Vice-President, I want that these rights should not be restricted so much, and all opposition that is peaceful and not seditious should get full opportunity, because opposition is a vital part of every democratic Government. To my mind, suppression of lawful and peaceful opposition means heading towards fascism.]*
Seth Govind Das (C. P. and Berar: General): *[Mr. Vice-President, article 13 is the most important of all the articles concerning Fundamental Rights. The rights that have been granted to us by these articles are all very important. Yesterday Shri Damodar Swarup Seth and Shri K. T. Shah moved their amendments in this House. The purport of the amendments is that the rights which have been given to us with one hand are being taken away by the other hand. This may be true to some extent but if we consider the present national and international situation as also the fact that we have achieved freedom only recently and our government is in its infancy, we shall have to admit that it was necessary for the government to retain the rights it has done after granting these fundamental rights. We should see what is happening in our neighbouring country, Burma. We should also keep in view what is happening in another great country of Asia--I mean war-torn China. In view of what is happening in our neighbouring countries and of the situation in our own country, we should consider how necessary it is that the Government should continue to have these powers.
I would have myself preferred that these rights were granted to our people without the restrictions that have been imposed. But the conditions in our country do not permit this being done. I deem it necessary to submit my views in respect to some of the rights. I find that the first sub-clause refers to freedom of speech and expression. The restriction imposed later on in respect of the extent of this right, contains the word 'sedition'. An amendment has been moved here in regard to that. It is a matter of great pleasure that it seeks the deletion of the word 'sedition'. I would like to recall to the mind of honourable Members of the first occasion when section 124 A was included in the Indian Penal Code. I believe they remember that this section was specially framed for securing the conviction of Lokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak. Since then, many of us have been convicted under this section. In this connection many things that happened to me come to my mind. I belong to a family which was renowned in the Central Provinces for its loyalty. We had a tradition of being granted titles. My grandfather held the title of Raja and my uncle that of Diwan Bahadur and my father too that of Diwan Bahadur. I am very glad that titles will no more be granted in this country. In spite of belonging to such a family I was prosecuted under section 124 A and that also for an interesting thing. My great grandfather had been awarded a gold waist-band inlaid with diamonds. The British Government awarded it to him for helping it in 1857 and the words "In recognition of his services during the Mutiny in 1857" were engraved on it. In the course of my speech during the Satyagraha movement of 1930, I said that my great-grandfather got this waist-band for helping the alien government and that he had committed a sin by doing so and that I wanted to have engraved on it that the sin committed by my great-grandfather in helping to keep such a government in existence had been expiated by the great-grandson by seeking to uproot it. For this I was prosecuted under section 124 A and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. I mean to say that there must be many Members of this House who must have been sentenced under this article to undergo long periods of imprisonment. It is a matter of pleasure that we will now have freedom of speech and expression under this sub-clause and the word 'sedition' is also going to disappear.
The next matter to which I would like to draw your attention is sub-clause (b) of this article. The expression "to assemble peacefully without arms", occurs in it. I want to draw your attention to the words "without arms" in particular. I agree that we should have the right of assembling in this way without arms only. We had accepted the creed of non-violence and through it we have achieved freedom. It is true that in the present world situation we are compelled to maintain armies. But I hold that the welfare of humanity can be secured by means of non-violence alone. We should have a right of assembling but assembling without arms.
I would also like to draw your attention to the two following sub-clauses and these are sub-clauses (f) and (g) which run as follows:
Speaking for myself I may say that just as I hold that humanity cannot achieve its welfare except through non-violence so also I do believe that there cannot be stable peace, unless and until private property is abolished. I am not a socialist or a communist but at the same time I hold that what the big capitalists, traders, zamindars, talluqdars have to do to protect their property does not allow of their enjoying true happiness. It is not true to say that people lacking wealth alone are unhappy. They are no doubt unhappy but in the present economy the moneyed are more unhappy than the money less, and this band of gold is today crushing the rich man's neck. This wealth has been in their possession for long and that is why they are anxious to retain it. It is not for pleasure that they want to keep it. If they are forcibly deprived of their wealth, socialism or communism would not be established. The example of Russia bears testimony to it. Individual property was expropriated there by force and the result has been that it could not be destroyed. On the other hand it is increasing. But if we make an effort to change values in this country and the world and bring about such a psychological atmosphere as makes people eager to rid themselves of the burden of property, we would have reached the desired goal and there would then be the possibility of the establishment of a true socialistic state. There has been change in values in the world from time to time. It is a historical fact that at one time man devoured man. At that time the man who had the capacity of devouring the greatest number of men, must have been worshipped by the society, because he must have been recognised as the bravest among them. Times changed to usher in the epoch of slave-trade. Respectability was judged by the number of slaves one had. Those conditions changed. Today the capitalists are characterised by our society as plunderers and dacoits. They no doubt make such remarks about capitalists, but I may be excused for saying that the majority of the socialists are such that if they were to get hold of this property, they would forsake socialism. The necessity is for a change in outlook. If there is a change in values by the propagation of these ideas in society and if the capitalists are looked down upon as thieves and pilferers by everyone they would not like to keep their wealth. Such a change of mind and heart can be brought about only through non-violence. I hope that in time to come the articles concerning property will not find a place in the Constitution.
I heartily support the whole of the article 13 on the Fundamental Rights.]*
Shri Jaipal Singh (Bihar: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir. So far as I am concerned, this particular article in no way frightens me, although the various fundamental rights have been hedged in by so many exceptions. To me it is obvious that whatever we put into the Constitution, its value, its use to us will depend upon the way we work all these things. But there are one or two things on which I would like Dr. Ambedkar to enlighten me. The first point on which I would like his clarification is in regard to the amendment which he has moved, amendment No. 491, where in he seeks to substitute the word "aboriginal" by the word "scheduled". Sir, I am always at a disadvantage whenever anything affecting aboriginals has to be discussed at this stage for the obvious reason that the two reports of the Tribal sub-committees have not been fully discussed on the floor of this House, with the result that the House has not been able to obtain its collective view point or arrive at a collective decision as has been the case with all the other articles, that is to say, articles which affect the non-tribals of our country.
Take the question of this word 'tribal'. As far as I know neither of the sub-committees had gone into the work of scheduling. I know it for a fact that the sub-committee of which I was a member did nothing of the sort and, in fact, bodily the Drafting Committee has just put into the Draft Constitution whatever obtained in the Government of India Act. Now, look at the list.
My second point that I want to have clarified is whether the advisory councils or the regional councils, which are envisaged in the recommendations of the two sub-committees, will operate outside the so-called scheduled areas. If they do not, then I want to know from Dr. Ambedkar what is going to happen to the Adibasis, who are in millions, outside those scheduled areas. As far as I can understand the language of the Constitution, the regional councils and the advisory councils are to advise the Governor to participate as it were in the legislation of the State only in regard to the scheduled areas. Well, once it is accepted that the regional councils and the advisory councils may operate also outside the scheduled areas then my point is met.
Take the case of West Bengal. In West Bengal, according to what is proposed, there shall be no scheduled areas; in West Bengal there are 16 lakhs of Adibasis. I want to know what is going to happen to them. There is no regional council; there will be no advisory council there. Who is going to advise the Governor in regard to their welfare, in regard to whatever should be done or should not be done, what act may operate for them or against them? I think that is a point that has to be clarified.
Sir, the Tribes inventory that is in this Draft Constitution is most unsatisfactory. I will exemplify one or two cases. Sir, you yourself come from West Bengal. Bengal has been carved into three provinces, Bengal united, now West Bengal, Bihar and then Orissa. The British had their own arguments for their territorial boundaries. At the present moment, you know it only too well that none of these three provinces seems to be satisfied with the boundary alignment. West Bengal wants something of Bihar; Bihar also wants something of West Bengal. Orissa also is clamouring for some more territory from Bihar. That is the present political situation, but, how does it affect the Adibasis? Now the Tribal Sub-Committee in a way has been outmoded to this extent that lakhs and lakhs of States people have been integrated into provinces. Take the question of Orissa. When the Tribal Sub-Committee went to Orissa it had to deal only with those areas that were excluded or partially excluded. The present position is that about 24 States have been integrated into Orissa and several others into the Central Provinces. Most of these States are overwhelmingly populated by Adibasis. What happens in regard to them? Whatever scheduled areas the Sub-Committee has recommended is really insignificant. It does not cover the whole Adibasis population, particularly of the two provinces of the Central Provinces and Orissa.
I would like Dr. Ambedkar, therefore, to tell me quite clearly that whatever provisions, whatever little concessions that he desires this Constitution should have, will apply also to those areas that are not particularly specified within the scheduled areas.
Then I come to article 13 (1) (b), namely, to "assemble peaceably and without arms". I have to point out that this matter of the Arms Act has been very mischievously applied against the Adibasis. Certain political parties have gone to extremes to point out that because Adibasis carry bows and arrows, lathis or axes, which they do daily as a normal part of their life, which they have done for generations and generations, and what they are doing today they have done before, that they are preparing for trouble.
Let me give you the instance of the Oraons. We have in this Assembly only one Oraon member. Now the Oraon group of Adibasis constitutes the fourth largest block of Adibasis in India. Just about now, they have what we call Jatras or Melas. These are annual occasions for their cultural activities. They have a certain ceremony in which the head of the Oraon village will carry the flag and the rest of them carry lathis with them and proceed into the various akhadas or villages. It is a festival for the people; they have done it in a harmless way for generations and generations and, now we have been told last year and the year before last that we should not carry weapons. I do not mind pointing out there are several Members here from Bihar who will never be able to get back to their homes unless they are escorted with people and with arms. In my own part, we live in the jungles and every one, even women, may I point out, carry what might be designated arms, but they are not arms in that sense. Whenever we have to hold meetings, if people come with their own usual things, I want to know whether it is going to be interpreted that we are assembling unpeaceably and carrying arms for an unlawful purpose. These are the only points, Sir, that I want to have clarified.
I will give one more instance. Every seven years, it is the custom in Chota Nagpur to have what they call. Era Sendra, Janishikar. Every seven years, the women dress as men and hunt in the jungles--dressed as men, mind you. That is the occasion when naturally women like to show masculine prowess. They arm themselves like men with bows and arrows, lathis, belas and so forth. Now, Sir, according to this particular article in the Constitution, the Government might interpret that women every seven years were getting together for a dangerous purpose. I urge the House to do nothing that is going to upset the simple folk. They have been among the most peaceful citizens in our country and we should be very very cautious in doing anything which might be misunderstood by them and lead to trouble.
Sir, I have, as I have said, no difficulty in accepting this particular article, but I thought I should seek clarification from Dr. Ambedkar on these two particular points.
Mr. Vice-President: Mr. Hanumanthaiya.
Kazi Syed Karimuddin: (C. P. & Berar: Muslim): I have not caught your eye, Sir.
Mr. Vice-President: Unfortunately, I have only two eyes. They will be turned to your side the next time.
An Honourable Member: Why do you not have a third eye, Sir?
Mr. Vice-President: Why can you not come to the front Bench? I say it is the fault of the House that they unanimously chose an old man as the Vice-President. His eye-sight is not as good as that of younger men. Mr. Hanumanthaiya.
Shri K. Hanumanthaiya (Mysore): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, this article incorporates some of the most cherished rights of us all. For the last sixty and odd years during which the freedom movement was taking shape, we made innumerable speeches and sacrifices in order to win the fundamental rights that are incorporated in this article. But, the point of view of many members here as well as the opinion of some people outside is that these fundamental rights have been so much curtailed that their original flavour is lost. Sir, every law, whether it is in the form of a right or a duty, takes shape according to the condition of the society then prevailing. We went through a course of suffering and sacrifice which were imposed upon us by the repressive laws of British imperialism; this naturally made us votaries of unadulterated fundamental rights and that was our hope. But, ultimately when we emerged out of those innumerable difficulties, we are faced, within our own society, with elements who want to take advantage of those rights in order to do violence to men, society and laws. Hence it is that the Drafting Committee as well as the Governments in the various provinces and the Centre, are hard put to safeguard these rights in their pristine purity. No man who believes in violence and who wants to upset the State and society by violent methods should be allowed to have his way under the colour of these rights. It is for that purpose that the Drafting Committee has thought it fit to limit the operation of these fundamental rights.
The question next arises whether this limiting authority should be the legislature or the court. That is a very much debated question. Very many people, very conscientiously too, think that the legislature or the executive should not have anything to do with laying down the limitations for the operation of these fundamental rights, and that it must be entrusted to courts which are free from political influences, which are independent and which can take an impartial view. That is the view taken by a good number of people and thinkers. Sir, I for one, though I appreciate the sincerity with which this argument is advanced, fail to see how it can work in actual practice. Courts can, after all, interpret the law as it is. Law once made may not hold good in its true character for all time to come. Society changes; Governments change; the temper and psychology of the people change from decade to decade if not from year to year. The law must be such as to automatically adjust itself to the changing conditions. Courts cannot, in the very nature of things, do legislative work; they can only interpret. Therefore, in order to see that the law automatically adjusts to the conditions that come into being in times to come, this power of limiting the operation of the fundamental rights is given to the legislature. After all, the legislature does not consist of people who come without the sufferance of the people. The legislature consists of real representatives of the people as laid down in this Constitution. If, at a particular time, the legislature thinks that these rights ought to be regulated in a certain manner and in a particular method, there is nothing wrong in it, nothing despotic about it, nothing derogatory to these fundamental rights. I am indeed glad that this right of regulating the exercise of fundamental rights is given to the legislature instead of to the courts.
Then, Sir, here in article 13, about seven fundamental rights are incorporated. I wholeheartedly feel the Drafting Committee has done well in incorporating the first four freedoms, freedom of speech and expression, freedom to assemble peaceably and form associations, and to move freely throughout the territory of India. The next three clauses, to reside and settle in any part of the country, to acquire, hold and dispose of property, and to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, Sir, in my opinion do not take the character of fundamental rights. They are not really fundamental rights. They are matters incidental to legislation, that can be passed either by the Parliament or the legislatures of the Units. I find these three rights which are incorporated as fundamental rights in this article 13 are not so treated by any other country except, perhaps, Ireland and Switzerland. In America, we do not find these three rights incorporated as fundamental rights. To acquire property, to settle down in a particular town, to practise any trade or profession in any part of the country he likes, are not really fundamental rights. I may be pardoned if I say this that the men who did the work of shaping these constitutional proposals, a majority of them, have come from the uppermost strata of society. After all, they can think of what suits their psychology and their class or their strata of society. It is from that point of view they have framed these three rights. Really speaking, whether these three rights are fundamental or not, we ought to judge from the point of view of the people of the villages and people of the Units. I for one feel that these are rather not rights, but liabilities that are sought to be imposed upon the people of the villages and of the Units. I very much wish that the Drafting Committee and this Assembly could now delete these three rights and relegate them to the discretion of the legislature of the Units but now it is too late and we have to accept them somehow or anyhow. Here arises a conflict in the future that the Units in order to safeguard the rights and interests of the people within their respective areas, may try to circumvent these three rights that are conferred by this Constitution. It will happen. I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind, that here arises a plentiful source of litigation. Yesterday I happened to read Sir Ivory Jennings' opinion about our Fundamental Rights. He says, the rights conferred in this Chapter and especially in this section are so complicated, are worded in such a verbose manner, that it will be a fruitful source of income to constitutional lawyers. There is a good deal of truth in it. The enunciation of the Fundamental Rights and the exceptions added on by provisos are so worded--and they had to be like that because it is impossible to foresee all exigencies, and make provision for them now alone--that there will be litigation on a scale which none of us have ever seen or contemplated. Every man who feels aggrieved can go to any Court of Law and the Supreme Court will be full of cases between individuals and individuals, between individuals and State, between State and State, between the Central Government and State Governments. This litigation--I do not suppose--will be helpful to the interest of the country. Litigation--I need not argue about it--litigation surely ruins both the Parties to it. There is a Kannada proverb the meaning of which is "a successful party in a case is as good as defeated and a defeated party in a case is as good as dead". And whenever there arises litigation in interpreting these clauses, political controversies also arise conferring fundamental rights in this manner--especially the last three clauses--will continuously raise political storms in the shape of litigation in regard to interpretation of these Fundamental Rights.
Kazi Syed Karimuddin: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, there is no denying the fact that this article is the very life of the Draft Constitution. Without this article the Constitution will be a dead letter. It must also be understood that the Rights contemplated under article 13 are admittedly inalienable rights and the point involved is whether these rights can be delegated to the Governments or we are going to lay down principles which cannot be subject matter of legislation or the vagaries of the legislatures. My submission is that these are Fundamental Rights regarding individuals a contemplated under article 13 which cannot be made subject matter of the vagaries of the Legislatures. Clauses (2) to (6) of this article rob the people of the only guarantee which will make them secure and my submission is that clauses (2) to (6) are very dangerous clauses. Suppose, in a State there is a political party, which is hostile to the Central Government and they frame laws to the great detriment of the political minority or the religious minorities. What can be done? People have to suffer and there would be untold miseries. Particularly the wording 'subject to operation of existing laws' is very unjust. What is the situation today in India? Practically there is a state of siege. There are Goonda Public Safety Act, etc. in all the provinces in which there is neither appeal, nor any warrant is necessary for arrest, and searches can be made without justification. In spite of this, the article lays down that the existing laws will be recognized. These unjust laws which do not provide appeals and which do not provide any proper representation will be recognized under article 13. There is no doubt that we are living in an emergency period but that does not mean that article 13 should be inconsonance with emergencies. Another part of the article is the right to assemble peacefully and without arms. What greater restriction could have been laid down by the framers of the Constitution than this and in spite of that the legislatures of the States are empowered to have more restrictions as embodied in clauses (3) and (4). Now the point is whether a particular legislation is in the interest of the people, or whether that can be delegated to the judiciary or to the States' Legislatures. My submission is that you must realise that we cannot entrust the interpretation of these clauses in the Fundamental Rights to the vagaries of legislatures. In the State Legislatures the majority is capable of practically oppressing the minorities, political or communal. The very purpose of this Fundamental Right is being defeated. The Fundamental Rights are being enacted only with a view to placing restriction son the legislation. By these clauses (2) to (6) we are enlarging the scope of this article 13 and we are enlarging the scope of the powers of the Provincial Legislatures or States. This is entirely to the detriment of the political or religious minorities. If this article as it stands is passed, my submission is that it will be taking away those rights which are given in article 8 of the Constitution. There is no parallel to these restrictions in any Constitution of the world. In the American Constitution all these rights have been entrusted to the judiciary simply because the political parties who are elected from time to time cannot be entrusted with the interpretation of laws. The main principle should have been whatever is not forbidden should have been allowed. Apart from that, two amendments have been moved, one by Mr. Mohamed Ismail and the other by Mr. Tahir. My submission is that both these amendments are very innocent and both these are very necessary for the protection of the minorities. Mr. Ismail's amendment advocates that personal law should be respected and this should be embodied in this Constitution. The people outside and the Members of the Constituent Assembly must realize that a Muslim regards the personal law as part of the religion and I really assure you that there is not a single Muslim in the country--at least I have not seen one--who wants a change in the mandatory provision of religious rights and personal laws and if there is any one who wants a change in the mandatory principle, or religion as a matter of personal law, then he can not be a Muslim. Therefore if you really want to protect the minorities--because this is a secular State it does not mean that people should have no religion--if this is the view of the minority Muslims or any other minority that they want to abide by personal law, those laws have to be protected. The amendment of Mr. Tahir is very important and I feel that every Member of the Constituent Assembly must realize that it is important because we have seen after 15th August, whether Muslims are responsible or the Hindus are responsible for communal passion, it has eaten away everything that is good in society. It was really a canker that was destroying the society and would have done so but for the Central Government. Then communal passion should be made an offence. In my opinion this is a very vital amendment that has been moved and it should be accepted by Dr. Ambedkar; Sir, as I have said even Dr. Ambedkar in his book 'States and Minorities' has said-
In 1947 he was agreeable that only the first part of article 13 should be enacted in our Constitution and within a year he is so changed that he has placed so many restrictions that take away what has been given under article 8.
Mr. Vice-President: You seem to make the mistake that Dr. Ambedkar is responsible for everything connected with this Draft Constitution. There was the whole Drafting Committee.
Kazi Syed Karimuddin: My submission is that if you take the opinion of the minorities in this House--a Sikh representative has spoken, and I am speaking now--and if you take votes, you will find that the minorities in the country will say that article 13 is not sufficient protection for them. Therefore, I earnestly plead for deletion of clauses (2) to (6). I strongly support the other two amendments to which I have referred. If article 13 is passed as it stands, it is not acceptable to the minorities. It is no freedom of speech that you are guaranteeing It is no freedom of the press that you are giving. You are giving by one hand and taking it away by the other.
Chaudhari Ranbir Singh (East Punjab: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I am not in agreement with those who are for abolition of these provisions from the text during the transitional period. This is why I gave notice of two more provisions to article 13. They are as under:
Sir, after further consideration, I changed my mind and did not move these amendments, because I think in sub-clause (5) of the article, the words "in the interests of the general public" denote, mean and cover my point that whenever the imposition of restrictions is found to be necessary for the protection of the interests of the tillers of the soil and labourers, the governments will have the right to impose the necessary restrictions on any section of the society, or may allow to continue such laws as are already in existence, which the Governments think are necessary for the protection of the interests of the peasantry or labourers.
I come from East Punjab, and there is a law which is known as the Land Alienation Act, according to which certain classes are debarred from acquiring land, by law. I agree with my Friends, specially Harijans who advocate that the Harijans and other persons who are actually the tillers of the soil should have the right to acquire land. But I fail to understand the argument that each and every person whether he is a tiller of the soil or not, should be put on a par with the tillers of the soil, and should have the liberty to acquire agricultural land. If that is to be the case, then we will be creating a new problem--the problem of zamindaries,--the same problem of zamindaries which we are abolishing or have promised to abolish from our country. In several provinces, laws for the abolition of the zamindari system have already been enacted. As regards the Punjab, I am of the view, that it cannot be denied that the absence of zamindari system in the Punjab in its acute form as it exists in other provinces is the result of the Land Alienation Act, and this is the real reason why the agriculturists are in a more advanced position in the Punjab than in other provinces. I therefore, feel very strongly and rightly that the legislatures of the State and the various governments should have the full liberty to impose restrictions on the non-tillers of the soil on acquiring or holding agricultural lands, and to declare a minimum economic holding of land inalienable, for the protection of the interests of the tillers of the soil or the peasantry.
Moreover, the over whelming majority of the population of our country depends on agriculture and they are the tillers of the soil. So the words "general public interests" can mean only the interests of the peasantry and the labourers, and not only the interests of the vocal middle intelligentia and vested people.
Mr. Vice-President: Maulana Hasrat Mohani (Cheers) I am glad the House recognises the excellent services rendered by Maulana Hasrat Mohani to this country. He was the first to stand for total independence of our Mother-Land.
Maulana Hasrat Mohani (United Provinces: Muslim): *[Mr. Vice-President, when I rose to speak, my first impulse was to support whole-heartedly the amendment moved by Mr. Kamath and even now I have come here with that idea. In the later speeches and amendments, one amendment has been moved by Mr. Muhammad Ismail of Madras and I give my full support to it. Besides, I also support the amendment of Mr. K. T. Shah. Mr. Muhammad Ismail in the second part of his amendment has made mention of personal liberty. Mr. K. T. Shah's amendment is also of similar nature. I shall speak at the end about his amendment. First of all, I would like to give full support to Mr. Kamath's amendment. Mr. Kamath has said that everyone should have the right to bear arms. This is a test amendment. If Dr. Ambedkar and his committee are honest, then surely they ought to accept this section and include it in the article at once. If he wavers or raises any objection as I know he is capable of doing, as Dr. Ambedkar's legal abilities are established, and if he wishes, he can turn night into day and day into night and can prove it conclusively,--then I would like to tell him that this is a test amendment and, if you do not include it, it would mean that your tendency is the same as that of the British Government. You know what the Britishers had done. They had promulgated the Arms Act in India. The result was that all the inhabitants of Hindustan were kept as imbeciles. If you also have the same design, then it is a different matter. But if there is any national Government and an Indian Government, then there is no reason why you should deprive anybody of this right. If you too will forge an Arms Act and will deprive the people of this right, then I would say that your attitude and way of doing things is much worse than that of the Britishers. It will be much worse. The Arms Act, enforced by the British Government, was applicable to one and all with the exception of the ruling class. We were under the impression that under our own Government this restriction will be removed. Unfortunately at present here we have a party Government and they want to retain it, so that the Act may be applied against their political opponents and may not be enforced against their own party men.
On the basis of my own experience, I would like to say something about U. P. In particular I would tell you about Kanpur city which I represent. The U. P. Government there have singled out the Socialists, the Communists, Independent-Socialists,--including Muslims--Forward Blockists and even those who were suspected of standing against them as rival candidates in the elections and put restrictions on them, and on one plea or the other they were brought under the provision of the Defence of India Act. Some were branded as Goondas, others were stamped as Communists, there were others who were told that they were supporting Hyderabad and collecting funds. There were yet others who were told that they were connected with those members of the Communist Party who are working under ground and they were sent to jails. In short, they applied this Act against all rival parties, and such was the ill treatment against the Muslims that every Muslim of position at Kanpur was house-searched and even if a kitchen-knife was found in his house, the Arms Act was applied and he was sent to jail. Some of them have been released and some are still in jails. Therefore, I would like to submit that for you, who are a party Government, this is a test amendment. You ought to accept Mr. Kamath's amendment and give the right of bearing arms to everybody. If you are not prepared to do this, then you will be setting an Indian bureaucracy in place of the English bureaucracy.
Another point which I should like to submit is that the amendments of both Mr. Ismail and Prof. Shah are of similar nature. As regards personal rights and liberty I would like to say that so long as you do not prove anything openly against anybody in a court of law, it should not be lawful to detain anybody under Defence of India Rules, be he your rival party man or any other. If you send somebody to jail under Defence of India Act or under some other ordinance, then what would happen to the right of Habeas Corpus, and who would give that right, since the High Court will have no jurisdiction over it? And even if High Court interferes in one or two cases, it does not mean that it will be possible in all cases. Therefore, I submit that this should not be included and that everybody should have personal liberty.
I would like to submit my third point in few words, namely, regarding Mr. Is mail's amendment which has been supported by several members. I would like to say that any party, political or communal, has no right to interfere in the personal law of any group. More particularly I say this regarding Muslims. There are three fundamentals in their personal law, namely, religion, language, and culture which have not been ordained by human agency. Their personal law regarding divorce, marriage and inheritance has been derived from the Qoran and its interpretation is recorded therein. If there is any one, who thinks that he can interfere in the personal law of the Muslims, then I would say to him that the result will be very harmful.]*
I say from the floor of this House that they will come to grief. Mussalmans will not submit to any interference in their personal law, and if anybody has got the courage to say so then I declare.....
Mr. Vice-President: Order, order.
Maulana Hasrat Mohani: He should remain convinced--and I declare in the House--that Mussalmans will never submit to any interference in their personal law, and they will have to face an iron wall of Muslim determination to oppose them in every way.
Shri Vishwambhar Dayal Tripathi (United Provinces: General): Will you give the right of human sacrifice to those who believe in it and may claim it under the pretext of their personal law?
Mr. Vice-President: Will honourable Members please take their seats?
Shri Brajeshwar Prasad (Bihar: General): I rise to support article 13 with all its reservations and safeguards. These restrictions are necessary in our national interest. Let me adduce the reasons for saying so.
An Honourable Member: Is the honourable Member reading his speech?
Mr. Vice-President: He is reading his speech and I have given him permission to do so.
Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: Personal freedom has to be curtailed if the menace of capitalism is to be met. Nation-states of the nineteenth century were not confronted with even a small part of the dangers that confront a modern state. Political conspiracies of international dimensions were unknown. The political criminal in the pursuit of his nefarious designs resorted to methods and anties very well known to the administrators of old. The laws and judicial institutions were strong enough to grapple with these problems. The technique and methods widely employed by modern law-breakers cannot effectively be checked by judicial institutions and ordinary laws of the nineteenth century. The state must be vested with wide discretionary powers and the freedom of the individual must be seriously curtailed if the parasitical class that thrives on profit and exploitation is to be liquidated and the communists are to be checked from endangering the safety and existence of all the institutions of our modern life.
Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhari (Assam: General): The honourable Member is reading his speech so swiftly that we cannot follow him. May I suggest that his speech should be taken as read?
Mr. Vice-President: Do you agree, Mr. Brajeshwar Prasad, that it should be taken as read? (After a pause) Mr. Brajeshwar Prasad does not agree to the suggestion made by the Honourable Member Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhari.
Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: It is wrong to regard the State with suspicion. Today it is in the hands of those who are utterly incapable of doing any wrong to the people. It is not likely to pass into the hands of the enemies of the masses. And constitutional guarantees of individual freedom will not for long remain sacrosanct if the machinery of the State passes into the hands of the reactionaries. If you want to prevent the political reactionaries from gaining political power and ascendancy, the rulers of the land must be vested with large discretionary powers.
In a modern progressive State there is not much conflict between the individual and the State. For the State is composed of individuals. It is we ourselves purged and purified of our selfishness. The individual has no power of his own, separate and distinct from the State. The State and the individual are the two sides of the same coin.
In the nineteenth century the executive authority had not developed the technique and mechanism of the modern State. It had very little part to play in the life of its citizens. The executive authority in the modern State has a dominant part to play. It is not handicapped by any lack of technique. The needs of modern life, of socialism and collectivism cannot be fulfilled if the State is not vested with ample powers. The trend of modern politics is towards regimentation of ideas and conduct. The doctrines of Mill and Spencer have become thoroughly unrelated to the needs and demands of the age. It is the society and not the individual which has become the object of primary concern and loyalty both of political theorists and actual administrators. The objective conditions of our modern life have relegated the individual from the Olympian heights of honour and glorification accorded by the individualist school to a position of utter insignificance and neglect.
Individual freedom is risky in a community where more than 80 per cent of the people are sunk in the lowest depths of poverty, illiteracy, communalism and provincialism.
It is sheer illusion to think that the personal rights of the individual can be firmly secured if these are laid down in the Constitution in clear language without any reservations and safeguards. The enjoyment of these rights is dependent upon the fulfilment of certain social conditions outside the scope of any constitution. Man can never enjoy the blessings of personal freedom as long as society remains organized on the basis of capitalism, as long as the menace of war and foreign intervention looms large on the horizon, as long as poverty, illiteracy, communalism and provincialism remain in our midst. It is only with the decline of the forces of organized religions and the establishment of a World State based on the ideals of economic equality and political liberty that man will be able to achieve the content of personal freedom.
It is not entirely due to the wickedness or ignorance of constitution makers that there are restrictions on individual rights. The legacy of centuries of backwardness and foreign misrule cannot be wiped out by one stroke of the pen. The concomitants of the age cannot be brushed aside by any constitutional guarantees. Constitutional guarantees merely facilitate the achievement of personal rights, which are essentially of an inward character, to be secured by the exercise of reason and proper conduct. We must think, speak and act properly if we are to obtain and enjoy the rights of personal freedom. It is only with the growth and development of education to communal dimensions that the foundations of personal liberty can be securely laid.
Shri H. V. Kamath: Sir, may I request my Friend to have a few full-stops if not other punctuation marks?
Mr. Vice-President: The Honourable Member's time is up. But what Mr. Kamath said has certainly not added to the dignity of the House.
Prof. Yashwant Rai (East Punjab: General): *[Mr. Vice-President, Sir, the Harijans of the Punjab are very much indebted to the Chairman of the Drafting Committee for having included article 13 in the Constitution. At present it is the custom in the Punjab that only one particular community can purchase land and take to agriculture. But the Harijans, 90 per cent of whom are cultivators, are not permitted to purchase land to cultivate, or to build houses. When this article receives the assent of the House, they will have the facility of purchasing land for building their houses, as also land for agricultural purposes if they have the capacity to do so. I hope that the many handicaps from which the Harijans suffer in Punjab, causing the clashes that are taking place in almost every village between them and the landlords, as a result of which they are kept confined to their houses in some villages, as also their other difficulties will not have to be faced by them in future. They find themselves in their present plight though they thought that the Congress Government would be a national Government and on coming to power it would permit them to purchase land and would remove all their difficulties. Our Indian National Congress was wedded to the creed that on establishing its Government every one will get house-building and agricultural facilities and no one will have any difficulty on these accounts. People are also realising that now the Congress is in power all these facilities will have to be afforded to the Harijans.
Therefore clause (f) of article 13 is very necessary because it provides the facilities we wanted. I think that the difficulties with which we are faced today will soon disappear. I therefore support this article.]*
Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhari: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I must congratulate the House for having decided to drop the word "sedition" from our new Constitution. That unhappy word "sedition" has been responsible for a lot of misery in this country and had delayed for a considerable time the achievement of our independence.
While on this article, I should also like to draw the attention of the House to the unhappy condition which had prevailed so far as the relations between us and the people of the tribal areas were concerned. The British Government wanted to keep these regions as their own preserve, not having imagined for a moment that they will have at any time to quit this country. They wanted to keep the tribal people completely under them for all ages to come and they wanted to have the hills as their own place of preserve and therefore they had introduced rules which prevented the ordinary people of the plains from mixing with their brethren in the hills. I am glad, Sir, that in this article we have laid down that all people will be able to travel freely throughout the territory of India. But it is most unfortunate that we cannot do away with the proviso to say that a particular State may lay down a law by which this freedom of movement can be restricted. Sir, I can only draw the attention of the House to a very unfortunate incident which took place even after the achievement of independence. A few months ago some Members of the Central Legislature headed by our friend the Honorable Mr. Santhanam had occasion to pay a visit to the Manipuri State. Although the officers of the Provincial Government had allowed us to go there freely, we were held up there for more than an hour by the orders of the Manipur State. I believe that after the passing of this Constitution such a state of things will never occur and that immediately after the passing of this Constitution steps will be taken to allow us free ingress and egress to those parts of the States which are now inhabited by the scheduled tribes. There should be greater friendliness between the scheduled tribes and the people of the plains and all steps should be taken to remove the barriers to our movement in those places.
Then, Sir, I am glad to find in this article that people will be free to carry on their profession in any part of India. That is quite good in so far as it stands on paper, but many times the British Government said they would never allow a lawyer to practise in any of these hills. I believe, Sir, after the passing of this article of the Constitution, steps will be taken to remove any restriction on any professional man practising in any part of India.
It is now my misfortune to have to say a few words about Professor Shah's amendment No. 416. It is very easy, I should say much easier, to deal with one who writes out his amendments and thinks over them. But it is very difficult and dangerous to deal with one who carries all his amendments, thousand and one of them, in his brain and then directly pours them out from his brain on the floor of this House. Sir, amendment No. 416 introduces certain words about things being subject to the provisions of this Constitution, and all those things. On the one hand we find that the House has practically agreed to remove these words "Subject to the provisions of this Constitution". But we find the Professor Sahib has put that jumble of words in that amendment. Does he want to use these words to rhyme in the Constitution? Poets are fond of using several words just for the sake of rhyming. If it is intended for the sake of rhyming to use all those words, I can understand it, but otherwise I think they are meaningless. I would also warn my friends against the use of the word `guaranteed'. We have seen, Sir, advertisements of all and sundry articles promising guarantee. I have myself been a victim of such an advertisement. A big full-page advertisement of a certain medicine guaranteed that if you use that medicine for seven days you will benefit your health and become strong like Sandow. The word `guarantee' was actually there. But what I found after using that medicine for seven or fourteen days was that the medicine had no effect. It did not bring about any improvement in my health. Also in the case of a lot of jewellery in the market, though they were all chemical jewels, the merchants offer guarantee to the effect that the jewellery will retain its brightness and quality. But after a fortnight the brightness disappears and the thing becomes black in colour. So, the use of the word 'guarantee' is very perilous. It is not necessary to use that word in this country. We in India are so much used to this word that when we see it used we begin to suspect it. When we see anything guaranteed, we understand that it is not guaranteed and is not genuine. Therefore it is better to leave the Constitution as it is without the word `guarantee'. Without that word we can understand it better. Then we shall know that there is no attempt to cover-up anything not wanted. The clause, as it is without the word `guarantee' is quite all right.
Sir, this article with the amendments which have been accepted has my whole-hearted acceptance.
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena (United Provinces: General): Mr. Vice-President, this article may be truly stated to be the charter of our liberties and this is probably the most important article in the whole Draft Constitution. In the original form in which it was presented to this House, it was open to many criticisms and they were justified. Now I think it has been materially altered. The promise made by Dr. Ambedkar to accept the amendment of Mr. Bhargava and others gives me hope that this article in its final form will be a real charter of our liberty.
Sir, let us analyse the criticisms made in some of the amendments moved by my friends. First of all, the criticism is that all the provisos were meant to nullify the liberties given in the first clause. But if we carefully examine each of the sub-clauses, we will find that this criticism is not justified. In clause (2), the word 'sedition' has been taken away, and the word 'authority' has been dropped. So that, what remain in clause (2) are the exemptions of laws relating to libel, slander, defamation, or any matter which offends against decency or morality or undermines the foundation of the State. These alone will remain on the Statute Book.
As was pointed out yesterday, even in America where the courts are given absolute power, the Supreme Court has been obliged to limit it. What we are doing is that instead of the Supreme Court we ourselves are limiting this thing. This limitation in the present form is less wide than it originally was. I think this should satisfy the House.
In this connection I only want to say one word more. Clause (1) (a) says that every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. As proposed in one of my amendments we should bring in here the freedom of the Press. I hope Dr. Ambedkar would bring in some amendment to include freedom of the press in this sub-clause.
As regards clause (3), I am glad that after the addition of the word 'reasonable' it has become a much wider charter of liberty. It now reads:
Under this, the existing laws, in so far as they impose restrictions which are not in the interests of public order or morality, are nullified. Everybody will admit that public order has to be provided for. The sub-clause as amended is much better than what it was. The Supreme Court could now lay down what offends against public order and what does not.
Coming to clause (4), I must say that lab our will now feel that today they have got their charter of liberty. They can now form unions subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order or morality. So, labour today will thank Dr. Ambedkar for accepting amendments which modified the original clause. In the original form you could not hold a meeting because it would be against the wishes of the general public. Now you will have to prove that the decision to ban a meeting is in the public interest or morality. This is the great charter of liberty for labour.
Then I come to clause (5). This qualifies sub-clauses (d), (e) and (f). It says: "Nothing in sub-clauses (d), (e) and (f), shall affect the operations etc. etc." "or for the protection of the interests of the Scheduled Castes". We have added the word 'reasonable' therein. It is very important. The rights such as freedom to move about throughout the country are very important. Some friends pointed out that there are many laws at present in existence in the East Punjab, for instance, which are really very bad and that this clause will not nullify many of them.
And then there is clause (6) which relates to carrying on of professions. After the amendments that have been accepted this clause also has become much better.
One thing more I want to say. Mr. Kamath in his amendment wants the right to bear arms. In most Constitutions throughout the world this right has been recognised. We ourselves throughout recent history have asked that this should be our right. In fact I remember, when Mahatma Gandhi wrote to Lord Irwin in 1930 about the Eight Points, which he wanted to be accepted, one was about this right to bear arms. The question of this right to bear arms dates back to 1878 when, after the mutiny, the British Government disarmed the Nation. I think that after freedom we should at least allow this thing, as only an armed people can support the Government. I hope Dr. Ambedkar will do something about it.
Then as regards sedition, our great leaders like Lokmanya Tilak and others were the victims of section 124-A. I congratulate Dr. Ambedkar for having put in the clause a sit has emerged.
Shri H. J. Khandekar (C. P. and Berar: General): *[Mr. Vice-President, I rise to submit to the House my views on article 13. I believe that if the man-in-the-street were to read this article up to sub-clause (g) he would most likely begin to believe that this country has secured its freedom and that every individual within it has also been granted the right of freedom. But if the same person were to proceed further in his study of this article and goes through the sub-clauses (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) he would revise his opinion and become fully convinced that our country has not as yet attained Swaraj in its correct sense. It would mean that what had been granted by the right hand has been taken away by the left, in the succeeding sub-clauses. I believe that a majority of the Members of this House hold the same view in this respect as I do.
If we confine ourselves to an examination of clause(1), we find, Sir, that the rights granted to the citizens of India under this article are many. Sub-clause (a) specifically grants freedom of speech and expression--for securing which, as you and the majority of the Members of this House are aware, we resorted to individual Satyagraha under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi in the year 1941, and as a consequence thousands, nay, hundreds of thousands of people of this country had to rot in the prisons. At that time all of us believed that when Swaraj is established every citizen of this country would also secure for himself the right of freedom of speech and expression. We, no doubt, find that article 13 grants this freedom of speech and expression. But all this has been taken away indirectly by clause (2).
I may point out that the Provincial Governments have recently enacted many repressive laws. I am afraid that article 13 will allow these laws to remain in force even in the future. What is worse, this article leaves scope for the enactment of further repressive laws in future. In several provinces such laws as the Goonda Act, Essential Services Act, and Public Safety Act have been passed. It may come as a surprise if I inform the House that, since the advent of the Popular Ministries, Section 144 has been constantly reigning in the big cities of this country. Consequently there cannot be a public gathering of even five or seven persons in cities, nay, not even for carrying on conversation among themselves or giving vent to their ideas and feelings. If this situation continues also in the future, I am afraid that the freedom which he had been wishing to establish in this country, the freedom that has been granted in Clause (1) (a) of article 13, will be entirely lost under clause (2) of that article.
I feel, Sir, that I should discuss before you each of these sub-clauses, one by one, so that I may be in a position to request you in the end that this article should be sent back to the Drafting Committee with a request that, after having carefully reconsidered it and having put in it what is really required in the circumstances of the country, it should resubmit it to the House. I believe that the House would then pass it with pleasure. But I am afraid that all would be lost if the article is passed as it is today.
Again sub-clause (b) of clause (1) grants, Sir, the right "to assemble peacefully and without arms." But clause (3) of the article takes away the entire significance of this sub-clause. Similarly sub-clause (c) grants the right 'to form associations or unions'. Thus we are given the impression that we would have the right to form associations or unions and thus to carry on organised agitation. For instance, we are given to believe that we could carry on organised agitation for the welfare of Lab our, that we can make, in an organised fashion, a demand for the grant of bonus, and if necessary can assemble in public meetings to back up this demand. The truth is that the law restricting the right of holding public meetings would be enforced. Consequently in view of such a law or laws of this kind to be passed in future it may not be possible to hold any public meeting. Thus it is clear that the Government would be in a position to prevent if it so desires, any agitation by Lab our for demanding bonus, since all these restrictive laws would be applicable to the workers also. I, therefore, fail to see the significance of the right of forming associations when I find that its substance is taken away by clause (4). I submit that this article is neither for the good of lab our nor of the general community.
Further we read of the right to 'move freely throughout the territory of India'. This is sub-clause (d). Under it every citizen of India would have the right to move freely into any province or any village of India. But the substance of this right is taken away by clause (5). I would make this clear by an illustration. It is a matter of great amazement that in this country there is a law known as the Criminal Tribes Act under which a persons is considered a criminal from the moment of his birth. There're also some unfortunate communities in this country whose members would not have the right to move freely in the territory of India granted under this sub-clause to every citizen of India. I believe, Sir, that you are aware that under the Criminal Tribes Act the people following pastoral occupations cannot go to any particular part of India they would like to go. Now they do not have that freedom. We have in our province a tribe known as Mang Garodi. If it has to go from the village of Khape to the village of Janwanver it is followed by the Police who sees to it that it goes only to the latter village and nowhere else. Similarly if it goes from Janwanver to Katol the Police of the former place would go up to Katol to entrust the Police of the latter place to keep watch over it. Thus they have no freedom of movement, whatever freedom of movement is now given under sub-clause (d) is taken away by clause (5) of the same article. If the intention is not to give to the criminal tribes, who are also citizens of India, the freedom which they are entitled to, it is something extremely unjust.
Similarly further on we find the right `to acquire, hold and dispose of property'. My friend Prof. Yashwant Rai has said with reference to this freedom that there is an unfortunate section--the scheduled castes--in the Punjab who cannot purchase land on account of the provisions of the Land Alienation Act. Moreover the right that you have granted by this sub-clause to every citizen has been taken away by the clause which permits the Land Alienation Act to remain in force even in future. Thus the right which the Harijans should also, like other citizens, get under this Constitution would not be available to the Harijans of the Punjab on account of the Land Alienation Act of the Punjab.
Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava (East Punjab: General):*[This article would most certainly confer this right.]*
Shri H. J. Khandekar: By what article please?
Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava: It will be conferred by this very article 13.
Shri H. J. Khandekar: I do not find this specified here. If this article is passed as it is, the rights that the Harijans of the Punjab should get will not be available to them.
Mr. Vice-President: May I point out to you that it would be better if you address the Chair and not carry on conversation among yourselves?
Shri H. J. Khandekar: Very well, Sir, Sub-clause (g) grants the right to practise profession or to carry on any business etc. But all these rights are taken away by clause (6). I would like to place before you, Sir, the difficulty we would be placed in by these provisions. The most unfortunate people in this country, in my opinion, are the sweepers. Whatever we may talk about the grant of rights to these unfortunate sweepers the fact remains that these unfortunate people have never been given any rights by any person in India nor have they ever enjoyed any right said to have been granted to them. To talk of their "freedom to practise any profession or trade" is a mockery to them. I do not know of the conditions prevailing in other provinces but I know what happens in my province. If a sweeper working under a Municipal Committee desires to give up his work, in my province, he would have to give a notice in writing addressed to the District Magistrate of his intention to do so and can leave his service only if that officer agrees to release him. I am of the view that even the very name of sweeper is a matter of contempt by people. I have consequently held the opinion and have repeatedly said to the sweepers, and I would like again to communicate this opinion through your, Sir, to the sweepers of this country, to give up their present occupation which makes them looked down upon as untouchable by the people of the country, because their work is considered to be so dirty and polluting. I advise them to take to such occupations as are followed by other people. If the sweepers of the whole country were to leave, on my advice, their present occupation, and which they could in exercise of the freedom granted by the clause (8), I am sure that they would invite against them the objection of clause (6) which refers to service in public interest. The fact is that if all the sweepers of Delhi, or Bombay or Calcutta were to stop cleaning latrines, sweeping the streets, they would be said to be acting against public interest; and under this law and under the Essential Services Act they would be compelled to do this work. Then how can you say that all human beings shall have equal rights under this sub-clause? The handicaps from which we suffer, from which the peasant suffers, from which the workers suffer, from which the sweepers suffer would continue to remain even under this article, if it remains as it is. It is, therefore, my submission, and I believe that the House after having heard what I have already said, would consider it proper, that this article should be referred back to the Drafting Committee for being amended. It may then be placed before the House for adoption. This is my proposal, With these words I resume my seat.]*
Shri Algu Rai Shastri (United Provinces: General): *[Mr. Vice-President, all the important aspects of fundamental freedom have been dealt with in article 13. From this point of view this article is very important. It is going to be accepted with some minor amendments. Many friends have attacked its provisions on the grounds that the fundamental rights conferred by this article have been taken away by the limitations imposed therein. I feel that along with freedom responsibility is essential. The friends who urge that the rights given in this article have been taken away under the sub-clauses (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6), have not taken have not taken into consideration the people who will elect members to the legislatures which have been authorised under these provisions to apply these restrictions, and the people who would compose these legislatures. I submit that those who would sit in the legislatures would be representatives of the people and they will impose only those restrictions which they consider proper. Such restrictions would be in the interest of the people. Only those restrictions will be imposed which would be necessary in the interest of public health, unavoidably necessary for the maintenance of public peace and desirable from the viewpoint of public safety. No restriction will be imposed merely to destroy the liberties of the people.
Freedom is a great art--even greater than the art of music and dancing. One who is adept in music or dancing keeps his voice under control and maintains restraint and control over his bodily movement, and on the movement of his feet. He has to move in accordance with certain recognised rules of music and dancing. He cannot sing and dance out of tune and time, in an unrestrained manner. He remains fully bound to the rules. Full freedom is being conferred upon us but it can never mean that we should not be under any restrictions whatsoever. Freedom of speech does not mean that we can give expression to whatever comes to our mind without observing any limitation or rule in this respect. In legislatures we have to follow certain rules and regulations. We are here as the representatives of the sovereign people but even then there are hundreds of restrictions upon us. Freedom by its nature implies limitations and restrictions.
'Kavihin Arth Akhar Bal Sancha, Kartal Tal Gatihin Nat Nacha'
The dancer dances to the measure of clapping. The poet is bound by the significance of words. A dancer dances according to certain fixed timings and never makes a false movement. His movements are in harmony with the tall. When a nation or a community attains freedom, it begins to bear a great responsibility on its shoulders. We cannot therefore say that the restrictions that have been imposed will retard our progress.
One of my friends made a reference to the Bhang community. I have been working amongst them since 1924. I have thus a personal experience extending over a period of twenty four years. There can be no doubt about the indescribable wretchedness of the Bhang is and of our other so called untouchable brethren. It is indeed very deplorable. But the restrictions provided for in article 13 do not imply that Bhang is will continue to remain bound to their present occupation. Under this article there would be no compulsion for any person to follow any particular occupation. This article as a matter of fact, instead of prescribing the compulsory pursuit of any occupation, provides for unrestricted freedom to every individual to follow any vocation he pleases. I think that the freedoms granted under sub-clauses (f) and (g) need clarification. In sub-clause (f) is specified the right of a person to acquire, hold and dispose of property; while in sub-clause (g). It is stated that there is freedom of a person to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business or other means of livelihood of one's choice. It is true that the State has been authorised to restrict this freedom in sub-clauses (5) and (6). But a little reflection would show that it was necessary to limit the freedom so widely provided for in sub-clauses (f) and (g) of clause (1) of article 13. Such unrestricted freedom as is provided in these two sub-clauses could not be free from grave danger. For instance, we have in our society the practice of prostitution. Is this to continue in future also as it has done till now? It should not in any circumstances be permitted to continue. Evidently there must be some provision whereby its practice may disappear by providing for a profession worthy of being adopted. Evidently restrictions have to be imposed on it.
Again, there is freedom in our society to earn one's livelihood by selling intoxicants. In the directive Principles we have now included a provision for the introduction of Prohibition but in the Fundamental Rights we have given every one the unrestricted rights to earn his livelihood. Both the provisions appear to be contradictory to each other. Thus it is necessary to provide that no one shall be permitted to earn a living by selling intoxicants except for medicinal purposes.
Again begging is a common profession in our society today. Should it be permitted to continue as it is? I submit that there should be a good arrangement for bringing it to an end.
We have now attained freedom. We should do nothing which may endanger it. It is our duty to be good citizens. We have also to see that freedom is not misused. Up till now we were under foreign rule. Indian subjects received step-motherly treatment from the rulers. In England no intoxicant can be mixed with any medicine other than in the prescribed proportion but here bottles of country wine are being sold openly in the market. Our `Freedom'--our own mother--can never permit us--her children--to have this because she cannot permit her children to go astray.
Good citizenship implies restrictions:
Be truthful and sweet in speech, but do not speak out the unpleasant truth. Anyone has the freedom to state the truth, but not the freedom to speak out the unpleasant truth. This is a restriction and good citizens have to accept this restriction. I beg, therefore, to express my appreciation of article 13 read with the amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar and which already been referred to.
I would like to make another observation. I feel that the rights guaranteed in sub-clauses (f) and (g) are rather too wide. I have already said something about freedom of making a living.
I shall resume my seat after saying a few words about the right to acquire property. The type of freedom being guaranteed implies that the capitalists and feudal aristocrats would have full rights to acquire and dispose of property. But the mode in which property is being acquired and held is such as permits the property owners to have all the benefits while workers who create this property have all the toil as their share. `The ox produces and the horse consumes'--this saying is being fulfilled. Of course, this should not be so. I submit that this right of property should be so interpreted in future as to permit the transformation of individualistic capitalism into State capitalism. All the means of production and the distribution of the commodity should be owned and controlled by the State and not by the individual. "Unless the individual ownership yields place to collective ownership--social ownership- there cannot be real Swaraj."
To reach this goal it is necessary that these restrictive provisions should be interpreted in this way. With these words I express my support for this article.]*
Shri Amiyo Kumar Ghosh (Bihar: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, we are dealing today with one of the most important clauses of this Constitution. We are dealing with the freedom of citizens. That is to say what rights the Indian people have under this Constitution. On reading the entire clause, I feel that the rights which have been recognised under sub-clause (1) of this article have been to a great extent abrogated by the subsequent provisos. In a Constitution, there are two important points, namely what are our rights and what form of Government we are going to have. These are the two important subjects in a Constitution and others flow from them and therefore one expects that so far as the rights of the people are concerned, they should be expressed in clear, simple and straight language, so that a common man when he reads the Constitution can understand exactly and precisely what are his rights and what are the checks to his rights. I do not propose to say that at times of emergencies or grave needs, freedom does not require to be checked to a certain extent. I believe in checks and balances, but at the same time, I must say that those checks should be very precise, and clear and should not be couched in ambiguous language and left to courts for decisions.
Now you will find, Sir, that in all these sub-clauses (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) we have used the words "interest of general public", `general public interest' `public order' and `property' without defining them and I think it will take centuries for the Supreme Court to exactly say what really these words mean. By incorporating such words in the sub-clauses, wide powers have been given to the Central and the Provincial Legislatures to frame laws by which they can restrict the freedom which has been given to the people under sub clause (1) of this article. I do not like to enter into any criticism of this article, but the only thing I want to say is that the entire clause is very disappointing.
Specially, I will draw the attention of the Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar to sub clause (5). Now, Sir, in this sub-clause (5) the rights which have been recognised in sub-clauses (1) (d), (e) and (f) above have been practically negatived and have given rise to grave anxiety in the minds of many regarding the exact position in matters of residence, acquisition and disposition of properties. The exact significance of clause (5) in respect of (e) and (f) requires further clarification. Next I cannot understand why in this clause, the words, "for the protection of the interests of any aboriginal tribe" have been incorporated. What it exactly means I fail to understand. Does it mean the 'tribal area' or does it mean that wherever any aboriginal tribe lives, irrespective of their numbers the legislatures can frame laws safeguarding their interest as, for instance, if there be 15 aboriginals living in Delhi, can the Central Legislature frame a law by which they can restrict the rights of other people in the interests of these fifteen or sixteen aboriginals? I could understand that wherever there may be some aboriginals the legislature can make a law, by which they can restrict the rights of all others for the protection of those few.
Sir, I feel the position is ambiguous and clumsy and should be made clear. I fail to understand why clause (d) has been tacked with sub-clause (5). Free movement has been restricted by that sub-clause. My own personal view is that there should not have been any restriction regarding movement. The citizens should have been given a free right to move. Only on administrative or political grounds the Central or provincial legislatures could be empowered to frame laws judiciously by which they can restrict the movement of the people and this power should be worked sparingly and in very emergent circumstances. In every matter of freedom, restrictions have been imposed in the interest of general public. What this interest is, we do not know and has not been stated anywhere. Such words can be interpreted differently in different States and the Centre and may give rise to separate and conflicting laws. Sir, this would create great confusion. Therefore, I submit, if this article is read and viewed, it only gives rise to disappointment, and with a little more effort and with as light inclination this article could have been framed in such a language that it would have been a model article in the whole of the Constitution.
Mr. Vice-President: Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari.
Shri Mahavir Tyagi: May I know, Sir, is it by reference to the slips that you are calling the speakers?
Mr. Vice-President: I am not prepared to give you information as to how I conduct my work.
Shri Gopal Narain (United Provinces: General): So that we need not stand every time. Have we to stand every time or send slips, Sir?
Mr. Vice-President: The remedy lies in your hands; you can do both, you can send a slip and stand, or you can don either.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari (Madras: General): Sir, as the speaker that spoke before me said, this is perhaps the most important article in this Part and one which enumerates the rights for the attainment of which we in India have undergone all the troubles to obtain our freedom. Actually, Sir, it is in the manner in which the State is going to allow the people to use the rights enumerated in this particular article that the people can feel that all that they have done in the past and the sacrifices that they have made in the past to obtain freedom was worth while.