Constituent Assembly Of India -Volume IX

Dated: September 02, 1949

The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall New Delhi, at Nine of the Clock Mr. President (The Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad) in the Chair.

CONDOLENCE ON THE DEATH OF SHRI GOPINATH SRIVASTAVA

Sath Govind Das (C. P. & Berar: General) : Sir, before the commencement of today's business, I want to draw your attention to certain rumours about the adjournment of the House. We want to fix up our programmes and we want to know when this session is going to be terminated. At the same time, suppose a certain day is fixed for a certain article and it is not disposed of; I would like to know whether you will accept closure on that article-a sort of guillotine-so that the article might be finished by one o'clock that day.

Mr. President: I mentioned yesterday that I would be able to give some idea of the programme, of this Session today. I will do that at the end of the day.

I am very sorry to announce to the Members of the House the sudden death of Shri Gopinath Srivastava, who was a Member of this House in the beginning and later had to leave it on his appointment as a Member of the Public Services Commission of the United Provinces. He had a distinguished public career in his own province and had devoted all his time for many years to public activities. The province is especially poorer on account of his death and we shall all miss him in the public life of the country. I wish Members will show respect to his memory by standing in their places.

(The Members stood in their places for a minute)

Mr. President: We were dealing with entry 15 yesterday when we rose.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad (Bihar: General) : Sir, I did not follow the, amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar.

Mr. President: It is "That in entry 15 of the, List the words 'registration of births and deaths' be deleted."

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: He said something to the effect that it should be transferred to List III. He did not move the amendment as it finds place in the Paper.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar :(Bombay: General): But there will be an amendment when we deal with List III .Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: I was then mistaken. Therefore I would like to move my amendment. I thought that he had moved that this whole entry should be transferred to List III. I now find that. his amendment is of every limited character. Therefore, Sir, I seek your permission to move my amendment.

Mr.President: Very well, after Mr. Kamath.

Before we proceed with the entries, I would remind the House about what has been mentioned by Seth Govind Das. We must expedite the discussion of of these entries and I wish to finish them today. if we cannot, we may have to sit in the afternoon or tomorrow because we cannot go on with this List on Monday as I have fixed the programme for the days following in next week.

Shri R. K. Sidhva (C. P. & Berar : General): I think it was agreed that you would allow each speaker five minutes.

Mr. President: I said three minutes.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: I would rather have an evening session than a session tomorrow.

Mr. President: I hope it will not be necessary. We should be able to finish the entries today.

Shri H. V. Kamath: (C.P. & Berar: General) Sir, I move:

That with reference to amendment No. 78 of List I (Sixth Week), the proposed entry 15 of List II be transferred to List III."

The proposed entry will now be minus that clause relating to registration of births and deaths. That entry will stand thus :

"Public health and sanitation : hospitals and dispensaries."

This entry, I suggest may be transferred to List III, that is the Concurrent List.

I find that Dr. Ambedkar has a separate amendment for the inclusion of the omitted item, that is to say the registration of births and deaths in List III under Vital Statistics. The. purpose of my amendment is to transfer the entry 15 with or without the registration of births and deaths to List III, Concurrent List.

While commending my amendment seeking to transfer public health, sanitation, hospitals and dispensaries to the Concurrent List, I should like to state that public health has been the Cinderella of portfolios in the Cabinet of our country. During the British Regime it was specially so, very sadly neglected and not much provided for : as a result of which the health of the nation has fallen to C-3 standards, it is the object of our government today to raise the health of the nation from C-3 to A-I standard. If this were the aim of our Government we could not do better than make public health a Concurrent subject. It must be accorded top priority if the nation is to rise to its full stature.

We have the old maxim:

Shareeramadyam khalu dharmasadhanam.

It means that health is the pre-requisite of higher life; and if the bedrock of health is not there nothing strong and durable can be erected on shifting sands. If the bedrock of health is there, the super structure will stand the test of time and will resist the storms and winds that blow .I know, from my experience of certain provinces, that the health schemes that are launched be provincial Governments while commendable as regards their good intentions-, fail to achieve the desired consummation, because of the lack of direction and co-ordination from the Centre. In the last Budget Session the Health Minister pleaded for more powers for the Centre to co-ordinate and initiate various health schemes in the provinces so that our aim to raise the standard of health of the nation could be realized with the least possible delay. In modern times......

Mr. President: The honourable Member has exceeded his three minutes.

Shri H. V. Kamath: I thought that the time limit was five minutes. However, Sir, this is a matter on which there is very serious divergence of opinion. I learn that provincial governments or ministers have resisted the transfer of this entry to List III and they are reluctant to have any change in this entry. I do not know how far it is correct, but I have heard rumours to the effect that provincial health ministers are reluctant to the transfer of this entry to List III. That is why I,% ant the Drafting Committee and the House to bestow some more consideration on this subject.

The House is well aware that the Central Health Ministry has during recent times not merely advised the provinces about various health schemes and in the methods of disease-prevention, but also launched mass, vaccination schemes like BCG, and I believe they have also taken steps in the direction of Penicillin treatment on an All-India scale. Apart from that, the Central Government took the initiative in appointing what is known as the Chopra Committee, which has submitted its report dealing with various aspects of public health.

Bearing all these points in mind and viewing this important and vital mattes from different points of view I feel very strongly that public health should not be relegated to the legislative powers only of the States but should be a rent subject at least. I am sure my Friend Mr. Brajeshwar Prasad would try to include it in List I, but I would be happy if this matter were transferred to List III. Sir, I move my amendment and commend it to the House for its acceptance.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: Sir, I move:

"That in amendment No. 3600 of the List of Amendments, for the word and figure 'List II, the word and figure List I' be substituted."

Sir, I do not understand the opposition of provincial ministers in this respect. If they feel that they are in a position to deal with all problems of public health and sanitation, if they are of opinion that hospitals and dispensaries can be run on efficient lines without the help and co-operation of the Government of India, they are welcome to hold their opinions. I also come from a province. I do not come from No man's land. I know that the administration of these departments has deteriorated after power was transferred to our hands. If you go to a general hospital you will see that flies and bugs are multiplying, that the clothes of the nurses are dirty, that phenyle and medicines are not available and the patients are not treated well. There is utter neglect and deterioration in efficiency. Therefore I feel that public health, sanitation, hospitals and dispensaries should be included in List I. The powers which I want the Centre to possess are in for the purpose of aggrandisement of the Centre. They are intended for the performance of social service. I cannot understand why the co-operation of the Centre is not welcome. The provinces have enough powers in their hands but the resources at their disposal are of a very limited character. If the nation is to be saved from the scourge of disease and epidemics, all powers as far as this entry is concerned must be vested in the hands of the Centre. Of cow" I fully appreciate the point )that by wresting those important powers Provincial autonomy will be modified to a very large extent, but provincial autonomy is not an end in itself. It is only a means to an end-the end being the economic political and cultural advancement of the people of this country. Any movement of ideology that stands in the way of the economic, political and cultural advancement of the people of India must be liquidated and wiped out.

Mr. President: I do not think I should allow the honourable Member to repeat his arguments against provincial autonomy. This amendment is one which is in line with Was other amendments which seek to transfer all powers to the Centre. Yet I have allowed him to move the amendment, but his arguments are the same which he has advanced many times previously.

Prof Sibban Lal Saksena (United Provinces : General) : I do not move amendment 297.

The Honorouble Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not accept any of the amendments moved.

Mr. President: I will put the amendment moved by Mr. Kamath (280).The question Is:

"That with reference to amendment No. 78 of List I (Sixth Week), the Proposed entry 15 of List II be transferred to List III.'

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: Now amendment No. 77 moved by Shri Brajeshwar Prasad is for the vote of the House. The question is :

"That in amendment No. 3600 of the List of Amendments, for the word and figure III' the word and figure 'List I' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in entry 15 of List II, the words 'registration of births and deaths' be deleted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That entry 15, as amended, stand part of List II."

The motion was adopted.

Entry 15, as amended, was added to the State List.

Entry 16

Mr. President: Entry 16 is now for consideration.

Prof. Shibban Lal Sakesena : I move.

"That for entry 16 of List II, the following be substituted:-

'15. Pilgrimages to places within the State.' "

Sir, the entry in List II simply says, 'Pilgrimages, other than pilgrimages to places beyond India'. I therefore think that we should substitute for entry 16 in List II the words, 'Pilgrimages to places within the State.'

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: (Madras : General) : Sir, the purpose of Professor Shibban Lal's amendment is that pilgrimages to places within a province should vest in the State. That is precisely the idea contained in entry 16. Actually a State cannot interfere with what is happening with regard to pilgrimages in another State. The idea is clearly carried out in entry 16, as it is.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Is that carried out in the entry ?

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : Yes, it is fully carried out. The wording is the same as in the Government of India Act. The only type of pilgrimage for the time being with which the Centre is concerned is the Haj pilgrimage. That is a matter which is entirely within the purview of the Centre. If it happens that they have to regulate pilgrimage or pilgrim traffic to Haj and give directions to the provincial Governments in regard to quarantine accommodation, etc. for the pilgrims, that will be done by the Centre. This is purely a State List intended to control pilgrimages within the State. The purpose will not be served by accepting Prof. Shibban Lal's amendment. I 'therefore suggest that the House should reject the amendment and pass the entry as it is.

Mr. President: The question is :

"That for entry 16 of List II`, the following be substituted '16. Pilgrimages to places within the State. "'The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That entry 16 be added to List II."

The motion was adopted.

Entry 16 was added to the State List.

Envy 17

Mr. President: I do not find any amendment to entry 17. I shall there fore put it to the vote of the House.

Entry 17 was added to the State List.

Entry 18

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

"That for entry 18 of List II, the following entry be substituted:-

'18. Education including universities, subject to the provisions of entries 40, 40-A 57 and 57-A of List I and entry 17-A of List Ill."'

Shri Brajehswar Prasad : Sir, with your permission, out of the three amendments to this entry standing against my name, I will move the second one only. I move:

"That in amendment No. 3607 of the List of Amendments, in the proposed entry 18 of List II, the words 'subject to the supervision, direction and control of the Government of India' be added at the end,"

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim): Sir, I am not moving my amendment No. 242, for reasons of economy of time.

Maulana Hasrat Mohani : (United Provinces : Muslim) : *[Sir, it would be astonishing to you all why 1, a protagonist of provincial autonomy and am opponent of making a strong Centre, am trying to make this particular item a subject. Education should be included in the Concurrent List and not be made a provincial subject. Even then, I do not say that it be included in the First List. As I do not want to make the Centre all-powerful, I am trying to get this included in the Concurrent List. I would not have said even this much but I am helpless. I find, and I quite agree in this with my Friend Mr.Naziruddin, that Dr. Ambedkar is ever trying to increase the powers of the Centre, and to make the provinces weaker. I would go a step further and say that what is happening here today would only result in altering the very basis of the Constitution. At first I thought that this Constitution was being-framed in accordance with the Objectives Resolution and it would be on the, pattern of a Federal Republic and a Socialist Republic, but they have already done away with 'Socialist', and now they seem to be attempting to create a Unitary Indian Empire after merging all the States into it, like the old British Unitary Indian Empire. Besides that, I do not see any other object. Further on you will realise that it is not only I who hold the opinion that it is no more Republican, Socialist or Federal in character. It would become a purely Indian Empire in which provinces will have no powers. This is my opinion. That is what I am totally opposed to it.

Now, I would tell you as to why I want the centre also to be vested with this power. It is because it is connected with the education in provinces. I want that provincial Governments should not be given full power as regards education in their provinces. I have proposed this because provinces have adopted autocratic and quite unreasonable attitude in regard to the question of the medium of instruction in education, regarding which Provinces have been given powers to take any decision they like,, irrespective of the wishes of the Centre or of the people. This has been possible because it is a provincial subject and provinces can take any decision they like and they can have any medium of instruction. Perhaps my Friend would retort that in the provinces primary education would be imparted in the regional languages i.e., in Madras Province education in the primary and secondary stages would be imparted through the medium of regional language, the same would be the case with the Bombay Province. In Bengal, ,education would be given through Bengali, in Punjab through Punjabi, or Gurumukhi. But I would like to tell you what are my difficulties. The difficulties which confront U.P.items are these that U.P. Government has adopted a strange procedure. They say that Hindi is the Provincial language, and their regional language is Sanskritised. Hindi, and that Urdu has no place in the province. I am not saying this to.-you at random. You will be simply surprised, if, I tell you what is happening there. Mr. Tandon, the Speaker of the Provincial Assembly, has ordered that all Bills to be moved in the Assembly should be in Hindi 'and Hindi alone. We do not get its copy in English. There-, the agenda is also framed in Sanskritised Hindi and the list of questions is also prepared in Sanskritised Hindi. And if anybody happens to send his questions in Urdu, they are thrown away. This is not all. They have issued instructions in districts that anyone, who wants registration, must produce the document in Hindi. And if the document is brought in Urdu, registration is refused. Please tell us what to do in these circumstances. Urdu is not the language of Muslims only, it is the language of Hindus also.

Now, it is said that upto the primary and secondary stages the medium of instruction will be the regional language. But they do not follow even this instruction. They ought to impart education in these stages in the regional languages. And in regard to higher education they can do what they like. I do not want to take up this question for the present. I would like to say only this much that the system which they have adopted for the instruction in the primary and secondary stages is unjust. They ought to impart education in these two stages in the mother-tongue. Boys, between the ages of six and eleven years, should be given instruction in their mother-tongue, so that they should be free from the burden of learning other languages. Formerly we used to oppose the British Government for this very reason and used to curse them for they had fixed English as the medium of instruction in High Schools. But you have surpassed them. They did- so in high schools only. But apart from this, they started Vernacular Middle schools and gave the option of passing the middle class in Hindi or Urdu. Those who wanted to acquire further education in English used to join High Schools. So I want to say that the Provincial governments, now, are doing things which the British Government abstained from doing.

Besides this, I would like to say that compulsory education has been introducing in all primary schools in the villages. And it is obligatory on everyone that he should get his children admitted in primary or Basic schools, because people are bound to get their children admitted in these schools for their education. Now you see what is happening there. When these boys are admitted in the first class, they are told they would not be taught  "Bay", as there was no arrangement for that. Now you can see for yourself what would these boys do whose mother-tongue is Urdu. They are told that they could not learn "Alif", "Bay", as there was no arrangement for that. So you should learn "Ka" "Kha", "Gha". What a cruelty it is, and what an injustice is this. Has any Government in the world ever done the injustice which has been perpetrated by the U.P. Government? And moreover they say that, as it is a provincial subject, they can o whatever they like. For this reason I have clearly said that in regard to this matter the Centre should issue instructions. Whatever mother-tongue is favoured in any region by the people should be adopted there.

In the University Commission report submitted by Mr. Radhakrishnan it is clearly written.

"Mother language accordingly to the Commission should be the medium of instruction in all stages of school education."

This is the opinion of your University Commission. Moreover, Shri Rajgopalacharya,  in the Newspapers conference at Bombay on 10th August, said the following about the medium of instruction:-

"The State language should be learnt by itself. I personally feel that teaching should be done in a mixture of regional language and State language."

And many people say that, if not so much, at least you keep the mother-tongue as the medium of instruction. In regard to this, I say that three provinces, namely, Delhi, U.P., Bihar and Mahakoshal or C.P. Bihar and Mahakoshal or C.P. should be made bilingual provinces. And those whose mother-tongue is Urdu should be given instruction in the same language.

The assertion of U.P. Government that its State language is Hindi and its regional language is also Hindi and that Urdu has no place there and that Urdu should be wiped off the face of the earth, is high-handedness. You know very well that the birth place of Urdu is U.P.

Mr. President: *[Maulana Saheb, this is not the question before us at the moment. At present the question is that the education should be a provincial subject.]

Maulana Hasrat Mohani: *[I am also saying the same thing. I do not say that the Centre should be given all the powers. I would like to say only this and I have ventured to say so with this object that at least in fixing the medium of instruction, they should also have a hand. From what the U.P. Government is doing, it appears that it is bent upon wiping off Urdu from the face of the earth.

Sir, I shall finish my speech after citing a few examples. In the Education Ministers' conference which was held here, they unanimously passed the following:-
 
"The medium of instruction and examination in the junior basic stage must be the mother-tongue of the child, and where the mother-tongue is different from the regional or state languages, arrangements must be made for instruction in mother-tongue by appointing at least one teacher, provided there are not less than forth pupils speaking the language in the whole school or ten such pupils in a class."

This is their opinion.

After this the memorandum submitted in the Education Minister' Conference by the West Bengal people was very clear. They have displayed utmost sense of justice and they say, "The policy pursued in West Bengal regarding the medium of instruction in schools and the principle which should be adopted in this regard in all provinces were explained at the All-India Education Ministers' Conference.

Further they say, "The Education Ministry of West Bengal is of opinion that if the principle be adopted in other provinces and the provincial and regional language, where it is different from the mother-tongue of a child, be introduced as a compulsory second language in the secondary stage, then the difficulties of the school-students belonging to the linguistic minorities in different provinces may easily be removed."]

Mr. President: *[Maulana Sahib, there can be two opinions perhaps about the things you are talking."]

Maulana Hasrat Mohani : [Yes, Sir, but U.P. Government do not say so, on the other hand they stick to the plea that education is a provincial subject and so they do not care for the Centre. We are put in a great difficulty as my daughters who go do schools are asked to read "ka kha gha" and they further say, that they do not have instructions for teaching Urdu. What is this? How can such things happen? Therefore, my opinion is that whatever is suggested by Centre regarding the medium of instruction should be under the control of the Centre, and hence because of this control the subject of education should be added in List No. III, instead of List No. II. I do not want to give this right to the Centre but at the same time the Centre should have the power of setting them right in cast they do anything unjust. But if this is not done then they should make it clear that they are not giving any right to the linguistic minorities and that they propose to wipe away Urdu from the surface of the earth. Therefore, either Dr. Ambedkar should accept my proposition or he should give me an assurance that the provinces would not play havoc with the medium of instruction. I want that this should be made clear.]

Mr. President: I think amendment No. 299 is the same as that of Maulana Hasrat Mohani.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: No, Sir, it is quite different.

Mr. President: It is the same-"That entry 18 of List II be transferred to List III. You can move amendment No. 300.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Mr. President, Sir, I beg to move:

"That in amendment No. 79 of List I (Sixth week), for the proposed entry 18 of List II, the following be substituted:-

'18 Education upto the secondary standard'."

I take it that my amendment No. 299 has already been moved. It is my firm belief that in order to have one single unified nation, it is necessary that at least higher education must be a Central subject. I am glad that in many of the amendments the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar has provided that some of the institutions which impart higher education shall be treated as Central subjects; but I wish that University education should be a responsibility of the Union Government alone. In this respect, Sir, I wish to read out a passage from a letter from the Honourable Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Minister for education to the Drafting Committee, dated the 28th April 1948, in which he said:-

"The second point to which I would draw your attention is that in the present state of development of Education in India, it is imperative that there should be Central guidance if not Central control, on Provincial progress. You have yourself seen the dangerous symptoms of fissiparous tendencies in the recent months. If it can be secured that Education throughout India follows the same general pattern, we can be sure that the intelligentsia of the country will be thinking on similar lines. This would be a better check against the dangers of fragmentation than any centralisation of Government or concentration of power in the hands of the Central Authority."

therefore think with this main purpose in view, the whole nation must be given education on the same lines, so that it may be able to think on a particular pattern, and I think this is a very important object which we should strive to achieve. Besides, there are other difficulties which have also to be faced. We remember that Mahatma Gandhi spent a large part of his time in evolving his scheme of Basic National education and he wanted it to be uniform throughout the whole of India. The scheme was evolved after very great research and very great thought by the educationalists all over India. It is obvious that such plans and such schemes can only be evolved and carried out on an All-India basis.

Then there are other advantages from university education under Union control. Firstly, our country has not got such large resources as other advanced countries. Our Universities should therefore specialise in different subjects in different places, so that there may not be much duplication in teaching an waste of effort. I think, therefore, that the Central Government should control all the universities so that it can advise each university with regard to the subject in which it should specialize. Secondly, I feel that the State cannot afford adequate funds for University education. My feeling is that they are already spending large sums on primary education and secondary education and therefore University education is being starved. There must be provision for university education under the Central Government. That will enable those universities to develop properly and in the national interest. Sir, I therefore, think that this List II must only contain education upto the Secondary standard and not up to the university standard. Besides, Sir, the Inter-University Board wherein all the Universities are represented is of the opinion that University education should be a Central subject. For all these reasons I hope the Drafting Committee will consider the subject and that the entry will be amended suitably.

Mr. President: Amendment No. 311 by Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: that is the same as the one moped by Maulana Hasrat Mohani. That need not be moved.

Dr. Ambedkar, do you want to say anything?

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Mr. President, Sir, there seems to be a general tendency on the part of a number of Members of this House to transfer a number of items in List II to List III. May I say at once that we, members of the Drafting Committee, are faced with two opposing problems. Certain Members of the House want that a great responsibility should be shouldered by the Centre. On the other hand, there are a number of Members in this Hose who feel that the Centre is taking on to itself far more than it ought to, thereby rendering provincial autonomy a mere farce. Actually, such complaints also appear in the papers and I found recently a lecture by Mr. C.R. Reddy, Vice-Chancellor of the Andhra University who has heavily underlined this tendency of power gravitating to the Centre. I would like to repudiate at once so far as the Drafting Committee is concerned, that there is any idea of either over-loading the Centre or erring on the side of the provinces. All that we have done, to the extent that we are able to do, is only to see that the Centre takes only such powers as are needed for the purpose of co-ordinating the activities of the provinces. My honourable Friends who have moved these amendments either to take over the entry "education" to the Concurrent List or to limit the scope of entry 18 to Education upto the Secondary standard, if they would please pursue the items relating to Education in List I, they will see that we have provided and the House has accepted those provisions, which confer enough power on the Centre to coordinate the educational activities of the States in the field of higher education, in the field of technical education, in the field of vocational education and also in the field of scientific research. That is about as far as it is safe for the Central Government to go; it would not be wise for any central Government to go beyond that limit.

In regard to the particular point raised by my honourable Friend Maulana Hasrat Mohani, I must say that I do sympathise with his fears, if I am able to understand the gist of his speech. But I am afraid, in a matter like this, the remedy does not lie in the Centre taking over the power on to itself, though I have no doubt that the minorities may probably feel safer with the Centre than with the provinces. I would like to point out that he is not without remedies if the provinces should abuse their power to the extent of shutting out education facilities for any minorities. The fundamental rights, article 23 and article 23-A give him enough power to assert his own rights.

Maulana Hasrat Mohani: They are not sufficient; please read them closely.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: I am afraid I must differ with my honourable Friend. I think that is about the best that we can possibly do, consistent with the idea of having States with a large measure of autonomy for themselves and the Centre taking up the question of security, defence and general well-being of the country, leaving other things to the States. I think it is probably just a matter of the moment where enthusiasm outruns discretion and some provinces want to introduce new reforms at a fat pace. I may tell my honourable Friend that before long he will find things settling down and every provincial Government will respect the articles of fundamental rights 23 and 23-A and the minorities will have no cause for fear. In fact, he would find that there might be other articles coming up for discussion in the House later on which would give him additional safeguards in regard to the safeguarding the languages of particular groups of people. The question cannot be solved by the Centre taking over a responsibility which it cannot on the face of it adequately discharge.

In regard to the amendment of my honourable Friend Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena, I would like to tell him that the Centre has enough powers by means of entries 40, 40-A, 57, 57-A in List I to co-ordinate higher education. The cry that the provinces have not got enough money to spend in regard to University education is not quite real for the reason that what the provinces have really to spend on this type of education is only a microscopic portion of the entire education budget on University education. I think, the expenditure by provinces is fairly liberal as things go. If the matter is really one where finances are retarding higher education, I have no doubt that the powers vested in the Centre under article 253(3) will be used wisely and generously so that the provinces will have adequate grants for the purpose of furthering higher education.

I therefore submit that the points raised by my honourable Friends to either restrict the scope of entry 18 beyond what it has been restricted to or to move it to List III are without substance, and I suggest to the House that they should accept the amendment moved by my honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 3607 of the List of Amendments, in the proposed entry 18 of List II, the words 'subject to the supervision, direction and control of the Government of India' be added at the end."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That with reference to amendment No. 79 of List I (Sixth Week), the proposed entry 18 of List II be transferred to List III."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 79 of List I (Sixth week), for the proposed entry 18 of List II, the following be substituted:-

'18. Education up to the secondary standard'

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: I now put the entry as moved by Dr. Ambedkar. The question is:

"That for entry 18 of List II, the following entry be substituted:-

"18. Education including universities, subject to the provisions of entries 40, 40-A, 57 and 57-A of List I and entry 17-A of List III."

The amendment was adopted.

Entry 18, as amended, was added to the State List.

Entry 19

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Mr. President, I move:

That in entry 19 of List II-

(a) the words and figures 'minor railways subject to the provisions of List I with respect to such railways', and

(b) the words and figures 'ports, subject to the provisions in List I with regard to major ports', be omitted."

Sir, in regard to item (a) of this amendment, we have already passed the entry in regard to railways in List I which is a comprehensive entry and legislative power in regard to all railways whether major or minor now vests with the Centre. In regard to item (b), the idea really is that this entry should be transferred to List III and an amendment has been tabled to that effect. Instead of having the classification major and minor ports, the idea is that the Centre will be given powers to give certain directions or make regulations for the provinces to follow in regard to the administration of ports called minor ports. In order to give the Centre this amendment is made transferring this particular portion of entry 19 to the Concurrent List. I hope the House will accept this amendment partly because they are already committed in regard to part (a), and partly because, so far as item (b) is concerned, the transfer is one that will conduce to the improvement of our minor ports generally. I move.

(Amendment No. 84 was not moved)

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Sir, my amendment is of a drafting nature. I beg to move:

"That in entry 19 of List II-for the words 'Communications, that is to say, roads, bridges, ferries, and other means of communication not specified in List I' the words 'Roads, bridges, ferries, and communications with their help' be substituted."

I hope the drafting committee will accept it. I am not moving the second part of the amendment.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: I do not think there is any particular merit in the amendment proposed.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in entry 19 of List II-for the words 'Communications, that is to say, roads, bridges, ferries, and other means of communication not specified in List I' the words 'Roads, bridges, ferries, and communications with their help' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in entry 19 of List II-

(a) the words and figures 'minor railways subject to the provisions of List I with respect to such railways', and

(b) the words and figures 'ports, subject to the provisions in List I with regard to major ports,' be omitted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That entry 19, as amended, stand part of List II."

The motion was adopted.

Entry 19, as amended, was added to the State List.

Entry 20

(Amendment No. 86 was not moved).

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Sir, I beg to move:

"That entry 20 of List II be transferred to List III."

I might point out that there are a number of amendments in this Order Paper to entries 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 29, 34 and 46. These amendments are really of the same nature. What I really want is that agriculture and land revenue systems all over India should be amendable to planning on an all-India scale. Now we are making them State subjects in which the Centre will have practically no power. In fact, the other day I read out a passage from Shri Jairamdas Daultatram's letter in which he had said that the time had come when the Centre ought to take up the entire responsibility in regard to food. I feel it should be realized that agriculture, irrigation, cattle, land, forests etc. shall have to be developed according to an All-India Plan and under Central direction. In fact we have in List III one entry No. 34 for planning. If we take up any book on planning we will find that no plan can be complete, unless it includes all-round long-term development of land and agriculture within its purview. Today we are thinking that if we put these items in List III, then we shall be depriving provinces of their autonomy. This is quite incorrect. By putting them in List III, we only mean that the Centre will have power to co-ordinate these activities, to finance them when necessary and to give expert advice. I do not want them to go to List I, but they should be put in List III so that the Centre will not interfere with the States and will only advice and co-ordinate their activities. It may be pointed out that even the 1935 Act had made such a complete division as is now proposed. In that Act there was the Central responsibility of the Governor-General which was overriding and so that could keep the whole administration centralised but today we are dividing the functions of the Union Govt. and the State Govts. in water-tight compartments. Today we are fortunate in having one part ruling the whole country but tomorrow it may not be so and then it will be difficult to carry out the same plan in all the States. If India is to be made self-sufficient in food it must have irrigation facilities on a very large scale for the entire country, but can we know that the provinces and States will not be in a position to carry out large irrigation schemes costing several hundred crores? The total area irrigated at present is about 50 million acres of which Government canals account for nearly 28 million acres. The capital outlay on these projects is about Rs. 153 crores. During the next ten years according to the people's plan the irrigation projects should be extended by about Rs. 400 per cent. The total capital expenditure on this scope would be about Rs. 600 crores and the maintenance charges will be about 15 crores. These will not be within the competence of any province. I would suggest that this subject should along with others be taken under Central direction so that plans according to entry 34 in List III could be implemented with the co-operation of the Centre and the States.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Sir, I do not accept the amendment.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That entry 20 of List I be transferred to List III."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That entry 20 stand part of List II."

The motion was adopted.

Entry 20 was added to the State List.

Entry 21

Mr. Brajeshwar Prasad: Sir, I beg to move:

"That with reference to amendment NO. 3586 of the List of amendments, entry 21 of List II be transferred to List I as new entry 92."

Sir, agriculture is a vital subject. We have been taking great interest in our legislative body and we subjected the Ministry to severe criticism. I would like to say that unless the Centre has got ample powers, unless agriculture becomes a central subject the problem of food supply and distribution will not be effectively tackled with and all programmes and schemes will unhappy come to naught. The real problem is how to prevent the sub-division and fragmentation of land. We have to change the laws of inheritance if our national economy is to be laid on sound scientific basis. Therefore I plead that agriculture must be nationalised, but here I am only saying that the power to legislate on this subject must remain exclusively in the hands of the Centre. All our defences and Foreign affairs will be of no avail if the system of agriculture is not improved. India is an agricultural country. The Centre must take up agriculture in its hands if the menace of subversive movements is to be effectively challenged and met with. There are other reasons why I am not in favour of agriculture being vested in the hands of the Provincial Governments but having due regard to observations that were made, I do not like to dilate upon them.

Mr. President: Mr. Saksena, do you wish to repeat your argument?

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Sir, I beg to move"

"That entry 21 of the List II be transferred to List III."

We are dealing with agriculture-I will only read out two or three important points in this connection. Development of agriculture can be done in two ways. Firstly, we can have intensive cultivation or we can extend the area under cultivation. The net area sown in British India is about 210 million acres. During the period of the next ten years according to the People's Plan this area should be extended by about 100 million acres of new land. This would amount to bringing under the plough new land to the extent of about 50 per cent of the present net sown area. The expenditure needed for this purpose has been calculated at the rate of 60 rupees per acre on average. The would demand a sum of Rs. 600 crores. I do not think the Provinces can undertake such an amount of expenditure nor can they co-ordinate the efforts of the various provinces. For intensive cultivation what is required is the provision of adequate manures, improved seeds, etc. to the cultivator. For this Rs. 720 crores is required for the entire period of the next ten years covered by the plan. It will be obvious that no single State can undertake this huge responsibility. Therefore, I feel that this entry should also got to List III, so that the efforts of the Provinces and the efforts of the Centre could also be co-ordinated to solve these huge problems.

Chaudhri Ranbir Singh (East Punjab: General): *[Mr. President, in this connection I would like to submit that there are many pests problems that are inter-provincial by nature. Take for instance the locust problem. It is not conferred to any particular province or country, but it is an international problem. There are many other pests that are of inter-provincial nature. A province may not have any information of its existence, until it is actually invaded by the pest from the neighbouring province. So when the province is actually faced with that pest, it is not in a position to combat the menace. I, therefore, request that 'pests' should particularly be included in the Concurrent List. Secondly, India is an agricultural land and there is shortage of food at present in this country. This subject is directly connected with agriculture and for this consideration too it ought to be placed in the Concurrent List.]

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Mr. President, Sir, this subject of agriculture has been brought up before this House in a variety of ways and a number of Members of this House have emphasised the need for the Centre taking it on hand. Well, it may be that there is a lot of force in many of the arguments adduced by them, in support of this stand. At the same time, agriculture happens to be the principal industry in this country, and practically one of the main functions of the State, and beyond taking certain powers for the purpose of co-ordination, I do not think the Centre is at all capable of handling this vast problem. I might also take the House into confidence and tell the Members that certain proposals perhaps somewhat on the lines of those now made, were put before the Provincial Ministers when they met here a couple of months back, and the Drafting Committee also was invited to discuss those proposals with them. But there was a fairly general resistance to any further inroads into the field of provincial autonomy, and the proposals had to be dropped. I do not believe that the Centre is without resources at all, in this matter. There are many ways of the Centre directing the provinces to make improvements in agriculture or provide other amenities to the agriculturists by means of the grants and so on. The experience that the Centre has in helping the improvement of agriculture for the last six or seven years, I think will make it possible for it to effectively help in the proper promotion of agriculture by grants. Beyond saying that, and beyond pointing out to the entries in List I and to the powers that the Centre has to give grants, lump-sum grants for specific purposes, I am afraid the Drafting Committee are unable to accept the suggestion to transfer practically one of the major items in the administration of State Governments, to the Centre, whether it be in List I or List III. Sir, I oppose the amendments.

Mr. President: I put the amendment of Shri Brajeshwar Prasad.

The question is:

"That with-reference to amendment No. 3586 of the List of Amendments, entry 21 of List II be transferred to List I as new entry 92."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: Then I put Prof. Saksena's amendment.

The question is:

"That entry 21 of List II be transferred to List III."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: I then put entry 21.

The question is

"That entry 21 stand part of List II."

The motion was adopted.

Entry 21 was added to the State List.

Entry 22

Mr. President: Then we come to entry 22 and I find there is an amendment of Prof. Saksena, saying that entry 22 of List II be transferred to List III.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: There are also other amendments. There is an amendment of Drafting Committee-No. 282, and there is No. 283 by Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava.

Mr. President: Yes, No. 282.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Mr. President, Sir, I move:

"That in entry 22 of List II for the words 'Improvement of stock' the words 'Preservation, protection and improvement of stock' be substituted.

Sir, I would like to tell the House that the provocation for this amendment was an amendment of which Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava had given notice, in respect of improvement of the wording and adding to the wording of entry 30 which is an entry designed to legislate for the protection of wild birds and animals. He had brought in the idea of "Preservation and improvement of stock and useful breeds of cattle, banning the slaughter of animals etc." especially the slaughter of milch cattle. The matter was discussed by the Drafting Committee with him, and we felt that there was some force in his arguments, and that the proper place to put in is amendment was under "Improvement of stock," in entry 22. At the same time we were unable to take in the entire wording of his amendment, i.e., specifically mention the banning of cattle-slaughter and so on for the reason that the entry in these lists only mentions the legislative powers of the State or the Central Government, an does not go into the policy behind that power. In fact it would be inappropriate to determine policy by the wording of these entries. The idea really is that by means of preservation and protection and improvement of stock, the Government should have ample power to ban cattle slaughter and to protect stock, to protect milch cattle an so on. There is no need, we felt, to put in specifically the idea which has been put in the Directive Principles which really dictate the policy. Therefore, we feel that the purpose that Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava has in mind would be amply served by the amendment that I have now proposed, namely, preservation, protection and improvement of stock, and all possible steps that the Government may want to take in furtherance of the views of Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava can be taken by them, by means of the powers vested in them by this entry. I have no doubt that he will feel that this amplification of entry 22 is in the right direction and it also gives support to the expressed views of this House in passing an article relating to the protection of milch cattle and so on. I do hope that the House will accept this amendment and I also hope that my Friend, Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava will feel satisfied that the object that he has in view will attained by means of this entry, even though we have not put in, for reasons that I have mentioned before, the exact wording that he sought to include in this entry NO. 13, as original amendment stands. Sir, I move:

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava (East Punjab: General): I do not propose to move the amendment that stands in my name but with your permission I would wish to make some observations on the amendment proposed by Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari. I am very much satisfied to know from Mr. Krishnamachari that he has accepted the underlying idea of my amendment. It appears it was in their minds that the ban of slaughter of animals was the accepted policy of the Government. We also passed an article here in this House. It is article 38-A, Now a reference to that article would establish that it is not only the improvement in the breeds of cattle that is contemplated by that section but it goes further and lays down the policy as follows:

"The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall in particular take steps for preserving and improving the breeds of cattle and prohibit the slaughter of cows and other useful cattle specially milch and drought cattle and their young stock."

In response to public demand, you yourself Sir, were instrumental in getting a Committee appointed. We know the recommendations of that Committee. The recommendations of the Preservation and Development Committee appear on page 14 of the report. Their final recommendations are:

'This Committee is of opinion that slaughter of cattle is not desirable in India under any circumstances whatsoever, and that its prohibition shall be enforced by law. The prosperity of India to a very large extend depends on her cattle and the soul of thecountry can feel satisfied only if cattle slaughter is banned completely and simultaneous steps are taken to improve the cattle which are in a deplorable condition at present. In order to achieve these ends, the Committee suggests that the following recommendations should be given effect to:

(i) The first stage which has to be given effect to immediately should cover the total prohibition of slaughter of all useful cattle other than as indicated below:

(a) Animals over 14 years of age and unfit for work and breeding.

(b) Animals of any age permanently unable to work or breed owing to age, injury or deformity.

I do not wish to read further from the recommendations because the Government of India through the Minister of Food and Agriculture on the 24th March accepted these recommendations of the Committee. Now the Government is committed to the prevention of useful cattle and they have brought in a bill also, in the Legislative Assembly to ban the slaughter of useful cattle. This being so my humble submission is that the entry should have been amended in such a manner as to take it from the bounds of possibility that subsequently it could be said that the protection of cattle could be enforced by killing cattle. Two days back I received a pamphlet called: "Anti-slaughtering campaign and its effect on Leather industry" by Dhirendrodite, G. Puranesh which advocates that the protection of useful cattle can be achieved by slaughtering useless cattle. My humble submission is that when the Government of India appointed a Committee and accepted the policy of preservation and protection of these cattle banning slaughter of animals, then banning should be clearly proclaimed to be the policy, and we should not be shy of saying so, because we have passed article 38-A, not with the help of this or that section of the community, but with the help of almost all communities in this House. This banning of slaughtering cattle is also an accepted principle all over the world and even Pakistan has prevented the slaughter of animals. Therefore, I do not see why we should not say openly that the Government of India has accepted this policy. It may be said that these words should not come into the Constitution but I would suggest further that if they wanted brevity only, they could have substituted the word "animals" only for the entire entry, because the disease of animals etc., are all included in the word "animals". When they wanted to have an entry in respect of this important matter, they ought to have had such an entry as would have responded to public feeling in this matter. Only yesterday we heard Dr. Ambedkar expatiating, while he was discussing section 223 and section 91, and saying that though the entry 91 was redundant, as both entries said the same thing, still with a view to allay public feeling and satisfy the Provincial Governments he would have this redundant entry. So I do not understand why the Government is feeling shy of using the words "ban of the slaughter of animals" in this item. If this is their policy, I do not think this Secular State will fall down if we use the right words. I would have been glad if the Drafting Committee used this expression at least for the purpose of satisfying the sentiments of the people. However, I bow down to the wisdom of the Drafting Committee and I do not want to move my amendment. After all, public sentiment does matter and if you are doing the right thing it is but right that you not only respond to public feeling but satisfy it by saying that you have responded to it. You have agreed to the principle but you are refraining from using the correct words. I am not satisfied with the wordings of the Drafting Committee, but as they have seen it fit to eliminate these words of mine, I do not propose to move my amendment.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena. Sir I move:

"That entry 22 in List II be transferred to List III."

This entry has been amended by Dr. Ambedkar and he has used the words "Preservation protection and improvement of stock." Sir, I object to his method of providing for ban on Cow Slaughter by the back door. Why is the Drafting Committee ashamed of providing for it frankly and boldly in so many plain words?

There is no sense in trying to camouflage such vital matters. The entry as it stands now has no meaning, so far as ban on Cow Slaughter is concerned. I want that this entry should go to List III, not only on account of cow protection but because of the other problems involved. The entry relates to the improvement of stock which is a national problem and the provinces alone cannot solve it. In my part we import cows and bulls from Hissar etc. The same is the situation in other parts of the country. If you want to improve the stock you must have an all-India plan which should be co-ordinated by the Centre. If you put this Entry in List III, i.e.., the Concurrent List, the provinces will have all the powers and at the same the Centre can co-ordinate their efforts. Therefore this Entry must go to List III so that the Centre with its funds and knowledge would be able to co-ordinate State plans for improving the cattle stock, which is essential for improving the agriculture of the country.

Shri Lakshminarayan Sahu (Orissa: General): *[Mr. President, I do not want to take much of your time in regard to this matter, but I would like to make one point. Here we want to mention 'preservation, protection and improvement of stock', which, in my opinion, does not exclude all possibility of ambiguity. Hence I would say that we should use the expression 'improvement of indigenous kinds of live-stock' which would better express our intention. When we say 'improvement of stock', it is not clear what 'stock' we mean; then we further say 'prevention of stock' it is not clear what 'stock' we mean; then we further say 'prevention of animal diseases'. The expression 'live-stock' would make it quite clear.

The other point is, that this should not be included in the Concurrent List. If it is included in the State List, every province will know what steps it has to take. We see that the animals sent to our province from Hissar and Sind cannot easily live there. Their young ones have got a short life. Hence I wish that this should be better included in the State List rather than the Concurrent List. We will have much more knowledge about the condition of our province, about the development of our live-stock than the Centre can.]

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Sir, in regard to Mr. Saksena's amendment it seems to be like a saying current in my part of the country which says that if you throw as many stones as you can at a mango tree at least one of them is bound to hit a mango and bring it down. Likewise my friend seems to have a scheme to have a series of amendments to get as many subjects transferred from List II to List III, in the hope that at least one amendment of his would be accepted by the House. If that is the approach I have nothing to say about is except to state that responsibility for the administration of these subject should rest with the States.

As regards my honourable Friend Mr. Thakur Das Bhargava I had anticipated his argument when I spoke moving my amendment. We fully sympathise with him. We recognise that the purpose he has in view has been conceded by this House by putting it in the Directive Principles. But so far as putting anything which is a statement of policy in the list which confers legislative power on the Centre and the provinces is concerned, I am afraid we must say that we cannot agree with him. Therefore I feel that he might be satisfied that the purpose will be achieved without specifically putting the words in the entry. I hope the House will accept the amendment moved by me.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in entry 22 of List II, for the words 'Improvement of stock' the words 'Prevention, protection and improvement of Stock' be substituted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That entry 22 of List II be transferred to List III."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That entry 22, as amended, stand part of List II."

The motion was adopted.

Entry 22, as amended, was added to the State List.

Entry 23

Entry 23, was added to the State List.

Entry 24

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Sir, I move:

"That in entry 24 of List II, after the word 'loans' the words 'Consolidation of agricultural holdings; State, co-operative and collective agricultural farms; acquisition by the State of rights in agricultural land' be inserted."

Sir, I had also given an amendment that this entry should be transferred to List III which seems to have been omitted by mistake.

My Friend Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari objected to my amendments for transferring certain items of List II. I would draw his attention to para. 233 of the report of the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reforms where they say:

"We turn now to the problems presented by the Concurrent List. We have already explained our reasons for accepting the principle of a Concurrent List, but the precise definition of the powers to be conferred upon the Centre in relation to the matters contained in its presents a difficult problem. In the first place, it appears to us that while it is necessary for the Centre to possess in respect of the subjects included in the List a power of co-ordinating or unifying regulations, the subjects themselves are essentially provincial in character and will be administered by the Provinces and mainly in accordance with Provincial Policy; that is to say, they have a closer affinity to those included in List II than to the exclusively federal subjects. At the same time, it is axiomatic, that, if the concurrent legislative power of the Centre is to be effective in such circumstances, the normal rule must be that, in case of conflict between a central and a provincial Act in the concurrent field, the former must prevail."

It is obvious that the Concurrent List is intended to be a list of those subjects in which the Centre should have the power of co-ordinating the activities of the States and of advising them and therefore when I suggested that these entries should be transferred to List III, I did not want to deprive the provinces of their power. I only want that the Centre should have the power of advising the units and of co-ordinating their activities and the finances of the Centre will be helpful in the development of those activities.

I feel that this particular item is a most important one in the whole list and you cannot carry out any scheme of planning without having it under Central control. I will quote some figures.

We are now engaged in the abolition of the zamindari and in my own province it will cost about 150 crores of rupees in compensation alone.

Similarly, in Bihar a large amount will have to be spent in acquiring zamindari property. In regard to these big schemes of social engineering, the provinces have experienced great difficulty, and therefore if such schemes are taken up by the Centre, then the Government of India can have a uniform policy for the liquidation of the system all over the country. It is my opinion that India cannot prosper and her rural economy cannot improve, until the present antiquated system of land tenure is abolished. There is this difficulty in every province. Fortunately, in my own province it will soon be solved. If we want that this zamindari system should be abolished all over the country quickly, then this subject should be in the hands of the Centre. We should have for all-India a uniform system of land tenure. If this subject is there in the Concurrent List, the Centre will be able to regulate the policy to be followed by the provinces and may succeed in abolition of landlordism in the shortest possible time.

If you want to develop land, I suggest that consolidation of agricultural holding shall have to be included in a comprehensive ten-year plan. Collective farms, some 20,000 in number, shall have to be established costing Rs. 3 crores. This much sum cannot be found by one single State unit. Therefore I suggest that this entry might be transferred to List III.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: Sir, I move:

"That for amendment No. 3611 of the List of Amendments, the following be substituted:

"That entry 24 of List BB, be transferred to List I.'"

With your permission I shall move also the next amendment, viz.,-

"That for amendment No. 3611 of the List of Amendments, the following be substituted:-

"That for entry 24 of List II, the following be substituted:

'24 Land, that is to say, rights in or over land, land tenures including the relations of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land improvement and agricultural loans; colonization subject to the supervision, direction and control of the Union Government.

I heartily endorse the arguments advanced by my honourable Friend, Mr. Shibban Lal Saksena. His premises are sound, but the conclusion he has drawn does not follow therefrom. He has made out a case for the transfer of this entry to List I. I agree that there should be all-India planning and uniformity in regard to this matter. But that does not mean that this should be transferred to List III.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: We do not accept the amendments.

Mr. President: I will now put amendment No. 88 of Shri Brajeshwar Prasad to vote.

The question is:

"That for amendment No. 3611 of the List of amendments, the following be substituted:-

"That for entry 24 of List II, the following be substituted:

'24. Land, that is to say, rights in or over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land improvement and agricultural loans; colonization subject to the supervision, direction and control of the Union Government.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: Now I will put Prof. Shibban Lal's amendment No. 305.

The question is:

"That in entry 24 of List II, after the word 'loans', the words 'Consolidation of agricultural holdings; State co-oprative and collective agricultural farms; acquisition by the State of rights in agricultural land' be inserted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That for amendment No. 3611 of the List of Amendments, the following be substituted:-

"That entry 24 of List II be transferred to List I.'"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: Then we have the next amendment of Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena. The question is:

"That entry 24 of List II be transferred to List III."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That entry 24 stand part of List II."

The amendment was adopted.

Entry 24 was added to the State List.

Entries 25 and 26

Entries 25 and 26 were added to the State List

Entry 27

Mr. President: If Mr. Brajeshwar Prasad is moving amendment NO. 89, he should not repeat the old arguments.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: No Sir, I move:

"That entry 27 of List II be transferred to List I."

Mr. President: In the case of the next amendment also Prof. Saksena need not repeat his arguments.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: I will take only two minutes, Sir, I moved:

"That entry 27 of List II be transferred to List III."

In this connection I want to refer to the condition of the forests in our land. Out of 1,200,000 square miles of State forests nearly 54,000 sq. miles are inaccessible. They have remained unexploited. Therefore with a view to explore and exploit them and to conduct researches on an all-India basis, and to co-ordinate the activities of the various States, I have moved this amendment.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: I endorse all the sentiments expressed by Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena.

"That entry 27 stand part of List II."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: Now I will put Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena's amendment to vote. The question is:

"That entry 27 stand part of List III."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That entry 27 stand part of List LL."

The motion was adopted.

Entry 27 was added to the State List.

Entry 28

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Sir, I move:

"That in entry 28 of List II, the words 'and-oilfields' be deleted."

This is explained by the moving of a similar entry in List I. Sir, I move:

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: Sir, I move:

"That entry 28 of list II be transferred to List I."

Mr. President: The next one.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: I am not moving any other amendment.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in entry 28 of List II, the words 'and oildfields' be deleted."

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That entry 28 of List II be transferred to List I."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That entry 28, as amended stand part of List II."

The motion was adopted.

Entry 28, as amended, was added to the State List.

Entry 29

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Sir,. I move:

"That entry 29 of List II be transferred to List III."

Mr. President: The question is:

"That entry 29 List II be transferred to List III."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That entry 29 stand part of List II."

The motion was adopted.

Entry 29 was added to the State List.

Entry 30

(Amendment No. 94 was not moved.)

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Mr. President, Sir, I move:

"That for entry 30 of List II, the following entry be substituted:-

'30. Protection of wild animals and birds.'"

It was suggested that the wording of the entry as it stands in the Draft Constitution should be amended, and therefore it has been amended on the lines suggested by me. Sir, I move:

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: I would like to speak on this.

Mr. President: Very well.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: Sir, I support the entry as moved by my Friend, Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari, but he seems to be partial towards wild animals and birds. I think he ought to have included all animals and birds in general. Why only wild animals and birds? After all, in this country there is a tradition of non-violence and to the extent to which it May be possible for provincial Governments to show consideration and mercy to animals and birds in general that consideration ought to be shown.

(Amendment No. 243 was not moved.)

Mr. President: The question is:

"That for entry 30 of List II, the following entry be substituted:-

'30. Protection of wild animals and birds.'"

The amendment was adopted.

Entry 30, as amended, was added to the State List.

Entry 31

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Sir, I move:

"That entry 31 of List II be transferred to List III."

Mr. President: The question is:

"That entry 31 of List II be transferred to List III."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That entry 31 stand part of List II'.

The amendment was adopted.

Entry 31, was added to the State List.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Mr. President, Sir, I move:

"That for entry 32 of List II the following entry be substituted:

'32. Trade and commerce within the State, subject to the provisions of entry 35-A of List III, markets and fairs.'"

Sir, the amendment has been found to be necessary because we have put in the Concurrent List an entry which empowers the Centre to give directions in regard to trade and commerce and the products of industries which is controls. Therefore, this change has been made and for no other reason.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: Sir, I move:

"That in amendment No. 3616 of the List of Amendments, in the proposed entry 32 of List II, for the words and figure 'provisions of List I, the words 'superintendence, direction and control of the Union Government' be substituted."

Mr. President: There is no other amendment. The question is:

"That in amendment No. 3616 of the List of Amendments, in the proposed entry 32 of List II, for the words and figure 'provisions of List I, the words 'superintendence, direction and control of the Union Government' be substituted."

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That for entry 32 of List II, the following entry be substituted:-

'32 Trade and commerce within the State, subject to the provisions of entry 35-A of List III, markets and fair.'"

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That entry 32 as amended, stand part of List II."

The motion was adopted.

Entry 32, as amended, was added to the State List.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari: Sir, I beg to move:

"That entry 33 of List II be deleted."

Sir, this entry is no longer necessary because provision has been made elsewhere for this purpose.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: Sir, I beg to move:

"That for amendment No. 3617 of the List of amendments, the following be substituted:

"That for entry 33 of List II, the following be substituted:-

'33. Regulation of trade commerce and intercourse with other States for the purposes of the provisions of article 244 of this Constitution subject to the supervision, direction and control of the Government of India"

Mr. President: Do you wish to move the next amendment No. 99?

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: Sir, I move:

"That in amendment NO. 3617 of the List of Amendments, for the word 'deleted' the words and figure 'included in List I' be substituted:-

Mr. President: The question is:

"That for amendment No. 3617 of the List of Amendments, the following be substituted:-

"That for entry 33 of List II, the following be substituted:-

'33. Regulation of trade commerce and intercourse with other States for the purposes of the provisions of article 244 of this Constitution subject to the supervision, direction and control of the Government of India"

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 3617 of the List of Amendments, for the word 'deleted' the words and figure 'included in List I' be substituted:-

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That entry 33 of List II be deleted."

The amendment was adopted.

Entry 33 was deleted from the State List.

Entry 34

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Sir, I beg to move:

"That entry 34 of List II be transferred to List III."

This is an important amendment. I would like the House to realise the magnitude of the problem. We all want to wipe out rural indebtedness. Sir, in this connection I would like to read an extract from the People's Plan for Economic Development of India, which runs as follows:

"The other problem that will have to be tackled, along with this problem of the outmoded land tenure system, will be the problem of rural indebtedness. The total rural indebtedness was estimated by the Central Banking Inquiry Committee, in the year 1929, at about 900 crores of rupees. Subsequent estimates have however, put the figure at a much higher level. The estimate according to the report of the Agricultural Credit Department of the Reserve Bank of India in the year 1937 is about 1800 crores of rupees. It is not possible that this might have reduced to any significant extent since the year 1937, nor can the so-called agricultural boom at present be said to have produced very substantial reductions. The money-lender in the country dominates more in that strata of the agricultural population which is relatively worse off."

"The boom can hardly be said to have benefited that strata. On the other hand, the debt represents accumulations of decades. The debt legislation in the various provinces has not, admittedly, been able to touch even the fringe of the problem. We feel it necessary, therefore, that the debt should be compulsorily scaled down and then taken over by the State. Experiments made in this direction in the Province of Madras, for example, serve as a useful pointer. Under the working of the Madras Agriculturist' Relief Act of 1938, debts were scaled down by about 47 per cent and the provisions of the Act can, by no logic be characterized as drastic. In the Punjab, under the operations of the Debt Conciliation Boards, debts amounting to 40 lakhs were settled for about 14 lakhs. It should, therefore, be possible and just be considered as necessary to scale down the present debts to about 25 per cent before they are taken over by the State. Assuming the present indebtedness to amount to about Rs. 1,000 crores the debt to be taken over by the State will come to about Rs. 250 crores."

The compensation to be paid to the rent-receivers as well as to the usurers will thus amount to Rs. 1985 crores. This should be paid in the form of self-liquidating bonds issued by the State. These should be for a period of 40 years at the rate of interest of 3 per cent and should be compulsorily retained by the State in its possession. The annual payments to be made by the State for these bonds will come to about Rs. 60 crores.

On the carrying out of these initial measures will depend the success of the planned economy for raising the productivity of agriculture in the interests of the cultivators. Unless the status quo is changed in this manner there can be no hope of improving the standard of living of the vast bulk of our peasantry, and therefore, no hope of building up an industrial structure in the country on sound, stable and secure foundations. We are aware of the difficulties in the way of carrying out the above measures but we are unnamable to see any alternative to them whatsoever."

It is thus obvious that if we really want to remove agricultural indebtedness, the problem cannot be solved merely by action taken by individual States. Only a comprehensive plan and its bold execution with the fullest co-operation of the Union Government with the Government of the states can solve these problems. It is therefore that I have suggested that this entry should be transferred to List III.

Sir, I have tabled my amendment only with this purpose in view. I feel and I am quite convinced that we cannot change the face of our country and we cannot realise the 'India' of our dreams unless we adopt a comprehensive plan and have powers to coordinate the activities of the Centre and the Provinces. I therefore commend my amendment for the earned consideration of the House.

*[] Translation of Hindustani speeches.