Sunday, 13 July 2014

Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Entries in Union List

Title: Entry 89, Entry 90 and Entry 91
Volume IX (30th July to 18th September 1949)
Participants: Sardar Hukum Singh,
Mr. Nazirudin Ahmad, Shri Shibban Lall Saksena, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, The Chairman (Dr. Rajendra Prasad), Mr. Brajeshwar Prasad, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, The Chairman (Dr. Rajendra Prasad), Dr. P. S. Deshmukh, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, The Chairman (Dr. Rajendra Prasad), Shri Shibban Lall Saksena, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, The Chairman (Dr. Rajendra Prasad), Shri Raj Bahadur, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, The Chairman (Dr. Rajendra Prasad)

 Entry 89
     Mr. President : I do not find any amendment to entry 89.
Entry 89 was added to the Union List.
Entry 90
Entry 90 was added to the Union List.
Entry 91
     Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I shall not move the amendment; but I shall speak on the entry itself.
     The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Why not present the baby with the song? Why the song only? You may move the amendment and make a speech.
     Sardar Hukam Singh (East Punjab : Sikh): Mr. President, Sir, I beg to move :
     “That in entry 91 of List I, the word ‘other’ be deleted.”
     I have another amendment also that was submitted along with this, but that has been numbered and placed at 171 “That entries I to 90 of List I be deleted.” This has been put separately. I wanted to move them together. That opportunity was not given. My idea is, Sir.......
     Mr. President: You are moving amendment number 234?
     Sardar Hukam Singh: Yes, Sir. My only submission is that I put these two things together, amendments 234 and 171; but they have been split from each other and they appear in different places. No. 171 was not called. Perhaps it was considered too late or it may be called at the end, I cannot say. They were complete when read together and I would deal with both of them if I am permitted.
     Mr. President: We have already passed all these entries.
     Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: How could entries which we have passed be deleted ?
     Sardar Hukam Singh: This is what I am submitting. This amendment. I was not permitted to move then. That has been put separately. I will now deal with amendment No. 234.
     My difficulty, Sir, is that after dealing with all these entries from 1, to 90 and after discussing all those details, and even considering interplanetary travels and those journeys from one satellite to another, from the moon to earth and from earth to moon, we have at last come to the conclusion that they are not complete and there might be others that might be required to be included in this List. The object of this entry 91 is, whatever is not included in Lists II and III must be deemed to have been included in this List. I feel that it could be said in very simple words, if the word ‘other’ were omitted, and then there would be no need for this list absolutely. Ultimately, it comes to this that whatever is not covered by Lists II and III is all embraced in the Union List. This could be, said in very simple words and we need not ‘have taken all this trouble which we have taken.
     Shri Mahavir Tyagi : On a point of order, Sir, I beg to submit that the second part of the amendment which my honourable Friend Sardar Hukam Singh has moved, is out of order. It is not an amendment of entry No. 91. It is an amendment to entries from I to 90, which we have already passed. If the amendment were to be moved, it could be moved only when entry I was under consideration or entry 2 was under consideration.
     Mr. President: He is not moving it; he is moving amendment 234,—that in entry 91 of List I, the word “other” be deleted.
     Shri Mahavir Tyagi : The second he is not moving?
     Mr. President: He is moving only the other one.
     Shri Mahavir Tyagi: I beg your pardon, Sir.
     Sardar Hukam Singh: My submission was that the omission of the word ‘other’ from this entry would have served the whole purpose of putting this long list. I fear there might not be some servile mentality exhibited here because the Act of 1935 had about 320 articles and ten schedules, and then the seventh schedule had three lists and that has been followed in this Draft as well. Otherwise, we need not have gone into these details. I am reminded of a short story. A gentleman asked his expert friend, what was the best method of catching a crane. The expert friend replied, ‘just go when it is dark, put some wax on the. head of the crane, when the Sun would rise afterwards, it would melt the wax which is sure to fall into its eyes. The bird would be blind and you can catch it. The gentleman asked, then why not catch it at the very beginning when you go to put the wax ? He replied, if it were done so easily, then where was the master’s feat, i.e., ustad ki ustadi 
     I fail to understand, Sir, why all this procedure should have been gone through. When we come to entry 9 1, we have to put, this residuary power. It could have been more easily done by paying more attention to Lists 11 and III and simply saying any matters not enumerated, in Lists II or III including any tax not mentioned in either of those lists. That would give us the same effect without bothering about all these details, With these words, I move my amendment.
     Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Mr. President, Sir, I do not wish to oppose entry 91. It is too late to do it, but I should submit that the moment we adopted entry 91, it would involve serious redrafting of certain articles and entries. Under article 217 we have stated in substance that entries in List I will belong to Union List II to States and List III common to both. That was the original arrangement under which we started. We took the scheme from the Government of India Act. When an entry like 91 was considered at an earlier stage we agreed that the residuary power should be with the Centre. This was an innovation, as there was nothing like it in the Government of India Act. As soon as we accept entry No. 91, article 217 and a few other articles would require redrafting and entries 1 to 90 would be redundant. In fact all the previous entries—from I to 90 would be rendered absolutely unnecessary. I fail to see the point now retaining entries 1 to 90. If every subject which is not mentioned in Lists II and III is to go to the Centre what is the point in, enumerating entries I to 90 of list I? That would amount to absolutely needless, cumbersome detail. All complications could be avoided and matters simplified by redrafting article 217 to say that all matters enumerated in List. II must belong to the States, and all matters enumerated in List III are assigned to the Centre and the States concurrently and that every other conceivable subject must come within the purview of the Centre. There was nothing more simple or logical than that. Instead, a long elaborate List has been needlessly incorporated. This was because List I was prepared in advance and entry No. 91 was inserted by way of after thought. As soon as entry 91 was accepted, the drafting should have been altered accordingly. Article 217 should have been re-written on the above lines and matters would have been simplified. May I suggest even at this late stage that these needless entries be scrapped and article 217 be re-written and things made simple? I had an amendment to that effect but I did not move it because I know that any reasons behind an amendment would not be deemed fit for consideration by the House.
     Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : Sir, to-day is a great day that we are passing this entry almost without discussion. This matter has been the subject of discussion in this country for several years for about two decades. Today it is being allowed to be passed without any discussion. The point of view of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad is not correct. In fact Dr, Ambedkar has said that if there is anything left, it will be included in this item 91. I therefore think that it is a very important entry. There should not be any deletion of items 1 to 90. I know this entry will include everything that is already contained in the first 90 entries as well as whatever is left. This entry will strengthen the Centre and weld our nation into one single nation behind a strong Centre. Throughout the last decade the fight was that provincial autonomy should be so complete that the Centre should not be able to interfere with the provinces, but now the times are changed. We are now for a Strong Centre. In fact some friends would like to do away with provincial autonomy and would like a unitary Government. This entry gives power to the Centre to have legislation on any subject which has escaped the scrutiny of the House. I support this entry.
     The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : My President, I propose to deal with the objection raised by my Friend Sardar Hukum Singh. I do not think he has realised what is the purpose of entry 91 and I should therefore like to state very clearly what the purpose of 91 in List I is. It is really to define a limit or scope of List I and I think we could have dealt with this matter, viz., of the definition of and scope of Lists II and III by adding an entry such as 67 which would read :
     “anything not included in List II or III shall be deemed to fall in list I”.
     That is really the purpose of it. It could have been served in two different ways, either having an entry such as the one 91 included in List I or to have an entry such as the one which I have suggested — ‘that anything nor included in List II or III shall fall in List I’. That is the purpose of it. But such an entry is necessary and there can be no question about it. Now I come to the other objection which has been repeated if not openly at least whispered as to why we are having these 91 entries in List I when as a matter of fact we have an article such as 223 which is called residuary article which is ‘Parliament has exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in the Concurrent List or State List’. Theoretically I quite accept the proposition that when anything which is not included in List II or List III is by a specific article of the Constitution handed over to the Centre, it is unnecessary to enumerate these categories which we have specified in List I. The reason why this is done is this. Many States people, and particularly the Indian States at the beginning of the labours of the Constituent Assembly, were very particular to know what are the legislative powers of the Centre. They wanted to know categorically and particularly; they were not going to be satisfied by saying that the Centre will have only residuary powers. Just to allay the fears of the Provinces and the fears of the Indian States, we had to particularise what is included in the symbolic phrase “residuary powers”. That is the reason why we had to undergo this labour, notwithstanding the fact that we had article 223.
     I may also say that there is nothing very ridiculous about this, so far as our Constitution is concerned, for the simple reason that it has been the practice of all federal constitutions to enumerate the powers of the centre, even those federations which have got residuary powers given to the Centre. Take for instance the Canadian constitution. Like the Indian Constitution, the Canadian Constitution also gives what are called residuary powers to the Canadian Parliament. Certain specified and enumerated powers are given to the Provinces. Notwithstanding this fact, the Canadian constitution. I think in article 99, proceeds to enumerate certain categories and certain entries on which the Parliament of Canada can legislate. That again was done in order to allay the fears of the French Provinces which were going to be part and parcel of the Canadian Federation. similarly also in the Government of India Act; the same scheme has been laid down there and section 104 of the Government of India, Act, 1935 is similar to article 223 here. It also lays down the proposition that the Central Government will have residuary powers. Notwithstanding that, it had its List I. Therefore, there is no reason, no ground to be over critical about this matter. In doing this we have only followed as I said, the requirements of the various Provinces to know specifically what these residuary powers are, and also we have followed well-known conventions which have been followed in any other federal constitutions. I hope the House will not accept either the amendment of my Friend Sardar Hukam Singh nor take very seriously the utterings of my Friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad.
     Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Never.
     Mr. President : I shall put the amendment moved by Sardar Hukam Singh to vote. 
     The question is :
     “That in entry 91 of List I, the word “other” be deleted.”
The amendment was negatived.
     Mr. President : Then I put the entry 91. The question is :
     “That entry 91 stand part of List I”.
The motion was adopted.
 Entry 91 was added to the Union List.
     Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : Sir, I have got three amendments which you said could be taken up at the end.
     Mr. President : Yes, I remember.
     I will now take up a number of new amendments which are sought to be proposed. I will take the first amendment – in the Printed List. There are three new entries suggested. One is in amendment No.3586 in the names of Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra, Shri Sures Chandra Majumdar and Shri Mihirlal Chattopadhyay; the next one is in No.3587 in the name of Shri Arun Chandra Guha. I take it these are not moved. And then there is amendment No.3588 in the names of Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, Shrimati G. Durgabai and Shri Sures Chandra Majumdar. That is also not moved.
     Then we come to No.58 in List I (Sixth Week), the amendment of Shri Brajeshwar Prasad. Do you wish to move it?
     Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : Yes, Sir. I beg to move:
     “That with reference to amendment No.3588 of the List of Amendments, the following entries be added to List I :-
1. “Scheduled Areas” and “Tribal Areas”.
2. All the entries from 1 to 66 in List II.”
     Sir, may I move the other amendments also?
     Mr. President : No, we had better take them, one by one.
     Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : Sir, I hold the view that if we have got the interest of the tribal people to heart, if we want to do justice to them, then the tribal areas and the scheduled areas must come to the Centre. Sir, forests and minerals lie in these zones, and I regard these subjects as vital subjects. And if these two subjects are to be taken up and be in the hands of the Centre, I feel that the tribal areas must also be taken up by the Government of India. While discussing another article I said that by making the tribal areas centrally administered areas, the tribals will develop a sense of unity and oneness among the tribal people. I feel also that the Provincial Governments, due to the lack of economic resources have not been able to pay much attention to the problems that confront them. So the problem of poverty and illiteracy among these tribal people cannot be solved by the Provinces with the limited financial resources that they have. If we, therefore want that the tribal people should be brought to the level of the other non-tribal people living in India, then the Central Government should take charge of these tribal areas.
     The point was raised the other day that such a course would prevent the assimilation of the tribal people with the general public of our country. Sir, I think that the ideal of assimilation is merely a distant goal. This is not the immediate issue before us. Let us first try to assimilate ourselves before we try to assimilate the tribal people with ourselves. In spite of the fact that Biharis and Bengalees have lived together for centuries, we have not been able to assimilate ourselves. In spite of the fact that we have had Telugus and Tamils living together for centuries, they have not been able to assimilate themselves. In spite of the fact that there has been a common government at the Centre, the distinctions and the differences between the people of the North and the people of the South have persisted. Let us first solve this problem. It does not indicate a high sense of proportion in us if instead of achieving these goals we talk of assimilating the tribal people.
     I also maintain that the question of their assimilation should be decided by the leaders and representatives of the tribal people themselves. Let them decide that question. Our duty is only to provide them with the means of development, to give them the opportunities for their educational, cultural and economic development. If we provide these things For the tribal people, then I would consider that we have done our duty. And then let their own leaders decide whether they should merge with the rest of the population or remain as a separate entity. My own feeling is that this question of assimilation is a very far-fetched question and it has no connection with the problems that confront us today.
     As regards the second point, I am not prevented from moving this by any articles of the constitution that we have already passed. I am suggesting that there should be only two Lists – the Union List and the concurrent List.
     Shri R. K. Sidhva : Is it in order to make this suggestion now?
     Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : If it would not have been in order, the motion would not have been allowed to be moved.
     Shri R. K. Sidhva : Do you want the provinces to be liquidated?
     Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : I do not want the provinces to be liquidated. They should have concurrent powers of legislation. I want provincial governments to exist. I hold the view that the social purposes of the age cannot be fulfilled if we do not, with all possible haste, do whatever lies in our power to develop our agricultural, mineral and industrial resources. These developments require to be scientifically planned within the shortest possible time. We cannot afford to have a house divided into a large number of water—tight compartments. The old concept of division of powers or separation of powers does not fit in with the needs of the present century. It was suited to the needs of a bygone age.
     Mr. President : I think you are going over the same ground again that there should be no provinces.
     Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : No, Sir. The provinces should exist, but they should enjoy only concurrent powers. I am not against provinces. Whatever my own personal feelings in the matter may be, at the present moment I am not advocating that the provinces should be abolished. What I am saying is that they should have only limited powers – concurrent powers.
     I know that you are very keen on time, Sir, so in deference to your wishes I will only urge one point more and conclude my speech. I feel that if we are to play our part in foreign politics, we must not have provincial governments vested with a large number of powers. They must not have autonomous powers. They should have only concurrent powers. What is the game of our opponents? The game of Anglo-American powers in Asia has been to prevent the establishment of a United, strong Centre in India. They want the disruption of India. It was with this end in view that they separated Burma from us. It was with this end in view that they divided this country. It was with this end in view that they gave complete independence to the Indian States. Now, are we going to fall in line with the hopes and aspirations of the Anglo-American powers? (Interruption). If we want to frustrate the aims of our enemies, we must have a strong Centre and provinces vested only with concurrent powers. I would have taken more time, but I feel that the temper of the House is not favourable.
     Mr. President : I think it is not necessary to have any further discussion on this point. However, if Dr. Ambedkar has anything to say about it, I would hear him; but otherwise I do not think any discussion is necessary on a point like this.
     The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : No discussion is necessary. I do not wish to say anything.
     Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : I would like to withdraw my amendment.
     Mr. President : I take it the House gives him leave to withdraw.
     Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : No.
     Mr. President : You do not give him leave to withdraw. Very well, I will put it to vote. The question is :
     “That with reference to amendment No.3588 of the List of Amendments, the following entries be added to List I :—
1. “Scheduled Areas” and “Tribal Areas”
2. All the entries from 1 to 66 in List II”
The amendment was negatived.
    Mr. President : There were two amendments of Dr. Deshmukh which I held over yesterday – 223 and 224. He may move them.
     Dr. P.S. Deshmukh : Sir, I shall move amendment 223. I beg to move :
     “That after the proposed new entry 70A the following new entry be added :
     “70B. Protection of children......”
     ‘I would beg your pardon and request you to permit me to add the, words “and young men” after the word “children” ................ and young men ............” (Interruption)
     Mr. President : And not young women? 
     Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : Man includes woman. It is contained in the article in the Directive Principles. So “protection of children and young men, their exploitation and abandonment,” would be the altered form of my amendment.
     Sir, if you refer to the proposed entry in List II, No.5, you will find that for the States we have the entry “Prisons, reformatories, Borstal institutions and other institutions of a like nature and persons detained therein”. Then, in the concurrent List, entry 6, we have “marriage, and divorce, infants and minors; adoption”. 
     Shri H. V. Kamath : May I point out to my friend that the word used in Part IV Directive Principles is not “young men” but “youth”? I refer to article 31.
     Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : If that is the word, then I had probably referred to the wording as it stood in the original Draft. I would like to change it to “youth”, or whatever there is in article 31 as finally approved. From these two entries I have mentioned, you will find, Sir, that the States have been given power to deal with child delinquents by giving powers of legislation – with regard to reformatories and Borstal institutions and so that question of child delinquency has been dealt with already or will be dealt with when we discuss List No. II.
     So far as entry 6 in List III is concerned, we would be giving concurrent power with regard to marriage and divorce. So far as infants and minors are also mentioned and are to be taken in the same context. It is quite clear that this can refer only to the infants and minors so far as their legal status is concerned and by the above entry it would be possible for the State Governments to make legal provisions in so far as they are concerned. But unfortunately there is nothing so far as the welfare and protection of children and youth is concerned, especially their exploitation and abandonment, which has been one of the articles which we have already passed, viz. article 31. By this article we want the Union Government to be responsible for the protection of children and to see that there is no exploitation or abandonment of children and youth. I think it is in the fitness of things that we should have an entry in the Union List so as to empower the Union to legislate in this matter.
     I have already answered the view that this entry is unnecessary. If any body were to contend to that effect because there are entries in Lists II and III and therefore say that this entry is not necessary, my submission to the House is that those entries do not cover the case. I have in view. We have very rightly and properly taken pains to have an entry in the article with regard to the exploitation of children and youth in our Directive Principles, and therefore it follows logically that the Union ought to be empowered to pass legislation in this respect. I do not think I need draw the attention of the House as to how children in this country are neglected, how destitute children wander about at the railway junctions and railway stations, near and about the Cinema Theatres and Bus Stands, etc. In our country one easily gets the impression that the children are the Cheapest of articles. If only we analyse our attitude towards them, one gets the impression that even sewage and dirt is more valuable than children. I am glad that we have taken care to include this in our Directive Principles and if we are serious about our Directive Principles, then the Union should have the power to legislate in this matter and to take early steps to remedy the present abominable situation. From this point of view, Sir, I press that this entry be accepted by the House.
     So far as the other two entries are concerned, I would beg for your leave to move them when we come to the discussion of the amendment so far as newspapers are concerned.
     Mr. President : Has Dr. Ambedkar anything to say on this ?
     The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : No, Sir, I have nothing to say in reply. Young men and young women are capable of taking care of themselves. Why bother about them ?
     Mr. President The question is :
     “That after the proposed new entry 70A of List I, the following new entry be added: —
     ‘70B Protection of children and young men their exploitation and abandonment.’”
The amendment was negatived.
     Mr. President : There were three additional entries which stood in the name of Professor Shibban Lal Saksena, Yesterday when I called them he was not in his seat; I took them as not moved. As he said that he wished to move them I said I would consider the matter.
     Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : Sir, I beg to move:
     “That after entry 59 of List I, the following new entry be added :-
     ‘59A. Labour Legislation, and Legislation for settlement of Industrial disputes.’”
     “That after the entry 59 of List I, the following new entry be added:-
     ‘59B. Co-ordination of machinery for settlement of industrial disputes in States and in the Union and the provision of Supreme Industrial Appellate Tribunals.’”
     “That after entry 59B of List I, the following new entry be added :-
     ‘59C. Unemployment Insurance.’”
     Sir, I thank you for having given me an opportunity of moving these amendments and I wish to draw your attention to the importance of these entries. I know that in the Concurrent List we have got items.
     26. Welfare of labour; conditions of labour; provident funds; employers’ liability and workmen’s compensation; health insurance, including invalidity pensions; old age pensions.
     27. Unemployment and social insurance.
     28. Trade Union; industrial and labour disputes.
     which means that both the provinces as well as the Centre can pass laws in that connection. In entry No. 59 it is said that industrial disputes concerning Union, employees shall be a Central subject, so that even though industrial disputes are in the concurrent list, so far as Union employees are concerned, legislation to settle these disputes will be the province of the Union Government. what I want is this : that these items in the Concurrent List may remain as they are, but the items which I have proposed may be added to the Union List. The main Purpose of this amendment is to bring about uniformity in the matter of labour legislation all over the country. At present the position is this. Although the same industry is dispersed all over the country still labour is governed by different laws in different parts of the country, with the result that there is discontent among labour. That, for instance, is the case with regard to the sugar industry. The industry is situated in the U. P., Bihar, Madras and Bombay; but the labour is governed by different laws in different parts of the country. That is also the case with regard to jute textile and other industries. I therefore, want that labour legislation should be uniform all over the country.
     My second amendment relates to the co-ordination of machinery for the settlement of industrial disputes. Machinery for this no doubt exists in every province, but there is no coordination of these activities of the various provincial Governments. Again there is no appellate tribunal to which all can go. I consider it a very important thing which must be provided for. I understand that the Central Government is intending to bring in a Bill to establish an appellate tribunal. I therefore want that this power should be given to the Centre. Coordination cannot be done by the provinces. Therefore this entry must be in the Union List.
     My next amendment runs thus:
     “That after entry 59B of List I, the following new entry be added:—
     ‘59C. Unemployment Insurance.’”
     It is now in the Concurrent List. The provinces will never be able to enforce this. If you want to make it a reality and to make it uniform throughout India, you must take this on to the Union List. Labour the world over is one and therefore the conditions of labour throughout India must be uniform. There will be discontent and heart burning if in Bombay, for instance, there is the system of doles and elsewhere there is not. In the United Provinces there are labour laws governing the conditions of labour in sugar factories and so on, while in other provinces there are no such laws. This leads to competition among industrialists and the labour suffers. If there are uniform laws labour will be contented.
     The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not accept any of the amendments.
     Mr. President : I will now put the amendments to the vote of the House. The question is :
     “That after entry 59 of List I, the following new entry be added :-
     59A. Labour legislation, and legislation for settlement of industrial disputes.’”
The motion was negatived.
     Mr. President : The question is :
     “That after entry 59A of List I, the following new entry be added:-
     59B. Co-ordination of machinery for settlement of industrial disputes in States and in the Union and the provision of Supreme Industrial Appellate Tribunals.’”
The motion was negatived.
     Mr. President : The question is :
     “That after entry 59B of List I, the following new entry be added:-
     ‘59C. Unemployment Insurance.’”
The motion was negatived.
     Mr. President : Then there are several new items which Shri Raj Bahadur wants to add.
     Shri Raj Bahadur (United State of Matsya) : sir, from among the items included in amendment No.267 I am moving only one. I beg to move:
     “That after entry 90 of List I, the following new entry be added:-
     ‘90A. control and eradication of beggary.’”
     Sir, I believe, it will be admitted on all hands that no other country in the world suffers from the evil of beggary so much as India. In fact in most countries they have legislation prohibiting beggary; but in our country this evil continues as a stigma on our fair name and reputation. By pressing for the inclusion of the aforesaid entry I want to focus the attention of the future Parliaments to this evil, so that, no matter what party is there in power, action may be taken by the Government to check this evil.
     We know, that the problem of beggary is closely inter-linked with the problems of poverty and unemployment. We know how the slavery of our country in the past and the callous indifference on the part of foreign rulers for the welfare and progress of the people, has resulted in exploitation and abject poverty of the masses of this country.
     Apart from that aspect, however, certain psychological conditions also have accounted for the problem of beggary in our country. We have certain notions of charity. They are laudable but have more often been misdirected. In most cases charity is misconceived and misplaced. Instead of seeing to it that our charity is directed only to such purposes as deserve it, we give alms to undeserving members of society and thus encourage beggary. We give alms purely guided by faulty notions and sentiments. Moreover, our climatic conditions also result in lethargy and laziness in the habits of our people. This has also accounted for this abnormal number of beggars in the land. Some people turn beggars only because they are too lazy to work. They fill their stomach without earning their livelihood by honest work. They simply live on alms and do not work. They are a burden on Society. This srot of lethargy is increased by the existence of illiteracy.
     This is, hence, a multifaced problem and ought to be solved not only on a local or municipal basis but on a national basis. I, therefore, seek by means of this amendment to include the control and eradication of beggary in the Union List. It is high time that we removed this blot and blemish from the fair face of our country. I submit that a scientific and systematic treatment of the problem is indispensable. Today if we go anywhere in our country, in towns or villages or every street-corner or by-lane, on the foot-paths, in front of the cinema houses and bus-stands we find swarms of these miserable wretches stretching out their palms for alms. We have got to realise the seriousness of the problem. As I said, I would not move any of the other amendments because I feel somewhat discouraged to see that the Honourable Chairman of the Drafting Committee is not even taking the trouble to reply to most of the amendments moved by other members suggesting new entries.
     Shri T. T. Krishnamachari : He is engaged in studying the amendment moved by you.
     Shri Raj Bahadur : I would be very fortunate if I get a reply to my motion.
     The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, as my friend expects a reply from me, I would just say one or two words.
     The question of control and eradication of beggary is a matter which has been already provided for in List III in entry 24, ‘Vagrancy’, which includes beggary. The only point is whether it should remain there or should be brought in List I. I think it will be better to leave it in List III so that both the Provinces and the Centre could operate upon that entry.
     Shri Raj Bahadur : Vagrancy and beggary are distinct terms. The term ‘Vagrancy’ connotes somewhat a bad character and all beggars may not be bad characters. ‘Vagrancy’ may include beggary, but some beggars may not be vagrants at all.
     Mr. President : I will now put Mr. Raj Bahadur’s amendment to the vote.
     Shri Raj Bahadur : If the Honourable Chairman of the Drafting Committee thinks that vagrancy includes beggary, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.
     The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.
     Mr. President : There is one more entry proposed by Dr. Deshmukh, amendment No.235.
     Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : I do not want to move it.
     Mr. President : Then there is another entry which was left over, by Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava, amendment No.192.
     Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I do not propose to move it at this stage, I will subsequently move the subject matter of this amendment to be taken to the Concurrent List.


Related Documents:-

1) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 102

2) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 13

3) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 37

4) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Government of India (Amendment) Bill