Title: Entry 89, Entry 90 and Entry 91
Volume: Volume IX (30th July to 18th September 1949)
Date: 01/09/1949
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)
Volume: Volume IX (30th July to 18th September 1949)
Date: 01/09/1949
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.
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?
“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
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 India Burma
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.
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.
“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 ?
“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.
“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
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 India Bombay
“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
“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
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.
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.
Source: http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/cadebatefiles/C01091949.html
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
Source: http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/cadebatefiles/C01091949.html
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
No comments:
Post a Comment