Title: DRAFT CONSTITUTION (Contd.) : Article 67 --
(Contd.)
Volume: Volume VII (4th
November 1948 to 8th January 1949)
Date: 04/01/1949
Constituent Assembly OF INDIA Debates
(Proceedings)- Volume VII
Tuesday, the 4th January 1949
The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at
Ten of the Clock, Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee) in the Chair.
DRAFT CONSTITUTION--(Contd.)
Article 67 (Contd.)
Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee): Before we begin the business of
the Houses, I have to inform honourable Members that yesterday information was
received that members of the R.S.S. would somehow secure entrance into the
lobbies and galleries in order to create disturbance. Fortunately, this was
prevented. May I request honourable Members to issue visitors’ cards for those
only who are personally known to them in order that we may proceed with our
business without any interruption ?
We shall now take up discussion of article 67. The first amendment on the
list is amendment No. 1411. This is disallowed as being verbal.
Then we have amendments Nos. 1412, 1413 first part, 1414 first part and 1415
first part. These are identical. Amendments 1415 standing in the name of Kazi
Syed Karimuddin is allowed to be moved.
Kazi Syed Karimuddin (C. P. & Berar : Muslim): Mr. Vice-President, Sir
I move :
“That in sub-clause (a) of clause (5) of article 67, the following words be
deleted :--
‘Subject to the provisions of articles 292 and 293 of this Constitution’;
and the following words be added at the end :--
‘in
accordance with the system of proportional representation with multi-member
constituencies by means of cumulative vote’.”
Sir, the present electoral system, of single member constituency according to
me, is very defective. The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of
the majority that succeeds in carrying elections. To break off that point is to
arrest danger. The common system of representation perpetuates the danger and
the only remedy is proportional representation. That system is also profoundly
democratic for it increases the influence of thousands of those who would have
no voice in the Government and it brings men more near an equality by so
contriving that no vote shall be wasted and that every voter shall contribute
to bring into Parliament a member of his own choice and opinion. Sir, another
objection to the present electoral system is that the system does not even
guarantee the rule of majority. We have innumerable instances of this type in
England and America. The Conservative majority of 1924 was unreal because it
polled 48 per cent of votes and it was supposed to be the majority party in the
country. Then in America, Presidents Hayes and Harrison became Presidents in
1876 and 1888 when they secured votes less than the votes secured by their adversaries.
In so far as this is concerned, the present electoral system is really
perverse. This system may even deprive the minorities of their just share of
representation as to render them important. An instance of this has happened in
the Irish election. The most ardent defenders of the system would hardly deny
the right of the minority to some representation and it is worthy if note that
one of the reasons advanced by Gladstone was that such a system tended to
secure representation for minorities. This is found to be wrong in Ireland; yet
as prophesied in the debates of 1885, the minorities in the South and West of
Ireland have since that date been permanently disfranchised. In the eight
Parliaments of 1885 to 1911 they had been without representation. Therefore my
submission is that the present system as it stands does not guarantee a
majority rule as people commonly suppose and does not guarantee a
representation to minorities, not necessarily religious, even the political
minorities. Today we are faced with an electoral system in which there is no
guarantee except the reservation of seats that has been embodied in articles
292 and 293. By my amendment I plead that if proportional representation is
guaranteed the reservation of seats even on religious grounds must go. It has
been accepted on all hands that communalism must be uprooted from the soil of
this country. We have has had evil effects of it and the Dominion Parliament is
already committed to this stand because a Resolution has been already passed that
no communal party may be allowed to function in the country. Therefore
separatism, communalism and isolationism must disappear from the body politics
of India but we cannot ignore the existing conditions in the country. We find
that there is a movement for the establishment of a Hindu Raj. We find that
there is an R.S.S. organisation also in the country. In view of this we have to
proceed cautiously and gradually, and therefore we have to find out a way that
communalism must go and the minorities must be represented in the legislatures.
Now there are two methods before us. One is the reservation of seats as has
been provided in the Constitution, i.e., under article 292. The other is
proportional representation. There are very serious defects about the provision
of reservation of seats because it is based on religious grounds. It defeats
the very objects for which it is adopted because the chosen representatives of
the community for which reservation is given cannot be secured. Then as I had
already said in the general discussions, that even a false convert for the
purpose of election will defeat a choice representative and the minorities will
be engaging lawyers who would argue the cases against their own clients; but it
is wrong to say that it is communal because it is the majority that would elect
the representatives of the minorities mainly and not the minority communities.
The system which I regard as the best is the system of proportional
representation. It is not based on religious grounds and it applies to all
minorities, political, religious or communal. There are three objections to
this system, which are generally argued and debated. The first is that there
would be very large constituencies and it would be very difficult to manage the
voters. The second objection is the instability of the Government and the third
is the establishment of Coalition Governments. Now in regard to the first
objection, I think it is not tenable at all. In a large constituency if the
party system works, then there is no question of the candidate coming in
contact with the voters. The party machinery would work successfully. It is
wrong to suppose that there will be instability of Government because the
majority is bound to secure majority in the House and the majority is bound to
form a Government. Then about the Coalition Government, in my opinion, where
there is heterogeneous population, it is very necessary that we should have
Coalition Governments. It will not be a bad thing that various representatives
elements should have to be consulted in forming a Ministry. The country is
passing thorough transition and Communism is knocking at our door. It is very
necessary that the opposition whether it is communal or it is a political will
have to be accommodated. We are about to transfer the Government of this
country from the middle classes to those whom I might describe as the
wage-earning class. This is an immense change which is realised by very few
people in the country. The Congressmen are of opinion that they are bound to
sweep the polls and therefore they support the Draft Constitution which
establishes a majority rule, making no effective provisions for the benefit of
either communal or political minorities in the country. They are wrong and they
would be found to be wrong. No organization in the world has reconciled the
conflicting claims of labour and capital, tenant and landlord and it is
impossible to keep them under one banner. Look around us, communism is
spreading with alarming speed and once it catches the imagination of the
working classes, its potentiality is very grave. Suppose the working classes
take a fancy for socialist dogmas or communist dogmas, they being in majority,
are bound to capture power in absence of any provision to protect political or
communal minorities. In order to provide against such contingencies the system
of proportional representation is the only method. Secondly without any
sacrifice of democratic principles, it can afford protection to communal
minorities also. Without any spirit of communalism representatives of political
and communal minorities can be elected. In the absence of this, the country can
be plunged into communism.
Shri L. Krishnawami Bharathi (Madras : General) : Sir, may I request the
honourable Member to read slowly?
Kazi Syed Karimuddin : I am not reading. I am only referring to my notes.
You can come here and see it for yourself.
Mr. Vice-President : Mr. Karimuddin, I suggest you speak more slowly.
Kazi Syed Karimuddin : Sir, in the general election and according to the
present electoral system if the pendulum swings in favour of communism, all
schemes of development will be lost and if it swings in favour of communalism,
the secular nature of the State will be lost; and if the minorities are
neglected, whether they are political, or communal, and crushed and kept out of
Parliamentary activities, it will be a good fodder for the communists and they
will sit in their lap. Therefore it is part of wisdom to persuade the opposition
to take of the ways of constitutionalism and the only way to do it is the
introduction of the system of proportional representation. I prophesy that if
this is note done, it will lead to chaos. That does not mean that I oppose the
continuance of the present regime. I want the Congress to live longer because
they have given peace, tranquility and a secular State to all the communities
in India but this cannot be guaranteed unless the system of proportional
representation is introduced.
Now, Sir, the first part of my amendment says that there should be abolition of
the provision of reservation of seats in case the proportional representation
is granted; otherwise not. Sir, in fact when I spoke about the abolition of
reservation of seats and adoption of proportional representation, there was an
incorrect idea that I was pleading for the abolition of reservation of seats
unconditionally. I had stated and I state even today that if proportional
representation is introduced, there should be no provision regarding the
reservation of seats. Once you accept that there are minorities and also that
some recognition has to be given to them, then my submission is that the House
should be pleased to introduce the system of proportional representation.
Mr. Vice-President : Then amendment No. 1412 which stands in the name of
Mr. Mohd. Tahir. Do you want it to be put to vote Mr. Tahir ?
Mr. Mohd. Tahir (Bihar : Muslim) : No, I do not want to move it.
Mr. Vice-President : Well in that case the amendments to that amendment,
that are Nos. 19 and 20, standing in the name of Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava
fall through. But do you want to move them, Mr. Bhargava ? I find that they
relate to not only amendment No. 1412, but to other amendments also.
Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava (East Punjab : General) : Sir, though I do not
want to move those amendments, with your permission, I would like to make a
statement about them.
Mr. Vice-President : You can do so in the course of the general discussion.
I shall bear that in mind. So I score them out. Then we come to amendment No.
1413, standing in the name of Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (West Bengal : General): I am not moving it
Sir.
(Amendment No. 1414, first part, was not moved).
Mr. Vice-President : Then we come to the second part of No. 1414, second
part of 1415 and No. 1421. These are of similar import and may, therefore, be
considered together. Amendment No. 1415 may be moved. It stands in the name of
Kazi Syed Karimuddin; I am referring to the second part of No. 1415.
Kazi Syed Karimuddin : Sir, I have moved both parts of No. 1415.
Mr. Vice-President : All right. I am sorry I did not follow. Then No. 1414
falls through, as Mr. Lari is absent. Then we come to amendment No. 1416 and
amendment No. 1417, amendment No. 1416 stands in the name of Prof. K. T. Shah.
Prof K. T. Shah (Bihar : General) : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg to move
:
“That in sub-clause (a) of clause (5) of article 67, for the words ‘not more than
five hundred representatives of the people of the territories of the States
directly chosen by the voters’, the words ‘such members as shall, in the
aggregate, secure one representative for every 500,000 of the population in all
the constituent parts of the Union, whether States or territories directly
administered by the Centre. All members of the People’s House shall be chosen
directly by the votes of adult citizens. The votes shall be cast in a secret
ballot and voting shall be on the basis of Proportional Representatives with
Single Transferable Vote’ be substituted.”
Sir, by this amendment, I seek to make three changes.
The first is to avoid a maximum number of representatives being fixed by the
constitution for the People’s House of Representatives. It is, I think, not in
accord with the correct principle of popular representation that it must be the
people’s voice which must be the final authority in the governance of a country
calling itself a democracy. Under such a principle the Constitution should not
fix permanently the maximum number of representatives for the popular chamber.
We have observed the tendency, during the last three or four census, towards a
steady increase of the population of our country at every decennium. The last
census shows an increase of as much as 15 per cent in ten years. If, now, you
fix the absolute maximum number, it would happen that you might change the
number of persons represented by each representatives in an undesirable
direction. That is to say, the representative character of each representative
would become lesser and lesser, as he would be representing larger and larger
numbers.
I feel, Sir, that if you make representation of very large numbers of voters to
be concentrated on a single member, so to say, you may not have a correct
verdict of the people on a multiplicity of issues that are usually placed
before the electorate at a general election.
A general election--and that is presumably contemplated here--is always an
occasion when a number of issues come before the voters, in which the people,
that is, the voters are likely to be confused, because of the varying and often
conflicting, pulls of the different issues on which they are asked to give each
a single vote. This being the unavoidable case at each such election, I think
it may be as well to fix no maximum number of representatives for the
representation of the people. Instead we should allow the number to shape
itself according to the varying population.
It is true that is your census is a decennial affair, it may not give you the
correct guide for every election in the interval between two censuses assuming
that elections come at least once in five years, if not more frequently. Even
so, since we have agreed to take the last preceding census as the basis, and
that census is now more than eight years old--apart altogether form the
originally doubtful character of that census taken during the war,--the next
general election may itself be not correctly representing all people,
especially if you fix a maximum number of representatives, to start with. In
other later general elections, the five-year interval would not make so great a
variation. That variation may be about 5 per cent or 6 percent or 71/2
per cent. This only means that representatives would number so many more on
that amount of change, it may not be impossible for a proper electoral
machinery to cope with.
Taking that to be the case, I would suggest that a limit of 500,000 population
be fixed as being entitled to be represented. This would be much more likely to
reflect the real opinion of the people, even on a number of issues, than if you
fix the total number of representatives at 500 as is contemplated under this
clause. The number would, no doubt, increase, if the population tends to
increase. It is, therefore, possible that the maximum for the coming two
decades may reach the figure of, say 600, or even more. Even with that number,
I do not think that, for a country of the size and population of the Union of
India, it is too large a number of representatives.
Anybody interested primarily in expediting things, and in governing the country
according to a few people’s will naturally not like large numbers of of
deliberation, and the larger the time taken in passing laws or resolutions,
representatives. The larger the number the greater, of course, is the chance,
of deliberation, and the larger the time taken in passing laws or resolutions.
The scrutiny of government’s executive actions would also be from a greater
variety of angles by interpellations and the like. Those, therefore, in favour
of expenditing public business may not quite like this suggestion.
Those, on the other hand, who think more of the people and their wishes, would
not, and should not, find in this, in my opinion, a hindrance or handicap to
good government. The possibility of varying or increasing number of
representatives should not, by itself, be regarded as an objection. In fact,
even in the clause as it stands, the very idea that you think it necessary to
fix the maximum number of representatives indicates that, even in this scheme,
there is a possibility of variation in number; and as such, my amendment is, by
itself, not to be condemned.
My second point is in relation to the scheme of voting. There are, in later
clauses, some other amendments which I have tabled, and which when they come
up, I will discuss. I will, therefore, not take up the time of the House at
this moment.
As regards the scheme of voting, I only insist that voting should be by secret
ballot, by adult citizens; and that it should be by means of a scheme of
Proportional Representatives under the device of the single transferable vote.
I do not propose to descant at length, upon the theoretical grounds in favour
of Proportional Representation or against it, as the previous speaker has
placed a fairly exhaustive case before you. I would only like to add, lest I
should be misunderstood, that the principle of Proportional Representation is
not intended so much to perpetuate communal minorities, as to reflect the
various shades of political opinion which after all, should be reflected in
your Legislature, if you desire to be really a demarcatic government. The
French system for instance, strictly speaking, is not based on Proportional
Representation; and yet, different shades of political opinion are reflected in
the French Assembly. Even so French Governments in the third Republic had an
average life, it is said, of perhaps not more than eleven months. On that
count, however, the principle is not necessarily to be condemned, as the public
opinion of all shades gets a chance of expression and there is in it, if not
greater stability, at least greater reflection of popular will than would be
the case in a system of absolute vote that is apparently contemplated here.
The possibility of securing varying shades of political opinion will give a
chance, not only for minorities to be only reflected in the Legislature of the
country, but also for them to assert themselves, and to convert themselves into
a majority, which, perhaps, those who might confuse Proportional Representation
as synonymous with the possibility of communal representation would do well to
consider. On these grounds, Sir, I commend this motion to the House.
Shri H. V. Kamath (C.P. & Berar : General): Mr. Vice-President, I move,
Sir :
“That in sub-clause (a) of clause (5) of article 67, for the words ‘representatives
of the people of the territories of the States directly chosen by the voters’,
the words ‘members directly elected by the voters in the States’ be
substituted.”
The clause as it appears in the Draft Constitution reads thus :
“(5) (a) Subject to the provisions of articles 292 and 293 of this
Constitution, the House of the People shall consist of not more than five
hundred representatives of the people of the territories of the States directly
chosen by the voters.”
If my amendment is accepted by the House, the clause will read thus:
“Subject to the provisions of articles 292 and 293 of this Constitution, the
House of the People shall consist of not more than five hundred members
directly elected by the voters in the States.”
The House will see that my amendment makes for brevity, clarity and precision
and further, seeks to eliminate the convolutions of language which mar the
construction of the clause as it stands at present. I do hope that Dr. Ambedkar
and the House will not have any difficulty in or objection to accepting it. I
will only say one word more. If my amendment is accepted by the House, certain
consequential changes will follow in sub-clause (2) of clause (5) and in the
proviso thereto. In the sub-clause as well as in the proviso, the words “representatives
of the States” will have to be altered to ‘members’ in conformity with the
amendment which has been moved to sub-clause (a) of clause (5). I commend this
amendment to the acceptance of the House.
Mr. Vice-President : Amendments Nos. 1418, 1419 and 1420 are of similar
import. I allow Prof. Ranga to move amendment No. 1419.
(Amendments Nos. 1418 to 1423 were not moved.)
Prof. K. T. Shah : Mr. Vice-President, I beg to move :
“That the following be added after the words ‘the States’ in sub-clause (b) of
clause (5) of article 67 :--
‘and Territories directly governed by the Centre’.”
Sir, the existing clause provides only for those States which are mentioned in
the Schedule attached. The Schedule does not mention considerable territories,
with considerable population in them, which are directly administered by the
Centre. Lest their claim to representation be overlooked altogether and they be
denied representative institutions in themselves, and go without representation
at the Centre also. I think it is but proper and necessary specifically to
include them in this clause.
It has been alleged, and I have heard it said on very high authority, that the
people of some of these territories, of a given area now administered directly
by the Centre, are so backward, so lacking in education and the country so
undeveloped, as not to deserve representative institutions at all. The remark I
am referring to was made at the Jaipur sessions of the Congress with special
reference to Cutch.
I was, I confess, surprised to hear such a sweeping condemnation being
enunciated by such high authorities in respect of a territory such as Cutch,
which is being directly administered by the Centre. Sir quite a good proportion
of the business enterprise and industrial activity of the city of Bombay has
come from the Cutch people settled there. It is true that those Cutch people
have more or less become permanent citizens of Bombay, though they retain their
connection with the State of Cutch and may, under the changed conditions of today
well make substantial contribution to the rapid advancement of the area and its
inhabitants today. But that is no reason to calumniate the whole province or
State as lacking in education, development, enterprise or understanding of the
resources, or the possibilities of the State.
This, Sir, is, in my opinion, very unfair to a whole people who have made their
contribution to the country’s general awakening and advance. To deny the people
there on such grounds, representation either in the State itself, or in the
Centre as part of the Union, is highly retrograde say the least.
The possibility therefore, of other similar territories being also ignored and
going unrepresented has become so vivid in my mind, that I have felt it
necessary to table this amendment and specifically to include them in this
clause with the words that I have suggested being added. I commend this to the
House.
Mr. Vice-President : The first part of amendment No. 1425 and amendment No.
1426 standing in the name of Mr. Kamath are identical. I propose that amendment
No. 1425 may be moved, the first as well as the second part. Mr. Kamath, do you
want your amendment No. 1426 to be put to vote ?
Shri H. V. Kamath : I see that Dr. Ambedkar has stolen a march over me, and
so I do not propose to move my amendment.
Mr. Vice-President : Dr. Ambedkar.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : I am not moving it.
Mr. Vice-President : Then we come to amendment No. 1427 standing in the
name of prof. K. T. Shah.
Prof. K. T. Shah : Amendments Nos. 1428 and 1429 also stand in my name. Can
I move all these together?
Mr. Vice-President : You can move them one after the other. After moving
all the three amendments, you can make one speech covering all of them.
Prof. K. T. Shah : Mr. vice-President, Sir, I move :
“That in sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of article 67, the words ‘divided,
grouped or’ be deleted.”
“That in sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of article 67, after the word ‘constituencies’,
the following be added :--
‘so
that each State being constituent part of the Union, or Territory governed
directly by the Centre is a single constituency by itself if its population is
not less than a million; or grouped with such adjoining States or Territories
as together have a population of not less than a million.”
“That is sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of article 67, after the word ‘constituencies’
a full-stop be added; the word ‘and’ following immediately be deleted; and the
word ‘the’ be printed with a capital ‘T’.”
Sir, the purpose of these amendments is consequential upon what I have already
moved; that is to say, we should form constituencies in such a manner that each
constituency has at least the representative possibility of two seats not less
than a million, population, therefore, is the limit which I would suggest
should be the unit in the device of Proportional Representation by which
representation is to be secured.
Proportional Representation, Sir, would not be feasible or even possible for
single member constituencies. At any rate it will not yield the same results as
are expected by those who believe in the principle. It is but right, therefore,
and proper that you should have multi-member constituencies; and the minimum
must not be less than two.
It is on that basis, and this understanding of the principle we have already
adopted in the Constitution of this very Assembly, that I have suggested a unit
of a million population. I have also suggested, in a previous amendment, the
minimum population requiring representation to be 500,000. These two together,
I think, would provide every constituency with not less than two
representatives.
Most of the States will be able, each by itself, to provide such
constituencies. There will, of course, be some States which will be much
larger; and as such the working of Proportional Representation would in them
fit in very successfully. All States as well as territories governed from the
Centre would by this means receive their full measure of representation. It
would enrich the representative character of the Union Legislature; it would
provide expression for all shades of opinion, it would help to place before the
Union Legislature all aspects of the problems that come before it for
legislation or otherwise for disposal.
As I have stated already, I think it is but right and proper that we should
have constituencies arranged or grouped in such a manner, formed in such units,
as would secure the fullest possible representation on a Proportional
Representation basis for every constituent part of the Union which may also
enable every shade of political opinion to be represented. Sir, I commend this
to the House.
(Amendment No. 1430 was not moved.)
Shri H. V. Kamath : May I make a submission, Mr. vice-President? I thought
that Dr. Ambedkar was moving his amendment No. 1425 and so I said that my
amendment would not be moved. It appears that Dr. Ambedkar is not moving his
amendment. His amendment consists of two parts and he has not separated the
two. Therefore, will you kindly permit me to move my amendment No. 1426?
Mr. Vice-President : All right.
Shri H. V. Kamath : Mr. Vice-President, I move Sir:
“That in sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of article 67,the words ‘of India’ be
deleted.”
Sub-clause (b) of clause (5) as it appears in the draft constitution reads as
follows :--
“For the purpose of sub-clause (a), the States of India shall be divided, etc.”
Now, obviously the words ‘of India’ are redundant and superflous, and in my
judgment they should be deleted because the States in the Draft Constitution
always mean the States of India. Therefore, Sir, I move that the words ‘of
India’ should be deleted in this sub-clause, and if this is accepted, the
sub-clause will read as follows :--
“For the purpose of sub-clause (a), the States shall be divided, etc.”
This is quite clear. There is no need for me to expatiate upon this point. I
commend his amendment to the House for its acceptance.
Prof. K. T. Shah : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I move :
“That the proviso to sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of article 67 be deleted.”
This, is consequential, Sir, from the previous amendments that I have moved. In
as much as I do not desire that a maximum figure should be fixed for
representatives in the House of the People, it follows that such maximum or
proportion being fixed as between the two Chambers would also be out of place.
If my previous amendments are accepted, then this would follow as a matter of
course. I, therefore, do not think it necessary to take any further time of the
House. I commend the amendment for the acceptance of the House.
Mr. Vice-President : Amendment No. 1432 is verbal and is therefore
disallowed.
Amendment No. 1433 both alternatives and amendment No. 1437 are of similar
import. Amendment No. 1437 may be moved. It stands in the name of Prof. Shibban
Lal Saksena.
(The amendments were not moved.)
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal : Muslim): Sir, with your permission and
the permission of the House I wish to move amendment No. 1434 in a slightly
altered form. There will be some verbal changes in accordance with a similar
amendment which has already been accepted by the House.
I beg to move :
“That in sub-clause (c) of clause (5) of article 67, for the words ‘last
preceding census’, the words ‘last preceding census of which the relevant
figures have been published’ be substituted.”
This is the form in which another similar amendment was found to be acceptable
to the honourable Member, Dr. Ambedkar. This matter has already been discussed
in the House and the principle has already been accepted in another context,
namely, that if we have to depend upon a census, it must be a census of which
the figures are available. We cannot depend upon a census for which figures are
not yet available. If we are to hold an election, almost immediately after a
census is held, the figures will not be available. It takes about a year to
make the figures available. We have to do a lot of things depending upon census
figures before an election. In these circumstances one has to depend upon the
previous census of which figures are available. This matter was well discussed
in the House and the principle was accepted and this amendment is practically
consequential upon the acceptance of that motion.
Shri. L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : Sir, I beg to move
“That with reference to amendment No. 1434 of the List of Amendments, in sub-clause
(5) of article 67, for the words ‘members to be elected at any time for’, the
words ‘representatives allotted to’ be substituted.”
Clause (c) reads as follows:
“The ratio between the number of Members to be elected at any time for each territorial
constituency and the population of that constituency as ascertained at the last
preceding census shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout India.”
As per clause (b), there shall not be less than one representative for every
750,000 of the population and not more than one representative for every
500,000 of the population. That latitude being given, it is just possible that
they may not be uniformity of representation throughout India. The object of
this clause is to secure a uniform scale of representation throughout India,
whatever it may be, and in order to secure this uniformity this clause is
introduced. But the wording “members to be elected at any time for each
territorial constituency” does not bring out the sense fully and hence my
amendment that for the words “members to be elected at any time for”, the words
“representatives allotted to” be substituted. If my amendment is accepted the
clause would read :
“The ratio between the number of representatives allotted to each territorial
constituency and the population of that constituency as ascertained at the last
preceding census shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout India.”
It is in order to bring out the sense more clearly that this amendment is
moved.
(Amendment
Nos. 1435 and 1436 were not moved.)
Mr. Vice President : No. 1438 is disallowed as being formal.
(Amendments Nos. 1439, 1440, 1441 and 1442 were not moved.)
Amendment No. 1443 is disallowed as being verbal.
(Amendments
Nos. 1444 and 1445 were not moved.)
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Sir, I beg to move:
“That clause (7) of Article 67 be omitted.”
This clause deals with territories other than States. The objection to this
clause is that it gives the right to Parliament to determine the representation
of areas other than the States. With regard to these territories, I submit, as
I submitted in connection with another similar amendment, that if any area is
governed by any authority, that authority should decide its representation.
That principle should be fixed in the Constitution. It should be left to an
appropriate authority in the area to whom representation is given. There would
be some authority functioning in those areas and it is for that authority to
fix their own representation and not for Parliament. It may be a referendum or
the like. In fact, it deprives certain areas of the right of
self-determination.
Mr. Vice-President : Amendment No. 1447 Prof. K. T. Shah.
Prof. K. T. Shah : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg to move :
“That in clause (7) of article 67, for the word ‘may’ the word ‘shall’, for the
word ‘territories’ the words ‘the territories’ and for the words ‘other than
States’ the words ‘directly governed by the Centre on the same basis as in the
case of States which are constituent parts of the Union’ be substituted
respectively.”
The amended clause would read :--
“Parliament shall, by law, provide for the representation, in the House of the
People, of the Territories directly governed by the Centre on the same basis as
in the case of States which are constituent parts of the Union.”
That would put all those territories on a parer as between themselves.
I have already mentioned, Sir, that there are considerable chunks governed
directly by the Centre; and perhaps there may be more hereafter, if new
territories desire to form part of the Union. And if even for a while these are
to be directly governed by the Centre, it is but right and fair that they
should be also receiving some representation.
I would, therefore, make it compulsory by the Constitution that they too be
provided with adequate representation. Their representation should be on the
same basis as that for other States already forming part of the Union, i.e.,
one representative for every 500,000 population. There should be no talk about
any territory being more developed, and therefore better fitted to be
represented, while others are called less developed and backward and therefore
not fitted to be properly represented either in their own land or in the Union
as part of the Union. This kind of talk might suit the alien power which ruled
in the land up till 18 months ago; and for that power the entire country was
deemed for a long time to be unfit for representative institutions. Had those
ideas prevailed, we should not be shaping this Constitution for a free-India
today. It is of the essence of such institutions and of the task of working
them, that people learn to use them by using them. No amount of teaching their
use will make people learn to use them as the actual responsibility of using
them. Accordingly, I feel that this flows directly from the previous amendments
which I have moved and should, as such, be accepted.
Sir, I commend it to the House.
Mr. Vice-President : Then we come to amendments Nos.1448 and 1449 which are
disallowed as they are merely verbal.
Amendment No. 1450 standing in the name of Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra may be
moved.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg to move :
“That in clause (8) of article 67, after the word ‘readjusted’ the words ‘on
the basis of population’ be added.”
Clause (8) of article 67 provides that upon the completion of each census the
representation of the several States in the Council of States and of the
several territorial constituencies in the House of the People shall, subject to
the provisions of article 289 of this Constitution, be readjusted by such
authority in such a manner, with effect from such date, as Parliament by law
may determine. My amendment is that this readjustment should be made on the
basis of population. The amendment is self-explanatory and I need not labour
the point. I commend the amendment for the acceptance of the House.
Mr. Vice-President : There is an amendment to this amendment, No. 43 of
List II, standing in the name of Mr. L. K. Bharathi.
Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : I am moving it, Sir, I beg to Move:
“That with reference to amendment No. 1450 of the List of Amendments, after
clause (8) of article 67, the following new proviso be inserted :--
‘Provided
that such readjustment shall not affect representation to the House of the
People until the dissolution of the then existing House’.”
Sir, sub-clause (8) of article 67 reads as follows :
“Upon
the completion of each census the representation of the several States in the
Council of the States and of the several territorial constituencies in the
House of the People shall, subject to the provisions of article 289 of this
Constitution, be readjusted by such authority, in such manner and with effect
from such date as Parliament may, by law, determine.”
The object of this sub-clause is, that after the elections to the
Legislature--either the Council of States or the House of the People, as the
case may be--census may happen to be taken and new figures may be available;
and we have of course to adjust the number of seats in accordance with the
census figures available then. But it may not be quite possible to provide
representation in accordance with the figures available thereafter, but it has
got to be done only at the subsequent elections. So in order to obviate this
difficulty, whenever there is some census taken and figure available, in terms
of which we have got to adjust, it has to be adjusted only later on at the
subsequent election and should not have anything to do with the existing
Council of State or the House of the People. A similar provision is found in
article 149, sub-clause (4). It is an omission here and I have sought to bring
it here so that it may be in line with the scheme as found in article 149. I
hope this amendment will be accepted by the House.
Mr. Vice-President : Amendment No. 1451 standing in the name of Shri
Nandlal comes next. The honourable Member is not in the House.
Amendment No. 1452 standing in the name of Mr. Mahboob Ali Baig may be moved.
Mr. Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib (Madras : Muslim): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I
beg to move :
“That article 67, the following new clause (10) be added :--
‘(10)
The election to the House of the People shall be in accordance with the system
of proportional representation by means of a single transferable vote’.”
Sir, I am only proposing the extension of the principle which we accepted
yesterday in the matter of election to the Council of States. I am very much
gratified to find, Sir, that yesterday the House recognised the principle
underlying this method of election and I need not repeat all the arguments that
I adduced yesterday in support of this system and to establish the fact that
this system of election is more democratic and more scientific. But by the
speeches of some honourable Members of this House, especially my honourable
Friend. Pandit Kunzru, an impression was created on this House that in that
particular case, namely, in the case of the Council of States, the electorate
therefore are the Members of the legislature, who were elected on a joint
electorate and not on communal electorate. Therefore, there was no danger, if
this system is adopted for the election of Council of States and of any
council, of any communal party coming in. That was the reason, he said, he was
supporting it. Thereby he meant, if I may be permitted to say inferentially,
that if the method of election would enable communal parties to be returned to
the legislature, he would not support it. My submission is that there is no
scope for any communal body as such being returned by this method, and if it
could be returned, it would be returned in the same way as any body holding
different views from the majority party could be returned. If there is no
objection to a section of people holding views different from the majority,
they could get into the legislatures by this method. I do not see any reason
why any communal body should have the right to be returned. The reason why
Pandit Kunzru supported this method for the Council of States, he said, was
that people holding different views must be enabled to be returned, although
they may be holding the view which was not held by the majority. That was the
reason why he said that proportional representation method is good, because it
enabled people, who held different views from the majority, to enter the
legislature.
Therefore, Sir, my submission is that if there is any defect is this system of
election, according to me, it is this Parliamentary democratic system, it is
the political party system that is responsible and not the method as such on a
former occasion, I said that because of this party system, this Parliamentary
democracy where one party is returned and it tries to dominate another and make
it impossible for the minority party to be returned and all repression and
suppression takes place, it is for that reason, Sir, I said this form of Government
based upon Parliamentary democracy is not desirable. Whatever it is, Sir, my
submission is this method of election, this method of proportional
representation by single transferable vote will enable peoples and parties in
the country, who hold views different from the majority party, to be
represented in the legislatures. What is true in the case of election to the
Council of States is equally true in the case of election to the House of the
People. Why should it be different, I ask, if this method would enable a party
or section of persons, who hold different views from those views held by the
majority, if this method enables those persons to be represented there and
thereby they form what is called ‘an Opposition Block’ ? Can you think of any
parliamentary democracy where there is no opposition ? Unless there is
opposition, Sir, the danger of its turning itself into a Fascist body is there.
An opposition can come into existence only if persons holding different views
from the majority are enabled to be returned to the legislature. So, Sir, by
this method and by this method alone, I submit there can be a strong opposition
in a parliamentary democracy. So my submission is, in the first place, on
principle, there is nothing wrong in it and as I said, it is more scientific
and democratic, and I submit, that it will enable sections having different
views from the majority party to be returned and thus form an opposition to the
party in power. Otherwise, it will degenerate the party in power into a fascist
body. Therefore, Sir, I commend this method even in the case of election to the
House of the People.
Sir, I do not move the other alternative amendment.
Mr. Vice-President : The article--clauses (5) up to the end--is now open
for general discussion.
Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava (East Punjab : General): Mr. Vice-President,
Sir, clause (5) of article 67 speaks of the fixation of 500 representatives to
the House of the People and also says that these representatives shall be
directly chosen by the electors and clause (b) speaks of territorial
constituencies. I sent in amendments, in regard to these two sub-sections and
the purport of the amendments was that a reference to article 292 be deleted,
as also that the territorial constituencies should be of contiguous areas and
there should be no special constituencies or reserved constituencies. As a
matter of fact, this clause (5) only speaks of one method of the choice of the
voters and does not say in what particular way these electors will have the
right to choose the representatives. An amendment was sought to be moved by Mr.
Karimuddin to the effect that the representation should be by way of
proportional representation by the use of cumulative voting, which to my mind
clearly means a reversion to separate electorates. I propose that these two
clauses and the question of the reservation of seats under article 292 and
other articles which relate to elections may be fully discussed at the time
when we are on those articles and not separately here. Because, if we choose to
make modifications in article 292 or 293 as they stand, the right of proper
occasion to amend or adopt them will be when we will be considering these
articles. Therefore, my humble submission is that in regard to clause (5) we
may take it that unless articles 292 and 293 are disposed of, we shall not be
debarred from moving amendments there and modifying them as we choose. I
therefore propose that discussion about reservation of seats, delimitation of
constituencies and the method of delimiting them be postponed to the time when
we consider articles 292 and 293.
In regard to the rest, I also wanted to propose an amendment to clause (6) that
illiteracy should also be regarded as one of the grounds for not giving a vote
on the basis of adult suffrage. If a person is illiterate, he should not be
granted the right to vote. As a matter of fact, my idea in moving this
amendment was not to deprive any persons of their right of voting, because I am
very much in favour of adult suffrage. I wanted that as the elections are not
coming on before another two years or one year, by that time, every elector
should educate himself and could at least know how to read and write, as in my
opinion reading and writing can be acquired by any person in three months. It
will give a great fillip to the drive for adult education and to the electors
to make an attempt to know how to read and write, if we condition the exercise
of the right of voting to literacy. When I consider, Sir, the number of
electors which will come on the electoral roll if we allow the basis to be
adult suffrage, I am astounded by the magnitude of the problem. According to
calculations, I understand that there will be something like twelve crores of
voters. In a population of thirty crores, it is not a wrong estimate to think
that the number of voters may be twelve crores. If there are 500
representatives, it means that each constituency will consist of at least
240,000 voters, if there are single members constituencies. If there are multi-member
constituencies, then if a constituency is formed for the purpose of electing
four members, there will be something like 960,000 voters. At the present time,
in ordinary elections for the Central Legislative Assembly, we had from 8,000
to 40,000 voters. With this increase of numbers, I shudder to think how we will
be able to arrange for the elections. It will require, not one or two days as
at present for the elections; it will require, I think, about a month. The
number of booths will be very large. I think the magnitude of the problem is
such that it must give serious cause for doubt whether we would be able to hold
these elections in the manner in which we want them to be held. How will this
large electorate be educated? How will you approach these electors so that the
elections might be good. When I consider that there is a proposal to have
multiple constituencies, and reserved constituencies, the situation becomes all
the worse. So far as I thing, at present, a person belonging to the Depressed Classes,
etc., is known only in his Taluka; he is not known over several districts. If
the Constituency is spread over several districts, I do not know how the
elections would be real. The electors will never have occasion to know who the
person elected is. Therefore, to obviate this difficulty, I would suggest, for
the first ten years, just limit this right of voting to literate people. We
will be doing a thing which will be really useful. Otherwise, in my humble
opinion, these elections will be a great farce. Therefore, my submission is
that if the House is so advised, we should have the provision of literacy put
in clause (6).
Similarly, I have to make one point more; that is about sub-clause (c) of
clause (5). The words in the article are “as ascertained at the last preceding
census”. The population as ascertained at the last preceding census will, in
many cases, be absolutely wrong. In East Punjab lakhs of people have come from
West Punjab and gone away from East Punjab. Similarly in West Bengal, people
are still coming in from East Bengal. In regard to Delhi, there has also been a
large influx of population. The last preceding census will not give the correct
figures and if we consider the present position, the figures will be quite
incomparable with the real figures in which the population is to be found in
these places. Therefore we shall have to have recourse to sum other expedient,
and the expedient which has been suggested is in article 313. I doubt very much
if we would be able to arrive at the real figures from the number of electors.
The right figures about the population from the number of electors will be at
best a conjecture and it will not be in accordance with the true principles set
out in clauses (5) to (8). Therefore, my humble submission is that with regard
to East Punjab and West Bengal, unless a census is taken, we will not be
correct in our figures. This will entail a good length of time. If the
elections are coming in 1952 or 1951, then the position can be solved;
otherwise, you will have to take a census before these provisions can be given
effect to, or the words “as ascertained at the last preceding census” will have
no meaning for us. If these words are taken in their literal sense and no
adaptation is made, it would mean for such of the Muslims, about 50 lakhs as
have left East Punjab, you will reserve about fifty seats in the local
legislature whereas the population of the Muslims at present is said to be
about two lakhs. These are real difficulties which have to be solved. Unless we
solve these difficulties, my own apprehension is that there will be no real
elections.
In regard to article 292, I have to submit one more word. In clause (5), the
reference to article 292 is certainly not wanted, because article 292 deals
with direct elections, in regard to constituencies and in regard tore served
constituencies also. The present position is that they are proposed to be
chosen by direct elections. The reference to article 292 is absolutely
unnecessary. Even if it is kept, I would, with your permission, repeat this
that I take it that the reference to article 292 does not bind the House and we
would be able to modify article 292. I do not want to conceal my feelings from
this House that I want that there should be no reservation of constituencies
for any communities, i.e., no reservation of seats for any community. I only
want that so far as the Scheduled castes are concerned, there may be
reservation of representation, which we can do on the lines suggested in
article 293. We do not want any reservation of seats because if you consider
the whole question, and if you consider the multiple constituencies, the entire
elections will be absolutely unreal. Our difficulty is that we have not
realised how these constituencies will be formed. When the matter comes to the
House in a concrete form, I am perfectly sure that the House will not even
touch the reservation of seats with a pair of tongs.
With these remarks, Sir, I support article 67.
Shri Deshbandhu Gupta (Delhi): *[Mr. Vice-President,
I want to draw the attention of the House specially to parts (b) and (c) clause
(5) of article No. 67. My learned Friend, Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava, has also
drawn the attention of the House and has pointed out that if we are relying on
the last census figures for fixing the number of representatives then it would
affect adversely, specially in the case of East Punjab, West Bengal and Delhi.
I want to point out that so far as East Punjab, concerned only a little less of
the population which has gone away from East Punjab to the Pakistan, has come
from Pakistan to East Punjab, and therefore the population of East Punjab has
not swollen much. But as regards Delhi, it is an admitted fact, that its
population has greatly swollen by the influx of refugees more than in any other
town. According to the last census, Delhi’s population was about 9 lakhs, but
at present it is estimated to be about 19 lakhs. Therefore it would be very
unfair for the Delhi province should the number of representatives be fixed
according to the last census.
Mr. Vice-President, that is why I want Dr. Ambedkar and others to keep this
fact in view. I hope that in regard to Delhi and other cities, whose population
has swollen apart from the natural causes, due to the partition of the country,
this fact would be borne in mind when seats are allotted to them. I think that
in clause (c) if for the words ‘actual population’ the words ‘actual number of
voters’ are inserted, then there would be no ground for any objection from any
body. Therefore, I want this fact to be borne in mind, and as has been provided
by article 313 of the adaptation clause or under it, or in any other form, an
assurance to this effect should be given; otherwise grave injustice would be
done to Delhi and other towns, which have absorbed our refugee, uprooted
brethren from Western Pakistan, who would be denied their due representation in
the House.]
Shri Prabhudayal Himatsingka (West Bengal : General): Mr. Vice-President,
Sir, in connection with clause (5) of article 67, Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava
has tried to explain the difficulties that are likely to be encountered in
having a proper election. The proposal is to have one member for five to seven
and a half lakhs of persons and roughly speaking we may expect that there will
be about three lakhs voters in each constituency. However if the election is
expected to be properly held and in order to avoid the malpractices that are
seen in elections on a large scale where a large number of voters are concerned,
some device will have to be found whereby the voters may be identified and
false voting may be eliminated. Sir, we know from the elections that we have
had to run in the past that where a large number of voters are concerned, a
very large amount of malpractice is possible on account of the voters not being
known to the persons or authority who are there as Polling Officers. So some
method of identification should also be devised in connection with such
elections.
As regards the different amendments which have been suggested about multiple
constituencies and cumulative votes, Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava has also
explained that it will be a very wrong thing to do it because, as it is the
constituency will be very big and if you have multiple seats, the troubles of a
candidate can be better imagined than described. If you have multiple
constituencies, even the best man cannot expect to be returned without a
contest. If there are more than one seat in a constituency, there will be more
candidates and everyone of them, whether he is the best man to be selected or
not, will have to come by actual contest and there will be, if it is a four
seat constituency, about twelve to thirteen lakhs of voters and it it is more,
it will be similarly more and the trouble that a candidate will have to go
through will be enormous.
Therefore, Sir, the various amendments that have been moved in order to have
multiple constituencies or plural voting should be opposed and defeated.
With these words, I support the motion as it stands.
Mr. Vice-President : Sardar Bhopinder Singh Man. The time at our disposal
is extremely limited. As there are quite a large number of honourable Members
who want to speak, I am offering special facilities to those coming from East
Punjab because they have very strong feelings on this matter, and I hope the
House will see the reason for this special concession given to them. Now, you
will kindly confine your remarks to as short a time as possible.
Sardar Bhopinder Singh Man.
Sardar Bhopinder Singh Man (East Punjab : Sikh): *[Mr.
Vice-President, while discussing this article, two points have emerged clearly
on which we, as a minority, feel strongly. In your last meeting you had decided
without any reservation that so far as minorities were concerned, they had been
given reservation of seats on principle. While accepting this principle you had
given them an option that if they decide to give it up, they could do so
gladly. But I feel that while reopening this question, that offer has been
withheld nay, the right is being snatched away from them. Where is the
occasion, I fail to understand, for being in such a hurry, to make a change so
early, and for snatching away a right which had been conferaded on us in the
last meeting? I can understand this much that after the expiry of ten years,
when the minorities feel that the majority has gained their full confidence,
then they should give up this right of their own accord.]
Mr. Vice-President : I am afraid that you are speaking on the right of
separate representation: that has nothing to do with the clause in hand. I
appeal to you to confine your remarks to the subject of the clause under
discussion.
This is my final ruling.
Sardar Bhopinder Singh Man : [Mr. Vice-President, I would like that at the
time of forming these constituencies, particular care should be taken to make
them plural constituencies. The right which you have conferred on the
minorities can be preserved only if you make the constituencies in such a way
that they should be able to represent themselves. It is necessary, because the
minorities have not gained full confidence of the majority up till now. There
is yet another point. Pandit Bhargava is trying to have the constituencies so
shaped that the rural should be amalgamated with the urban constituencies. But
the standard of literacy in the rural areas is so low that while competing with
the urban areas, they can never succeed. Besides the old dispute between the
producers and the consumers still exists. Whatever we produce, we sell them in ‘Mandies’
and when 25,000 votes shall be pitted against us, to my mind, the people of the
rural areas shall never be able to send their representatives while contesting
with the people of urban areas and the stockists. What will be the result under
such circumstances? The result will be that the producers whose standard of
literacy is low and who live in far-off small hamlets, would not be able to
send their representatives through elections. Another result will be that the ‘Mandies’
would become centre of activites for ever and the village would be cut off from
the political current of the country. The twenty or twenty-five thousand voters
of mandies will always try to suppress the villagers politically. We in the
Punjab feel that so long as there is fundamental difference between the
procedures and the consumers, they should have separate constituencies.
Therefore, what we want is that the delimiting Committee should not be
influenced by Pandit Bhargava’s speech and this difference should be kept
intact, namely, the rural constituencies should be kept separate from the urban
constituencies.
There is yet another point. In East Punjab a large population is fluid. Some
have migrated to Delhi and a part of it is going back out of Delhi. Then again
it is not known what population has stayed in the Punjab and how much has
migrated. In these circumstances, it is unavoidable that a census should be
taken in East Punjab. To my mind, without an accurate census, confusion might
prevail. Therefore, I am of the opinion that arrangements should be made for
taking of a census immediately, and the rural and the urban constituencies
should be formed separately and they should be plural.]
Sardar Hukam Singh (East Punjab :
Sikh): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, we have provided that reservation be made for
minorities under the present Constitution, reservation of seats, I mean.
Certainly there are two methods only by which we can safeguard the interests of
minorities. Up to now, the minorities have enjoyed separate electorates and
some weightage as well. That has gone, because we have decided that on
principle and basically that is a wrong method and no minority should have any
weightage or any separate electorate. There are, as I said, only two methods,
one recommended by the Minorities Committee, that there should be reservation
of seats and that is also provided in the Draft Constitution, under articles
292 to 299. I agree with Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava when he said that it would
be better if both these clauses were taken together, and the discussion of this
part of article 67 taken up at the time when article 292 was also being
discussed. The amendments that are now before the House, by Mr. Karimuddin and
another honourable Member, certainly are the opposite or the alternative of the
reservation of seats, provided in those sections. Sir I am of opinion that if
separate electorates have perpetuated communalism, which is so detestable and
reprehensible, this reservation of seats, does no less (hear, hear). I
think it is rather more harmful for the minorities, and it does not safeguard
their interests. But it is, on the other hand, beneficial to the majority. When
you are reserving, say 30 per cent, for the minorities, indirectly you are
reserving 70 per cent for the majority. This allowance or concession or option
to contest unreserved seats as well, is in my opinion, very illusory when it is
brought into actual practice. Further, this reservation, though it is not just now
before the House, because the two methods are to be discussed side by side. I
am taking it,--and I crave the indulgence of the House in listening to me
patiently,--this reservation of seats is rather harmful and would create the
same atmosphere that we abhor so much. When the minorities see that certain
Members of their own community, offensive to them, are being pushed up and
backed by the majority community, certainly the relations would get strained
and our object would not be fulfilled at all. And secondly, under this
reservation of seats, the majority would be able to secure some Members from
the minorities of their own choice, while there will be a certain proportion
that would be returned by the minorities themselves. So there will be two
sections and a further rift would be created between the sections of the
minority community itself.
Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : Sir, on a point of order, we are not
discussing here the question of reservation of seats, and so I would like to
know if these remarks are relevant.
Mr. Vice-President : They are relevant in the sense that the honourable
Members is defending proportional representation. Am I right?
Sardar Hukam Singh : Yes.
Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : But this is a matter of great importance on
which we will have to concentrate and so more time will have to be allotted if
we are discussing it. I wanted to bring that aspect of the matter, because it
is a very big issue and......
Mr. Vice-President : In accordance with my general policy, I shall allow Sardar Hukam Singh to speak and to
refer to the question of reservation of seats, by way of illustrating the
advantages of the system under discussion.
Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : Sir, I should not be understood as wishing
to shut out such discussion at all, but what I wanted to....
Mr. Vice-President : Will the honourable Member please take his seat?
We must be generous and we as a majority community must be generous to the
minorities (hear, hear). It has proved its generosity so far; let not
that tradition be broken.
Now, please continue, Sardar Hukam
Singh.
Sardar Hukam Singh : I am thankful
to the House and to the Vice-President, though I do not crave for any
generosity at this moment. I will not discuss that point further.
Sir, it has
been argued here by more than one Member that plural member constituencies and
cumulative voting would be too costly and unworkable. My position is that if
separate electorates are detestable and if reservation of seats is
objectionable, then some method has to be devised by which the rights of
minorities can be safeguarded and that this is the only method suggested in the
amendments that can be considered. If it is cumbersome and if it is costly,
then it has to be settled in accordance with the democratic principles that we
are following now. And my submission is that this is the only mode by which we
can satisfy the minorities and stick to our principles that we have chalked out
so far.
Shri V. I. Muniswamy Pillai (Madras : General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir,..
Mr. Vice-President : May I request the honourable Members to take as little
time as possible? There are many honourable Members who desire to speak and I
would like to accommodate as many of them as possible.
Shri V. L. Muniswamy Pillai : Sir, in supporting article 67, I may say that
I specially welcome sub-clause (6) which envisages adult suffrage. Speaking for
the Scheduled Castes I may say that this kind of election is highly needed at a
time like this when we have just secured freedom for this country. Under the
Poona Pact, the Scheduled Castes had to submit to two elections--the panel
election and the general elections. I know as a matter of fact that this has
caused great inconvenience to the candidates.
Sir, one of the Members of the Assembly has moved for the adoption of the
cumulative system of voting. I feel that this cumulative system of voting under
the present set-up is most dangerous, because the communities will have to go
away from the main body of electors. So I feel that on no account should this
cumulative system be encouraged. The distributive system of voting is bound to
bring the various communities together and prove worthy of the labours
undergone by them in maintaining the freedom that we have won.
One of the Members, speaking on this article, observed that reservation of
seats for the minorities must go and, at the same time, generously stated that,
so far as the Scheduled Castes are concerned, they should not be disturbed.
Sir, I welcome the statement made by Pandit Bhargava. This matter of the
reservation of seats and protection for the minorities has been dealt with in
this sovereign body and we have come to certain decisions. If there is a
feeling that this matter should be re-opened, the proper place to do that will
be where we discuss articles 292 and 293. Whatever it may be, I feel and also
every Member of the Scheduled Castes in this sovereign body feels that the
protection given to this community should not be disturbed. You yourself know.
Sir, in your tours throughout the country, the disabilities of the Harijan
community. The Minorities Report has considered those things and this sovereign
body after considering that report has agreed to give some protection to the
minority communities. That being so, without taking more time of the House I
will conclude by saying that the safeguards and the protection afforded to the
Scheduled Castes and tribes should not be disturbed. When we deal with articles
292 and 293, as I said, we can have elaborate discussion on the various points
that may be raised then as regards protection for minorities.
Mr. Vice-President : Mr. Khandekar may now address the House. I expect him
to confine his remarks to the matter under discussion and to take as little
time as possible. There are limits to the patience of the majority community on
this question.
Shri S. Nagappa (Madras : General): My friends say that there is no limit
to their patience.
Mr. Vice-President : That was a remark meant for Mr. Khandekar only.
Shri H. J. Khandekar (C. P. & Berar : General): *[Mr. Vice-President, I rise to express my views on the matter
that is at present engaging the attention of the House. When we go through
clause (5) of article 67, we find that the provisions of this clause are
subject to the provisions of articles 292 and 293. Article 292 provides for
reservation of seats for minority communities and since I myself belong to a
scheduled caste--a minority community, I am glad that the House has accepted
the article. The Minorities Sub-Committee and the Advisory Committee had also
recommended to the House for reservation of seats for minorities. I need not
say much about the condition of the minority communities to which I belong. The
scheduled castes constitute that section of the country which has been kept
suppressed by the other sections for the last thousands of years and which has
been denied social and political rights.
I may recall to you, Sir, that under the Government of India Act, 1919;
provision had been made for the nomination of persons belonging to the
scheduled cases for some seats reserved for this purpose in the Provincial
Legislatures. Our representatives present at the Round Table Conference had made
a demand that seats be reserved for scheduled castes according to the numerical
strength. But to the misfortune of our community, Mr. Macdonald gave an award
according to which the scheduled castes which have a population of 75 millions
in the country, got only seventy two seats out of a total of 1580 seats, that
is the Macdonald Award allotted us seats many times less than what we should
have been given, according to our population. I am very glad that when the
Award was announced, Respected Bapu undertook a fast in Yervada Jail as a
result of which the Poona Pact gave the scheduled castes 151 seats out of a
total of 1580 in the Provincial Legislatures, i.e., just double of what they
had been given under the Macdonald Award. I therefore express gratitude to Respected
Bapu on behalf of my community. But in this connection I can say that allotment
of 151 seats was also not in proportion to our numerical strength and as my
Friend Mr. Muniswamy Pillai has observed, we had to contest two elections under
the Poona Pact. First, for Panel election there was contest amongst ourselves
and after that in the general election we contested the candidates of other
communities. At that time there was cumulative system of voting for us and not
the distributive system. My Friend Mr. Kazi Syed Karimuddin has moved an
amendment No. 1415 on the list, seeking to introduce cumulative system of
voting. If it is accepted, elections will be held on the basis of cumulative
system of voting. Under this system if there be two seats, one reserved and the
other general in a constituency every voter would be given two ballot papers
and he would have the option to cast both of his votes for one candidate or
distribute these among two candidates. In this case naturally a voter, to
whichever community he may belong, will cast both of his votes for the
candidate belonging to his community and not to person of other communities.
Communal rivalry therefore will continue. We have to do away with communalism
as early as possible and therefore I oppose that amendment. As I belong to
Harijan community whose elections were so far held on the basis of the
cumulative system of voting, I have more experience of it than others. I have
still in my mind the disastrous results of the cumulative system.
The minorities Sub-Committee and the Advisory Sub-Committee which were formed
by this Assembly and above all Dr. Ambedkar himself who has been the greatest
supporter of separate electorate have disapproved of separate electorate and
have, by voting for joint electorate, eliminated the canker of communalism from
our polity. I thank them all for this. In the circumstances I have no option
but to interpret this move of Kazi Syed Karimuddin as motivated by the desire
to secure separate electorates by indirect means, for while on the one hand we
would be abolishing separate electorate, on the other we would be retaining it
by having the cumulative system of voting. If we accept the amendment, it is
plain that its consequences would be that members of a community would under
the cumulative system of voting, cast their votes for the candidate belonging
to their community, and thus separate electorates will continue to exist
indirectly. I therefore oppose the amendment moved by Mr. Kazi Syed Karimuddin.
There is another point to which I would like to draw the attention of Dr.
Ambedkar, and I hope he would give his consideration to it. Sub-Clause 5(c) of
the article refers to a census. A few days ago a clause in which the expression
“latest census” occurs, was discussed and passed by this House. It would be
better if we add the word ‘latest’ before the word ‘census’ in this clause also
in order to bring it into uniformity with that clause. I may state the reason
why I make this suggestion. In the next election to be held under article 292,
minorities will have some reserved seats in the Provincial Assemblies. They
will have one seat for every one hundred thousand of population and in the
Central Assembly one seat for every million of population. I am sorry to have to
say, Sir, that we do not trust the census figures recorded in 1941 because the
population of Harijans shown in that census is very incorrect. Therefore, Sir,
unless a fresh census is taken and the population of Harijans ascertained, I do
not believe we would be allotted our due numbers of seats. I may submit, Sir,
that according to our population there should have been sixty members from
amongst our community in this House, because before partition our population
was sixty millions. In this connection I am sorry to say, Sir, that in spite of
the announcement of the British Government and the decision of the Congress,
that Harijans would also have representation according to their population,
only twenty seven representatives of Harijans are here in this House. And I may
add that it is something painful to me.
We would like to return our representatives according to our population. Even
if it be found that it comes to only twenty millions we would not mind sending
only twenty members. But a census must be taken before elections are held. I am
sure our population can under no circumstances be only twenty millions. Even
today when the country has been partitioned, our population is at least sixty
millions. I make this assertion without referring to the exact figures of our
population. But I am sure that if reservation of representation for the
scheduled castes on the basis of one representative for every one hundred
thousand of their population--is maintained in the next elections and for this
purpose figures of their population are collected, it would be found that their
population even now is not less than seven crores. It is a well known fact,
Sir, that the birth rate is high among the poor. We have no money, no learning,
but we possess great capacity for producing children. I emphatically say that
we are not less than seventy millions today in India. In view of these facts
fresh census should certainly be taken.
With these words, Sir, I would appeal to Honourable Dr. Ambedkar that while
replying to the debate he would kindly make the position clear regarding the
words “preceding census” that occur in this clause. I submit, Sir, that unless
a fresh census is taken, neither the provision for reservation of seats, nor
electorates would be helpful to any minority. It may be that if a fresh census
is taken elections are delayed. But I do not think that it must need be so.
Even if the elections are to be delayed we should not be affected by that
prospect. People of every section of the country say that there should be
amelioration in the conditions of the Harijans. But this should not remain with
these people merely a matter of lip sympathy. It should rather be their sincere
desire and ought to be translated into practice. Even if elections are delayed
by a year or soon account of the suggestion made above, we should not mind such
delay.
With these words, Sir, I support the article and oppose the amendment moved by
Mr. Kazi Syed Karimuddin.]
Shri Biswanath Das (Orissa : General): Sir, I have come to support the
article and in doing so, I feel it necessary to place certain facts before the
Assembly. Sir, I think that articles 67 and 149 should have been discussed
together because they are correlated and one is complementary or supplementary
to the other. As such, I feel that it could have been a great convenience to
the honourable Members of this House if both these articles had been discussed
together. I have to place before the honourable Members of this House the
immensity of the resolution that they are passing today. We are giving our seal
of approval to the most important principle, namely the principle of adult
suffrage, by which every adult--male or female--in this country irrespective of
the fact that he is a plains-man or belonging to the hill tribes or to the
scheduled caste, becomes a voter and as such shares the responsibilities and
anxieties of the administration of the State and becomes an equal citizen
absolutely and in all respects. Having adopted this important principle it is
necessary that we realise the immensity of the proposal. This makes me feel
that we will hereafter have an electorate which in no case will be less than
twenty crores. It may be more. My honourable Friend Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava
I think did less than justice when he stated that the number of voters may be
somewhere between 15 and 16 crores. Our population is 32 crores and if those
below 21 are eliminated I feel sure that the number of voters is bound to
exceed 20 crores. 15 percent is taken as children of the school going age, who
are below 14. If that is so, I have no hesitation in saying that 25 per cent
may as well be taken as people below the age of 21. As such three-fourths of
the entire existing population may be taken as voters. Therefore, the country
and the Government will have to keep themselves ready to meet the immensity of
the proposal that they are accepting today. There would thus be a minimum of
twenty crores of voters, which would mean that there should be about 2 lakhs
polling stations and four lakhs of polling officers. I do not know how long it
will take to conduct and finish the elections. I therefore appeal to the
Government and also to you as the person primarily in charge of this work, so
far as we are here concerned, to take immediate action in time to set up the
machinery to carry out this stupendous task. It is through you that we are
devising a special agency for this purpose, namely the election commission but
that does not minimise the tremendousness of the task.
Having stated so far about the immensity of the problem, I would come to two
areas which give enough cause for anxiety. These are the States and provinces
in the north and also the provinces of West Bengal and Assam. In these two
different and distinct areas there has been hug migration of the population.
Lakhs and millions of people have migrated either to Pakistan or have come away
from there. We have reservation of seats; and not only that, in certain cases,
as in the case of the aboriginal population, the constitution has prescribed
that whether they live on the hills or on the plains they have to be taken
together and seats to be reserved on that basis. That being the position I
think it would be doing a grave injustice to the people of East Punjab as also
to the states bordering Pakistan in the North and also probably to the Union of
Sourashtra and Bombay, as also to the two provinces of Assam and West Bengal,
if a census is not taken. I think a census is called for, because of article
149. This article lays down that the basis of representation has to be devised
on the figures of the previous census. The previous census is the one that was
taken in 1941. It is a fact within common knowledge that due to the war and in
the name of paper shortage and the like the then government did not think it
necessary to take a full-fledged census. Not only that but what little
information was gathered was also left aside with the result that an abridged
census was taken. Ever since, much water has flown under the bridges. Therefore
it is necessary that to be fair to these areas in the North-East and the
North-West early census is necessary. A special census in these areas for this
purpose should be undertaken. In this connection need I invite your attention
to what has been done in Pakistan? In Pakistan they have undertaken a census in
the Provinces of Sind and the West Punjab as also in East Bengal and they have
come to certain conclusions for the purpose of representation in the
Constituent Assembly after this census. What was done in Pakistan could have
easily been done in India and need I say that even today it is not too late for
a census to be taken in all seriousness without further delay.
Having said so much about census I come to another aspect of this question.
Soon after passing the Third Reforms Act in the British Parliament the late
lamented Gladstone declared in the House of Commons that the time has come when
they should find more money and put forth all their exertions to educate their “little
masters”. Who are these little masters? These little masters are the voters:
they are the real masters. What have you done to educate your little masters?
In this country the percentage of literacy is about ten per cent. Female
literacy is much lower; so also is the case with the scheduled castes. As
regards literacy among the hill tribes whom you have enfranchised in full and
given the right to vote, it is practically next to nothing. What a tremendous
risk you have taken? You are calling upon them to vote, but who are they? A
very highly inflammable class of people who have up to date absolutely no
experience either of propaganda or of voting in elections. Therefore I warn you
to take early steps in this regard, so that the difficulties that I have placed
before you are minimised. And what have you done in this regard to minimise
them? You have done nothing. Last year it was my misfortune to have an
interpellation in the Constituent Assembly (Legislative) to know whether
Government have undertaken to appoint an organisation to delimit the
constituencies. The reply was that it had already been done. What is the sort
of delimitation that you have already undertaken? The Provincial Governments
are asked to delimit the constituencies; they have asked their officials and
some blessed official sits and delimits the constituencies. Is that the sort of
delimitation that you are going to have under this Constitution? I warn the
Government, and through you, Sir, I beg of the honourable Members of this
Constituent Assembly to see that these conditions are changed. Immediate action
is necessary to see that delimitation of constituencies is undertaken and
necessary steps in that regard should immediately be taken.
With these words, Sir, I fully support the article, but with the warning that I
have given.
Maulana Hasrat Mohani (United Provinces: Muslim):*[Sir, I had very little to say about article 67, but one thing
has compelled me to speak something regarding this.]
Shri S. Nagappa: Mr. Vice-President, the Maulana can speak in English.
Mr. Vice-President : Can the honourable Member not speak in English?
Maulana Hasrat Mohani : I have to make an effort.
Mr. Vice-President : That does not matter, we care only for thoughts, not
for your language.
Maulana Hasrat Mohani: *[And what is that
mentioned in this article which has compelled me to express my thoughts? It is
this: clause (5) (a) reads thus: “Subject to the provisions of articles 292 and
293 of this Constitution, the House of the People shall consist of not more than
five hundred representatives of the people of the territories of the states
directly chosen by the voters.” The meaning of this clause and of article 293
is that seats have been reserved for minorities. I am, therefore strongly
opposed to reservation of seats and there should be no reservation under any
circumstances. I say that there is absolutely no need of reservations, after we
have made provision for joint electorates and adult franchise. The two cannot
go together. When the electorates would be joint, it would mean that everybody
will have the right to stand and to contest from each and every constituency.
On communal basis you are making its scope limited as you have already said
that you would like to give reservations to the Muslims because they are in
minority. I do not know about scheduled castes, but a friend of mine has just
said that you would not like to give them any reservation. Why do you call the
Muslims a minority? They can be termed as a minority only when they function as
a communal body. So long as Muslims were in the Muslim League, they were in a
minority. But if they elect to form a political party without any restriction
leaving it open to any community, then you should remember that whenever
political parties would be formed, the Muslims would give fight by forming
coalitions. Therefore, I say that Muslims would not like to be called a minority.
To say that Muslims are in minority is to insult them. I cannot tolerate this
even for a moment. I have had a talk with several Members. They have told me:
We are conceding this to the Muslims out of generosity. I ask: Who is asking
for this generosity? Muslims will become part of the majority party and they
will become majority. We do not want any generosity or concession from you.
Does any Muslim require it? Concession to whom? We refuse to accept any
concession. In case majority party or the Congress party accepts reservation of
seats, its claim for creating a secular State and of putting an end to
communalism would be classified. I say, you have not put an end to communalism.
The proof is that this hob-goblin, namely that Muslims are 14 per cent and
Hindus are 86 per cent, and that the Muslims being 14 per cent, reservation
should be given to them--still persists in your mind. I think that the question
of reservation of seats has been raised by the Nationalist Muslims who had
always been your slaves and slaves of the Congress. You want to reserve these
seats for them and when these 14 or 15 percent seats are reserved they would
get them first of all. I take the responsibility, we will isolate the
nationalists. Muslims will form coalitions and shall defeat the purpose of your
device and I am sure that the Muslims shall not remain in minority.]
Giani Gurmukh Singh Musafir (East Punjab : Sikh): *[Mr.
Vice-President, I had no mind to speak today but as an important matter is
under discussion, I would very much like to express my opinion. I am therefore
thankful to you, Sir, for giving me this opportunity to speak. Two points have
been raised concerning article No. 67, one is regarding the census and the
other about the constituencies. In clause (5) of the article there is a
reference to article 292 which deals with the question of minorities and hence
it would be relevant here to speak about the reservation of the minority
problems. It would be to my liking if the chapter pertaining to the minorities
is altogether removed; without that there can be no salvation for the country.
There remains the question of reservation. Howsoever much one may ponder over
the question, he is bound to come to the conclusion that reservation on
population basis is of no good to the minorities; and particularly for the
Sikhs, reservation is of no use. I am afraid, now the situation is taking such
a turn--it may be said the Sikhs are more particular to reservation even than
others. I know, at present such things pertaining to matters of policy and
others alike, are going on, and which are quite natural during such interim
periods. I will not go into the details. Our leaders might have before them
some considerations on grounds of expediency and so I would not go into that
matter. But this much I would like to make clear that if reservation is
retained in the Constitution, it would not be because of the Sikhs. In other
words, what I mean to say is that Sikhs would not be in the least benefited by
reservation. To cramp them with reservation is to check all their progress. Of
course I do think of the Harijans and Scheduled Castes in this connection. But
at the same time I think that just as the poison of separate electorate is
being removed from this Constitution, similarly no other canker should be
allowed to remain by which the communalism may again spread. To achieve this
end healthy conventions can be established. Suitable representation can be made
through nominations as would leave no room for objection from any one.
The second point is regarding the constituencies. Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava
had tabled an amendment but it was not moved, and he did not even press for it.
This, however, is quite another matter. In my opinion, urban and rural
constituencies should be kept separate. Time is not yet ripe to have joint
electorates. People of rural areas need education first. They are very backward
at present, while people of urban areas are advanced. If one is on the top and
the other is on the floor, they cannot meet. In other words a motor-car and a
Tonga cannot be run together. It is necessary to gradually raise the level of
the man at the bottom, and it will also be necessary for the man on the top to
mould his mentality in such a way as to treat the man below like his own
brother. Only after this has been done, the purpose will be achieved. I do not
mean thereby that disparity between the urban and rural areas should be
perpetuated, and I do not lay much emphasis on the point that village people
are backward. It is possible that in other aspects there is more awakening in
the rural areas, but it is a fact that they have not much resources. They are
so placed that only our government can make any arrangements for them. At
present access to villages is difficult. For these reasons I think that rural
constituencies should be kept separate, otherwise village people would be at a
disadvantage. With these words I support this article.]
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena (United Provinces: General) : Mr. Vice-President,
Sir, out of the articles which we have passed so far excepting perhaps articles
Nos. 13 and 25 which guarantee fundamental freedoms, this article I think is
the most important article. Here we are giving the right to vote to every adult
citizen of India, and I think, people will realize later on what this really
means. The election so far has been held on a narrow franchise, and now if in
the new census the population of India is nearly 35 crores, we should have an
electorate of about 20 crores in the country. Even America has got only about 5
or 6 crores of voters. But here 20 crores of voters will go to the polls to
elect their representatives. I think this fundamental right of adult suffrage
guaranteed to all people is the most important part of the Constitution. It has
raised great hopes in us and today we are realising the ideal for which we have
fought for the last so many years. I think that in clause (6), which guarantees
this right, the word ‘crime’ has also been included as disqualifying a person
from being a voter. I feel that even those persons who have been to jail, but
have come back afterwards and reformed themselves should not be debarred from
becoming voters, and I, therefore think that the word ‘crime’ should not have
been there. I have no objection to all other conditions, non-residence,
unsoundness of mind, etc. being there.
Then, Sir, this article is an omnibus article providing for the constitution of
the Council of States and the House of the people. Sir, I cannot refrain from
saying that I am one of those who believe in only one Chamber and not two
Chambers. Here they have provided for two Chambers and the worst part of this
is that in the Upper Chamber we shall have twelve nominated Members; and we
passed the other day that even those Members, who have been nominated and who
will never seek the vote of the people, can become Ministers also. I think this
is a most undemocratic aspect of our Constitution. Everybody who was a
specialist in literature, art and science could surely have got.....
Mr. Vice-President : May I ask the honourable Member to refrain from
referring to business which has already been passed. The present discussion is with
regard to clause (5) up to the end. That was what was agreed to by the House.
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : If that is the position. I will refrain from
referring to the earlier clauses, although I think we are discussing the whole
article.
Then, Sir, another thing in this article is the provision for delimitation of
constituencies having a population between 5 lakhs and 71/2
lakhs. I think the upper limit was unnecessary. It is not provided anywhere how
the exact figure between these two limits will be determined, but I think the
average figure will be the figure suited for allotment of seats to every
province, and will be somewhere about 6,25,000. I personally think that the
clause as it stands, will create great difficulties.
There will have to be big multiple constituencies of 13 lakhs and twenty lakhs population
and I do not think poor candidates will be in a position to contest in such
constituencies. If we want reservation for minorities, big multiple
constituencies cannot be avoided. Only those people who are rich will then be
able to get elected. Besides reservations will keep communal passions alive. I
therefore think we must have no reservations. In fact, I was very glad to hear
my honourable Friends Maulana Hasrat Mohani and Giani Gurmukh Singh Musafir
when they said that they do not want any reservation. I think this Constitution
must completely abolish all reservation. Let us have a completely secular State
where every one will be a free citizen of India and every one can get elected
irrespective of his community. I am sure communal passions will die out in a
few years and there will be no need for any reservation. I think the time has
come, and certainly by the time the elections are held, we shall require no
special reservations. If we decide to have reservation for minorities, then the
amendment which Dr. Ambedkar did not move should have been moved; otherwise,
there will have to be very big constituencies. Even if there is to be one
general seat, one Harijan seat and one other reserved Muslim seat in a
particular constituency, there will be about eleven lakhs of voters which each
candidate will have to canvass and no ordinary person can approach eleven lakhs
of voters with his limited resources. Then, there will have to be innumerable
booths; I do not know how many booths will be required. I think it will be an
impossible task and so even from practical considerations, I think reservations
should cease. Again, it is also possible, if there are to be very big multiple
constituencies, some people may not be able to get a fair chance; their sphere
of influence may be broken up or it may be resumed for a minority community.
Therefore, the only possible and practical course is that there should be no
reservations. I am sure the fear of the minorities will soon be removed and I
am sure that the People who are now in favour of reservation will also come
forward and say that they do not want any reservation. If no reservation is
made, we must see that a larger number of members of the minority communities
are returned than their population entitles them to.
Sir, the proviso to sub-clause (2) of clause (5) is proposed to be omitted.
This is also not fair. Under article 67 clause (1), in the Council of States,
the number of representatives of the States shall not exceed forty per cent.
Here, in the Lower House the proportion is sought to be abolished. If the
States remain to some extent what they are today, if they only accede to the
extent of defence, Communications, etc., this abolition of the proviso will not
be possible. The number of representatives from the States may be larger than
is warranted by their population. I think the original proposition was better.
The States should have seats only in proportion to their population. If the
States come into line with the provinces, and the distinction is obliterated,
then of course there will be no objection to the omission of the proviso.
Sir, I had given notice of an amendment for the deletion of clause (7). My
purpose was, I did not want that Parliament should have the power to make laws
to provide for the representation in the House of the People of territories
other than States. This is a matter for the Constitution and not for the
Parliament. Parliament may always try to make laws in favour of the party which
is in power. Parliament should be debarred from making laws in respect of such
matters. I think clause (7) should be deleted, because it gives to Parliament
the power of creating additional seats in the House of the People.
Sir, these are very important considerations. We have already discussed so many
amendments and I think the verdict of the House will be soon known. Only those
amendments which are accepted by Dr. Ambedkar will be accepted by the House.
Even though this article is not as I wish it to be, still I think it is a very
important article and it should be passed.
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar (Madras : General): Mr. Vice-President,
Sir, I shall address myself only to some of the more important amendments of
substance that have been moved relating to clauses (5) to (8) of article 67.
Sir, I am much obliged and it is very gratifying to see that members of the
minority communities, particularly, my honourable Friends Mr. Karimuddin and
Mr. Mahboob Ali Baig were against any reservation for their community. In its,
place they have suggested two methods of election; one, proportional
representation by means of the single transferable vote, and the other
proportional representation by means of cumulative vote.
Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur : May I correct my friend? I never said
anything about reservation of seats.
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar : Very well; I stand corrected. So far as
my friend Mr. Karimuddin is concerned, he did not want any reservation. In its
place he wanted election by proportional representation by means of the
cumulative vote. Mr. Mahboob Ali Baig evidently wants to run with the hare and
hunt with the hounds. He wants both this and that; I will come to him later.
The majority opinion seems to be against reservation that is provided for in
articles 292 and 293. I also find that with the exception of the Scheduled
Castes, so far as the provision for others is concerned, there is the other
opinion also from members who do not belong to the minority community that such
reservations ought not to exist. Of course, this matter will stand over and
will be discussed more elaborately when we come to article 292 and 293. In the
interests of the minorities themselves, I would urge that it would not be very
useful to them if they insist on reservations, because . . . . . .
Mr. Vice-President : Are you speaking on article 292?
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: No; I am referring to the alternative that
has been proposed.
Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor : (United Provinces: General): Why not delete
reference to article 292 here from this clause?
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar : That is the subject matter of the
amendment moved by my honourable Friend Mr. Karimuddin. He wanted reference to
articles 292 and 293 to be omitted and in its place add something relating to
the method of election: proportional representation by means of cumulative
vote. Therefore, if I have said anything in regard to the absence of
reservations, which is the substance of articles 292 and 293, I submit with all
respect that I am absolutely relevant in what I have said. Mr. Karimuddin’s
amendment wants to do away with reservations referred to in article 292 and
article 293 and in its place, he feels that it would be more useful if the
minorities could have proportional representation with cumulative voting. Two
methods of election have been suggested. With all respect to the mover, I would
suggest that proportional Representation by means of the single transferable
votes is not practicable at all. These are large constituencies and each
constituency will consist of population ranging between five lakhs and seven
and a half lakhs. Further we are not an advanced country; many of the people
are not literate. The literate population of our country is no more than
fourteen per cent. Exercising preference by means of the single transferable
vote is impossible. We commit mistakes seven on the floor of the House in the
Legislative side when we elect members of the Standing Committees in
Legislature for the various Departments. We do not exercise our votes properly.
Therefore it is impossible to expect the illiterate voters to be able to
exercise their votes properly. For a long time to come it is unthinkable having
regard to the low progress of literacy in our country.
Then as regards proportional representation by means of cumulative votes, my
suggestion is that that has been tried regarding the scheduled caste primary
election. I would refer to Volume III of the Constitutional Precedents
published by Sir B. N. Rau; at page 161 he has appended an Appendix to the
Chapter on the system of representation. Therein he says--
“The number of seats a party captures in an election depends on the correctness
with which it has gauged the support it commands in each of the constituencies,
and set up the right number of candidates on its behalf.”
As an illustration he says in the Appendix how the Congress lost both seats by
miscalculation when it was possible for the Congress to have captured at least
one seat. That is what happended in 1937 in the C. P. Legislative Assembly
elections--Bhandars Sakoli (General Rural). Both seats were lost to the
Congress. Then the Congress party contested in the Bombay Legislative Council,
Bombay city and Suburban Districts, two out of four seats. If it had
under-estimated or over-estimated its electoral strength and nominated less or
more candidates, it would have lost a seat. Now therefore this cumulative
election would not absolutely be appropriate.
Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : That is not proportional representation.
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar : That is also a kind of proportional
representation. I advocate neither the system by single transferable vote nor
by cumulative vote. The one is impossible and the other would not meet the
purpose. In that way social justice would not be rendered. On these grounds
neither the amendment of Mr. Karimuddin nor that of Mr. Baig is worth
considering. I oppose both of them. Prof. Shah suggested that there ought not
to be any restriction on the number of members in the House of People. He said
there must be as many as possible. My impression is 500 is large enough.
Already, in a House which consists of three hundred members, almost every day
we have to ring the bell to get a quorum; and so what is the good of
multiplying the number ? There will not be effective representation. The
smaller the number of members, the more effective it will be. Of course it
ought not to be too small. Five hundred seems to be quite a good number.
Besides 500 is not such a fixed and an inviolable number at that: because under
articles 292 and 293 provision is made for nomination in the case of
Anglo-Indian community if they are not represented. Likewise, for the
territories which did not form part of the States, the Parliament is entitled
under the article clause (7), by law to provide for their representation in the
House of the People. The five hundred under clause (5) are representatives only
from States. There can be in addition to the five hundred, some Anglo-Indian
members and also members representing territories other than those from the
States. Under those circumstances five hundred is not a definite number; but it
ought not to be increased enormously.
Then my friend, Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava, suggested that a kind of
qualification ought to be imposed, though he did not move the amendment that
literates alone ought to be allowed to vote. Sir, I want a clause insisting
that there must be imposition of penalty on those people who refrain from
voting. For a long time to come unless people in this country are compelled to
come to the Polling Station, many people may not care to exercise their votes
at all, and if you put a further qualification that they must be literate, I am
sure none will take interest. You are giving adult suffrage and the vote of a
single individual may not count. If most of our people are not literate till
now, whose fault it is? It is too much to expect that everyone will become
literate within a period of two years. Moreover, literacy is not the only
qualification. I know a number of people who are not literate but have very
good commonsense,--more than people with academic qualifications.
Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava : Signing the name can be learn in two months.
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar : With what effect? It is idle to think
that merely if a man is able to sign his name, he will immediately become such
a literate and educated man as to exercise his vote properly; I should say such
a qualification is unnecessary. Wisely he has not moved an amendment to that
effect. On the other hand it may be necessary in the future years when the
election becomes so costly and people may not come to the polling station that
you may have to have a provision, as exists in some other constitutions, that
there must be a compulsion on voters to come and vote. As regards early
elections, I would wish that even from now the various provincial Governments
must take up the task of making up the list of qualified voters and also
delimiting constituencies. That is the object with which we have come to some
of these articles and have taken up only those articles which relate to
elections. We are also proceeding from here, with the leave of the House, to
consider article 148. Therefore, I believe that the Central Government will
take steps to issue instructions to Provincial Governments to prepare these
lists and also delimit constituencies early with a view to have the elections
early next year.
I support the formal amendments moved by my Friend Dr. Ambedkar and oppose the
amendments moved by Mr. Karimuddin and Mr. Baig and also by Prof. Shah.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I accept the
amendments Nos. 1417, 1426, 1431 of Prof. Shah, 1434 as amended by the mover of
that amendment and as amended by the amendment No. 42 of List II and No. 43 of
List II. Of the other amendments, on a careful examination, I find that there
is only one amendment on which I need offer any reply. That is amendment No.
1415 of my Friend Mr. Karimuddin. His amendment aims at prescribing that the
election to the House of the People in the various States shall be in
accordance with the proportional representation by single transferable vote.
Now, I do not think it is possible to accept this amendment, because, so far as
I am able to judge the merits of the system of proportional representation, in
the light of the circumstances as they exist in this country, I think, that amendment
cannot be accepted. My Friend Mr. Karimuddin will, I think, accept the
proposition that proportional representation presupposes literacy on a large
scale. In fact, it presupposes that every voter shall be literate, at least to
the extent of being in a position to know the numericals, and to be in a
position to mark them on a ballot paper. I think, having regard to the extent
of literacy in this country, such a presupposition would be utterly
extravagant. I have not the least doubt on that point. Our literacy is the
smallest, I believe, in the world, and it would be quite impossible to impose
upon an illiterate mass of voters a system of election which involves marking
of ballot papers. That in itself, would, I think, exclude the system of
proportional representation.
The second thing to which I like to draw the attention of the House is that at
any rate, in my judgment, proportional representation is not suited to the form
of government which this Constitution lays down. The form of government which
this Constitution lays down is what is known as the Parliamentary system
of government, by which we understand that a government shall continue to be in
office not necessarily for the full term prescribed by law, namely, five years,
but so long as the Government continues to have the confidence of the majority
of the House. Obviously it means that in the House where there is the
Parliamentary system of Government, you must necessarily have a party which is
in majority and which is prepared to support the Government. Now, so far as I
have been able to study the results of the systems of Parliamentary or
proportional representation, I think, it might be said that one of the
disadvantages of proportional representation is the fragmentation of the
legislature into a number of small groups. I think the House will know that
although the British Parliament appointed a Royal Commission in the year
1910, for the purpose of considering whether their system of single-member
constituency, with one man one vote, was better or whether the proportional
representation system was better, it is, I think, a matter to be particularly
noted that Parliament was not prepared to accept the recommendations of that
Royal Commission. The reason which was given for not accepting it was, in my
judgment, a very sound reason, that proportional representation would not
permit a stable government to remain in office, because Parliament would be so
divided into so many small groups that every time anything happened which
displeased certain groups in Parliament, they would, on that occasion, withdraw
their support from the Government, with the result that the Government losing
the support of certain groups and units, would fall to pieces. Now, I have not
the least doubt in my mind that whatever else the future government provides
for, whether it relieves the people from the wants from which they are
suffering now or not, our future government must do one thing, namely, it must
maintain a stable government and maintain law and order. (Hear, hear). I
am therefore, very hesitant in accepting any system of election which would
damage the stability of government. I am therefore, on that account, not
prepared to accept this arrangement.
There is a third consideration which I think, it is necessary to bear in mind.
In this country, for a long number of years, the people have been divided into
majorities and minorities. I am not going into the question whether this
division of the people into majorities and minorities was natural, or whether
it was an artificial thing, or something which was deliberately calculated and
brought about by somebody who was not friendly to the progress of this country.
Whatever that may be, the fact remains that there have been these majorities
and minorities in our country; and also that, at the initial stage when this
Constituent Assembly met for the discussion of the principles on which the
future constitution of the country should be based, there was an agreement
arrived at between the various minority communities and the majority community
with regard to the system of representation. That agreement has been a matter
of give and take. The minorities who, prior to that meeting of the Constituent
Assembly, had been entrenched behind a system of separate electorates, were
prepared, or became prepared to give up that system and the majority which
believed that there ought to be no kind of special reservation to any
particular community permitted, or rather agreed that while they would not
agree to separate electorates, they would agree to a system of joint
electorates with reservation of seats. This agreement provides for two things.
It provides for a definite quota of representation to the various minorities,
and it also provides that such a quota shall be returned through joint
electorates. Now, my submission is this, that while it is still open to this
House to revise any part of the clauses contained in this Draft Constitution
and while it is open to this House to revise any agreement that has been
arrived at between the majority and the minority, this result ought not to be
brought about either by surprise or by what I may call, a side-wind. It had
better be done directly and it seems to me that the proper procedure for
effecting a change in articles 292 and 293 would be to leave the matter to the
wishes of the different minorities themselves. If any particular minority
represented in this House said that it did not want any reservation, then it
would be open to the House to remove the name of that particular minority from
the provisions of article 292. If any particular minority preferred that
although it did not get a cent per cent deal, namely, did not get a separate
electorate, but that what it has got in the form of reservation of seats is
better than having nothing, then I think it would be just and proper that the
minority should be permitted to retain what the Constituent Assembly has
already given to it.
Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava : But there was no agreement about
reservation of seats among the communities and a number of amendments were
moved by several Members for separate electorates and so on, but they were all
voted down. There was no agreement at all in regard to these matters.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I was only saying that it may be taken
away, not by force, but by consent. That is my proposition, and therefore, I
submit that this proportional representation is really taking away by the
back-door what has already been granted to the minorities by this agreement,
because proportional representation will not give to the minorities what they
wanted, namely, a definite quota. It might give them a voice in the election of
their representatives. Whether the minorities will be prepared to give up their
quota system and prefer to have a mere voice in the election of their
representatives, I submit, in fairness ought to be left to them. For these
reasons, Sir, I am not prepared to accept the amendment of Mr. Karimuddin.
Mr. Vice-President : I shall now put the amendments, one by one, to the vote
of the House.
Shri H. J. Khandekar : On a point of information, Sir, may I ask Dr.
Ambedkar, what about the preceding census. He has not said anything when he
amended article 35 the other day. About the preceding census, is he prepared to
amend it by saying ‘the latest census’ ?
Mr. Vice-President : Mr. Khandekar may come to the rostrum and speak.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I have accepted the amendment of Mr.
Naziruddin Ahmad as amended by him and as amended by Shri Bhargava.
Mr. Vice-President : I shall now put the amendments to vote.
The question is:
“That in sub-clause (a) of clause (5) of article 67, the following words be
deleted:--
‘Subject to the provisions of articles 292 and 293 of this Constitution’; and
the following words be added at the end:--
‘in
accordance with the system of proportional Representation with multi-member
constituencies by means of cumulative vote’.”
The
amendment was negatived.
Mr. Vice-President: The question is:
“That in sub-clause (a) of clause (5) of article 67, for the words ‘not more
than five hundred representatives of the people of the territories of the
States directly chosen by the voters’, the words ‘such members as shall, in the
aggregate, secure one representative for every five hundred thousand of the
population in all the constituent parts of the Union, whether States or
territories directly administered by the Centre. All members of the People’s
House shall be chosen directly by the votes of all adult citizens. The votes
shall be cast in a secret ballot and voting shall be on the basis of
Proportional Representation with Single Transferable Vote’ be substituted.”
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Vice-President : The question is:
“That in sub-clause (a) of clause (5) of article 67, for the words ‘representatives
of the people of the territories of the States directly chosen by the voters’,
the words ‘members directly elected by the voters in the States’ be
substituted.”
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. Vice-President : The question is:
“That the following be added after the words ‘the States’ in sub-clause (b) of
clause (5) of article 67 :--
‘and
Territories directly governed by the Centre’.”
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Vice-President : The question is:
“That in sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of article 67, the words ‘divided,
grouped or’ be deleted.”
The amendment was negatived.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Amendment No. 1426 for dropping the
words of India may be put, Sir.
Mr. Vice-President : That comes later. I am putting the amendments to vote
in the order in which they were moved.
The question is:
“That in sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of article, 67, after the word ‘constituencies’,
the following be added :--
‘so
that each State being constituent part of the Union, or Territory governed
directly by the Centre is a single constituency by itself if its population is
not less than a million; or grouped with such adjoining States or Territories
as together have a population of not less a million’.”
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Vice-president : The question is :
“That in sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of article 67, after the word ‘constituencies’
a full stop be added; the word ‘and’ following immediately be deleted; and the
word ‘the’ be printed with a capital ‘T’.”
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Vice-President : The question is:
“That in sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of article 67, the words ‘of India’ be
deleted.”
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. Vice-President : The question is:
“That the proviso to sub clause (b) of clause (5) of article 67 be deleted.”
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. Voice-President: The question is:
“That with reference to amendment No. 1434 of the List of Amendments, in
sub-clause (c) of clause (5) of article 67, for the words ‘members to be
elected at any time for’, the words ‘representatives allotted to’ be
substituted.”
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. Vice-President: I shall now put amendment No. 1434 as modified by
the Mover himself to vote. Is it necessary for me to read out the amended
amendment?
Honourable Members : No, Sir.
Mr. Vice-President : The question is:
“That in sub-clause (c) of clause (5) of article 67, for the words ‘last
preceding census’, the words ‘last preceding census of which the relevant
figures have been published’ be substituted.”
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. Vice-president: The question is:
“That clause (7) of article 67 be omitted.”
The amendment was negatived
Mr. Vice-President : The question is:
“That in clause (7) of article 67, for the word ‘may’ the word ‘shall’, for the
word ‘territories’ the word ‘the territories’, and for the words ‘other than
States’ the words ‘directly governed by the Centre on the same basis as in the
case of States which are constituted parts of the Union’ be substituted
respectively.”
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. vice-president : The question is:
“That with reference to amendment No. 1450 of the List of Amendments, after
clause (8) of article 67, the following new proviso be inserted:--
‘Provided
that such readjustment shall not affect representation to the House of the
People until the dissolution of the then existing House’.”
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. Vice-president : The question is:
“That in clause (8) of article 67, after the word ‘readjusted’ the words ‘on
the basis of population’ be added.”
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Vice-President : I shall now put the first alternative in amendments
No. 1452 to the vote of the House.
The question is:
“That to article 67, the following new clause (10) be added :--
‘(10)
The election to the House of the people shall be in accordance with the system
of proportional Representation by means of the single transferable vote.’ “
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. Vice-President : I shall now put article 67, as amended to the vote of
the House.
The question is:
“That article 67, as amended, stand part of the Constitution.”
The motion was adopted.
Article 67, as amended, was added to the Constitution.
Mr. Vice-President : The house stands adjourned till 10 A.M. on
Wednesday, the 5th January 1949.
The Assembly then adjourned till Ten of the Clock on Wednesday, the 5th January
1949.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*[Translation Of Hindustani Speech.]*
Related Documents:-
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 13
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 37
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Entries in Union List
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 102
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Government of India (Amendment) Bill
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Entries in Union List 2
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 10
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 67
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 13
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 37
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Entries in Union List
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 102
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Government of India (Amendment) Bill
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Entries in Union List 2
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 10
Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 67
No comments:
Post a Comment