Title:
Entry 67
Volume:
Volume IX (30th July to 18th September 1949)
Date:
31/08/1949
Participants:
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, The Chairman (Dr. Rajendra Prasad)
Constituent Assembly OF INDIA Debates (Proceedings) - VOLUME IX
Wednesday, the 31st August 1949
----------
The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at
Nine of the Clock Mr. President (The Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad) in the
Chair.
-----------
DRAFT CONSTITUTION- (Contd.)
Seventh schedule-(Contd.)
List I : Entry 53
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General): Sir I move:
“That in Entry 53 of List I, the words and the figure ‘except the States for
the being specified in Part III of the First Schedule’ be omitted.
This is because we propose to make no distinction between a State in Part I and
Part III.
Shri H. V. Kamth (C.
P. & Berar: General): There is a little amendment of mine, No. 198. Sir, I
move:
That with reference to amendment No. 25 of List I (Sixth Week), in entry 53 of
List I, for the words ‘and exclusion of the jurisdiction of any such High Court
from’, the words ‘and exclusion from the jurisdiction of any such High Court of’
be substituted.”
This is only an interposition of words, I know, but it changes the meaning
slightly land brings out what is intended in the entry. I believe that this
entry has reference to exclusion from the jurisdiction of any High Court of
certain areas. It is therefore not correct to say “exclusion of the jurisdiction
of any such High Court”. You exclude something from the jurisdiction: you
cannot exclude jurisdiction from. You can say that you do not extent
jurisdiction to some other area. But to say that you exclude the jurisdiction
of a Court from something is not correct English. What is intended is that you
exclude certain areas from the jurisdiction of a particular Court, and the
entry as it stands does not bring out the meaning which it is intended to
convey. I am sure Dr. Ambedkar will agree that the entry intends to exclude
certain areas from the jurisdiction of the High Court. If that is so, the
wording should be “exclude from the jurisdiction of a Court certain areas”. The
Court has jurisdiction : not, in this context, a State or any other area. I
dare say this will be quite proper, and I commend this. little amendment of
mine to the House for its consideration.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, Mr. Kamath’s amendment is wholly unnecessary
because the object of my amendment is to delete altogether that portion of
entry No. 53 beginning from “except” to the end. If I was retaining any part of
the entry then of course the question might arise whether he phraseology used
in the entry is better than the one suggested by Mr. Kamath or vice versa.
Shri H. V. Kamath: My amendment has reference to the entry itself not to
the amendment.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I think that cannot arise because I am
omitting the whole thing. The second point is that the language used in entry
53 has to be in keeping with the language employed in article 207.
Shri H. V. Kamath: If this is accepted the language in the other article
which has already been passed will have to be amended-at the third reading.
Mr. President: I find that Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment refers only to a part
of this entry.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am taking out the last part “except
the States for the time being specified in Part III of the First Schedule”. The
entry as amended would stand :
“Extension of the jurisdiction of a High Court having its principal seat in any
State within the territory of India to, and exclusion of the jurisdiction of
any such High Court from any area outside that State.”
The entry merely provides for the extension or the exclusion of the
jurisdiction.
Shri H. V. Kamath : My amendment refers to the second part, “exclusion of
the jurisdiction of any such High Court from any area outside that State”.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am not accepting your quibbling.
Shri H. V. Kamath: It is no quibble. It is a question of correct English.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: If it is a matter of mere English we can
take it up at the next stage.
Mr. President : Then I shall put Mr. Kamath’s
amendment to vote.
The question is:
“That with reference to amendment No. 25 of List I (Sixth Week), in entry 53 of
List I, for the words ‘and exclusion of the jurisdiction of any such High Court
from,’ the words ‘and exclusion from the jurisdiction of any such High Court of’
be substituted.”
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. President: I shall now put Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment to vote.
The question is:
“That in entry 53 of List 1, the words and figures ‘except the States for the
time being specified in Part III of the First Schedule’ be omitted.”
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That entry 53, as amended, be adopted.”
The motion Was
adopted.
Entry 53, as amended, was added to the Union List.
Entry
54
Entry 54, was added to the Union List.
Entry 55
Entry- 55. was added to the Union List.
Entry 56
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I move:
“That for entry 56 of List I the following entry be substituted:-
‘56. Inquiries, surveys and statistics for the purpose of any of the matters in
this List’.”
There is hardly any difference. We have merely made it “for the purpose of any
of the matters in this List”.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim): Though my amendment No. 167
will improve the text, I do not want to move it.
(Amendment No. 254 was not moved.)
Shri Phool Singh (United
Provinces: General): Mr. President, Sir, the amendment suggested by Dr.
Ambedkar will limit the scope of this entry. Under the original entry the
Government is free to collect statistics regarding any matter, but if the
proposed amendment is accepted that scope would be limited only to the matters
entered in this List. For example, there is the case of fixing the price of
sugar. In order to fix the price of sugar the Government of India has to find
out the cost of manufacture of sugar. That is not a thing entered in this List.
Unless the Union Government is in a position to legislate on that point the
factories may withhold the information. So, I suggest that the amendment may
not be accepted and that the original entry, namely “Inquiries, surveys, and
statistics for the purposes of the Union” may be kept intact. For that will
enable the Government to make enquiries, hold surveys and collect statistics
for purposes even other than those entered in this List. With these few words I
request Dr. Ambedkar to reconsider the situation.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I think the fear expressed by my friend is
somewhat groundless and arises from the fact that he has not adverted to the
fact that all other inquiries and so on relating to the States, and other
matters, are now put in the Concurrent List. So there is no absence of any such
purpose that he wants.
Mr. President :
The question is:
“That for entry 56 of List I the following entry be substituted
‘56. Inquiries, surveys and statistics for the purpose of any of the matters in
this List.”
The amendment
was adopted.
Entry 56, as amended, was added to the
Union List”.
Entry 57
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar . Sir, I move:
“That for entry 57 of List I the following be substituted :
‘57. Union agencies and Union institutes for the following purposes, that is to
say, for research, for professional, vocational or technical training for
scientific or technical assistance in the investigation or detection of crime,
for the training of police officers, or for the promotion of special studies’.”
The entry is somewhat enlarged by the introduction of the words ‘vocational
training” and “investigation or detection of crime, for the training of police
officers” and so on.
Mr. President: Now we will take up-the amendments.
(Amendment No. 168, was not moved.)
Shri H. V. Kamath :
Mr. President, I move, Sir, amendments Nos. .199 and 200 of List III of Week
VI. Amendment No. 199 reads as follows:-
“That in amendment No. 27 of list I (Sixth Week).
that is to say, the amendment just now moved by Dr. Ambedkar,--
‘.... in the proposed entry 57 of List I, for the word ‘research’ the words ‘historical
scientific and spiritual research’ be substituted’.”
Amendment No. 200 is to the effect ......
The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam (Madras : General) : Mr. President,
yesterday I think the honourable Member protested against Government
interference in such matters.
Mr. President: He has a right to be inconsistent!
Shri H. V. Kamath: I am sorry, Sir, Mr. Santhanam has not cared to follow.
I think he is very busy with his Railway and Transport portfolio and does not
follow the proceedings-at least not what I said in the House yesterday. When I
make my point clear here, I believe he too will change his view.
Amendment No. 200 is to the effect that-
“That in amendment No. 27 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 57 of
List I, for the word ‘police’ the words ‘administrative and police’ be
substituted.”
Taking the first amendment first, let me try in my own humble manner to dispose
of the objection raised by my honourable Friend Mr. Santhanam. He chose to
remark that yesterday I had pleaded against governmental interference........
An Honourable Member: By the Centre.
Shri H. V. Kamath: Any way, interference by the Centre or governmental
interference in yogic matters. I suppose he referred to the observations
I made with regard to the yogic institutes in India. What I had pointed
out yesterday--I am sorry my Friend Mr. Santhanam did not understand it-was
that there are certain institutes today run by private agencies which are doing
splendid work in yoga and yogic research. They should not be
interfered with so long as they are running very efficiently and to the
advantage of the people at large. But today the point I am making out is about
Union institutes the word used in this entry has reference to Union agencies
and institutes of the Union. These are different from private institutes run by
private agencies, and I hope my Friend Mr. Santhanam will understand the
distinction that has been made between this entry and my remarks made
yesterday.
As regards the point of my amendment No. 199, I wish to state that we should
make the word “research” very clear here. Yesterday Dr. Ambedkar, moving the
amendment with regard to surveys in India, expanded the term “zoological” so as
to bring in or to include the word “anthropological” as well. His intentions
were excellent. It was to make the meaning quite clear and unambiguous. So
also, here, following- in his own estimable footsteps, I want to make the word “research”
absolutely unambiguous and clear. There are various kinds of research. There is
historical research, conducted in various institutes; one of the well-known
institutes in Poona, the Bhandarkar Institute has been doing very good work for
many years. Then scientific research institutes there are so many. But
institutes of the third kind, those which are doing spiritual research have so
far been few in number. There have been yogic ashramas but they are
different from institutes which carry on research in the spiritual field. The
only institute which has been doing this work, to my knowledge, in a scientific
manner, in the spiritual field, is the Kaivalyadhama Institute of Lonavla; and
Government, during the last Budget session or soon after that, recognised this
Institute and sanctioned a grant of Rs. 20,000 for advancing or promoting
scientific research in yoga. I am speaking on very reliable authority.
The head of the Institute applied for a grant to carry on scientific research
in yoga, and Government granted to the Institute Rs.20,000, for
conducting and promoting scientific research in yoga.
With the advent of freedom and the dawn of Indian renaissance, I have no doubt
in my own mind that our spiritual culture, our ancient culture, must be revived
not in one direction only but in all possible directions. One objection that is
levelled against spiritual culture -yogic culture especially-is that it
is unscientific. Today the pioneer of scientific research in yoga, Swami
Kuvalayananda, at Lonavla is doing splendid wok in this field. I am sure that
as we grow in stature, as India’s freedom grows, there will be many more
institutes of this kind which will promote research in the spiritual field. It
is very necessary. As Mahayogi Aurobindo Said recently, the West is turning to
the East for some light and guidance, and if the East fails the West today then
the world is doomed. He further exhorted us saying that India should not run
after the materialistic baubles of the West. It is all right to increase the
standard of living, but to become merely materialistic is not all in life. The
world craves something else and the world is looking towards India. It is high
time we did something in this direction and showed the light to an expectant
world.
I hope the Union will promote agencies under its aegis to promote not merely
historical and scientific research but also research in yoga and the
spiritual field on a really scientific basis, science understood in the largest
and most comprehensive sense, not in the very narrow sense of having a little
laboratory, test tubes, flasks, pipettes and burettes, but the real scientific
outlook of experiment, the outlook of a man seeking knowledge-scio “to
know”.
As regards my second amendment, I think through an oversight the word “administrative”
has been omitted from this new proposed entry 57. The training of policy
officers has been referred to. As far as I am aware, in the olden days the
members of the I. P. S. and also the I. C. S. had to undergo a period or
probation first in England and then on their arrival here complete that
training departmentally. During World War II, owing to unsettled conditions in
England, the training of the members of the I. C. S. was conducted here at
Dehra Dun. That training was an integral part of the general instruction given
to members of the I. C. S. Till they passed this training course and the other
departmental tests they were regarded as probationers not eligible for
confirmation or to draw increments in their pay.
I understand that, after August 1947, a school for the training of
administrative officers has been started in old Delhi at Metcalffe House which
housed part of the old Secretariat or the Delhi University. The principal of
the school is a member of the old I. C. S. Training is being imparted there to
the members of the new I. A. S. which has replaced the I. C. S. If it is
considered that the police officers should have this training it is all the
more important that the members of the new I. A. S. should have this training
too. They have replaced the old I. C. S. and hence they should have the same
kind of training. I see no reason why the training of members of the I. A. S.
should not be included along with the training the police officers unless
of course Dr. Ambedkar in his profound wisdom can give some reason to the
contrary. I suggest that the item “training of police of officers” should be
omitted. But if that cannot be done. I see no reason why the members of the I.
A. S. should not be included. I commend my amendments 199 and 200 for the
consideration of the House.
Mr. President:
There is an amendment to this-entry 57, standing in the name of Mr. Karimuddin
(No. 3544). As it is not being moved, Dr. Ambedkar may reply.
The
Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. President, I
have compared the amendments moved by my honourable Friend Mr. Kamath with the
entry as proposed by me. I think except for one matter, it will be quite open
to central Government to carry out the purpose which my honourable Friend Mr.
Kamath has in mind. The only thing which the Central Government will not be
able to effectuate under entry 57 is spiritual research. I do not think that
this House, knowing full well the various problems with which the Central
Government has to carry on these days, would like to burden it with any such
agency as spiritual research. The rest of the objects of the amendment will be
covered by entry 57.
Shri H. V. Kamath:
How do you say that the administrative service officers are covered by the
entry as proposed?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I think so, because the training is
not only for officers. The language used is “research, for professional,
vocational or technical training”. Anything can be brought in under the above.
Mr. President : The
question is:
“That in amendment No. 27 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 57 of
List I, for the word ‘research’ the words ‘historical, scientific and spiritual
research’ be substituted.”
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. President: The question:
“That in amendment No. 27 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 57 of
List I, for the word ‘police’ the words ‘administrative and police’ be
substituted”.
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. President: I will now put the entry as moved by Dr. Ambedkar in the
amended form. The question is:
That for entry 57 of List I, the following entry be substituted:-
‘57 Union agencies and Union institutes for the following purposes, that is to
say, for research, for professional, vocational or technical training for
scientific or technical assistance in the investigation or detection of crime,
for the training of police officers, or for the promotion of special studies’.”
The amendment was adopted.
Entry 57, as amended, was added to the
Union List.
New Entry 57 (A)
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move:
“That after entry 57 of List I, the following new entry be inserted:-
‘57(A) Co-ordination and maintenance of standards in institutions for higher
education, scientific and technical institutions and institutions for research’.”
This entry is merely complementary to the earlier entry, No. 57. In dealing
with institutions maintained by the provinces, entry 57A proposes to give power
to the Centre to the limited extent of coordinating the research institutions
and of maintaining the standards in those institutions to prevent their being
lowered.
Sir, I also move:
“That in amendment No. 28 of List I (Sixth Week) in the proposed new entry 57A
of List I for the word ‘maintenance’ the word ‘determination be substituted.”
Mr. President: Amendments Nos. 201 and 255 are only for deletion. Dr.
Deshmukh and Mr. Sarwate may speak on them if they want to do so, but the
amendments need not be moved.
Shri
V. S. Sarwate (Madhya Bharat): I have an alternative amendment also. I
will move it with your permission.
Sir, my alternative amendment runs thus:
“That in amendment No. 28 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed new entry 57A
of List I, for the words, ‘Coordination and maintenance’ the words ‘Promotion
by financial assistance or otherwise’ be substituted.”
The amended entry will read thus:
“Promotion by financial assistance or otherwise of standards in institutions
for higher education, scientific and technical institutions and institutions
for research”
My
object in moving this amendment is that if the entry as proposed by Dr.
Ambedkar is to stand it would be unnecessary interference with the provincial
sphere of education.
Yesterday, there were two propositions made casually or otherwise in the course
of speeches. One was that education should be a Central subject. The reason
given was that it was of national importance. Another was a remark casually
made by an eminent educational scholar that education in universities should be
entrusted to the Centre. The reason he assigned was that the provinces had not
sufficient resources. To me both these reasons are neither proper nor
sufficient. If the provinces have not got sufficient resources for advancing
education, then the alternative should be not to transfer education to the
Centre, but to make the provinces have sufficient resources available to
them to carry on their function of imparting education.
Fortunately for us, in the new Constitution provisions have been made suitably.
The Finance Commission is immediately to make recommendations for grants-in-aid
to provinces. Further, in making these recommendations for grants-in-aid, the
Finance Commission is expected to see what are the necessary items of
expenditure which the provinces have to make for education and for social
services.
The other point that was made was that because education is of national
importance, therefore it should be transferred to the Centre. If this argument
is to be taken to its logical sequence, then practically every sphere of
activity at present entrusted to the provinces would have to be transferred to
the Centre. Medicine is of national importance, hygiene is of national importance,
and practically all social services which are at present in the domain of the
provinces will have to be transferred to the Centre. Now I think this is not
the test for fixing the functions of the Centre and the provinces. To me it
appears that the best should be that the subject besides being a subject of
national importance, it should satisfy either of the three things which I shall
just mention. Firstly, it should have a direct and immediate bearing on
defence. Secondly, it should be of such a nature that it can best be managed
only by the Centre. For instance, geological survey of the whole country can be
best undertaken only by the Centre. Thirdly, it should be of such a nature that
uniformity is the desideratum and is necessary in the interests of the nation.
For instance, standards of weights and measures should be laid down by the
Centre because it is in the national interest to do so. If in any sphere
uniformity is not necessary but on the other hand there should be diversity and
variety, it is the sphere of education.
The modern trend in education is that education should be adapted to each
individual so that the personality of each individual might be developed to its
fullest extent, of course consistently with the personalities of other individuals.
If this is the desideratum in education, then there must be full scope for
variety. There should not be any uniformity in education as uniformity would
kill the growth of the individual. Nobody can say that there should be a
standard of intellectual weights and measures for human beings. Therefore I
think that education should be left entirely to the provinces.
I feel that the entry as it stands, “Co-ordination and maintenance of standards”
in the educational sphere would come in the way of experiments in the
educational field, in the research field. If education is to be adapted to the
national needs of the country, if an individual’s capacity is to be developed
fully, there must be variety and there must be freedom for experiment.
Therefore, my contention is that it should be entirely left to the provinces.
Now, the Centre has already sufficient authority which it can exercise to bring
the institutions in the provinces up to the standard as far as research is
concerned. There is already a provision in item No. 57 for control by the
Centre of Union agencies for research and through these Union agencies the
Centre can lay down standards, which it should be the business of the provinces
to follow and emulate. So there is no necessity for giving power to the Centre
to fix standards so far as research is concerned.
As far as higher education is concerned, the policy which has been adopted in
all federal countries is that the Centre does not take power to lay down
standards. They give the fullest freedom to the provinces in this sphere. But
what they do is that the Centre declares that if such and such an experiment is
carried out, such and such grants would be made. The same thing was done by
President Roosevelt and the other Presidents of the United States and is being
done in Australia and Canada. The same method should be followed by the Centre
here. If the Centre wants that any particular standard should be maintained, it
should do it in the universities which they control or in their Union agencies
for research, or they can provide for making grants to such universities as
maintain the standard it wants. There is also another way of controlling this.
The university graduates, as circumstances stand today, go mostly to the
services, and the Government can lay down rules so that only those who satisfy
certain standards would be eligible to enter the services. In this indirect way
they can make the universities adopt the standards which the Centre desires.
There should be no direct laying down of standards by the Centre.
Already there is sufficiency of State control in education. Anybody who has the
interests of education at heart would note with sorrow that there is not
sufficient private effort in the field of education. The State should encourage
private enterprise and promote private schools which can make experiments and
find out new methods, new system of education. That is the desideratum and not
uniformity in this way. Diversity and variety being the aim of education, there
should be no direct attempt by the Centre to lay down standards. I have in my
amendment followed the way which the federal countries are following.
Therefore, I have said-”Promotion by financial assistance or otherwise of
institutions for higher education, scientific and technical institutions and
institutions for research”.
[At this stage, Mr. President vacated the Chair, which was then occupied by Mr.
Vice-President, Shri T. T. Krishnamachari.]
One word more, Sir. I think that it will be difficult for Parliament or
the Central Government to fix standards of higher education, for example in
higher medical education. Would it be possible for the Parliament to find out
what are the standards for medical education?
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari (Madras: General): They can have an Expert Committee to
advise them.
Shri V. S. Sarwate:
Why appoint a Committee when the Universities in their very nature and
incorporation are expert Committee meant for this purpose? Moreover, the more
the administrative burden on the Centre, the less efficient will it grow. I
find that the whole trend is to take more and more functions for the Centre and
I am afraid that the result of this will be that the Centre would be encumbered
with so many functions that its own standards of efficiency would deteriorate.
It is to avoid this that I have sought to move my amendment. Sir, I move.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh (C.
P. & Berar: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I think it is necessary to
remind the honourable Dr. Ambedkar that we are discussing and deciding upon a
list of items on which the Union will have exclusive power to legislate and if
we look at this entry from the point of view, I would like to ask whether the Parliament
is going to lay down by law the standards for the various institutions, of
whatever status, of whatever nature so far as higher education, scientific and
technical institutions etc., are concerned. I think many of the Members
including some of the members, at any rate, of the Drafting Committee, are
repeatedly falling into the error as if this Schedule is meant to determine and
define the powers of the Union. This is not the purpose of this List and I
think it would be well if the Drafting Committee Members would kindly look at
this entry from that very important stand-point. I submit it was a learned
speech which was just delivered by my honourable Friend Mr. Sarwate but it was
probably not audible to many Members. Of course there are only a few Members
who care to listen to any speeches other than their own and there are few
Members who have not mortgaged their intelligence with the Drafting Committee
and with that of Dr. Ambedkar. That is the reason, Sir, why in the country a
feeling is growing that very few Members take this House seriously and the
country is gradually learning to take the House much less seriously than it
should. I do not think that this is a happy situation either for us or the
country. I do not wish to take any credit for discovering this. It is a writing
on the wall which anyone who runs can read and satisfy himself.
For the present I would like to say to Dr. Ambedkar that there is no necessity
so far as this entry is concerned.
Shri Raj Bahadur (United States of Matsya): May I point out to the honourable
Member that perhaps the remarks which he has chosen to make are not intended
for the majority of the Members of this House. I suggest that he should not
indulge in such generalizations.
Dr. P.S. Deshmukh:
I am glad there is at least one honourable Member who is prepared to protest
and probably his protest so far as he as an individual is concerned is correct.
Many Members feel Sir, that University education may probably be taken over by
the Centre. We have not decided to take it and university education as a whole
is still left with the provinces.
Shri H. V. Kamath:
Is Dr. Ambedkar listening, Sir, or is he engaged in private conversation? There
is no point in Dr. Deshmukh proceeding with his speech when he is not
listening.
Dr. P.S. Deshmukh: I have reconciled myself to that behaviour. My
honourable Friend has yet to cultivate that virtue and I hope in time to come
he will cultivate it. We do our duty and lay before this House or such parts of
it as are prepared to listen and the nation outside to the extent the
newspapers are prepared to give us publicity whatever we feel irrespective of
what view others take or what attention Dr. Ambedkar is prepared to pay. I have
given up from the beginning.......
Mr. Vice-President (Shri V. T. Krishnamachari): Will Dr. Deshmukh go
along with his speech?
Dr. P.S. Deshmukh:
Alright, Sir. As I said there were many Members who felt that higher education
and especially University education should be the concern of the Union. We have
neither accepted nor acted on that principle. We have not taken that step. In
view of that, how are we going to coordinate and determine the standards? Are
we going to alter the University Acts passed by the various provinces so as to
interfere with their standards? I do not think so. Even if we take this power
here, it will not be possible by any means to interfere with the autonomous
powers which have been given unless you are prepared to put down University
education as a subject of and for Central legislation. There is another thing
which is objectionable and that is that merely sitting in judgment on the
University bodies and other learned organizations and dictating from here as to
what should be the proper standard and what shall not be, is not at all
desirable. That should be based on something which the Centre is prepared to
give. If donations or financial assistance is not given to any of the
universities or institutes, then the Centre has no right to interfere in their
autonomy, and if the Centre is in a position, if the Parliament wishes to spend
more and more on higher education, if it is in a position to give block grants,
and regular ‘grants-in-aid’ then it will not be necessary to legislate for this
purpose. It will be sufficient if the advice is given from the Centre, by the
Union experts to rest of the universities and learned bodies and I am sure they
will always be prepared to change their standards.
So it is not at all necessary to have the power of legislation which will mean
compelling these several bodies by Parliamentary legislation to accept certain
propositions or to accept certain standards. If you are not going to give any
financial assistance, this power to legislate will be unjustifiable
interference on the part of the Centre. If you give financial assistance, I am
sure nobody nor any institution will be foolish enough or will be bold enough
or would be careless enough in its own interests to defy the Centre’s advice
because of the financial assistance that it received from the Centre.
So from all these points of view, this item is hopelessly ill-conceived and I
hope the honourable Dr. Ambedkar, even if he has not listened so far, will
listen to my concluding remarks that this is an infructuous brain-wave
resulting probably from the heavy work that the Drafting Committee members are
required to do. I think this slip is due to their being over-burdened, being
overwhelmed, and over-strained energies and I hope it will be corrected in
time. There is no justification for this entry, and it is not going to help
anybody; it is going to irritate the university bodies if we are going to have
recourse to legislation to determine their standards. In view of these
considerations and in view of what has been already urged by my friend Mr.
Sarwate I hope that the entry will be withdrawn and not pressed.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad :
Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I have a few short comments to make. I submit that the
amendment of Mr. Sarwate will really make Central interference a bearable and
an agreeable one. The amendment of Dr. Ambedkar seeks power in the Centre to
meddle with educational affairs. But unless it takes the shape of monetary
help, such meddling with educational affairs would amount to advice gratis
under the high sounding name of “coordination and maintenance of standards”.
The entry proposed is of the vaguest character. I submit that Mr. Sarwate’s
amendment discloses a considerable sense of humour. He says that the Centre
should interfere by promotion of education only by financial assistance.
Finance is the essence of the matter. In fact if the Centre should interfere in
education, which is essentially provincial, it should be by financial
assistance, not merely by advice gratis or by criticism or comments. I
think Dr. Ambedkar should accept the humour of the situation and accept the
amendment which would reduce interference to financial assistance to the
Provinces which would really be a desirable interference.
Shri Basanta Kumar
Das (West Bengal: General); I have an amendment- No. 29.
Mr. Vice-President:
I thought they were new articles. Dr. Ambedkar, would you prefer that to be
moved before you speak?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Yes.
Mr. Vice-President:
Mr. Das, you may move No. 29.
Shri Basanta Kumar Das: Sir, I move:
“That with reference to amendments Nos. 3544 and 3545 of the List of
Amendments, after entry 57 in List I, the following new entries be inserted:-
‘57A. Promotion of scientific researches and of higher technical and
technological education.
57B. Co-ordination of educational activities of the States for the purpose of
maintaining a uniform national educational policy.
57C. Provision of adequate financial assistance to the States for proper
development of education and maintenance of uniform standard of education
throughout the Union.’”
The amendment of Dr. Ambedkar states that coordination is required only in a
limited sphere viz., the sphere of higher education but the object of my
amendment is that education should be taken as an integrated whole and it
should not be viewed piece-meal. Therefore, I want that there should be
coordination in the activities of the States to maintain a uniform national
educational policy. The State should have a uniform national policy. This House
accepted article 36 which states-
“The State shall endeavour to provide within a period of ten years from the
commencement of this Constitution for free and compulsory education for all
children until they complete the age of fourteen years.”
Again in 31 (vi) it is said -
“That childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral
material abandonment.”
In order to fulfil these provisions I think there should be a uniform national
policy of education and that policy is to be implemented by co-ordination by
the Centre. If there be no adequate financial provision the States will not be
able to maintain a uniform standard of education throughout the Union.
Education is a subject which must be given priority even after food. We should
take care that all the States reach a certain standard within a limited time
otherwise the provisions already accepted by the House cannot be implemented.
There, is a tendency in every State, to go their own way. I do not deny that
they have a right to do so. Education being a provincial subject there caught
to be varieties according to the varying needs of provinces, but still there
must be a national policy and that national policy must be implemented with the
help of the Centre. My first point has been to a certain extent covered by
entry 57 just now accepted but in 57(b) and (c) I want to make out that the
Centre should have enough power to go with a uniform policy of education and to
give financial assistance to the States so that a uniform standard may be
reached within a specified period.
Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal: General): Mr.
Vice-President, Sir, I should like to support the amendment that has been moved
by Mr. Basanta Kumar Das. It is a very wholesome amendment. As he has pointed
out the first part of his amendment has already been accepted but 57(b) and (c)
are also extremely important. The co-ordination of educational policy and, in
particular, the maintaining of a uniform national minimum standard of education
throughout the country is essential. Education is the very basis of our
progress and advancement; and unless the Centre is able to co-ordinate
education and to see that no part of the country falls behind a minimum
standard of education, it is really impossible for us to advance. Any State or
any area in this country which remains behind a minimum standard will be a drag
on the rest of the country. Therefore I feel that this is extremely essential.
At the same time it is not possible to provinces or States to maintain a
minimum standard of education unless they have sufficient finances to do so.
At the present moment perhaps due to the many transitional difficulties we have
faced and may be for other reasons upto now we have not been able to focus
sufficient attention on these very essential nation-building services. Those
services that were neglected and treated in a step-motherly manner in the past,
under the old regime, have yet to get that help that they need in order that
the country may progress. I would say that at least 25 to 30 per cent of our
national income should’ be set aside immediately for the nation-building
services. I do claim that in every province at least 15 if not 20 per cent of
our national income should be set aside immediately for the nation-building
ser-a vicious circle in this country that unless we can produce more we cannot
increase our national income. It has been pointed out that unless we increase
our national income how is it possible to find the money for these essential
services? We have to break that vicious circle somewhere. It is not possible
for our country to progress or produce more unless the efficiency of the worker
is increased. Unless the worker is given the basic opportunities, how can
efficiency be increased. This implies that there must be minimum standards for
education and health. Unless the men and women who are the builders of society
have a minimum standard of education and of health, it is not possible for us
really to have any increase in efficiency, and unless we have increase in
efficiency it is no use talking about producing more. I think it is at this end
that we must tackle this problem.
If we are to do so, this particular amendment of Mr. Das will help towards this
end. Both the points that he raised that the Centre must have power to
co-ordinate and be able to see that no state remains behind a minimum standard
and the fact that the States must be given sufficient financial assistance to
be able to develop education are most important. I do not say that the Centre
should have any power to interfere with any State going ahead of the minimum
standard. That is not a power that is implied in this resolution. The power
that is implied in this is that no state should remain behind the minimum
standard and I do hope that Dr. Ambedkar and the Drafting Committee will
consider this and will accept this amendment.
Shri Lakshminarayan
Sahu (Orissa: General): *[Mr. Vice-President, I disagree with the
new amendment that has been moved here because, education being a State or
Provincial subject, it would not be proper to give such extensive powers to the
Centre in regards to it. It should it least, be kept in the Concurrent List.
Moreover, another article lays down that: “Parliament has exclusive power to
make laws with respect to any of the matter enumerated in List 1 of the Seventh
Schedule”. It would not be proper in view of this that we should take away the
powers of Parliament. My contention is that, education having been accepted a
State subject, Universities should have all powers in regard to this subject,
and the Centre should have no power. Unless Universities have full freedom in
this respect, education cannot be imparted to the people properly. I may point
out that of all the universities in India, the Calcutta University enjoyed the
highest autonomy. Even at present it functions more freely than other
Universities and we find that because of the freedom it enjoys its products
have been very useful to the Nation. I oppose the amendment because it seeks to
curtail the powers of the Universities. I would like to point out one thing
more in this connection and it is that we must be told as to what is meant by
higher education. We do not know if the term “higher education” stands for
university education or for Secondary education. The term “higher education”
should be clearly defined. If this term refers to college education, the Centre
should give all possible aid to the Universities. But if this term is meant for
Secondary education, well it is extremely lamentable. I want that every
province must have complete freedom in regard to secondary education and the
Central Government should have no power in this matter. We have seen that
during the British regime, when the Central Government was all powerful,
education was a centrally controlled subject and any one who wanted education to
be imparted on a new line was not able to work on his lines. Even at present
people hold different views about education and some want it to be imparted on
one line and others on some other line. But unless this autonomy is provided to
the provinces and so long as we continue to control educational activities from
the Centre we shall be producing persons without any initiative. I, therefore,
submit that Universities should have complete freedom in regard to education
and Centre should provide all possible financial help to them. With these words
I oppose the amendment.]
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena (United Provinces: General): Sir, shall I move my amendment
256 ?
[At this stage Mr. President resumed
the Chair.]
Mr. President: That is an addition of a new entry.
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Sir, just now you allowed 259.
Mr. President:
Do you want to move it as an amendment to this?
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: They are connected subjects.
Mr. President:
That is a new entry you want. Mr. Phool Singh.
Shri Phool Singh :
Mr. President, Sir, while I rise to support amendment 57 (b) I am afraid it is
not possible for me to agree to amendment 57 (c). A uniform national
educational policy is necessary because some of the Universities have made
their degrees so cheap that those passing out of those Universities are looked
down upon by the authorities entitled to make appointments. Some of the
Universities have made their degrees so cheap that the boys who could not
otherwise have passed have been able to pass through very easily in those
Universities. This has created a lot of confusion and a uniform national policy
therefore is necessary. But while I agree with this, I am afraid it may be
putting too great a strain upon the Centre to ask the Centre to give adequate
financial assistance to the States, because unless we increase the income of
the Centre it may not be possible for the Centre to finance all these
activities. Therefore, I support 57(b) and oppose 57(c).
The Honourable Dr. B.
R. Ambedkar : Mr. President Sir, I think there is a certain amount of
admixture made by my Friends who have spoken on this entry 57A. So far as I
have been able to gather, their contention is that this entry 57A should be
allowed only if there was some grant made by the Central Government to the
Provinces. It seems to me quite unnecessary to mix up the two matters. The
question of grants from the Centre to the Provinces has been dealt with in two
separate articles-255 and 262. Article 255 provides for grants to be made by
the Centre to the Provinces for assistance-
“Such sums, as Parliament may by law provide, shall be charged on the
Consolidated Fund of India in each year as grants-in-aid of the Consolidated
Fund of such States as Parliament may determine to be in need of
assistance.....
Therefore, the provision for supporting the States by way of financial help is
already there in article 255. I should also like to draw the attention of the
Members of the House to another important article, which is article 262, which
is much wider in scope. It says-
“The Union or a State may make any grants for any public purpose,
notwithstanding that the purpose is not one with respect to which Parliament or
the Legislature of the State, as the case may be, may make laws.”
As the House will see, it has a much wider scope. It says that although a
subject may not be within List I, nonetheless, Parliament would be free to make
a grant. Therefore, this question having been dealt with separately, I think
there is no necessity to mix it up with entry 57A.
Entry 57A merely deals with the maintenance of certain standards in certain
classes of institutions, namely, institutions imparting higher education,
scientific and technical institutions, institutions for research, etc. You may
ask, “why this entry?’ I shall show why it is necessary. Take for instance the
B.A. Degree examination which is conducted by the different Universities in
India. Now, most provinces and the Centre, when advertising for candidates,
merely say that the candidate should be a graduate of a university. Now,
suppose the Madras University says that a candidate at the B.A. Examination, if
he obtained 15 per cent. of the total marks shall be deemed to have passed that
examination; and suppose the Bihar University says that a candidate who has
obtained 20 per cent. of marks shall be deemed to have passed the B.A. Degree
examination; and some other university fixes some other standard, then it would
be quite a chaotic condition, and the expression that is usually used, that the
candidate should be a graduate, I think, would be meaningless. Similarly, there
are certain research institutes, on the results of which so many activities of
the Central and Provincial Governments depend. Obviously you cannot permit the
results of these technical and scientific institutes to deteriorate from the
normal standard and yet allow them to be recognized either for the Central purposes,
for all-India purposes or the purposes of the State.
Consequently, apart from the question of financial aid, it is absolutely
essential both in the interest of the Centre as well as in the interests of the
Province that the standards ought to be maintained on an all-India basis. That
is the purpose of this entry, and in my judgment it is a very important and
salutary provision, in view of the fact that there are many provinces who are
in a hurry to establish research institutes or establish universities or
lightly to lower their standards in order to give the impression to the world
at large that they are producing much better results than they did before.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh:
Is it the Government intention to fix the percentages and marks for passes?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: They may do so. It is up to
Government to maintain the standard by any means which they think proper. I
cannot say what a Government may do.
Mr. President :
I will now put the amendments to the vote. The first set are the three new
entries proposed by Shri Basanta Kumar Das, namely, 57A, 57B and 57C.
Shri Basanta Kumar Das: I beg leave of the House to withdraw them.
The amendments were, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.
Mr.
President: The question is:
“That in amendment No. 23 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed new entry 57A
of List I, for the words ‘Co-ordination and maintenance’ the words ‘Promotion
by financial assistance or otherwise’ be substituted.”
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That after entry 57 of List I, the following new entry be inserted
‘57A. Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher
education scientific and technical institutions and institutions for research’.”
The motion was adopted.
Entry 57-A was added to the Union List.
Mr. President: There is a new entry proposed by Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena is amendment No. 256. After all this discussion, which we have had about university education and the power of provinces with regard to education, does the honourable Member think it a worth while moving this amendment?
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: If you suggest, I will not.
Mr. President: Very well. We will drop it.
---------
Entry 58
The Honourable Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar : Sir, I move:
“That for entry 58 of List I, the following entry be substituted:-
‘58. Union Public Services, All-India Services: Union Public Service Commission.’”
(Amendment No. 169 was not moved)
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh :
Sir, I move:
“That in amendment No. 30 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 58 of
List I, the words ‘All-India Services’ be deleted.”
The wording of the entry now proposed will stand as:
“Union
Public Services, All India Services, Union Public Commission.”
I fail to understand why the wording “All India Services” is necessary. ‘Union
Public Service’, in my opinion includes the all India Services, because the
Union covers the whole of India and is “All India”, and I do not think the word
“public” is going to make any difference. I, therefore, think that the addition
of the words ‘All India Services’ is superfluous. But if there is any specific
purpose to be served, I would not press the amendment. If the wording “Union
Public services” is restricted to particular services and All-India services
are not included in it, then the name of the Commission will also have to be
altered so as to cover the All-India Services will not be referable to that
Commission, at any rate ordinarily, since the Services Commission is called the
Union Public Services Commission. So the All-India Services will have no place
so far as this Commission is concerned. This is an unnecessary addition. But
all that I seek is more information.
Shri
H. V. Kamath :
Sir, I move:
“That in amendment No. 30 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 58 of
List I, the words ‘and Joint Commission’ be added at the end.”
The entry then would read as follows:
“Entry 58. Union Public Services, All-India Services, Union Public Services
Commission and Joint Commission.”
The House will recollect that a few days ago we adopted articles 284, 285,
285A, 285B, 285C, 286, 287 etc., etc., providing for the creation of Public
Services Commissions which were in three different classes; firstly, the Union
Commission: secondly, the State Commission: and thirdly, the Joint Commission
for two or more States who have agreed to set up such a Commission for the
purposes of those two or more States. Unfortunately this matter of the Joint
Commission has been overlooked by the Drafting Committee because the House will
see that article 284 invests Parliament with the power to provide by law for the
appointment of Joint Public Services Commission to serve the needs of two or
more States who have agreed to set up a Joint Commission as among themselves.
Article 285 also vests power in the President to appoint the Chairman and other
Members of a Joint Commission, and this and succeeding articles also confer
power on the President or the Parliament in regard to the Constitution and
organization of the Joint Commission. In any case, I do not find that this
matter of the Joint Commission has been provided for in other Lists-Lists 2 and
3-and even if they are provided for I do not think they fall within the purview
of these two lists. The right place for the Joint Commission is in List I,
within the jurisdiction and purview of the Union authorities. Accordingly I
suggest that this addition be made by accepting my amendment seeking to include
the Joint Commission in this proposed entry 58. I move amendment No. 204 and
commend it to the House for its consideration and acceptance.
The
Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : With regard to the
amendment of my Friend Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh requiring the deletion of
All-India services, it is not possible to accept that for the simple reason
that heretofore the All-India services and the regulation thereof did not figure
in the Government of India Act because that was a matter which was kept
exclusively in the hands of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State
having disappeared, it is necessary to provide for the regulation of the
All-India services, somewhere by some agency in the Constitution and the most
appropriate agency therefore is the Centre. List I deals with matters which are
within the purview of the Centre. The natural place for all-India services is
therefore in List I. That is one argument.
The second argument is this that there are already two sorts of All-India
services at present in existence. There are the remnants of the old I. C. S.
still continuing to serve the Government of India. Secondly, there have been
instituted during the course of the last two years what are called the
All-India Administrative Service and the All-India Police Service. Whether the
Centre continue to recruit civil servants on the basis of the All-India
Administrative Service or the All-India Police Service is a matter which has,
to be determined in the course of a subsequent article with which we will be
concerned. But there is no doubt about it that these services have been brought
into existence with the consent of the Provinces. Secondly, they being there it
is necessary to make provision for their regulation. And I submit that the
Union List is the proper list where this provision can be made.
With regard to my Friend Mr. Kamath’s suggestion that the Joint Commission should
be mentioned in this entry, my submission is that on a deeper consideration
that would create complications. The Joint Commission, so far as its
constitution, the appointment of its members and their removal are
concerned-and only in these three respects-is an all-India subject, and
provision for these three matters is already made in article 284. In all other
respects it is really a State Public Service Commission: say, for instance, for
the purpose of excluding certain services or consulting them in certain
matters, it will still be a State Public Service Commission. And it is not
desirable to oust the jurisdiction of the States in these matters as would be
the consequence if the Joint Commission was also mentioned in entry 58. It is
for that purpose that I object to Mr. Kamath’s proposal.
Shri H. V. Kamath:
May I know if this will go to the Concurrent List?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: No.
Shri H. V. Kamath:
Where will it go?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: It can be the Centre only in certain
respects: for instance, if the States jointly say that a Joint Public Service
Commission should be constituted, then as a result of the resolution the Centre
gets jurisdiction and not otherwise. In all fundamental matters, it is
distributively, if I may say so, a State Public Service Commission.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh:
I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The amendment
was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.
Mr. President : I shall put Mr. Kamath’s amendment
to vote. The question is:
“That in amendment No. 30 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 58 of
List I, the words ‘and Joint Commission’ be added at the end.”
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President: The question is :
“That for entry 58 of List I, the following entry be substituted:-
‘58. Union Public Services, All-India Services; Union Public Service
Commission.”
The amendment was adopted.
Entry 58, as amended, was added to the
Union List.
----------
Entry 58A
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I move:
“That after entry 58 of List I, the following entry be inserted:
‘58A.
Union pensions, that is to say, pensions payable by the Government of India or
out of the Consolidated Fund of India’.”
This entry did not exist in the draft. We felt it necessary to have such an
entry as a measure of caution.
(Amendment No.170 was not moved).
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh :
Sir, I move:
“That in amendment No. 31 of List I (Sixth Week), for the proposed new entry
58A of List I, the following be substituted:-
‘26-A. Pensions payable out of the Consolidated Fund of India or otherwise by
the Government of India.’”
My amendment seeks to omit the word “Union” and for this important reason
namely, so long as the pensions are payable or made payable out of the
consolidated Fund of India, I am sure no other pension except those with which
the Union is concerned would be included in that. I have not been able to
understand if there are any pensions which can be paid out of something which
is not part of the Consolidated Fund of India. I thought the total revenues of
India were going to be designated as the Consolidated Fund of India. Therefore
I am unable to understand where the other source of payment of these pensions
can be sought out. But I have not altered even this, I have merely put it in a
more appropriate form, according to me at any rate, and I think the wording
that I have suggested should be acceptable, that is, without any reference to
the Union. So long as they are payable out of the Consolidated Fund of India,
they will be only Union pensions and the word is therefore superfluous.
The
Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not think that
the amendment suggested by my Friend Dr. Deshmukh is any improvement or has any
substantial difference from the amendment as I have moved. The difference that
is sought to be made is this that there may be certain pensions which may be
payable out of the Consolidated Fund of India, which means out of the proceeds
of taxes. It may be perfectly possible for the Government of India to institute
pensions which are of a contributory character in which case the burden may not
be on the Consolidated Fund but on the person who has already contributed to a
Fund. That is the distinction. And that is why the entry has been worded in the
way I have worded it.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: I would like to
withdraw my amendment.
The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.
Mr. President : The question is:
“That after entry 58 of List I, the following entry be inserted:-
‘58A. Union pensions, that is to say pensions payable by the Government of
India or out of the Consolidated Fund of India.’”.
The motion was adopted.
Entry 58A was added to the Union List.
----------
----------
Entry 59
Entry 59 was added to the Union List.
----------
Entry 60
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move:
“That for entry 60 of List I, the following entry be substituted:-
‘60. Ancient and historical Monuments and Records declared by Parliament by law
to be of national importance.’”
The rest of the entry as it originally stood, namely, “archaeological sites and
remains” is proposed to be transferred to the Concurrent List.
Shri H. V. Kamath :
Mr. President, I move, Sir, amendment No. 206 of List III (Sixth Week). It runs
as follows:-
“That in amendment No. 32 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 60 of
List I, for the words ‘Ancient and Historical Monuments and Records’ the words ‘Moments
places and objects of artistic or historic interest’ be substituted.”
Let me at the outset make it clear that I am not excessively fastidious about
the wording or the phraseology of any entry or article so long as it brings out
the meaning of the article completely. I am not also opposed to anybody
changing his views or the language he might have used on a previous occasion,
nor am I opposed to any inconsistencies on anybody’s part, so long as any
valid, cogent reason is shown for a change of view or a change of language and
so long as it appears at least plausible. Even Mahatma Gandhi used to say that
he was always prepared to change his view so long as he was convinced of the
need for the change, so long as he had valid reasons for doing so.
I would invite the attention of the House to article 39, Part IV, Directive
Principles of State Policy Article 39 which this House adopted many months ago
reads a follows:-
“It shall be the obligation of the State to protect every monument or place or
object of artistic or historic interest, declared by Parliament by law to be of
national importance, from spoilation, destruction, removal etc. etc.”
Now, in the Union List, so far as I can understand, we have included the
subject matter of article 39 and I see no reason why we should change the
language in which we clothed article 39. Here the proposed entry is as regards
ancient and historical monuments and records. Records-I do not know how
that word has crept in. In addition to monuments if we mention places and
objects of historic interests, it is enough; records are of course one of the
objects which you can protect from spoilation, destruction, etc. Why not
therefore say, the other “objects” of historic interests besides monuments? Why
not places, not merely of historic but of artistic interest, to which this
House after mature deliberation provided for in article 39 in one of the
Directive Principles of State Policy? I think Dr. Ambedkar has advanced no
cogent reasons for changing the language of article 39 which is sought to be
embodied now in this entry. I therefore move amendment No. 206 and commend it
to the House for its acceptance.
(Amendment Nos. 207 and 208 were not
moved).
Mr. President: Would you like to say anything on amendment No. 206?
The
Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : No. Sir, it is
quite unnecessary to say anything on this subject.
Mr.
President : Then I will put the amendment moved by Mr. Kamath to vote.
The question is:
“That in amendment No. 32 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 60 of
List I for the words ‘Ancient and Historical Monuments and Records’ the words ‘Monuments,
places and objects of artistic or historic interest’ be substituted.”
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That proposed entry 60 stand part of List I”.
The motion was adopted.
Entry 60, as amended, was added to the
Union List.
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Sir, may I be permitted to move my amendments?
Mr. President:
You were here when I called them out. I am sorry it is too late now.
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: They are very important amendments, Sir, and I think they
are independent also.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: You have no equity in your favour
Entry 61
Mr.
President : Let me finish the List and then we shall see. Now, entry
No. 61. There is an amendment in the Printed List, of which notice is given by
Dr. Ambedkar. No. 3548.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I am not moving that.
Mr. President:
Then there are two amendments in the name of Mr. Santhanam.
The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: I am not moving them.
Mr. President:
Then I put entry No. 61 to vote.
Entry 61 was added to the Union List.
----------
Entry 61-A
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I move:
“That after entry 61 of List I, the following entry be inserted:-
‘61-A. Establishment of standards of quality for goods to be exported across customs,
frontier or transported from one State to another.”
We have already got entry 61 which deals with standard of weights and measures
and it is felt that there ought to be a provision for establishment of
standards of quality for goods.
Mr. President:
There are two amendments to this. Amendment No. 209, Dr. Deshmukh.
Dr.
P. S. Deshmukh : Mr. President, I welcome the proposed addition of entry
61A, but I think it is not comprehensive enough and I therefore move these two
amendments of mine so as to make it fully comprehensive and cover all sides of
the question. My amendment No. 209 reads as follows:-
“That in amendment No. 33 of List I (Sixth Week), for the proposed new entry
61A of List I, the following be substituted:-
‘61-A. Grading and standardization of quality of agricultural produce or goods
intended to be consumed in the country or exported outside India or transported
from one State to another’.”
The next amendment, No. 210, is:-
“That after the proposed new entry 61-A of List I, the following new entry be
added:-
“61 B Prevention of adulteration of articles of food, whether imported,
proposed to be exported or otherwise, arrangements for analysis, control and
regulation of all such articles’.”
Sir, the amendment is in fact clear enough. I seek to add the grading of
agricultural produce. Anybody who is familiar with the importance of our export
trade as well as the fact that there is a very real absence of grading would
find that it causes much loss to the agriculturist. This is one of the things
with which the Ministry of Agriculture is also seriously concerned. I have no
doubt that all the Provinces will agree that some Central legislation is
necessary as well as the determination of a definite policy so that the
standards of production will rise, there would be proper grading of all
articles that are produced and our export market will also improve. So, this is
a highly important thing which was probably not pressed upon the attention of any
of the Members of the Drafting Committee, and as none of them was probably so
familiar with the Ministry of Agriculture or the difficulties of agriculturists
or their needs, this omission has occurred. I therefore propose that this
wording which covers all that is proposed by the learned Doctor to be included
in 61-A adds to it certain things which are also absolutely essential and it
does not necessarily limit it only to the exported goods or to goods
transported from one State to another only; it also refers to agricultural
produce as well as goods intended to be consumed in the country. So far as the
second suggestion, with regard to the addition of 61 B is concerned, I shall
particularly refer to the vicious habits of our merchants of adulterating food-stuffs
and food-grains. This generally occurs not at the stage at which the
agriculturists produce and sell the articles but at the stage at which they are
offered for sale by the merchants and traders. This evil has been so rampant
that I make bold to say that it is very difficult to get anything in a pure
form from any shopkeeper. Their greed for lucre is so great that they are not
content with their legitimate profit and they very freely adulterate sugar,
flour, oil, etc., with all the unimaginable things. Sometimes they mix even
cement with flour and this is consumed by our unfortunate brethren. I have also
suggested a consequential provision for analysis, control and regulation of
such articles. I think both these amendments are very necessary. I hope Dr.
Ambedkar will agree that it is necessary that the Union should have this power.
Sir, it may be said that this matter may be left to the provinces. I think it
will not be proper to do so, because it would really be funny that we should
legislate and decide upon the quality of the articles for maintaining standards
for the markets etc., and not take the other necessary step of maintaining the
same standard throughout the Union. I trust that my amendments will be
accepted.
Mr. President:
Amendment No. 260 in terms refers to entry 61, but it is covered by the
amendment moved by Dr. Deshmukh. So it is not necessary to move it.
The
Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, the point
raised by my Friend Dr. Deshmukh might well be raised when we discuss the
entries in List II. They are matters within the jurisdiction of the States. We
are dealing here only with List I, which is intended to circumscribe the power
of the Centre so as not to interfere with the internal affairs of the States.
Consequently, the entry has been worded in a very cautious manner. As my Friend
will see, the entry speaks of standards of goods to be transported from one
State to another. In regard to these it is not intended to give the Centre
power to interfere with the administration of the States. If he wants to raise
this question he may do so when we discuss the State List.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh:
May I suggest that this entry might be held over and the Agricultural Ministry
consulted before we finalise this List?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: when we come to List II, we can
discuss the matter.
Mr.
President : I will put the amendments to vote. The question is:
“That in amendment No. 33 of List I (Sixth Week), for the proposed new entry
61A of List I, the following be substituted:-
‘61 A. Grading and standardisation of quality of agricultural produce or goods
intended to be consumed in the country or exported outside India or transported
from one State to another’.”
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. President:
The question is:
“That after the proposed new entry 61A of List I, the following new entry be
added:-
‘61 B. Prevention of adulteration of articles of food, whether imported,
proposed to be exported or otherwise, arrangement for analysis, control and
regulation of all such articles’.”
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. President:
I shall now put the new entry 61A to vote. The question is:
“That after entry 61 of List I, the following new entry be inserted:-
‘61 A. Establishment of standards of quality for goods to be exported across
customs frontier or transported from one State to another’.”
Shri V. S. Sarwate:
I would like to know from Dr. Ambedkar what the meaning of the term ‘exported
across customs frontier’ is?
Mr. President:
I am afraid the questions comes too late, after the voting has taken place.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I will explain it to the honourable
Member if he will come to me afterwards.
Mr. President:
The question has been put.
The motion was adopted.
Entry 61A was added to the Union List.
----------
Entry 62
Mr. President : Entry 62. Does
Sardar Hukam Singh move his amendment to this entry?
Sardar Hukam Singh
(East Punjab: Sikh): I am not moving it.
Entry 62 was added to the Union List.
Mr. President:
I may just point out to Members that the progress today is rather slow. I want
to finish consideration of the three Lists tomorrow. So I suggest that we
should proceed a little faster.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh:
We are going sufficiently fast, I think.
----------
Entry 63
Mr. President: Not today. We may now take up entry 63.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. President, I am not moving
amendment No. 3551 to the original entry. In regard to amendment 34 which I am
moving I shall in doing so incorporate in it amendment No. 212 also. Sir, I
move:
“That for entry 63 of List I, the following entry be substituted:-
‘63. Regulation and development of oil fields and mineral oil resources;
petroleum and petroleum products; other liquids and substances declared by
Parliament by law to be dangerously inflammable’.”
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : Sir, I move:
“That in amendment No. 34 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 63 of
List I, the words ‘Prospecting for and’ be inserted in the beginning.”
Then, Sir, the entry would read thus:-
“Prospecting for and regulation and development of oil fields and mineral oil
resources petroleum and petroleum products; other liquids and substances
declared by Parliament by law to be dangerously inflammable.”
The entry as it stands provides for regulation and development of oil fields and
mineral oil resources. Prospecting for oil fields and oil resources is not
provided for. My amendment therefore says “Prospecting for and regulation and
development, etc.” It means that the amendment will give the Central Government
power to prospect for oil. You know, Sir, that prospecting in rocks and
mountains has to be done in order to find oil resources. Huge sums of money
have to be spent on geological surveys of sites which are supposed to be rich
in oil. The latest inventions of science are taken advantage of in the
discovery of oil fields. I therefore think that general regulation and
development of existing oil fields will not do. We must have power to prospect
for the discovery of oil fields and oil resources. My amendment only completes
the amendment which has been moved by the Drafting Committee. Surely they do
not want to confine India to the resources of a few oil fields in Assam. They
would certainly want that we must find out oil fields in other parts of India,
and it will not be possible to do this under the entry as it is, since it does
not give power for prospecting. The States cannot do it for want of the
required funds and therefore the prospecting for oil should be the function of
the Central Government. I hope Dr. Ambedkar will accept this amendment.
Shri Raj Bahadur : Mr. President, Sir, I move:
“That in amendment No. 34 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 63 of
List I after the words ‘dangerously inflammable’ the words ‘corrosive or
explosive’ be inserted”.
Sir, my purpose in
moving this amendment is to include acids also within the. purview and ambit of
this entry. I hope, Sir, that I can say without fear of contradiction that it
is positively necessary to legislate in respect of the possession, storage, transport
and sale of acids. We have seen how acids have been misused in even ordinary
petty disputes and quarrels. We have also seen of late the growth of the cult
of the acid bulbs in the field and arena of political controversy. It is
therefore necessary that we should control the storage, possession etc., of
acids and see that no mischief is made or created with the help of such
liquids. We should hence, include acids also within the purview of this entry.
The entry as moved by the Drafting Committee deals firstly with oil fields and
mineral oil resources. Secondly it deals with petroleum and petroleum products
and lastly it deals with substances declared by Parliament by law to be
dangerously inflammable. I would submit that in the last Category we should
include acids also. It may be useful to point out that acids by themselves
could be and are being used as weapons and acids are also used in the
manufacture of explosives. So, it is necessary that the Union should control
such articles as acids also. Sir, I move.
The
Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not think that either of
these two amendments is necessary. The purpose which my Friend Professor
Shibban Lal Saksena has in view, viz., that entry 63 should also permit the
Centre to regulate prospecting for oil, etc., would be served by the words we
have used “Regulation and development”. With regard to the addition of the word
“corrosive”, I think it is not necessary to have any such power at all.
Mr.
President
: The question is
“That in amendment No. 34 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 63 of
List I, the words “Prospecting for and” be inserted in the beginning.”
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. President: Then amendment No. 262.
Shri Raj Bahadur: I, do not press my amendment.
The amendment
was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.
Mr. President : The question, is:
“That for entry 63 of List I,, the following entry be substituted
63. Regulation and development of oil fields and mineral oil resources;
petroleum and petroleum products; other liquids and substances declared by
Parliament by law to be dangerously inflammable .”
The amendment was adopted.
Entry 63, as amended, was added to the
Union List.
------------
Entry 64
The
Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move :
“That for entry 64 of List I, the following entry be substituted:-
‘64. Industries, the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by
law to be expedient in the public interest’.”
Kaka
Bhagwant Roy : *[Mr. President, my amendment is as follows:-
“That in amendment No. 35 of List I (Sixth Week) in the proposed entry 64 of
List I, for the word ‘Industries the words ‘development of Industries’ be
substituted.”
It appears from the amendment which the Honourable Doctor has introduced in the
original entry that he wants to hand over all the powers regarding industries
to the Centre. It is very good; the Centre ought to be strong, and during
transition, the Centre should be vested with such powers as are essential for
the Industrial development of the country. But in normal times, the Centre
should not be vested with such authority. India is a very big country. She has
many provinces. These Provinces have their own difficulties and cam understand
their problem much better than the Centre.
The problem of Industries is very complicated. Therefore so far this question
is concerned. every province should be given facilities to solve its own
problems. If you make the Provinces responsible for industrial development and
do not give them powers to deal with the situation, then the problem of
Provinces cannot be solved and it will retard the industrial progress of the
country. Although I am somewhat deviating from the point, yet I must say that
the present Industrial policy of the Centre will prove a stumbling-block in the
path of the Country’s progress.]
Mr. President :*[You are not only speaking on your amendment, but you are
opposing it.]*
Kaka Bhagwant Roy: *[I bow down to your ruling. But I would like to, say
that so far industries are concerned, the Provinces should be entrusted with
necessary powers ; for they can understand the problem of their industries. better
With these words I would request the Honourable Doctor to accept the
amendment.]
Shri H.
V. Kamath
: Mr. President, I move amendment No. 214 of Third’ List (Sixth
Week) which reads as follows:-
“That In amendment No. 35 of List I (Sixth Week) in the proposed entry 64 of
List I, for the words ‘the control’ the words ‘the development and control’ be
substituted.”
This amendment includes or embraces the amendment Just now moved by my
honourable Friend, Kaka Bhagwant Roy. The original entry as it-stood in the
Draft Constitution referred to the development of industries. I wonder why the
Drafting Committee has suddenly developed an antipathy to the word “development”
in this entry. My amendment is on the lines of a legislative measure which was
introduced in the Assembly during the last Budget Session and which has been
referred to a Select Committee. That Bill provided for governmental action in
industries, the development and control of which was to be regulated by the
Centre and the title of the Bill was “Industries (Development and Control) Bill”,
that is to say, the subject-matter of this entry has been already taken
cognizance by the Central Government in a Bill, the title of which includes not
merely control but the development of industries which are deemed necessary or
expedient in the public interest. I realize it is quite possible the Drafting
Committee owing to the excessive strain under which it has laboured during the
last two years and especially during the last few weeks or months, is liable to
commit slips here and there, but I hope that the Drafting Committee. has not
developed a closed or a calcified mind, which is not receptive to any change
whatsoever. I think that the meaning of this entry will be, more adequately and
more fully conveyed by amending this word “control” on the lines I have
suggested and seeking to incorporate in this entry not merely control but also
the development of industries, which means, industries the development and
control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament, by law, to be
expedient in the public interests I move amendment No. 214 of List III (sixth
Week) and commend it to the House for its earnest Consideration.
Mr. President : There are two other amendments which are in the printed
book of amendments, No. 3552 in the name of the Honourable Dr. Syama prasad
Mookerjee and No. 3553 in the name of Honourable Shri K. Santhanam. I take it
that they are not moved.
The
Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, the. entry as it stands is
perfectly all right and carries out the intention that the Drafting Committee
has in mind. My submission is that once the Centre obtained jurisdiction ,over
any particular industry as provided for in this entry, that industry becomes
subject to the jurisdiction of Parliament in all its aspects, not merely
development but it may be in other aspects. Consequently, we have thought that
the best thing is to put the industries first so as to give undoubted
jurisdiction to Parliament to deal with it in any manner it likes, not
necessarily development. Therefore, the entry is far wider than Mr. Kamath
intends it to be.
Mr.
President
: The question is:
“That in amendment No- 35 of List I (Sixth Week) in the proposed entry 64 of
List I, for the word ‘Industries’ the words ‘Development of Industries’ be
substituted.”
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That in amendment No. 35 of List I (Sixth Week) in the proposed entry
64 of List I, for the words ‘the control’ the words ‘the development and
control’ be substituted.”
The amendment was negatived,
Mr. President: The question is :
“That for entry 64 of List I, the following entry be substituted:--
‘64. Industries the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by
law to be expedient in the public interest.”‘
The amendment was adopted.
Entry 64, as
amended, was added to the Union List.
-------------
New Entry 64-A
Prof.
Shibban Lal Saksena : Mr. President, Sir, I beg to move:
“That after entry 64 of List I. the following new entry be added :-
‘64-A. Co-ordination of the development of agriculture including animal
husbandry, forestry and fisheries and the supply and distribution of food.”‘
Sir, I wish to point out to the Drafting Committee and its Chairman that this
entry which I have suggested is in accordance with the recommendation made by
the. Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of India. In fact in the letter
which the Honourable Shri Jairamdas Daulatram wrote to the. Honourable Dr.
Ambedkar in January 1948, he had used the same words. I would only quote the
last two paragraphs of that letter. He says:
“The
difficulties of feeding the ever-increasing population of India and the
experience of the last war have made it abundantly clear that the national
interest demands that the Centre should play a more active role in the sphere
of Agricultural Development and in January 1946 a statement of Agriculture and
Food Policy in India was issued by Government from which it will be seen that
the Centre assumed to itself specific responsibilities for the development of
agriculture and the supply and distribution of food and to co-ordinate an
All--India policy of Agricultural development, food production and
distribution......
We
have given the matter very careful consideration and we think that there will
be no adequate answer to the challenge of the Ministry of Finance that the
agricultural development is a provincial responsibility until there is some
specific suitable provision in the Constitution Act itself. I am inclined to
think that the time has come when the Centre ought to take up the entire
responsibility in regard to food, But the minimum that is essential in national
interest is that the Centre must have an active hand in coordinating and
guiding agricultural development all over the country. I would, therefore,
suggest for your consideration that, besides the existing item No. 12 in the
Federal Legislative List, the following item should also be included in that
List. namely, “Co-ordination of the development of agriculture including animal
husbandry, forestry and fisheries and the supply and distribution of food.”
What I have done is only to point out the omission of the Drafting Committee.
In fact it is well-known today that the, food problem is the most difficult
problem which the country has to solve. The amount of imports which we have to
make is really depriving us of all our resources and We cannot develop our
industrial resources and other things.
So I think if we want that we should be self-sufficient in food within a few
years--one or two years as has been proposed,-then it is necessary that there
should be a drive from the Centre. I am glad for what the Government is doing
today. I do not think that even this much power has been provided for the Union
Government in this Constitution. The present controls and other regulations
will not be possible unless some such entry is included in the Union List. I
really wonder whether the recommendations of the Agriculture Ministry contained
in the letter of Shri Jairamdas Daulatram, dated 5th July 1948 which they have
published in this booklet known as ‘Comments on the Provisions contained in
the Draft Constitution of India’ have been altogether ‘forgotten. In
fact I am personally in full agreement with his suggestions that it should be
the responsibility of the Centre alone to see that India gets food in proper
measure. Besides, what he suggests is not even that he only wants co-ordination
of the development of agriculture including animal husbandry and fishery. He
says the additional powers asked for relate to the inclusion of reclamation of
waste lands on a large scale requiring the use of plant and machinery. forest
laws and inland fisheries and fishery laws. He thinks all these are necessary
if India is to be made self-sufficient in food.
Shri Mahavir Tyagi (United
Provinces: General): What do the provincial Governments say?
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Food problem can only be solved if we tackle it on an
all-India basis. We have seen Bengal famine and the province of Bengal could
not help it. Unless the Centre has powers to export food from certain provinces
to meet famine in other provinces it will be difficult to solve the problem. It
is not a question of taking away the powers of the provinces but of meeting
emergencies. I therefore think this power is necessary after seeing the history
of the last five or six years regarding famines and controls. Government have
been compelled to take powers in their hands which were necessary for them and
I only want that we must provide for these powers if the Constitution;
otherwise it will handicap us in solving the food problem. I personally feel
that the reclamation of lands etc. cannot be taken up by small provinces and
States and that will require the help from the Centre. The Centre must be able
to devote attention to this exclusively. This is most important.
Shri Kishorimohan Tripathi (C. P. & Berar States): Mr.
President, Sir, I beg to draw your attention to two amendments in the printed
list-Nos. 74 A and 74B to be introduced as two new entries--which I proposed to
move, but I do not propose to move them, and have come to support the amendment
moved by Shri Saksena. As has been pointed out by Shri Saksena, this amendment
has been proposed also to be incorporated in the Constitution of India, by the
Ministry of Agriculture. Shri Saksena has already made a reference to it. Food
is the most important problem in India and it is a very serious problem, and
the Government of India have committed themselves to solve this problem as
early as possible. In fact, we have made up our minds, that after the year
1951, no food imports should be allowed, because food imports have been eating
a vital part of our exchanges, and by selling imported food at rates available
in the Indian markets, we have been incurring expenditure in giving subsidies
to the provinces. During the last two years we have already spent in this way
somewhere about Rs.40 crores. The problem of food cannot be solved unless the
problem of agricultural development is taken in hand on an all-India basis. And
unless this entry finds a place in the Union List, it will not be possible for
the Government of India to prepare and execute all-India plans of agricultural
development.
Apart from this aspect, the question, in relation to the food problem, has
another bearing. India is primarily an agricultural country, and if we want to
raise the standard of life of our people, we must see that the standard of life
of the agriculturists--and by the agriculturists, I mean the agricultural
labourer and the peasants--is improved. The structure of Indian economy cannot
be reformed if agricultural economy in India is not reformed, and agricultural
economy can only be reformed by all-India plans which must be planned by the
Centre and executed by the Centre and the Provinces acting in co-ordination. We
have seen that the Government of India, with a view to increasing the
production in the field of manufacture, have given incentives by way of
exemption of various taxes. Similarly, in order to improve agricultural
production also, it will be necessary for the Government of India to legislate
and give incentive to the agriculturists. In America such legislation has been
undertaken. There, the minimum fair price for the producer has been assured.
Here also we must have the minimum fair price legislation so as to bring home
to the agriculturists and the peasants that they will be able to sell whatever
they produce at a minimum fair price and thus get an adequate return for their
efforts.
On these grounds, Sir, I support the amendment moved by Shri Saksena and I
commend it for the acceptance of the Drafting Committee.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, with regard to the amendment to
have a new entry 64A, I may say that this matter was placed before the Premiers’
Conference and the Premiers’ Conference did not agree to the proposal.
With regard to the question of distribution of food, we have provided in
article 306, that for a period of five years, the Centre may have control over
the distribution of food.
With regard to the second amendment, namely, the introduction of the new entry
64B...........
Mr. President: That
has not been moved.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I cannot accept the amendment
moved.
Mr. President : I shall put the amendment to vote. The
question is:
“That after entry 64 of List I, the following new entry be added:-
‘64 A. Co-ordination of the development of agriculture, including animal
husbandry, forestry and fisheries and the supply and distribution of food”.
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. President: Amendment No.264, Mr. Saksena.
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : Sir, I beg to move:
“That after entry 64 A of List I, the following new entry be added:-
64-B. Regulation of trade and commerce in and of the production, supply, price
and distribution-
(a)
of goods which are the products of industries whose regulation under the
control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be necessary or
expedient in the public interest;
(b)
of any other goods whose regulation similarly is declared by Parliament by law
to be necessary or expedient in the public interest.”
Here, I would like to draw the attention of the Drafting Committee to the fact
that a similar suggestion is contained in the recommendations of the Ministry
of Industry and Supply, where they have suggested that in the Seventh Schedule
in the Union List, such an entry as I have suggested should be provided for. In
fact, I may refer the very page--page 14 of this booklet containing the
comments of the various Ministries on the Draft Constitution. There the
Ministry states-
“For
effective implementation by the Union Government of the industrial policy
announced by the Government of India on the 6th April, 1948, and for other
reasons, it is necessary to invest the Union Government with certain powers
over trade and commerce in respect of and the production, supply, price
and distribution of the goods produced by the industries to be brought under
Central regulation and certain other goods such as wholly imported articles or
agricultural products. The following additional item is, therefore, suggested:
‘Regulation
of trade and commerce in and of the production, supply, price and distribution-
(a)
of goods which are the products of the industries whose regulation under the
control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be necessary or
expedient in the public interest;
(b)
of any other goods whose regulation similarly is declared by Parliament by law
to be necessary or expedient in the public interest.”
Sir, apart from the fact that this amendment has the support of the Ministry of
Industry and Supply, it should also be obvious to anybody that within the last
four or five years our experience has shown us that unless there is this power
to regulate trade and commerce and also production and distribution, there will
be chaos in the country. Even the most important questions of the supply of
food and clothing and other necessaries of life, cannot be tackled on a mere
provincial basis, and they must be tackled on an all-India scale. So I say this
power should be given to the Union by means of an adequate provision here in
the Union List. Otherwise the Centre will not have the necessary power. I think
it is a most important power which should be given to the Centre. Besides........
Mr. President: Will
it suffice if I point out that there is a proposal for a new entry--entry 35 A
in the Concurrent List? That covers this point, I think.
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Is it an amendment, Sir?
Mr. President: Yes,
amendment No.142.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari (Madras: General): That amendment covers the first part of
the honourable Member’s amendment.
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: It is in the Concurrent List, of course, but it is not as
wide as the one that I have suggested. I personally prefer this power to be
taken by the Centre alone.
Mr. President: Very
well.
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: Besides, the words that I have suggested give much larger
powers to the Centre than it is proposed by the amendment in the Concurrent
List. I suggest the experience of the past four or five years is sufficient
reason for taking this thing in the hands of the Centre. Sir, I do not think
that we should be afraid of investing the Centre with power in regard to these
vital things, like food and clothing. Otherwise, I do not think we will be able
to meet the needs of the country in the manner we desire. At present also the
Central Government has got the power to lay down uniform policies in regard to
these matters. But the Centre should also have the power to make all parts of
the country to fall in line with the Central Policy so as to meet all the needs
of the country.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : With regard to the first part of the
amendment, there is the proposal of the Drafting Committee to put this matter
in the Concurrent List, and if my Friend Prof. Saksena were to examine the
Concurrent List, he will find that there is an entry corresponding to entry 64
B, (a) in entry 35A of the Concurrent List.
With regard to (b), it is a matter of controversy and the Drafting Committee
has not yet come to any conclusion on the question. The Drafting Committee
feels that (a) is a perfectly logical consequence of the power which we have
already given to Parliament to declare certain industries of national
importance. If Parliament has the power to declare certain industries to be of
national importance, then Parliament should also have the power to regulate the
goods and the products of such industries. But, (b) is about goods of
industries other than those declared by Parliament to be of national
importance. As I said, that is a matter of some controversy and the Drafting
Committee has not come to any conclusion. I suggest Prof. Saksena may allow the
matter to stand over till we reach entry 35 in the Concurrent List.
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: I have no objection to waiting.
Mr. President: Then
it is held over.
------------
Entry 65
Mr. President: There is an amendment No.265 of Prof. Saksena.
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena : Entry 65 is in relation to regulations
for labour and safety in mines and oil fields. Sir, I move:
“That in entry 65 of List I, after the word ‘Regulation’ the words ‘and welfare’
be inserted.”
The entry will now read:
“Regulation and welfare of labour and safety in mines and oil fields......”
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: If it would help my Friend I would draw his attention to
entry 26 in the Concurrent List which seems to meet his requirements. It reads:
“Welfare of labour: conditions of labour : etc. etc.”.
Mr. President :
It is an amended form of 26 of which notice has been given by Dr. Ambedkar.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: It fits in with his requirements.
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: But mines and oil fields are Central subjects, and if you
want that labour welfare should be in the Concurrent List, I have one objection
to it. I was not in the House at the time, but I wanted that labour
legislation, labour laws, etc., should also be Central subjects. From my
experience of labour work, I can say that Labour legislation is almost in a
chaotic condition all over the country and in the various provinces. In
some provinces we have some labour laws, in others there are very different
laws. In the same industry, like the sugar industry in Bihar, the U. P. and
Bombay there were different labour laws in different provinces. Even in the
textile industry in Bombay, there are certain laws but there are different laws
for this industry in U. P. and other places. Even the Industrial Dispute Act
has been modified by laws made by the U. P. and other Provincial Governments.
This leads to chaotic conditions. Therefore labour Legislation should come into
the Central List. I do not want them in the Provincial List. Labour should be a
Central subject and the Central Government should be able to deal with it;
otherwise there will not be similar treatment of labour in the different
provinces.
Shri H. V. Kamath : Sir, with regard to amendment No.215,
(List III-Sixth Week) it was intended to apply also to entry 65. It is likely
that the copy I sent to the office mentioned entry 66 only. I had intended that
it should apply to both entries 65 and 66.
Mr. President: You
want to move it?
Shri H. V. Kamath: Yes-for
35 also.
Mr. President: Very,
well: you may do so. But I do not know how it fits in.
Shri H. V. Kamath: Sir,
I move (with reference to entry 65 as well with your kind permission):
“That with reference to amendment No.37....”
Mr. President: It
has nothing to do with 65. It applies only to 66. There is no amendment to
entry 65.
Shri H. V. Kamath: It
is with your kind permission that I am now moving this amendment to entry 65.
Sir, I move:
“That with reference to amendment No.37 of List I (Sixth Week), in entry 66 of
List I and entry 65 of List I, for the words ‘and oil fields’ the words ‘oil
fields, and submarine regions’ be substituted.”
I do not know why “submarine regions” have been excluded from the scope of this
entry. Only the other day we adopted an article whereby all lands and all
minerals underlying the ocean were vested in the Centre. I am told on reliable
authority that the Pearl Industry, to mention only one instance, could be very
usefully developed in the Cutch region, and I am sure that in many other parts
of our oceanic areas the pearl industry stands a good chance of development in
the future. Japan has developed this industry very considerably, and some
Japanese scientists or experts have observed that India also can produce pearls
of a very high quality. This will be a submarine industry and it will be as
hazardous an occupation as labour is in mines and oil fields. I therefore feel
that when you are regulating for labour and for their safety in mines and
oilfields, it is equally necessary and essential in the public interest to
regulate for labour and its safety in those industries which we might develop
in submarine regions. As I have already said, that is an equally dangerous
occupation and the House might consider whether it is not desirable that an
amendment to this effect should be incorporated in entry 65. I move, Sir, this
amendment, seeking to incorporate submarine regions in entry 65 and commend it
to the House for its consideration.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : With regard to Mr. Kamath’s amendment,
it seems to me to be quite unnecessary because the word “oil fields” is used in
general terms. Wherever it occurs, the Centre shall have jurisdiction. If an
oilfield can occur below water..........
Mr. President: He
says “and submarine regions”.
Shri H. V. Kamath: I
say “mines, oil fields and submarine regions”.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: What my friend has in mind is diving
operations.
Shri H. V. Kamath: No
the Pearl Industry.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: All I can say is that I shall
consider that matter.
Mr. President: Then
I will first put the amendment moved by Prof. Saksena. The question is:
“That in entry 65 of List I. after the word ‘Regulation’ the words ‘and welfare’
be inserted.”
The amendment was negatived.
Shri H. V. Kamath: In view of Dr. Ambedkar’s assurance, I do not press my amendment now. It may be considered by the Drafting Committee.
Mr. President: The question
is:
“That entry 65 stand part of List I.”
The motion was adopted.
Entry 65 was added to the Union List.
------------
Entry 66
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move:
“That in entry 66 of List I, the words ‘and oil fields’ be deleted.”
It has already been transferred to entry 63.
Shri H. V. Kamath : Mr. President, I
move, Sir:
“That with reference to amendment No.37 of List I (Sixth Week), in entry 66 of
List I for the words ‘and oil fields’ the words ‘oil fields, and submarine
regions’ be substituted.”
The effect of it will be not only to include submarine regions in this entry
but also to oppose the amendment of Dr. Ambedkar seeking to delete the word “oil
fields”. The point of my amendment is this. Dr. Ambedkar rightly pointed out
that this matter of oil fields has been comprised in entry 63. But as the House
will see, entry 63 which we have adopted a few minutes ago is to regulate and
develop oil fields and mineral oil resources. Entry 65 which we have already
passed refers to regulation of labour and safety in mines and oil fields. This
is a matter different from the matter included in 63. So also I feel that this
66 refers to a subject which is not comprised in 63, because the qualifying
clause is to the effect “to the extent to which such regulation and development
under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient
in the public interest”. I do not know whether the retention of the words “mineral
development” and omission of the word “oil fields” would be in consonance with
entry 63 which the House has adopted. That entry refers to mineral oil
resources. And here we have got mineral development. “Mineral development”
refers to mineral resources in general. If there are adequate, valid and cogent
reasons for retaining the words “mineral development” in entry 66 I see no
reason why the word “oil fields” also should not be retained, because the
particular term “oils” is only a part of the general term “minerals”,
scientifically speaking.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: It is there in 63.
Shri H. V. Kamath: I
know that. My Friend would, I am sure, have made a different remark if he had
closely followed what I was pointing out. I was pointing out that when we have
mentioned oil resources in 63 and when we have also mentioned mineral
development as a general matter there will be no harm in retaining the word “oil
fields” also just to make it absolutely clear. I see no absolute necessity for
it, but there will be no harm in retaining the word “oil fields”.
Shri Brajeshwar Prasad (Bihar: General)” Sir, I beg to move:
“That in amendment No.3555 of the List of Amendments, for the proposed entry 66
of List I, the following be substituted:-
‘66. Superintendence, direction, control, regulation, development and
preservation of mines, oil fields and mineral resources including such
questions as-
(a)
the regulation and safety of mining employees,
(b)
proprietory rights in or over lands where mines and mineral resource are found
to exist,
(c)
power to frame rules regarding terms and conditions for grant of prospecting
licenses and mining leases,
(d)
power to modify conditions and terms of existing leases,
(e)
power to make rules for proper working of mines with due regard to the health
and welfare of workmen employed in mines,
(f)
power to establish Inspectorate of Mines to enforce these rulers,
(g)
power to enforce improved mining methods to ensure conservation of minerals and
mineral products;
(h)
power to control production, supply and movement of minerals and mineral
products, and
(i)
any other matter connected with mines, oil fields and mineral resources which
may be declared by Parliament to be necessary or expedient in the public
interest”
My whole aim in moving this amendment is to make redundant entry 28 of List II.
I am clear in my own mind that Mines constitute a vital subject as important as
Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communications. I am of opinion that if the system
of defence is going to be organised on sound lines then Mines must remain a
Central subject. I do not want to give the Provinces the power even to “regulate
mines and oilfields and mineral development subject to the provisions of List I”
as has been provided for in entry 28 of List II.
A question has been raised in another connection on the floor of the House as to
what will become of Provincial Autonomy. It is a matter of no concern to me. We
have not come here to safeguard the interests of Provincial Governments. We
have come here to include those subjects in List I which we consider to be
necessary and vital-subjects which are in consonance with the needs of the
modern age. I am of opinion that Mines should be nationalised, but at this
stage I am only saying that the power of legislation should remain exclusively
vested in the Central Government.
( Amendment No.3555 was not moved).
Shri Lakshminarayan Sahu : *[Mr. president, I wish to move the amendment which reads:
“That for entry 66 in List I, the following be substituted:-
‘66. Power to frame rules regarding terms and conditions for grant of
prospecting licences and mining leases, power to modify conditions and terms of
existing leases, power to make rules for proper working of mines with due
regard to physical safety of workmen employed in mines, their health and
welfare, power to establish inspectorate of mines to enforce these rules, power
to enforce improved mining methods to ensure conservation of minerals and
mineral products, power to control productions, supply and movement of minerals
and mineral products.”
I have included everything in this amendment. The amendment just moved by Shri
Brajeshwar Prasad contains all my points. But he wants to give so much power to
the Centre, which I do not want to give. I, therefore, come to the State List,
where I have suggested:-
Entry
28
“That for entry 28 in List II the following be substituted:-
‘28. Grant of prospecting licences and mining leases in accordance with the
rules framed by the Union Government as provided in entry 66 of List I and
collection and appropriation of all revenue therefrom.”
I do not want to say much regarding this, I would only say that in India, ‘mining’
should be included in the central subjects. There is no doubt, that the Centre
should be given power to unify the rules regarding the prospecting licences. I
wish to say this emphatically, that the Centre should enact such rules as may
be applicable lo all the provinces uniformly. Till the Centre is empowered to
do so, there will be a lot of difficulty in obtaining the prospecting licences,
and there would be differences in the conditions in various provinces in this
respect. Hence I wish that this amendment of mine and my other amendment on
State List II, should both be read together and considered in this connection.]
Shri Kuladhar Chaliha (Assam: General): Mr. President, Sir,
it is really very difficult to agree with Mr. Brajeshwar Prasad, but in this
particular case I seem entirely to agree with him and I think his amendment is
a great improvement on the provisions adumbrated by Dr. Ambedkar--it is rather
allembracing and seems to cover all that is necessary for a provision on mines
and oil fields.
We know in our part of the country some of the owners of coal mines have
started producing less and less and we do not know the reason. The quality is
also getting worse and worse. If you order any coal from them you get the worst
quality. Therefore it is necessary that they should have a standard of the
quality of coal they should supply to the clients. Similarly, in the oil fields
also they are producing less and less. It is said that in Digboi they are not
working to full capacity and that they are doing it with a purpose. It is said
that unless sooner or later we have a target that so much should be produced in
a certain time we will get probably much less than what we used to. Even now we
know that we are getting from Digboi much less than what we used to a few years
ago; we do not get even 30 per cent. of our Indian supply from Digboi, whereas
formerly we used to get more. It is said that the British owned wells are
intentionally doing it and they are trying to transfer their plants to Pakistan
and other places.
Therefore, this amendment of Mr. Brajeshwar Prasad will give us ample power to
control them and see that they produce properly and they produce the quantity
we want and not the quantity they allege that they can produce. As such, for
the first time in the history of this Constituent Assembly I have been able to
agree with Mr. Brajeshwar Prasad who, of course, generally holds views contrary
to those of the majority. Sir, I support his amendment.
Shri H. V. Kamath: I
hope, Sir, that the Drafting Committee will bear in its sub-conscious mind that
part of my amendment referring to submarine regions.
Mr. President: It
is expected that the Members of the Drafting Committee have heard what the
honourable Member has said.
Shri Jagat Narain Lal (Bihar: General): Mr. President, I do
not want to take much of the time of the House over this matter. I simply
wanted to oppose the amendment - I am sorry-moved by Mr. Brajeshwar Prasad. The
amendment that he has moved chooses on the one hand to give very vide powers to
the Centre, on the other hand his amendment is in the shape of rules or
bye-laws which can be framed after an Act is passed. I do not see why such
detailed clauses and sub-clauses should be added to the Constitution. I support
what Dr. Ambedkar has moved for the reason that that divides the powers between
the Centre and the Provinces. The Centre has such powers as are necessary or as
will appear necessary for the purpose of regulating the easy working of mines
and mineral resources, and the Provinces will also have power which they ought
to exercise for the purpose of regulating and developing mines and mineral
resources in their territories. Therefore, I support the amendment moved by Dr.
Ambedkar and oppose the amendments moved to them.
Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment deletes the word “oil fields”.
Shri Jagat Narain Lal: The words “the oil fields” have to be deleted as those words
have come earlier.
Mr. President: Would
you like to say anything?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : No, Sir, I would not like to accept any
amendment.
Mr. President: We
will take the amendment by Mr. Brajeshwar Prasad.
Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: Sir, I beg to withdraw it.
The amendment
was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.
Mr. President : Then amendment No.3556 on the Printed
List, moved by Mr. Sahu.
The question is:
“That for entry 66 in List I, the following be substituted:-
‘66. Power to frame rules regarding terms and conditions for grant of
prospecting licences and mining leases, power to modify conditions and terms of
existing leases, power to make rules for proper working of mines with due
regard to physical safety of workmen employed in mines, their health and
welfare, power to establish inspectorate of mines to enforce these rules, power
to enforce improved mining methods to ensure conservation of minerals and
mineral products, power to control productions, supply and movement of minerals
and mineral products.”
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. President: Then amendment No.215.
Shri H. V. Kamath: I
leave it to the wisdom of the Drafting Committee.
Mr. President: Very
well, then; that is not put to vote He leaves it to the Drafting Committee.
Then the amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar. The question is:
“That in entry 66 of List I, the words ‘and oil fields’ be deleted.”
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President : The question is :
“That entry 66, as amended stand part of list I.”
The motion was adopted.
Entry 66, as amended, was added to the
Union List.
-----------
Entry 67
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move:
“That for entry 67 of List I, the following entry be substituted:-
‘67. Extension of the powers and jurisdiction of members of a police force belonging
to any State to any area not within such State, but not so as to enable the
police of one State to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area not within
that State without the consent of the Government of the State in which such
area is situated; extension of the powers and jurisdiction of members of a
police force belonging to any State to railway areas outside that State.”
Mr. President : There is an amendment by Sardar Hukum
Singh for deletion. That need not be moved. Dr. Deshmukh has an amendment to
this entry which I understand he is not moving. So I will put the motion to
vote
The question is:
“That for entry 67 of List I, the following entry be substituted:-
‘67. Extension of the powers and jurisdiction of members of a police force
belonging to any State to any area not within such State, but not so as to
enable the police of one State to exercise powers and jurisdiction in
any area not within that State without the consent of the Government of the
State in which such area is situated; extension of the powers and jurisdiction
of members of a police force belonging to any State to railway areas outside
that State.”
The amendment was adopted.
Entry 67, as amended, was added to the
Union List.
-----------
Entry 68
The
Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I move:
“That for entry 68 of List I, the following entry be substituted:-
“Elections to Parliament and to Legislatures of States and of the President and
Vice-President; and Election Commission to superintendent, direct and control
such elections.”
Shri H. V. Kamath : Mr. President, I move:
“That in amendment No.38 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 68 of
List I, for the words, ‘Election Commission’ the words ‘Election Commission and
Regional Commissioners’ be substituted.”
This amendment becomes necessary in view of the change which has been made in
entry 68. The entry as it originally stood in the Draft Constitution ran thus:
“Elections to parliament and of the President and Deputy President; and
Election Commission to superintend, direct and control such elections.”
The new entry reads as follows:-
“Elections to parliament and to Legislatures of States and of the President and
Vice President; and Election Commission to superintend..........”
That is to say, we have incorporated the elections to Legislatures of States in
the proposed new entry 68.
The House will recollect that a few weeks ago we adopted articles 289, 289A, 289B.
etc. If my honourable colleagues will take the trouble of turning to article
289, they will find that it provides, firstly, for the appointment of an
Election Commission without mentioning Regional Commissioners. Regional
Commissioners came into the picture in clause (3) of article 289. That clause
lays down that, before each general election to the House of the People and to
the Legislative Assembly of each State and before the first general election,
and thereafter before the biennial election to the State Council, the President
shall also appoint, after consultation with the election commission, such
Regional Commissioners as he may consider necessary to assist the Election
Commission in the performance of the functions enjoined on it by clause (2) of
that article. Clause (4) vests certain powers in Parliament as regards the
condition of service and tenure of office not merely of the Election
Commissioners but also of Regional Commissioners. The Regional Commissioners
are not a part of the Election Commission. They come into the picture only when
the elections to the State Assembly and Council are about to commence. I,
therefore, feel that this point must be made absolutely clear in the new draft
of entry 68 which replaces the old one. It includes elections to Parliament as
well as to State Legislatures for which purpose we have got Regional
Commissioners. There is, therefore, this lacuna in entry 68. I hope the House
will see its way to accept my amendment.
Mr. President: There
is an amendment to this standing in the name of Mr. Santhanam. I think it does
not arise in view of the decision we have taken with regard to some other
articles.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It is unnecessary to
accept this amendment, because the Election Commission will include Regional
Commissioners also.
Mr. President : The question is:
“That in amendment No.38 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed entry 68 of
List I, for the words ‘Election Commission’ the words ‘Election Commission and
Regional Commissioners be substituted.”
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That for entry 68 of List I, the following entry be substituted:-
‘Elections to Parliament and to Legislatures of States and of the President and
Vice-President; and Election Commission to superintendent, direct and control
such elections.”
The amendment was
adopted.
Entry 68, as
amended, was added to the Union List.
-----------
Entry 69
The
Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move:
“That for entry 69 of List I, the following entries be substituted:-
69. The emoluments and allowances and rights in respect of leave of absence of
the President and Governors; the salaries and allowances of the Ministers of
the Union and of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Council of States and
of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the House of the People; the salaries and
allowances of the members of Parliament; the salaries, allowances and the
conditions of service of the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India.
69A. The privileges, immunities and powers of each House of Parliament and of
the members and the Committees of each House.”
Mr. President : There
is an amendment to this, No.219 standing in the name of Mr. Kamath.
Shri H. V. Kamath : I
do not want to move my amendment, but I would ask how Dr. Ambedkar has
forgotten or lost sight of the Supreme Court Judges.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Their salaries etc., are provided for
in the Schedule. We have said that their salaries shall be such as are
specified in the Schedule.
Mr. President: Then
amendment No.220 by Dr. Deshmukh. Does it not go more appropriately to the
State List?
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : No, Sir. I move:
“That in amendment No.39 of List I (Sixth Week), after the proposed entry 69 of
List I, the following new entry be added:-
‘69A. Privileges, immunities and powers of the members of the State
Legislatures and their Committees.’”
Sir, this is consequential upon the amendment that I proposed when the article
was being discussed. I had urged then that it would not be proper to leave the
privileges, immunities and powers of the members of the State Legislatures to
the individual State Legislatures. It would be better if Parliament decides on
it, so that there could be common privileges, immunities and powers for the
members of all the State Legislatures. That point of view was urged by me. I
think that Dr. Ambedkar had not sufficient time to consider it and therefore he
declined to accept it. I am now trying to urge this for his consideration and
the consideration of the Drafting Committee. This is eminently reasonable and proper,
and I hope they will accept this as an addition to this entry and also keep
this in mind when they modify the provisions already accepted by the House
also. I think it is very necessary that the privileges should be uniform and
that they should not differ from State to State.
Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : Hear, Hear.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It is only proper that each Legislature
should have the authority to define its own privileges, immunities and powers,
and it is for that reason that we have provided that Parliament should have
power to specify the privileges, immunities and powers of its own members, and
the State Legislatures should have similar power with regard to their own
members. I do not think that the whole power should be concentrated in the
Centre. I should have thought that if Parliament passes an Act defining the
privileges, immunities and powers of its members, the State Legislatures will
probably follow suit and copy the thing verbatim with such minor
amendments as they think desirable.
Mr. President : The question is:
“That in amendment No.39 of List I (Sixth Week), after the proposed entry 69 of
List I, the following new entry be added:-
‘69A. Privileges, immunities and powers of the members of the State
Legislatures and their Committees.”
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That for entry 69 of List I, the following entries be substituted:-
‘69. The emoluments and allowances and rights in respect of leave of absence of
the President and Governors; the salaries and allowances of the Ministers for
the Union and of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Council of States and
of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the House of the People; the salaries,
allowances and the conditions of service of the Comptroller and Auditor-General
of India.
69A. The privileges, immunities and powers of each House of Parliament and of
the members and the Committees of each House.”
The amendment was
adopted.
Mr. President: The
question is:
“That entry 69, as amended, stand part of List I.”
The motion was adopted.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That entry 69A stand part of List I.”
The motion was adopted.
Entry 69 and 69A, as amended, were added to the Union List.
-----------
Entry 70
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar :
Sir,
I move:
“That at the end of entry 70 of List I, the words ‘or Commissions appointed by
Parliament’ be added.”
As it stands, the entry refers only to Committees.
Mr. President : I do not think that there is any other
amendment to this
The question is:
“That at the end of entry 70 of List I, the words ‘or Commissions appointed by
Parliament’ be added.”
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That entry 70, as amended, stand part of List I.”
The motion was adopted.
Entry 70, as amended, was added to the
Union List.
Entry 70 A
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move:
“That after entry 70 of List I, the following entry be inserted:
‘70A. The sanctioning of cinematograph films for exhibition.”
This entry was originally placed in the Concurrent List. It is now proposed to
put it in List I.
Mr. President: There
are several amendments to this. Amendment No.221 by Mr. Kamath wants the
deletion of this entry. So it cannot be moved.
Shri H. V. Kamath: May
I speak on that?
Mr. President: Later.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : Sir, I move.
“That in amendment No.41 of List I (Sixth Week), for the proposed new entry 70A
of List I, the following be substituted:-
‘70A. Regulation and control of the exhibition of cinema films.”
All that I propose is to change the wording. I am unable to understand how the
sanctioning of cinematograph films is a subject for legislation. If there is to
be legislation, it would not be on sanctioning. Sanctioning of cinematograph
films for exhibition is not a happy expression. We should also have power to
control the exhibition and from that point of view I would recommend the
wording I have suggested, viz. “Regulation and control of the exhibition
of cinema films.” Sir, I move.
Mr. President : There
is notice of an amendment which I received this morning, by Kaka Bhagwant Roy.
Kaka Bhagwant Roy:
Sir, I do not want to move it.
Shri Raj Bahadur : Mr. President: Sir, I move:
“That in amendment No.41 of List I (Sixth Week), in the proposed new entry 70A
of List I, the words ‘The sanctioning of’ and ‘for exhibition’ be deleted.”
I move this amendment in order to widen the scope of the entry. If my amendment
is accepted, the words that would remain would be only “cinematograph films”.
It is obvious that the power of merely sanctioning of cinematograph films is
not enough for the Union Parliament. As a matter of fact, the functions of the
Union Parliament in the case of cinema films must be widened considerably. We
know that the cinema--films have proved to be a powerful medium of instruction
and national education. We know that they also play an important part in the
formation and moulding of national character. It is therefore necessary not
only from the point of view of art and artists, but also from the point of view
of national education that we should widen the power vested in the Union
Parliament in this matter. In modern times, the cinema films have replaced the
drama and the theatre. They have come to constitute the medium of expression of
the genius of our people. Therefore it is highly necessary that, in the
interest of the art, the Union Parliament should be enabled to take an active
interest in the improvement and progress of cinematograph films. As such in my
humble opinion the entry should not be restricted simply and barely to the
sanctioning of the films, it should cover a wider field. I submit, therefore,
that my amendment should be accepted.
May I also express my doubt about the suitability of placing this entry after
entry 70 which relates to the enforcement of attendance of persons for giving
evidence or producing documents before committees of Parliament. It should have
been better placed elsewhere. In my humble opinion it could very well come
after entry 28 which relates to Telephones. Wireless, Broadcasting etc. It
should have been better there instead of here. With these words I commend my
amendment for acceptance.
Shrimati G. Durgabai : (Madras: General): Mr. President, Sir,
while supporting the new entry 70A moved by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar I wish to make a
few observations.
This new entry 70A seeks to give power to the Centre to administer on the
exhibition of films and the object of the Centre taking over this power to
itself is to lay down certain uniform standards in the films that are exhibited
all over this country and also outside this country. Of course, we think
whether such a power is necessarily to be given to the Centre to take over this
administration. We feel that many films that are dumped on the public today
have either very little or no educational value. Nauseating songs and very
cheap themes are highly detrimental to our culture. Therefore, it is highly
necessary to raise the standards of these films and thus help the producers to
exhibit better films which reflect the civilization of this country. That is
the primary object, and also they should promote international understanding
between the citizens of this country and also of the outside world.
Sir, the position today as it stands is that the Provincial Governments have
got their censorship boards, and to my knowledge and information the censorship
starts only after the film is completed and some lakhs of rupees have been
wasted on them and the Centre acts only in an advisory capacity and whatever
the Centre does in that capacity will have only a post-mortem effect.
Therefore, Sir, keeping this object in view, we have got to introduce
uniformity in the standards of the films that are to be exhibited in this
country and also outside this country which would help promoting good harmony
and reflect our culture and the civilization of this country.
Sir, while supporting this amendment, I should like to say that the provincial
interests or the provincial censorship boards that are today functioning in
this matter should be consulted and their interests should be taken into
consideration and in every matter their advice and co-operation ought to be
sought in censoring these films. Sir, a point may be raised against this power
being given to the Centre whether the Centre would be able to deal with this
matter, because there are different languages and different types of dialects
in which these films are exhibited, whether the Centre could cope up with this
power and deal with this matter effectively. There is some justification in
this argument but anyhow I would like to say that the Centre should act so
carefully in administering on this subject that while the provinces could
produce and contribute to the international or national unity they could also
preserve the type of culture peculiar to themselves.
Sir, in this matter we have got to know that the first step has already been
taken. We have amended the Government of India Act to give power to the Centre;
also we have passed a Bill in the Legislative session by classifying the films
by introducing the system of A and U class service. Therefore this entry in
this list is only a corollary to what we have done. Some objections have been
raised. I think my honourable Friend, Mr. Raj Bahadur raised a point, that the
powers ought to be widened and he suggested the deletion of the words “The
sanctioning of” and “for exhibition” and thereby enlarging the power. I should
like to say we have got already the licensing authority today under which this
could be done. I understand that his object is to see that the Centre could
insist on the provinces to produce such films and also exhibit such films which
have got an educative value along with the films that are exhibited today. This
we could do under the power that we have got already and even the provinces are
exercising it under their licensing power. The Centre has already passed a Bill
to classify the films. Therefore, it is not quite necessary. So I feel that
this entry might find favour with the House.
Shri Raj Bahadur: Do
not these words essentially restrict and limit eh meaning of the whole thing?
Shrimati G. Durgabai: No, Sir, because the other powers which you have asked are
already being exercised under the powers of both the provinces and the Centre.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: What
about the words I suggested “Regulation and control of the exhibition of cinema
films?”
Shrimati G. Durgabai : Even that would be exercised under the powers that we have
got under our licensing authority; and the other matter about the protection of
children and other things, that is a matter for the Labour Department to deal
with and not a subject-mater in this connection.
Shri H. V. Kamath : Mr. President, Sir, in pursuance of the
spirit of my amendment which of course I could not move because it is a
negative amendment, I wish to say that there is no adequate ground for shifting
this entry from the Concurrent List to the Union List.
Shri T T. Krishnamachari: It has already been shifted in the Government of India Act.
Shri H. V. Kamath : It
is unfortunate that Dr. Ambedkar made a bald statement moving his amendment and
did not advance any cogent reasons for the transfer of this entry from the
Concurrent to the Union List. I am whole-heartedly in agreement with my
honourable Friend Shrimati Durgabai that our films ought to reflect the genius
and the culture of our nation. There can be no two opinions about that. There
are, however, certain points which deserve some attention at the hands of this
House while considering this matter of cinematograph films. These days the
films produced are not mere silent films but they are, more often than not,
talkies. Silent films have gone out of fashion, and talkies mean not merely
moving pictures but also a lot of language and songs, conversations, monologues
and dialogues and what not. Everyone is aware that when a particular film is
exhibited in particular province the songs, monologue or dialogue or whatever
else it may be, is translated into the language of the particular province in
which it is sought to be exhibited. The question arises as regards the nuances
and shades of meaning in every language. It is not possible for every person to
be conversant with all the languages of the Union and every language has as I
gave said, got its own nuances, peculiar idioms and expressions. At present
every province has its Provincial Board of Film Censors and the provincial
people are more conversant with the languages of that province than members of
a Central Board can possibly be, unless of course the Central Board included a
member of every province or members who are well versed in the various
languages of the Indian Union. That means it will be a very big Board.
My Friend Shrimati Durgabai referred to a Bill we passed in the last Budget
Session of the Legislature. That Bill sought to categorise films into two
classes--one for Universal exhibition, and the other for exhibition to adults
only and not suited for children and adolescents. But the point which she
sought to make out would be completely served if this matter of cinema films is
included in the Concurrent List which seeks to give power to the States and the
Centre and not merely exclusive power to the Union alone.
There is another aspect of the matter which might commend itself to the House,
Customs, though our culture and civilisation are the same, vary from province
to province and from State to State. My Friend Pandit Bhargava-- I hope my
memory serves me right--in the last Session of the Legislative Assembly
speaking on the Hindu Code Bill referred to certain practices prevailing in
different parts of the union. In the South, marriages between the children of
brother and sister are permissible. That is to say a man can marry his own
uncle’s daughter. But in the Punjab, Pandit Bhargava said, if such a thing
happened the man will be cut to pieces. Suppose there is a film depicting or
showing a marriage between a person and his uncle’s daughter, it might be quite
normal in a province like Madras or Bombay, but if it is exhibited in the
Punjab people will be scandalised and shocked.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : Those
instances seldom occur.
Shri H. V. Kamath : It
is not beyond the bounds of probability. Films may show the important social
ceremony of marriage, and therefore it is necessary in my judgement that powers
should be given not merely to the Union but also to States in this regard so as
to sit in judgment over cinema films. I, therefore, seek the deletion of this
entry from this list and its transfer back to the Concurrent List. I feel that
is the right place for this entry. On a suitable occasion, I will move an
amendment in that connection when the Concurrent List comes up for
consideration in the House.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. President, Sir the object of
bringing this entry which was originally in the Concurrent List to the Union
List is two-fold, firstly to prescribe as far as possible a uniform standard
for sanction of films; and secondly, to prevent an injury being done to any
producer of a film whose film may not be sanctioned by any particular province
by reason of some idiosyncrasy or by reason of some standards which are of an
extraordinary character and do not conform to general standards which ought to
be prevalent in a matter of sanctioning of Cinematography. Therefore I think it
is very necessary that this matter of sanctioning instead of being distributed
between the Centre and provinces so that each province may go on prescribing
its own standard and the Centre be required to persuade each province to
examine its standard and point out whether the standards are good or bad, it is
much better to bring it over to the Union List. So far as the rest of the
matter is concerned it is proposed to leave the entry 43 in List II as it is so
that the provinces will retain all the control they have over theatres,
dramatic performances and cinemas minus the question of sanctioning. I
do not think that any injury will be caused to any particular interest by the
proposal I have made. On the other hand, as I have stated there would be
distinct advantages in concentrating the power of sanctioning in a single body
like the Centre.
Shri Raj Bahadur:
Only sanctioning?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Once the Centre has sanctioned that the
film is a good film and conforms to moral standards, I do not see any reason
why there should be any further provision for the exhibition at all. The matter
ends.
Mr. President: I
put the amendment No.222 to vote.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : I
would like to withdraw it.
The amendment was,
by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.
Shri Raj Bahadur: I
would like to withdraw my amendment No.266.
The amendment was,
by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.
Mr. President : The question is:
“That entry No.70A stand part of List I.”
The motion was
adopted.
Entry 70A was added to the Union List.
Mr. President : There are certain new entries which are sought to be
brought in here by Dr. Deshmukh. We may take them up at the end.
Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : They
are more or less independent. I have no objection to their being taken up at
the end.
--------
Entry 71
Mr. President : There is no amendment to this. There is
only notice of deletion by Sardar Hukam Singh.
Entry was added to
the Union List.
---------
---------
Entry 72
Mr. President:
Then we come to entry 72. There is no amendment to that either.
Entry 72 was added to the Union List.
-----------
Entry 73
Mr. President: Then
comes entry 73. Dr. Ambeddkar.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move:
“That for entry 73 of List I, the following entry be substituted:-
‘73. Inter-State trade and Commerce.”
The words that follow these words in entry 73 are unnecessary, because there is
a proposal to drop entry 33 of List II.
Mr. President: There
is an amendment to this amendment No.226 of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I am not moving it.
Mr. President: Then
there is no amendment to this entry. I put the entry as moved by Dr. Ambedkar,
to the House. The question is:
“That for entry 73 of List I, the following entry be substituted:-
‘73. Inter-State trade and Commerce.”
The amendment was
adopted.
Entry 73, as amended, was added to the
Union List.
-----------
Entry 73-A
Mr. President:
Then we come to entry 73A, and the amendment in the name of Dr. Diwakar. I take
it that it is not moved. Then there is entry 73-A of Mr. Kamath-Inter-planetary
travel.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Sir, may I point out that if we talk about a provision for
inter-planetary travel, it would be reducing the proceedings of the House to
absurdity.
Shri H. V. Kamath: Sir,
I am sure if my Friend Mr. Krishnamachari had kept himself abreast of the
advance of science and not busied himself only with trade and commerce, he
would not have made such a remark.
Mr. President: Have
we reached a stage when the control of inter-planetary travel is necessary?
Shri H. V. Kamath: Yes,
Sir, as I will try to show, in a few minutes. Sir, I move that.................
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Sir, I rise to a point of order. It is an impracticable
proposition that my Friend is suggesting, and therefore it should not be moved.
Shri H. V. Kamath: After
you have heard me, Sir, you may decide.
Mr. President: I
will hear him first.
Shri H. V. Kamath : Sir, I beg to move:
“That with reference to amendment No.42 of List I (Sixth Week), after entry 73
of List I, the following new entry be added:-
‘26- A. Inter- planetary travel.’ “
( Laughter )
Sir, Members of the House are welcome to laugh. But fifty years ago, if
anybody, had talked of radios and wireless sets, he would have been held up to
derision and mocked at, and perhaps stoned. But today radios and wireless sets
have become a matter of course, and of every day occurrence. I am sure Mr.
Krishnamachari has got a wireless set of his own in his house. And it is even
supposed to be a mark of culture today to have a radio set in every house. Take
television. Twenty years ago perhaps television would have been looked upon as an
impossibility. But today in America television has become so very common that
important meetings and lectures are televised and shown all over the country.
With the rapid advance of science for which this century is famous- I am sure
within the last fifty years there has been more advance in the various fields
of science than in the previous five hundred years- what with researches in X-rays,
medicine, jet propelled planes of which we hear so much today, we can expect
many big changes in the near future. The advance has been remarkable,
phenomenal, if I may use such a word. It was only the other day I read in an
American paper-it was I think the New York Times-there was a news
item that a Company had been established, or floated in the United States where
applications for journeys to the moon had been invited. It was in dead earnest,-I
am not referring to it as a jest. They hope to do the journey probably by
rockets. Till a few years ago-
Shri R. K. Sidhva : (C.
P. & Berar): Can you show me the paper?
Shri H. V. Kamath : Yes,
if you will kindly come to my place.
Mr. President : I
thought people go to the Chandralok after death.
Shri H. V. Kamath :
Yes, Sir, I was having it in mind. The Gita itself does say.......
Tatra Chandramasam Jyotiryogi Prapya
nivartate.
I do not dispute the possibility of a Yogi going even bodily to the moon by the
power to his Siddhis and coming back too. But apart from that, Sir, this
has come within the range of possibility, and in a few years time, it is quite
possible that there may be journeys to the moon, and the phrase “man in the
moon” will lose all its significance. I dare say, when the earth becomes more
and more populate and congested, and when science makes further advance, people
may start colonising the moon or some of the other thinly populated planets of
the solar system. If we keep our minds open to the possibilities of science,
and if we do not shut our minds in the mists of prejudice and misapprehension
to the phenomenal progress of science, I am sure the House will not take this
matter as lightly as it is inclined to do today. I do not want to be a prophet,
but I may venture to suggest that within the next twenty-five years, perhaps
sooner, such things will not be derived or mocked at, as some of the friends
here are inclined to today.
Shri B. L. Sondhi: (East
Punjab: General): In the time of our successors, perhaps.
Shri H. V. Kamath: No,
even in the life-time of Mr. Sondhi and myself.
I therefore suggest that this matter should not be included in the Concurrent
List or in the State List, but it should be the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Union, so that when the time comes, the Union will have the power to exercise
complete control. Of course, Dr. Ambedkar, may say that this is covered by the
entry regarding passports and visas, but I do not think so. These
passports and visas deal only with travel on this, our planet-The Earth. But
inter-planetary travel will become more and more important in the near future,
and therefore it should find a place in the Union List, and I therefore commend
my amendment for the earnest and dispassionate consideration of the House.
Mr. President:
There is an amendment of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad about travels to the planets and
the satellites. He is not content merely with this amendment. Do you want to
move it?
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Yes, Sir, because if this amendment
which was just now moved, is accepted, it will be incomplete without my amendment.
I shall take only one minute. I beg to move:
“That in List III (sixth week), with reference to amendment No.227 in the
proposed new entry 73A the following be added at the end:-
‘travel between the planets and the satellites and between the satellites.”
Mr. President: You
have given notice of it only this morning.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Yes, Sir, the difficulty was that I brought the amendment
yesterday afternoon ready in my pocket, but forgot to deliver it to the office.
Mr. president: I
am not objecting. Go on.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I submit that, though a dream of the future, inter-planetary
travel is coming on very soon. We had a long time ago a very good novel by
Jules Verne, “From the Earth to the Moon and a Trip round it,” and his
numerous novels on scientific subjects. His dream has come true in a large
measure and modem scientists believe that inter-planetary travel is a practical
proposition and will soon be a reality and could be undertaken on a commercial
scale. Mr. Kamath’s amendment has a loop-hole and a defect. His amendment
provides for travel only from one planet to another and not from a planet to
its satellites and between the satellites. So if inter-planetary travel is to
be included in the list as it must, this amendment will also have to be
accepted. A Journey from the Earth to the Moon and back is likely to be the
earliest achievement. But Mr. Kamath’s amendment will not make it possible. My
amendment should be accepted to make the original amendment complete. I hope,
Sir, if the amendment is to be rejected, it is rejected in a more satisfactory
way by vote.
Mr. president: I
do not suppose any further speech is necessary!
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not quite understand whether the
proposals of my Friend relate to matters which are unknowable or which relate
to matters which are unknown. If they are unknown, then we have waste our time.
But if they are unknown and not unknowable, then we have enough powers to deal
with them. Why bother with any entry at all?
Mr.
President : I will put Mr.
Naziruddin Ahmad’s amendment to the vote. The question is:
“That in List III (Sixth Week), with reference to amendment No.227 in the
proposed new entry 73A the following be added at the end:-
‘travel between the planets and the satellites and between the satellites.”
The amendment was
negatived.
Mr.
President: The
question is:
“That with reference to amendment No.42 of List I (Sixth Week), after entry 73
of List I, the following new entry be added:-
‘73 A. Inter-planetary travel.’”
The motion was negatived.
The Assembly then adjourned till Nine of the clock on Thursday, the 1st
September 1949.
--------------------------------------------------------
*[Translation of Hindustani speech]*
Related Documents:-
1) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 13
2) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 37
3) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Entries in Union List
4) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 102
1) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 13
2) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 37
3) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Entries in Union List
4) Role of Sardar Hukum Singh in Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 102
No comments:
Post a Comment