विभाग VII

local people could not object. Under those circumstances various people from various Provinces have gone to cities located in other Provinces. They built up their interests and have lived there for generations. But in the redistribution that we are now making, I have not seen anybody—Non-Madrasi living in Madras—raising objection to Madras being given to the Tamilian. Calcutta is equally a cosmopolitan city. When I was the Labour Member, I had often to visit Calcutta in order to see the labour conditions there and I found that the Bengal people did not call the people living in Calcutta as ‘Bengali’. Their word was “ Calcuttiya” These are “Calcuttiyas” That shows that they were not part of Bengali population, and it is a huge population. Notwithstanding this, our friends, the Congress Party people, have never raised any objection; nor the Calcuttiyas” have ever raised any objection to Calcutta being handed over to the Bengali. My first question to my Friend, Mr. Pant, is this. If Calcutta can go to Bengali and Madras can go to Tamilian, what objection is there for Bombay to go to Maharashtra ? That, I think, is a fundamental question which he must satisfy the Maharashtrians about. Yes, it is said that there is in Bombay a Gujarati population which amounts to not more than 15 per cent, and that the Maharashtrians do not form a majority of the population. It is said that that is the reason which vitiates the claim of the Maharashtrians over Bombay. I wonder whether there are any cities in this country where the foreign population in the city is not 15 per cent, and the position of Bombay, it is said, by reason of the fact that 15 per cent, are Gujaratis is in a sense peculiar. How is it peculiar ? One can give any number of illustrations to show that our cities are always a mixed quarter. No city can claim to have a uniform population of its own. And if notwithstanding this fact the other city can claim to belong to West Bengal, I am quite unable to understand why Bombay City should not make a similar claim. There are some people who have said that Bombay never belonged to Maharashtra. Well, I am surprised at the knowledge of those who made the statement, I am very much surprised. Who were the first inhabitants of Bombay ? They were the kolis—the fishermen—and do the

fishermen say that they are not Maharashtrians ? I would like any one to go and make enquiries and find out what is the opinion of the kolis who were the original inhabitants of Maharashtra. If those ladies and gentlemen who have indulged in these wild allegations want to know a little bit of its characteristics, I should like to tell them that even before the Portuguese acquired Bombay, Bombay belonged to a dowager queen called Lakshmi Bai and the Portuguese took it as a tenancy from her. It did not even belong to the Portuguese. The Portuguese never conquered it. They took it. The poor queen subsequently could do nothing. Ultimately, it was transferred to the British as a dowry to the wife of Charles II. It was so small that the dowry was not more than £10. That was because Bombay was what I shall call a place occupied by a few kolis. I have got with me the original print of the original Bombay when it transferred itself from the Portuguese to the British. Therefore, historically, geographically and logically— the logic which we have applied to other cities—I cannot see how anybody can dispute the claim of the Maharashtrians to have the city to themselves.

Of course, there is a wide difference of opinion between myself and the rest of the Maharashtrians. The rest of the Maharashtrians want Bombay as part of a United Maharashtra. Now, I am very much against this United Maharashtra. I do not understand why Maharashtrians should want a United Maharashtra and I am sure about it that in the course of future history, we are not going to war with U. P. nor are we going to war with any of the northern territories like -Rajasthan. Why do you want a United Maharashtra ? I am at one with Maharashtrians that Bombay belongs to Maharashtra. On that, I will fight tooth and nail. There can be no doubt on that point at all. And therefore I had suggested that the Government might give Bombay a separate status as a City State and call it the “Maharashtra City State” so that it will be part of Maharashtra and at the same time, it will enjoy the status of an ‘A’ class State. But since the Government, for some reason which it is very difficult for me to understand, is going to reduce the status of Bombay City to that of the Nicobar Islands, I tell them right now that I

reverse my position and fight with them along with the rest of the Maharashstrians. Now that is what I want to say about Maharashtra.

With regard to the question that the Maharashtrians in Bombay City do not form a majority, I like to clear that idea. I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding. Some census figure has been dug out which said that the population of Maharashtrians in Bombay is 46 per “cent, or something like that. Therefore they are not in a majority. Sir, it is a complete misunderstanding. Any man who knows the census operation, who knows statistics and who knows the peculiar statistics of Bombay City would pay no attention to that figure. The census figure records the state of affairs on a particular day on which the census is taken. It does not indicate the common state of affairs. What happened on a particular day is taken as the typical example, but it is not typical at all. Secondly, the important point to be noticed is that Bombay City is one of the cities which is most subjected to immigration and emigration. Unfortunately, in the year 1941 when the new census was taken, the Government of India, in order to shorten their labour, did not repeal the immigration and emigration report figures for the year 1931. But if one were to go into the figures given on immigration and emigration in the census of 1931, he will find what violent changes there are in the immigration and emigration position. I do not think that even the non-Maharashtrian population which appears to be in a majority is permanently there in a majority. Most of them come for seasonal labour. If they happen to be there on the day of census, their existence is recorded as ‘residents of Bombay’. On the next day, they might as well leave for their native places, because they have made enough money for their living. In these circumstances, can anybody accept the census figures as true figures of the citizens of Bombay? I deny that conclusion altogether. I have been a student of the census statistics. I have studied them considerably. I know what they mean. Therefore, the claim that these figures show that the population of the Maharashtrians is less is absolutely ambiguous, if not bogus. It has no value. It only indicates what happened to be on a particular day on which the census was recorded.

Now, I have said that I did not agree with the majority of the Maharashtrians, if I may say so, that there should be a united Maharashtra. My contention is that there should not be. I am going to say the same thing about U. P., about Rajasthan and about these huge Hindi reptile provinces, which have been looming large before us. I shudder to see U. P. standing before me in that shape.

Shri H. P. Saksena (Uttar Pradesh): God save your soul. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Do not pray for my soul. I have no soul. I am a Buddhist. Nobody need take the trouble of praying for my soul. I do not believe in God. I have no soul. I have spared you that trouble.

Now, I am surprised, I must say, that the Commission should have retained U.P. as it is, should have retained Rajasthan as it is, and should have linked up the two provinces of Vindhya Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh into one. Shri K. S. Hedge (Madras): Madhya Bharat.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: What does this mean ? I have made a little calculation. The area of U.P. is 1,14,323 sq. miles. Its population is 6,32,54,118. Bihar : The area is 70,368 sq. miles; its population is 4,02,18,916. Madhya Pradesh: Area is 2,01,633 sq. miles; its population is 3,28,46,971.1 know I have to deduct something here for Vidarbha. Rajasthan : Area is 1,28,424 sq. miles; population is 1,52,97,979. The total area is 10 crore sq. miles and population is about 15 crores. Shri T. Pande (Uttar Pradesh): Ten lakh sq. miles. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: That does not matter very much to my argument.

The question that requires to be dealt with in my judgement is a very serious question. Are we to have one State for one language, or are we to have one language for one State ? If this question had no political consequences, nobody would bother about it, but the trouble is that this question has very serious political consequences. In the United States, the population of the various States differs. In some States it is small, and in some States it is big. But the Americans do not mind it on account of the fact that the States have

equal powers. The Lower House has the same power as the Upper House, and all the States have equal representation in the Upper House without reference to population. In the Senate they have equal representation. Here, what is the position ? Under our Constitution, there is no such equality at all. Every State has not the same power, and the Upper Chamber has no powers at all, so far as finance is concerned. It may happen—it is very likely—that the States in the northern area may combine together on an issue on which the southern States of India do not agree. What is likely to happen in that event ? In that event, the north, if I may say so, will over-ride every proposition in which the southern States are interested. If that happens, I fear that there maybe civil war. I may be using some exaggerated sentiment, but such a thing has happened. It has happened in the United States. In the United States the origin of the Civil War was this inequality of power. In the earlier stages it was agreed that up to a certain latitude the slave States might exist but that there would be no slavery above that latitude. It happened, I believe, that California was at one time a territory; it was not a State. It was later on decided to make it a State. The Southern States quarrelled, because they felt that if California became a State, it would acquire the power of voting and that it would change the balance of voting. Notwithstanding that, the Northern States decided to convert California into a State. Thereby they got a majority of voting, and then with this majority of voting, they decided not to have slavery in the United States at all, which affected the political and economic interests of the Southern States. At once, the Southern States resisted. They said, ‘We would not remain part of the Union, if you are going to exercise that power for the abolition of slavery.” Then, there was the Civil War. There are people here who fear the influence of the northern people. One important example yon could recently see was…….

Shri Kailasb. Bihari Lall (Bihar): Because the Southern States wanted slavery.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: The hon. Member is right. Mr. Rajagopalachari had long been expressing this fear that this Union will break down.

Hon. Members: No.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : There are plenty of slaves who keep it up.

Shri R. U. Agnibhoj (Madhya Pradesh): Independence is kept by the united people, not by slaves. Therefore this country will have its independence through unity and not through slavery.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am very glad to have your assurance.

Shri R. U. Agnibhoj : Thank you.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Now there are plenty of things one can imagine on which the issue may be between the north and the south and if that happens and if the matter is taken to bloody conclusions, well, all the efforts that we have made in order to bring about unity will have been in vain. I therefore suggest that the United Provinces should be cut down into three provinces, Bihar should be cut down into two and Madhya Pradesh also should be cut down into two. Shri R. U. Agnibhoj : You should have 600 States. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Nothing is lost. It does not affect the linguistic principle at all. They all have the same language. What does it matter if U. P. is divided into three States, or if Madhya Pradesh is divided into two ? I see no difference at all. My friend Mr. Pant, I remember to have read once his statement, had stated that he would have no objection to dividing the U. P. but he has never said a word about it in the course of the debate nor has he voluntarily suggested this self-sacrifice on his part. But I give a warning, I know the house is not going to listen to me, but it is my duty to say what I feel. With regard to Marathwada, I have very strong feelings and I very vehemently resist the United Maharashtra. I can speak more authoritatively about the Maharashtra than I can speak about other areas. What has

been the state of affairs of ths United Maharashtra ? In Maharashtra I find that only that Marathas from the Satara district or that area are able to capture political offices. The rest of the people are just where they are. I do not understand how a Minister drawn from Satara can have any interest in for instance, the Ratnagiri district. I do not think any Minister has ever visited the Ratnagiri district.

An Hon. Member: So many have.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: For the sake of drawing allowances, I think. Not for doing service.

An Hon. Member: Still they have visited.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Areas and areas are completely neglected, what interest has a Maratha from the Satara district in the Ratnagiri district? What interest can a Brahmin for instance from Mahavidarbha have in the Satara district ? I do not quite understand this mentality of huddling together. Is it like Bharat Milap ? When Ram came from Lanka, Bharat embraced him. What for—for brotherly love and affection. Nothing more than that. Why not allow such areas to develop their own interests, to pay attention to their own interests ? Besides, as my friend Mr. Pant knows—I may be wrong—I suppose he is the last of the veterans. Who will succeed him— can he tell me ? Who will succeed him as a Minister ? I don’t see anybody. Certainly I don’t see anybody in the rank and file of the Congress. If any Minister of the towering personality of my friend Mr. Pant has to be looked for, it would have to be someone outside the Congress ranks. I am sure of that. Shri H. P. Saksena: You, for instance.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I shall die pretty soon. Don’t enrol me. This country, by this kind of thing, is going to dogs. Our primary concern is to raise and train politicians so that they. can learn to take responsibility upon their own shoulders. We ought not to sit tight oh one thing for ever. We ought to allow other people to take responsiblity while we are alive so that if they commit any mistake, we may rectify it in time. If you have U. P. divided into three provinces, you will have probably

30 ministers trained in the art of administration, while if you have one, you will have just 10 ministers—nothing more than that. The same thing will happen in Bihar and the same thing will happen in these big provinces. Therefore, in my judgement, there is a great disadvantage to this country in keeping these large provinces as they are. My Friend may perhaps listen to this argument if he does not listen to the other. His argument, if I have heard correctly, is’ Oh ! in a country where Ram and Krishna were both born, do not divide it.’ That is the argument. I think, he used sometimes. But that is not an argument of a statesman. Now Sir, I was saying about the Marathwada people, I mean the Maharashstrians, that the same thing is true of this Maharashtra. Maharashtra, except for a few Brahmins, is politically not upto the mark, I am sorry to say. I am not speaking with any personal venom of any kind. I know very well that I have had my full share of public life and I do not desire to compete with any one for more. But I like that my State should be well administered and in order that it may be well administered, it must have competent people. Now in a united Maharashtra you will not have more than five or six ministers. Some of them may be Brahmins and some of them may be non-Brahmins. Is that going to be enough for the future of Maharashstra ? Here you have a territory called Marathwada which has just been released from the reins of the Nizam. But you have only to just go and see the area in order to see its wretchedness, the condition of the people, with no clothes, hardly any food, no education. There is no primary school even there. I was told that there was one primary shcool in which there was only one chair and all the teachers ran early in the morning in order to capture that chair so as not to allow any other teacher to sit on it. I like to know whether this most backward area which has no irrigation, no food, no clothes, no school or anything of that kind, will fare better ? For some reason or other, the Nizam spent all his love and affection on other people, not on Marathwada. I like to know whether my friend Kaka Gadgil, if he become the Chief Minister of United Maharashtra would pay attention to the condition of the people of Marathwada or whether he would pay his attention

to Poona and its inhabitants. Let us not talk nonsense. Let us see plain things as they are. Why not allow Marathwada to have a separate province or State and let Marathwada rule itself? It knows its interests best. I have been connected with Marathwada for the simple reason that I established a college there. But it is not a flourishing college and I am every year bearing a huge loss. I know that the Marathwada people would look after themselves much better than any of the Bombay people who talk about them. Particularly there is no education there at all. There is the danger that Marathwada may be attached to the Poona University. God only knows what will happen.

Shri B. B. Sharma (Uttar Pradesh): So you believe in God?

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I cannot hear what you say. If you want a reply from me, you must talk audibly. Shri B. B. Sharma: Whose God is that ?

Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor (Uttar Pradesh): Don’t hear inconvenient questions.

Shri B. B. Sharma: Who is your God ?

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: To me the people are God. Sir, in the case of Marathwada it is absolutely necessary that they should have a separate autonomous body to look after their education and they should not be tied down hand and foot to the Poona University. We won’t have that at all. There is one other point to which I would like to refer. As I have said, I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that there are many holes in this federation and it may crack. We are a cracking society. We have no union. We have no unity and any time this whole thing may crack. Therefore, we should, in time, take steps to see that it does not crack. I suggested one way and that was to reduce the northern provinces to smaller areas so that the southern people may not suffer any heavy pressure. I also suggest another remedy and that remedy is to have two capitals for this country. I suggest that

Hyderabad should be made the second capital of India. You can have your Delhi and for some seasons it may be good. But you must have a capital in Southern India, where people may feel that their Government is nearer to them. I suggested at one time that Hyderabad should be made the second capital of india. It is one of the most beautiful towns that I have ever seen in India. It has got all the necessities and amenities which a capital may require. All that may be necessary would be to have a sort of Legislative Assembly and Council of State. If that is done, then the people in the South with whom I have had many talks, would feel that their Government is nearer, that it is not so far away as Delhi. Delhi to the Southern people is a kind of a foreign territory. It is hot and they do not want to stay for long. I hope my hon. friend will take these points into consideration.

Sir, I am not in a condition to speak very long, nor have I got many other points to urge. But there is one thing that I would like to say. I had hoped that this Report of the S.R.C.† would have been placed before, not merely the party people, but generally before all, and they should have obtained the common advice of all the citizens of India and should have given effect to their decision. Sir, it was my hope that what we would settle now, we would settle for ever, because it is a very foolish thing for a gardener to plant a tree today and to uproot it tomorrow, to see whether it has taken root. That way the plant will never live. I cannot help reminding my hon. friend of the statement of Tom Paine that whatever is wrongly. settled is never permanently settled; it has to be resettled. If you are going to settle these things with the help of your party, remember that your party is not perpetual. You can seethe signs of waning even now before your eyes. If whatever you do you do without the consent of the Opposition, I have not the least doubt about it that when the Opposition would come into power, they would uproot the thing and replant it. Such a thing would be most dangerous for us. Sir, I have done.

† State Reorganisation Committee.

Shri C. P. Parikh (Bombay): The hon. Member made an incorrect statement when he said that Shri Morarji said at any time categorically that Bombay belongs to Maharashstra. I think the hon. Member should make such statement with a sense of responsibility.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: It is in the ‘Times of India’.

*LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR Mr. Deputy Chairman: I have to inform the hon. Members that the following letter has been received from Dr. B. R. Ambedkar.

“I came to Bombay for treatment and had hoped to be able to return to Delhi in time. Unfortunately, I have not recovered. I am therefores, unable to attend and apply to you for leave of absence. I hope the Rajya Sabha will grant my request.” Is it the pleasure of the House that permission be granted to Dr. B. R. Ambedkar for remaining absent from meetings of the House from 29th March 1955, till the end of the Ninth Session and from all meetings of the House during the current Session ?

(No hon. Member dissented. )

Permission to remain absent is granted.

* P. D., Vol. 10-C, 1st October 1955, pp. 5529-30.

(55)

*OBITUARY REFERENCE—DEMISE OF DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR

The Prime Minister (Shri Jawaharlal Nehru):

Mr. Deputy Chairman, I deeply regret to inform the House that a Member of this House who had played a very leading part in many matters passed away a short while ago. I refer to Dr. Ambedkar. Dr. Ambedkar for many, many years had been a very controversial figure in Indian public affairs, but there can be no doubt about his outstanding quality, his scholarship, and the intensity with which he pursued his convictions, sometimes rather with greater intensity than perhaps required by the particular subject, which sometimes reacted in a contrary way. But he was the symbol of that intense feeling which we must always remember, the intense feeling of the supressed classes in India who have suffered for ages past under our previous social systems, and it is as well that we recognise this bidden that all of us should carry and should always remember, It may be that some of us thought, as I have just said, that he overdid the expression of that feeling, but I do not think that, apart from the manner of utterance or language, anybody should challenge the rightness of the inetnsity of his feeling in that matter which should be felt by all of us and perhaps even more so by those who have not in themselves or in their groups or classes had to suffer from that. He was that. Therefore he became this symbol. But we in Parliament remember him for many other things and more particularly for the very prominent part he played in the making of our Conbstitution, and perhaps that fact will be remembered even longer than his other activities. I am quite sure that every Member of this House will want

* P. D., Vol. 10-C, 6th December 1956, pp. 1769-70.

us to send our deep condolences and message of sympathy to his family and to express our deep sorrow at his demise. It is the custom of this House. I believe, Sir, that when a Member dies in Delhi, the House adjourns for the rest of the day. I leave it to you, Sir, and to the House, but I would suggest that it is right and proper for us to follow that custom. Mr. Deputy Chairman : I would like to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister. I am sure every Member of this House shares the same sentiments. We have all heard with profound sorrow and a sense of shock of the sudden death of Dr. Ambedkar. He was present in the House only the day before yesterday and was in his usual mood, talking and joking with his friends. Many may not agree with him and his political philosophy but he was one of our prominent Members and he was always listened to with respect. His speeches were marked by scholarship, erudition and deep study. He will, however, be remembered as one of the great architects of our Constitution. He was also very anxious to see that the Hindu Law was enacted and most of it has been enacted. It is a great loss to this House Particularly, and, as a mark of respect, I request the House to stand up for two minutes.

(The House stood in silence for two minutes. ) Mr. Deputy Chairman: The House stands adjourned till 11-00 A.M. tomorrow.

The House then adjourned at fifty three minutes past eleven of the clock till eleven of the clock on Friday, the 7th December 1956.

zz

LOK SABHA

Thursday, 6th December, 1956 The Lok Sabha met at Eleven of the Clock 12-00 hrs.

DEATH OF DR. AMBEDKAR

*The Prime Minister and Leader of the House (Shri Jawaharlal Nehru): Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have to convey to the House the sad news of the death of Dr. Ambedkar. Only two days ago, I believe, the day before yesterday, he was present in the other House of which he was a Member. The news, therefore, of his death today came as a shock to all of us who had no inkling of such a thing happening so soon. Dr. Ambedkar, as every Member of this House knows, played a very important part in the making of the Constitution of India, subsequently in the Legislative Part of the Constituent Assembly and later in the Provisional Parliament. After that, he was not a Member of Parliament for some time. Then, he came back to the Rajya Sabha of which he was a sitting Member.

He is often spoken of as one of the architects of our Constitution. There is no doubt that no one took greater care and trouble over Constitution making than Dr. Ambedkar. He will be remembered also for the great interest he took and the trouble he took over the question of Hindu Law reform. I am happy that he saw that reform in a very large measure carried out, perhaps not in the form of that monumental tome that he had himself drafted, but in separate bits. But, I imagine that the way he will be remembered most

* P. D., Vol. 10, Part II, 6th December 1956, pp. 2059-68.

will be as a symbol of the revolt against all the oppressive features of Hindu society. He used language sometimes which hurt people. He sometimes said things which were perhaps not wholly justified. But, let us forget that. The main thing was that he rebelled against something against which all ought to rebel and we have, in fact, rebelled in various degrees. This Parliament itself represents in the legislation which it has framed, its repudiation of those customs or legacies from the past which kept down a large section of our people from enjoying their normal rights.

When I think of Dr. Ambedkar, many things come to my mind, because he was a highly controversial figure. He was not a person of soft speech. But, behind all that was this powerful reaction and an act of rebellion against something that repressed our society for so long. Fortunately, that rebellion had the support, not perhaps in the exact way he wanted it, but in a large measure, the principle underlaying that rebellion had the support of Parliament, and, I believe, every group and party represented here. Both in our public activities and in our legislative activities, we did out utmost to remove that stigma on Hindu society. One cannot remove it completely by law, because custom is more deep-rooted and, I am afraid, it still continue in many parts of the country even though it may be considered illegal. That is true. But, I have no doubt that it is something that is in its last stages and may take a little time to vanish away. When both law and public opinion become more and more determined to put an end to state of affairs, it cannot last long. Anyhow, Dr. Ambedkar, as I said, became prominent in his own way and a most prominent symbol of that rebellion. I have no doubt that, whether we agree with him or not in many matters, that perseverance, that persistence and that, if I may use the word, sometime virulence of his opposition to all this did keep the people’s mind awake and did not allow them to become complacent about matters which could not be forgotten, and helped in rousing up those groups in our country which had suffered for so long in the past. It is, therefore, sad that such a prominent champion of the oppressed and depressed in India

and one who took such an important part in our activities, has passed away, As the House knows, he was a Minister, a member of our Cabinet, for many years, and I had the privilege of co-operating with him in our Governmental work. I had heard of him and, of course, met him previously on various occasions. But, I had hot come into any intimate contact with him. It was at the time of the Constituent Assembly that I got to know him a little better. I invited him to join the Government. Some people were surprised that I should do so, because, it was thought that his normal activities were of the opposition type rather than of the governmental type. Nevertheless, I felt at that time that he had played an important and very constructive role in the making of the Constitution and that he could continue to play a constructive role in governmental activities. Indeed, he did. In spite of some minor differences here and there, chiefly, if I may say so, not due to any matters of principle, but rather linguistic matters and language used, we co-operated in the Government for several years to our mutual advantage, I think. Anyhow, a very leaning and prominent personality, who has left his mark in our public affairs and on the Indian scene, has passed away, a personality who was known to nearly all of us here, I suppose, and I feel sure that all of us feel very sad. We know him well. He had been unwell for a long time. Nevertheless, the passing of a person is painful. I am sure that you, Sir and the House will be pleased to convey our deep condolences and sympathy to his family.

There are various rules laid down in our Rules of Procedure in regard to such occurrences, in regard to adjournment of the House. Normally speaking, those rules apply to Members of the House. Dr. Ambedkar was not a Member of this House. He was a Member of the Rajya Sabha. He was an ex-Member of this House. The rule says that in such cases, a reference may be made in the House, but there may be no adjournment unless he comes in the category of outstanding personalities, in which case, total adjournment may be made. There can be no doubt that he comes under the category of outstanding

personalities. According to the strict rule, it says, token adjournment may be made. I submit that, without doing any violence to this rule or to the spirit underlying this rule, the present case deserves for some reasons which I have mentioned and others which I have not mentioned that the House do adjourn for the day. That is subject to your wishes and the wishes of the House.

Shrimati Renu Chakravartty: Sir, I join the Leader of the House in requesting you to convey to the members of the family of Dr. Ambedkar the condolences of our party and our colleagues.

We, younger Members, never had the privilege of working with him. We had also our difference. But, to-day, we all of us cannot forget how he brought to the forefront of our people’s conscience the disabilities suffered by a section of our people owing to our oppressive social system. Personally I feel that, although we have passed the Hindu Code Bill in parts, the principles which Dr. Ambedkar had embodied in his original draft were wiser in many aspects. We also pay our tribute to his outstanding intellect which rose against social inequality and narrow prejudices, and he became one of those who were known as the architects of our Constitution, and I am sure the country will remember him embodied in that constitution. I also join with the leader of the House in requesting you to adjourn this House as a mark of respect to his memory. Shri Asoka Mehta (Bhandara): I wish to associate myself with the tribute that has been paid to Dr. Ambedkar. I was privileged to be associated with him on more than one occasion and in his remarkable and fascinating career, there were many facets. We who come from Bombay remember him as a teacher, we remember him as an economist, we remember him as a labour leader, we remember him as political leader. Apart from the great work that he did in this House and as a Member of the Government, as far as my part of the country is concerned, he brought a new awakening. It was because of him the large sections of people on our side were given a sense of social significance, they were given a

sense of confidence. I believe if he had not been there, perhaps my part of the country would not have been what it is today. I am sure in paying our respect to his memory and in trying to do honour to him by adjourning to day, we only pay the great debt that many of us owe to him for the great services that he has rendered to our society.

Jh- fo- ?k- ns'kikaMs (xquk) % vè;{k egksn;] eSa le>rk gqa fd Mk- vEcsMdj ds fu/u lekpkj ls dsoy laln~ esa gh ugha cfYd leqps jk"Vª Hkj esa ,d nq[k dh ygj iSQy tk;sxh A Mk- vEcsMdj us Hkkjr dk fc/ku cuk;k Fkk vkSj mldks rS;kj djus esa mUgkssaus vf/d ifjJe vkSj ;ksX;rk dk ifjp; fn;k A blds vfrfjDr Mk- vEcsMdj fgUnw lekt ds ,d egku usrk Fks gkykafd Mk- vEcsMdj us fgUnw lekt ij cMs+ izgkj fd,s] rh[ks vkSj dM+os izgkj fd;s] ysfdu eSa le>rk gwwa fd mldk Hkh ,d dkj.k Fkk fd] Mk- vEcsMdj dk tUe ftl tkfr esa gqvk Fkk mlds izfr lo.kZ fgUnqvksa us cgqr iki fd;s gS vkSj mu ikiksa dks ns[kus ds i'pkr Mk- vEcsMdj dk dHkh bruk rh{.k gksuk le> esa vk ldrk gS vkSj ;g Hkh gekjs ikiksa dk iQy gS ,slk eSa ekurk gwa A Mk- vEcsMdj dh ;ksX;rk vkSj ikafMR; bruk Åapk Fkk vkSj bruk egku Fkk fd eSa le>rk gwa fd nwljs fdl dkj.k ls ugha rks blfy, fd mudk O;fDrRo bruk egku Fkk fd ftl dks ys dj mUgksaus vLi`';rk ds fojQ¼ bruk ?kksj laxzke fd;k] Mk- vEcsMdj dks eku nsuk vR;ko';d Fkk A Mk- vEcsMdj us vLi`';rk fuokj.k ds fy, tks thou i;ZUr iz;Ru fd;s og dHkh Hkqyk;s ugha tk ldrs vkSj gkykafd muds igys ls vLi`';rk fuokj.k dk vkUnksyu fdlh u fdlh jQi esa bl ns'k esa pyrk vk;k gS ij vLi`'; yksxksa dks ,d euq"; ds ukrs [kMs+ gks dj yM+us vkSj >xM+us dk dke vxj fdlh us fl[kk;k rks ;g Mk- vEcsMdj us fl[kk;k vkSj mUgksaus fgUnw lekt ds bl innfyr oxZ dks mBk;k vkSj mudks cuk;k fd os Hkh nwljksa dh rjg bUlku gSa vkSj bl ukrs vLi`'; yksxksa ds izfr dh xbZ mudh lsokvksa dks ns'k dHkh ugha Hkqyk ldsxk A vkt gekjs chp ls ,d egku usrk mB x;k gS vkSj eSa le>rk gwa fd mudh e`R;q ls tks LFkku fjDr gqvk gS mldh iw£r fudV Hkfo"; esa gksuh] eqf'dy utj vkrh gS A lnu ds usrk us tks mudh e`R;q ij nq%[k izn£'kr fd;k gS mlesa eSa iwjh rjg mudk lkFk nsrk gaw A Shri Frank Anthony (Nominated Ango-Indian): I would like to associate the Independent Group with the sentiments that have fallen from the Leader of the House.

It has been my privilege to know Dr. Ambedkar for many years, and I feel that no adequate tribute can be paid to him in the course of a few minutes. He was a versatile mind. He was not only a deep, but a profound scholar, and, as the Leader of the House said, he was a controversial figure. But what

I believe was the dominant characteristic of the complex personality was the characteristic of being an indomitable fighter, and it was that indomitable spirit which enable him to triumph over personal disabilities which perhaps would have crushed persons of less tenacious character.

We may not have agreed with his politics. Perhaps we did not agree sometimes with the way that things were said by him, but having heard from him the bitter personal disabilities with which he was confronted from his earliest life, I would not presume to judge the fact that perhaps in some respects the iron had entered his soul and his bitterness to that extent, if not justified, at least was understandable. There is no doubt that Dr. Ambedkar started from the humblest beginning, but his name will be writ large on the scroll of Indian history, and I believe not only his community, but that the country has reason to be proud of a very great son. I would ask you to convey our condolences to his family. Jh- dktjksydj (cEcbZ uxj&mÙkj&jf{kr&vuqlwfpr tkfr;ka) % vè;{k egksn;] vkt dk fnu lEiw.kZ Hkkjr ds fy;s vkSj fo'ks"k djds ge gfjtuksa ds fy, cM+k nq[kn vkSj va/dkj dk fnu gS A Mk- ckcklkgsc vEcsMdj Hkkjr ds cMs+ egku usrk Fks vkSj mUgksus ns'k dh dbZ :iksa esa lsok dh gS A ns'k ds os egku usrk Fks gh ysfdu ge gfjtuksa ds rks os izk.k gh Fks vkSj gfjtu lnk muds Í.kh jgsaxs A mUgksaus ftUnxh Hkj gfjtuksa dks mij mBkus ds fy, iz;Ru fd;k vkSj vkt ds fnu gfjtuksa dh tks voLFkk esa lq/kj gqvk gS vkSj ge dqN Åij mBs gS] mldk eq[; Js; ckcklkgc dks gh gS A ckcklkgc dk tUe ,d xjhc vNwr ?kjkus esa gqvk Fkk vkSj mudks vius thou esa vusd dfBukb;ksa dk lkeuk djuk iM+k ysfdu mUgksaus fgEer ugha gkjh vkSj mUgksaus liQyrkiwoZd lkjh dfBukb;ksa dk lkeuk fd;k vkSj mu ij fot; ikbZ A mUgksaus thou Hkj bl vLi`';rk ds dyad dks fgUnq tkfr ds ekFks ij ls gVkus dk iz;Ru fd;k vkSj vLi`';rk fuokj.k ds fy;s ?kksj laxzke fd;k A vkf[kj mUgksaus ;g fu'p; fd;k fd esjk tUe rks ml fgUnw /EkZ esa gqvk ysfdu eSa ,sls fgUnw /eZ dks tks fd vLi`';rk dks ekurk gS] viuk /eZ ugha ekuwxk vkSj geus ns[kk fd mUgksaus viuh ;g izfrKk iwjh Hkh dh A Hkxoku ls esjh izkFkZuk gS fd mudh vkRek dks 'kkafr feys vkSj eSa le>rk gaw fd mudh vkRek dks lPph vkSj okLrfod 'kkafr rHkh feysxh tc fd ;g vLi`';rk dk dyad fgUnw tkfr ls feV tk;sxk A Shri Gadgil (Poona Central): Normally after the Leader of the house and my party has spoken, there is no justification for me to speak, but I plead this justification that I had the privilege of Dr. Ambedkar’s friendship for over 35 years. He was

ten times dearer to us Maharashtrians than what he was to India as a whole. It was he who created a sense of self-respect and importance in the most down-trodden community in our area. Undoubtedly he was very bitter in his tongue, but his heart was sweet. His faults we all know, but his virtues out weighed them.

What he did in the matter of framing our Constitution is sufficiently well known. But, essentially, he was a rebel against the injustice in the status quo, whether the sphere was social or economic.

Lastly, he was thinking on much more progressive lines. Very recently, I had some discussion with him, and he said, ‘No more privileges to the Scheduled Castes. Now, they must come into their own and fight against the injustice that is still there, along with the rest of the members of the whole Indian community.’ Such a man has passed away; but, everything in this world must pass away.

Let us, therefore, remember what good he did, and deserve by what he did and progressively achieved—the objects for which he stood.

I associate myself with the sentiments expressed by other Members of this House.

Mr. Speaker: I fully associate myself with all the sentiments expressed on the floor of the house by the Leader of the House and the leaders of various groups, and I am sure the House will equally associate itself with those sentiments. Dr. Ambedkar was a great and dynamic personality. He rose from humble beginnings and became a leader of the Scheduled Castes. He was a great scholar and writer, and, more than all, he was a powerful speaker.

He piloted our Constitution. In the field of social reform, he initiated many wholesome measures. In his death, India has lost one of her great sons. I shall convey the sentiments of this House and the condolences to the members of the bereaved family.

As a mark of respect, I am sure the House would like to adjourn today. In sorrow, we shall stand for a minute in silence.

The Members then stood in silence for a minute. Mr. Speaker: The House will now stand adjourned as a mark of respect to him, and meet again at 11-00 a.m. tomorrow. 12-23 hrs.

The Lok Sabha then adjourned till Eleven of the Clock on Friday, the 7th December, 1956.

zz