Sir, I have only to submit that for those
who are employed at present in the Government offices of different
provinces, it is desirable that they should be residents of that
province, so far as possible. I think, to establish self-government
in the true sense of the word, it is most essential that in any part
of the world, only the residents of that part should be Government
servants and officials. If there are open chances for the residents of
one province to serve in another, it means that the residents of that province shall
not be able to enjoy self-government. My real intention is that so far as
possible, the administration of a province should be run by officers120 and employees who are residents of that province. This province and the
unit, in which the staff is required, should140 employ mostly the descendants of the residents of that place. According
to the form to which this rule is being160
framed, there is no consideration of the domicile of the candidate, or
his place of birth. There shall be freedom to serve anywhere.
This may create troubles that in order to secure service the residents of one
province will compete with the residents of another. By this the self-sufficiency
of an autonomous unit will be destroyed. Nowadays there are restrictions of
domicile and residence in all provinces. In our U.P. in every
advertisement of the Public Service Commission, a condition240 is laid down that only those who are domiciled in U.P., Rampur,
Banaras or Tehri can apply for the posts. If this condition is waived and no
preference is given to birth-place, then there may be a danger that
people280 of other parts of the province may
compete and capture subordinate and higher posts. This will go against the real
spirit of Swaraj. Perhaps the clause as moved by Sardar Vallabhbhai
Patel may provide that the Provincial Governments can give320 preference to their residents. If this is so, I will not move my amendment, but I would request Sardar
Patel to put it on record in today's proceedings that there shall
be no restrictions in giving preference to place of360 birth for recruitment to Government Service. It would mean that Provincial
Governments will be able to give preference to their residents over
others. If, in the proceedings of this House, it is recorded
that the right of allowing privileges to its domiciles will vest in every
province and in matters of employment it shall be able to allow
privileges to420 its residents over those of other provinces,
then I need not move any amendment. I hope that this will be possible.
I shall not have to move my amendment if the mover or any other member of
this Committee admits that the freedom of the provinces in running their
administration through their residents is maintained so for as
possible. My480 esteemed colleague has some doubts about
the Afghan Princes who have been deported from Afghanistan, and he wants to
know whether they and their children will be eligible for office. I do not know
that this is going to create any difficulty for us. If the children of the
Afghan Princes propose to stay here, it is quite possible they will get
themselves naturalised if they have been deported from their country.
After all, the clause makes provision for eligibility, 560 but it does not restrict the right of provinces to impose restrictions
by legislation on the question of employment. It only says that no citizen can
be declared ineligible for office on the ground of race, religion,600 sex, descent, etc. Therefore, there is no reason to have any
apprehension on that account. One of the Members raised a similar point that
preference should be given to the residents of the province and provinces
should have opportunity640 to give preference by legislation to the
residents of the provinces. This does not deprive the province of its rights to
legislate. This simply removes ineligibility of a citizen; that should
be so, and therefore it is provided in the Fundamental Rights. So, on that
score also, there is no difficulty.
Sir, my object in moving this amendment is that
India700 is an agricultural country, where we have
many petty proprietors, who are commonly known as Zamindars. Their
number is very720 large, and larger still in Punjab. In our Punjab,
restrictions of this sort exist even now. It appears from para 5 that these
restrictions may be excluded from the operation of law in future.
Therefore, my object in moving this amendment is to give such powers to the
Units, which in the interest of agriculture will enable them to protect the petty Zamindars from the big landlords,
capitalists and wealthy people, who do not cultivate the land themselves.800 In my opinion, such restrictions are very essential for the
benefit of the whole country. I hope that such powers will be given to
the Units, which will enable them to protect their cultivators. Secondly, I
want to point out that the840 petty Zamindars, who inhabit our area, belong
particularly to martial classes and are in the army in large numbers even now. I
think that if they do not possess these lands, they will be
reduced to the status of mere peasants. The spirit of self-respect is inherent
in them. They can fight with courage and the name which they have earned, they
will not be able to earn in future. I would like to point out to you
that you may issue statements, publish messages in papers and deliver
speeches; but this is the age of the sword. Only that man will rule, who has
power in his hands. Therefore, it is necessary that the children of
those who are960 in the army, should be treated well and should
not be allowed to grow weak, because their services shall be980 required. Their support will be needed to enforce the Constitution,
which is being framed for the future. Therefore, I submit that such
restrictions should be imposed, which will debar wealthy people from acquiring
the lands of the weak. I appeal to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, because
he is a well-wisher of the Zamindars. I hope that he will
keep this in view and add some provision in the Constitution, in order to
protect them from the operations of the existing laws. Once the peasantry is
destroyed, it cannot be recouped. As an English poet has said, once a
peasant is destroyed,1080 it is very difficult to rehabilitate him. With
these words, I move this amendment.
Mr. President, I stand to oppose the amendment
moved by my honourable friend Shri Suraj Mal. There is a black law in
Punjab, which is known1120 as "Land Alienation Act." The
purpose of this amendment is to preserve this law. It is highly detrimental to
our depressed and other non-agricultural classes. It has allowed those who go
under the name of Zamindars or label themselves as peasants to permanently
enslave a large section of people in Punjab. If this amendment is
accepted, it would mean that those communities, which have been forced
to live under the tyranny of Zamindars for centuries, and which by the help1200 of the black law of Land Alienation Act have been kept in the
clutches of the Zamindars will not be able to recover for centuries.
Hence in this age when we are formulating such a law that all
should be provided with the same facilities and opportunities, and
everyone should have equal rights, it is not proper that this black1260 law should be maintained. Hence, on behalf of the depressed
classes, I oppose this amendment in strong words and appeal1280 to the House that this amendment should not be accepted in
any form, for this amendment will amount to injustice and tyranny
for the depressed and other non-agriculturist classes. If you now adopt this
amendment, it means that you would be perpetuating that tyranny which we are
present here to end. I oppose the amendment with these words. Mr. Suraj
Mal has raised a point in which he is afraid that persons having
agricultural holdings may be affected. He has in his mind that the Punjab Land
Alienation Act which is working, gives some protection to these persons and he
thinks they will be deprived of their protection. Now, in this
connection, I can only suggest for his satisfaction that1400 there is an
amendment to this clause, which I proposed to accept, as I have
explained in the beginning. This clause, so far as it concerns the
acquiring, holding or disposing of property, is removed from there and is going1440 to be taken over to another clause, that is clause 8, but in that
clause also the provision has been made that this can be done only on
grounds of public interest. Therefore, in this clause even if the
principle is there, it is to be restricted. In the other clause, the principle
is discussed and as the principle is restricted only to cases of public
interest, I think there is no difficulty and his difficulty is
also removed. We have discussed this at length in the Committee and there was
difference of opinion in the various committees in which this question was
discussed and adopted. It was a very controversial matter. I do not know if
there will be any objection or any prolonged controversy over this matter. 1570
