The
honourable Member was not here when I gave my ruling when for the
first time the occasion arose some days ago in this session. I shall
repeat it for his benefit. The honourable Member, as a constitutional lawyer,
knows very well that there are three readings given to a Bill. There
is the first stage of the Bill, namely, the first reading,
when the principles of the Bill are discussed. After that, if the Bill
is referred to a select committee, the House is in a position to criticize
the Bill as it emerges out of the select committee, or if it is
not referred to a select committee, at the second reading when the
Bill is taken up120 clause by clause, changes are
made. All those steps that the honourable Members have got to take, they
can take140
at the second reading. Now there may be other honourable Members like
the honourable Member himself. He was not present160 perhaps throughout
the second reading of this Bill. He now comes at the third reading.
He can oppose the Bill if the features of the Bill as it passed from the first
reading to the second reading have been changed at the clause-by-clause
reading stage and he takes objection to it. Then he can oppose the third
reading at the third stage, pointing to certain features which have come into
existence at the second reading which are objectionable to him. 240
That is all. Otherwise, the three stages would lose their significance. At the
close of each stage, when the question is put, honourable Members who are
opposed to the measure can oppose it at every stage, provided
they confine280 themselves at the first reading to the principles, at
the second reading to the details, and at the third reading to the changes in
the various aspects of the Bill which have been made since and
which are objectionable. That320 is my ruling, I do not prevent any
honourable Member from opposing the third reading. For instance, there
was the honourable Member. He had tabled several amendments which
were defeated, and he has opposed the third reading on those very grounds
again. 360
He said that he opposed the Bill because it does not go far enough, that he had
tabled amendments which were defeated or not taken into consideration, and that
he now, at the third reading, opposed it because it is not quite
satisfactory from his point of view. Similarly, any honourable Member,
whether he has tabled any420 amendments or not, can oppose it at the
third reading, but he must confine himself to the changes made or not made in
the second reading, and not go back to the first reading and evoke the same
discussion over again as regards the general principles, for which
the proper time was the first reading stage.
Mr.
Speaker, having signed the Poona Pact, 480 I am, of course,
entirely out of court in discussing the subject of separate electorates.
Therefore, I am not going into that part of the Bill which deals with
the method of representation to be devised for the different minorities for
which provision is made in this Bill. Perhaps, it will be justifiable
for me if I mention from what angle of vision, I look at this very thorny
question of joint electorates versus separate electorates. 560 Sir, the way I look
at it is this. What is to be the effect of joint electorates, supposing that it
was introduced for the different minorities? What will happen is this. One day
in five years when the elections will come, a Hindu600 and a Muslim may go
together to a common polling booth. I do not see what else can happen, as a
result of joint electorates. Please allow me to go into the rest of the five
years. When there640 are no elections, the Muslim community
will believe in a separate life, a compartmental life to itself. I do
not see, as a result of joint electorates, that Hindus and Muslims will
come to live together in the same area. I do not see, as a result of joint
electorates, that Hindus and Muslims will begin to inter-marry. 700
I do not see, as a result of joint electorates, that Hindus and Muslims
will inter-dine. Sir, I take this opportunity to say720 deliberately that, if
we want to build up unity, it is not by devising a day, however
sacred that day may be, when both Hindus and Muslims will come to the same
polling booth. If we want really to devise some means to build up unity,
what we should do is to break up the social barrier. I say that in
this matter the lead has to be taken up by the Hindu community,
because they are a800 very exclusive community. If other
communities live a separate life, it is because the Hindu community regards
certain interests as its own interests and the fault is entirely due
to the Hindu community. I say, therefore, deliberately that there is no
use840
playing with this problem by putting forth a scheme which is ineffectual
and which will have no operation except for one day which may come in
the course of five years or three years. Nothing will happen as a result of
this. You may try it. I request my Muslims friends to grant them this
opportunity and see if any particular protection will give an opportunity for
the two communities not to remain apart. I cannot hold a brief for separate
electorates having signed the Poona Pact.
I
will turn now to the other aspects of the Bill and begin by saying that
the Bill certainly marks a stage in advance from where we are standing. But
there is nothing960 which I find in the Bill itself.
It is an empty shell. It contains nothing. But for the speech of980
the honourable Minister giving what he proposed to do with regard to the
reorganization of local bodies, we would certainly have known nothing from the
Bill as it is. All that the Bill says is that the Government
will be given the power to make rules for this and for that. Beyond that, what
is there in the Bill? If the Statement of Objects and Reasons was
not attached to this Bill, we would not have even known what
was the principle the Government was going to adopt in providing for
representation of the different minorities. I say it deliberately1080
that the questions are constitutional questions. It is not a question of
carrying ordinary legislation into effect where it has been the
practice now, almost sanctified, that the Government should be
allowed to carry out the policy by rules. 1120 We are delegating part of our
authority to the Government to do something. We are delegating part of
our taxing power to them. We are delegating to them the authority of
making elective representation. I submit most deliberately that it is a
constitutional question and as such ought to be settled in all its
details in this House and ought not to be left to the sweet will of the Executive.
Take the example of the Government of India Act. 1200 What does this Bill
deal with? This Bill deals with franchise, deals with the communities that are
to get representation, deals with constituencies, and deals with the
method of voting. Look at the Government of India Act. What does it do? Has it
left the number of seats to the minorities to the sweet will of the Executive?
Has it left1260
the question of dividing constituencies to the sweet will of the Executive? Has
it left the method of voting to1280 the sweet will of the Executive? There
is nothing of the kind. All that has been done by orders in Council
which are as much part of the Government of India Act as the Government of
India Act itself. It is necessary that we should do things in the way in
which constitutional things are required to be done. This is my first
submission with regard to this Bill. As regards other matters,
the first thing I should like to know from the honourable Minister in
charge of the Bill is this. He has very graciously said in the Statement of
Objects and Reasons that the principle which he wishes to follow in allotting
seats for the different minorities is1400 the principle of population. I am
grateful to him for that. But I do want to ask him that, if that is the
principle on which he proposes to allot seats for the different minorities, why
he should not embody1440 the principle in the section
itself. What guarantee is there that we will get the benefit of the
principle stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons? We do not want
charity. We want our rights which we do not want to leave to the sweet will of
the Executive. We want it to be definitely laid down by law. The second thing with
which we are materially concerned is the question of system of
constituency. I am concerned about my honourable friend who
could not come in as a Member of Legislative Assembly. I want to
know what the system of constituency is in the matter of constitution of
these boards. Is it to be a single-member constituency or is it to be a plural-member
constituency? Nothing is stated even in the Statement of Objects and Reasons.
Why is that? If the Executive wishes that hereafter, they should adopt the
system of single- member constituency, then we ought to1600 know, because that
would decide whether we are to vote for this Bill or vote against it. 1617
