Sir,
I am glad that our Lady Member thought it fit to bring forth this
adjournment motion. I am glad because it gives me an opportunity to explain
to the House a matter which has been weighing very heavily on
my mind. I do like to say at the very outset that I regard this
decision of the Government of India as a great misfortune. I am not
happy about it. All that I am saying is that given the circumstances in
which the Government of India was forced, I do not regard that this is
a mistake on our part. I think the House will understand the distinction
that I am making. The debate to which I have listened120 has rather impressed me that the lines
on which most of the Honourable Members have spoken have been mostly of140 (1)
a humanitarian character. They have been, in my humble judgment, greatly
removed from what I would call the plane of reality. 160 When I speak in this debate, I
propose to stick to what I call the realism of the situation.
I
would also like to say that many points have been
brought in during the course of the debate as though they were the
points on which the decision of the House was called for. I would
particularly say that reference was made to the wages prevalent in the coal
mines. Reference was also made to the prevalence of unfair240 welfare conditions in the coal mines and
I shall have something to say about them in the course of the
observations that I will make. But I think I am justified in saying that having
regard to the terms of280
the motion, these are rather incidental matters and not (2)
matters on which the House is called upon to record its judgment. Having made
these preliminary observations, the first point that I would like to make is
that some Honourable Members159
have given the impression that the Government of India was never serious with
regard to this convention of preventing women working underground. Sir, I
would like to make a few observations on the point in order to put the
matter360 in the right
perspective. The House will recall that the Government of India had accepted
the principle of prohibiting women working underground long before the
Convention came into existence. The matter was first debated when the
Government of India brought in a Bill for the amendment of the Indian Coal
Mines Act. I would like to remind the House that420 the original purpose of the Bill was very limited
one. It was a purpose merely to introduce safety measures in coal mines,
but when the measure was taken to (3) the
Select Committee, the Select Committee in its judgement thought that the
Government of India ought to go forward and claim powers in the Act in order to
prohibit the working480 of
women underground.
In
the Select Committee, the Government of India accepted the principle. Not only
did the Government of India accept the principle but it framed regulations with
the definite and deliberate object of eliminating women labourers from working
underground. As the House will know, the Government of India had laid
down a definite programme of annual decrease in the number of women labourers
working underground. So much so, that two years before the ratification
took place in this560 House,
we had no woman labourer working in the mines under the policy of the
Government of India. Sir, that fact was referred to by the Honourable Mover of
the Motion. But I was sorry to find that she did600 not draw the obvious inference that the
Government of India, (4) long
before the Convention came into existence, has been very definitely of the
opinion that women should not work in the mines and has taken definite steps
to bring that640 state of
situation to a close. The Government of India has been blamed for
lifting the ban now on the supposed ground that there has been no justification.
I must confess that I was rather surprised at a statement of that kind.
Sir,
I would like to point out to the House two considerations, and I would
beg of the700 House to
consider whether the two points that I am placing before them do not
constitute what I regard as720
an emergency. Sir, the lifting of the ban on women working underground has a
direct reference to coal. That is an undeniable fact. I would like the
Honourable members of the House to consider whether coal could not be
called a strategic material from every point of view. (5)
I ask the House to consider whether it is
not a strategic material from the standpoint of the industry, whether
it is not a strategic material from the standpoint of transport, 800 whether it is not a strategic material
from the standpoint of civil consumption. I want to emphasise the fact that
we are not dealing with an article the use of which we could avoid at our
option. It is a thing840 which
we must have, and I submit that it is a thing which we must have
before we have food or before we have anything else. That is one point I
want the House to consider.
The
second point that I want the House to consider is this. Would it have been
possible for the Government of India to wait until the situation had righted
out itself? I know very well, as most Honourable Members know, that coal
would have been produced in the ordinary course. It may (6)
not have been
produced in 1943, it may not have been produced in 1944, but it may have
been produced in 1945. But the question which I would like the House
to960 consider is whether it
is a case in which we could wait. Is it a case in which we could980 allow the natural course of things
to take place? Sir, I would like to say that this is one of those cases
which is of such urgent and immediate importance that steps may be taken,
and a Government which does not take the steps to correct the
situation immediately is not a Government worthy of its name. Therefore, let
us not forget that we are dealing with an emergency and the lifting
of the prohibition from allowing women to work underground is not an idle act
on the part of the Government, but is an act which is amply justified1080 by the facts and circumstances of
the case. (7)
Therefore, Sir, the conduct of the Government must be judged in the light
of the emergency.
I
would request Honourable Members to judge the conduct of the Government in
the light of1120 these
two circumstances only. Has the Government failed to do something
which it ought to have done? Has the Government done something which it was
needless for it to do? My submission is that judging it in the light of
these two considerations which I have mentioned, I have no hesitation in
saying that the Government’s action is perfectly justified. My honourable
friend, Mr. Joshi, said that this was a convention which could
not have been broken. I agree that1200
it is one of those conventions which does not contain a clause for its
own suspension. But I have no hesitation in saying that every nation
has got a right to break an international convention or an international treaty
under certain circumstances. That has been a well-established
principle (8) of
international law.
I
am glad to say that in the debate1260 that took place at Geneva in 1940 in
the Governing Body, that was more or less the general opinion. 1280 Sir, could we have avoided
taking steps that we have taken? I should like to give details of
some of the circumstances which have led the Government to take this
measure. There is not the slightest doubt that shortage of coal was
due to shortage of labour. That is a circumstance which, I think, is
beyond dispute. Now, Sir, the shortage of labour was due to three causes. First
of all, there was the grow-more-food campaign started by the
Government of India. There was the opportunity of increased employment
on military works. Anyone who dispassionately considers employment in
coal mines as against the results of the grow-more-food campaign and the
increased opportunities for employment in military works, (9)
can well understand why there should
have been shortage of labour in coal mines. Sir, it is quite clear
that in the present circumstances, where prices of food grains are
rising so rapidly, the grow-more-food policy should attract people to
agriculture. If people, 1440 who
have been working in coal mines and who are purely agriculturists, are drawn
to grow-more-food policy, it would be a matter of no surprise.
Similarly, the military works with their increased earnings attract these
people. But, Sir, there is one other circumstance which is nonetheless a
reality. In the first place, it is quite clear to everyone that work
under coal mines is the most unpleasant and dangerous work. Nobody likes
it and any workman who finds an opportunity to work on the surface is bound to
take the earliest opportunity to leave the coal mines. (10)
