362 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
proportions. This difference is only normal. For, though the Cripps plan did not in terms fix the number, the scheme of proportional representation would have in fact resulted in such reservation. The difference in the quota of representation under the two schemes will be seen from the following table :
Communities and Interests Quota of seats in the Constituent Assembly
Under Cripps’ Under Sapru’s
Hindus .. .. .. 77 51
Muslims .. .. .. 50 51
Scheduled Castes .. .. 15 20
Sikhs .. .. .. 3 8
Indian Christians .. .. 2 7
Anglo-Indians .. .. 1 2
Europeans .. .. .. 6 1
Aboriginal Tribes .. .. 2 3
Special Interests .. .. .... 16
Others .. .. .. 2 1
158 160
The Sapru Committee has not only fixed the numbers for each Community in the composition of the Constituent Assembly but it has offered the Muslims equality with the Hindus. For this departure the Committee’s plea is that in consideration for this offer it has demanded joint electorate as a basis for election to the Constituent Assembly. In this, the Committee must be said to have entirely misunderstood the Cripps proposals. Joint-Electorates were already provided for in the Cripps proposals one clause of which reads—“The members of the Lower Houses of the Provincial Legislatures are to form a single Electoral College”. This is simply another way of saying that the election shall be by joint-electorate. It has given something for nothing to one element and thereby put the other Communities in a hazard.
(iv) Under the Cripps proposal the decision of the Assembly was to be by majority of those present and voting, Under the Sapru proposal the decision is to be by a majority of 3/4th of those present and voting.
Now to revert to the two questions. How does the position stands with regard to the first question ? To give one’s opinion on it, it is first necessary