z:\ ambedkar\vol-02\vol2-03.indd MK SJ+YS 21-9-2013/YS-8-11-2013 175
ON MINISTERS’ SALARIES BILL 175
the honour of the country, on the other hand that they should be ruined in its service.”
I submit, Sir, that these are principles which any ministry who cares for the service of the country and for the purity of the administration, ought to bear in mind. And I do not think that the present ministry in fixing the salary of Rs. 500 has shown any regard to the principles which I have read out
Now, Sir, what are the principles that have been suggested for the salary that has been fixed in the Bill ? The one thing I have heard often said is that the salaries ought to be in accord with the income of the people. I ask the question, if that is so, can it be said that Rs. 500 salary is in accord with the income of the people ? What is the income of the people ? I have here figures given in the “Harijan”—I suppose a standard authority—from which I may quote.
The Honourable Mr. B. G. Kher: I am glad you read it.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I do always read it. According to the figures given here, the income per head in the United Kingdom is £ 50 per annum ; in the United States of America, £ 100 ; in France, £ 40 ; in Australia, £ 70 ; in Canada, £ 75 ; in India, £ 4. ( The Honourable Mr. B. G. Kher: Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, if all this is done on the principle that the salaries ought to be in accord with the income of the people, then I do not understand how it can be suggested that the salary of Rs. 500 a month is in accord with the £4 income of the people of this country. Surely, if my honourable friend is basing the Bill which he has placed before us, on this principle, namely, that the salary should be in accord with the income of the people, then Rs. 500, I submit, is a most extravagant sum to take for the ministry ; it ought to be less than Rs. 100 ; it ought to be Rs. 75, as was suggested. If they are honest, if they want to fix this sum as a matter of justice and not to placate the people, then why not be logical in your honesty ? Why fix a sum which is out of all proportion to the income of the people ?
The second thing that has been suggested in justification of the low salary is that the ministers ought to live in such a manner that they should look as though they were of the people, that there should be no distinction between ministers on the one hand and the private citizens on the other. Sir, if this is the object of the ministry, that all distinctions should be abolished, that they should look as though they were of the people, that the people should have full confidence in them as though they belong to the people, then, my submission is that this is not the method of winning the confidence of the people. Sir, in this country, the cleavages, social and religious, are far greater than they exist anywhere else in the world. We have here—I am speaking of this presidency for the moment—we have the division of Brahmins and non-Brahmins ; the division of the touchables and the untouchables—I am confining myself again to the Hindus—we have the division of Maharashtrians versus Gujaratis ; we have the division of Gujaratis versus Kanarese. And add to all that the difference between the Hindus and the Mahomedans. If you want to create confidence