z:\ ambedkar\vol-02\vol2-08.indd MK SJ+YS 21-9-2013/YS-8-11-2013 615
IN THE FEDERAL STRUCTURE COMMITTEE 615
I understand. That subject was the alternative of direct and indirect election ; and, as I understood Mahatma Gandhi’s speech, he was in favour of adult suffrage, but he was also in favour of indirect election.
† Colonel Haksar: ......... I do not think that I need go on further. I would merely echo the words of our esteemed friend, Pandit Malaviya. If I might summarise what he said in that portion of his speech, it was this. The paramount consideration is to create a State in India in which no part will stand outside that State. The paramount consideration is to unite the country. If that be the paramount consideration, I say that that object should be achieved at all costs, and that nothing should be allowed to come in the way of the attainment of that object.
Dr. Ambedkar: Not at all costs—not at our cost!
Twenty-sixth Sitting—21st September 1931
HEAD 3
( Relations between the two Chambers of the Federal Legislature )
‡ Dr. Ambedkar: There is one question I should like to put, if I may interpose at this point. Sir Tej said that, in the matter of Supply or Money Bills in general, the Upper House should have the right to make suggestions and references to the Lower House; but what happens if the Lower House does not accept the suggestions made ?
Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru: Then the Upper House is tree to reject the Bill, but if a deadlock thus arises you can follow to the South African precedent and adopt their procedure.
Dr. Ambedkar: How can a deadlock arise if the Upper House has power only to make references or suggestions ?
Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru: It may reject the Bill completely.
Sir Muhammad Shaft: Then what is the substantial difference between an amendment which is referred back to the Lower House and a suggestion to the Lower House which is backed by power to reject ? What is the substantial difference between the two ? The final decision is to be by Joint Session of the two Houses.
Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru : In the first place, it is more consistent with modem practice.
Dr. Ambedkar: According to your suggestion there would be no vital difference between Money Bills and others except this, that with regard to a Money Bill the Lower House alone would have the right of initiation. In all other matters the two Houses would be equal ?
Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru: That, in effect, is what I have said.
†Proceedings of the Federal Structure Committee and Minorities Committee, Vol. I, p. 205.
‡ Ibid., p. 207.