WHAT CONGRESS AND GANDHI HAVE DONE TO THE UNTOUCHABLES : AN ABJECT SURRENDER 119
One can well realize under what fanfare the Bill began its legislative career. On the 24th of March 1933, Mr. Ranga Iyer formally introduced the Bill in the Assembly. As it was a Bill for Mr. Gandhi the Congress members of the Assembly were of course ready to give it their support. Mr. Gandhi had appointed Mr. Rajagopalachari and Mr. G. D. Birla to canvass support for the Bill among the Non-Congress members with a view to ensure safe passage for the Bill. He said they were better lobbyists than he was. The motion for introduction was opposed by the Rajah of Kollengode and Mr. Thampan raised a preliminary objection that the Bill was ultra vires of the legislature. The latter objection was overruled by the President and the House allowed the Bill to be introduced. Mr. Ranga Iyer next moved that the Temple-Entry Bill be circulated to elicit public opinion by the 30th July. Raja Bahadur Krishnamachari opposed the circulation motion and condemned the proposed legislation in strong terms. At last he urged that the date for circulation should be 31st December instead of 31st July. Mr. Gunjal opposed the circulation motion and asked the House not to support the Bill. As it was already 5 p.m. and as that was the last day of the session for non-official business, the President wanted to take the sense of the House for a late sitting. As there was no overwhelming majority for it, the President adjourned the House. So the Bill stood postponed to the Autumn session of the Assembly.
The discussion of the Bill was resumed on 24th August
1933 during the Autumn session of the Central Legislature. Sir Harry Haig on behalf of the Government explained that their support to the motion for circulation of the Bill should in no way be construed as implying support to its provisions. It was true that the Government sympathized for the Depressed Classes and were anxious to do what they could for their social and economic improvement. He quoted from the communique issued in January last, wherein the Government’s view was fully explained. In his opinion, circulation by the end of June was a fair and reasonable time to secure the widest possible circulation. As regards the limit of circulation to temple going Hindus, Sir Harry Haig said from the practical viewpoint that it would really hardly be possible to impose the restriction as proposed. The Government wanted the matter to be fully discussed by all classes of Hindus and were therefore prepared