DRAFT CONSTITUTION 525
- Mr. Vice-President: Dr. Ambedkar.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, I am agreeable to amendments Nos. 1369, 1375, 1378, 1380, 1400 and
- With regard to the last two amendments (Nos. 1400 and 1403) those are also covered by an amendment moved by Mr. Mahboob Ali baig. It is amendment No. 1407. I would have been glad to accept that amendment but unfortunately, on examining the text of that amendment, I find that it does not fit in with the generality of the language used in clause (3) of article 67. That is the only reason why I prefer to accept amendment No. 1403, because the language fits in properly with the language of the article.
With regard to the other amendments, I think there are only three which call for special consideration. One is an amendment by Mr. Kunhiraman. The aim and object ....... †
Mr. Vice-President: It was not moved.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Then I do not think I need say anything about it. There remain only two—one is the amendment of Mr. Kunzru. He was very naturally considerably agitated over the proviso which stood in the Draft Constitution and which provided for the 40 per cent representation to representatives of the States. I think it is desirable that I should celar the ground and explain what exactly was the reason why this proviso was introduced and what is the present position. It is quite true that in the Government of India Act, it was provided that although the States population formed one-quarter of the total population of India as it then stood in the Lower House, the States got representation which was one-third of the total and in the council of States they got two-fifths representation which was 40 per cent. That is not one origin as to why this proviso was introduced in the Draft Constitution. I should therefore like to go back and give the history of this clause.
Members of the House will remember that this House had appointed a Committee known as the Union Powers Committee. That Committee recommended a general rule of representation, both for people in British India as well as people in the Indian States and the rule was this : That there should be one seat for every million up to five millions, plus
*CAD, Vol. VII, 3rd January 1949, pp. 1225-28.
†Dots in the original debates indicate interruption.