536 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Mr. Vice-President : I think the point has been sufficiently discussed. Some four more Honourable Members would probably like to speak, but we have already spent one and a half hours, and we have to make a definite progress every day. I offer my apologies to those gentlemen who have been disappointed; that is all I can offer in the present circumstances. Dr. Ambedkar.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I regret I cannot accept any of the amendments that have been moved to this particular article. I find from the speeches that have been made that there is not the same amount of unanimity in favour of the principle of having a second chamber in the different provinces. I am not surprised at the views that have been expressed in this House against second chambers. Ever since the French Constituent Assembly met, there has been consistently a view which is opposed to second chambers. I do not think the view of those who are opposed to second chambers can be better put than in the words of Abbe Seiyes. His criticism was two-fold. He said that if the upper House agreed with the lower one, then it was superfluous. If it did not agree with the lower House, it was a mischievous body and we ought not to entertain it. ( Laughter ) . The first part of the criticism of Abbe Seiyes is undoubtedly valid, because it is so obvious. But nobody has so far agreed with the second part of the criticism of Abbe Seiyes. Even the French nation has not accepted that view; they too have consistently maintained the principle of having a second chamber.
Now, speaking for myself, I cannot say that I am very strongly prepossessed in favour of a second Chamber. To me, it is like the Curate’s egg-good only in parts. ( Laughter. ) All that we are doing by this Constitution is to introduce the second chamber purely as an experimental measure. We have not by the draft Constitution, given the second chamber a permanent place, we have not made it a permanent part of our Constitution. It is a purely experimental measure, as I said, and there is sufficient provision in the present article 304 for getting rid of the second chamber. If, when we come to discuss the merits of article 304 which deals with the abolition of the second chamber, Honourable Members think that some of the provisions contained in article 304 ought to be further relaxed so that the process of getting rid of the second chamber may be facilitated. Speaking for myself, I should raise no difficulty ( Hear, Hear ) , and I therefore suggest to the House, as a sort of compromise, that this article may be allowed to be retained in the Constitution.