20 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
to list No. 1 which is a Federal List and that too with respect to some subjects only. Therefore my contention was that there was not even the remotest possibility, having regard to these circumstances, that the Indian Dominion should acquire any jurisdiction. And so any sort of legislation which he wanted to be introduced by his amendment to clause 1 would be purely speculative. Here so far as this Bill is concerned, there is nothing inherently impossible in the Indian Dominion acquiring further jurisdiction of an extra-provincial character, and therefore a legislation which looks in the application of this by anticipation would not be speculative because the possibility is always there. I therefore submit that there is no inconsistency in the two positions I have taken.
- Mr. Speaker : I suppose the Honourable Member wishes to move the amendment at present.
Shri Himmat Singh K. Maheshwari : Yes and I would be grateful for a reply to the point that I have raised. Sir, I move:
“That in part (a) of clause 2 of the Bill for the words ‘treaty, grant, usage, sufferance or other lawful means’, the words ‘treaty or agreement’ be substituted.”
Mr. Speaker : Amendment moved :
“That in part (a) of clause 2 of the Bill, for the words ‘treaty, grant, usage, sufferance or other lawful means’, the words treaty or agreement be substituted.”
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Speaker, Sir the two amendments although they are set out under different headings are in substance one. The amendment No. 10 may be put as the result of amendment No. 9 and from that point of view, there is no difference between the two. The aim of both the Honourable Members who have tabled this amendment is to delete the word “grant, usage and sufferance”. I think that is what they want to do and in so far as that is their object, I have no doubt that the two amendments are one and the same.
- C. A. (Leg.) D., Vol. II, 9th December 1947, pp. 1571-72.