PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 375
sanction so far as any such measure is concerned. Therefore, I submit there is no ground for any fear of any such thing happening and I believe that there is also no justification for any kind of propaganda that may be carried on by interested parties that this Bill proposes to give power to Government to expropriate everybody including the ryotwari tenants. I hope that this will satisfy my friend, Ch. Ranbir Singh.
With regard to the question that has been put to me by Durgabai...’
Shri R. K. Chaudhuri (Assam) : Shrimati Durgabai.
Dr. Ambedkar: These encumbrances I do not think are very necessary. I feel terribly embarrassed when somebody calls me Shri. Shri means wealth—I have none of it.
Shri R. K. Chaudhuri: May I mention that sufficient mischief has been caused by my friend, Dr. Ambedkar, calling me by my short name the other day ?
Dr. Ambedkar: I thought you agreed, that that did not change your sex?
Shri R. K. Chaudhuri: That is how jealousy has been created in the minds of some sections of the House.
Shrimati Durgabai: At least not in my mind.
Dr. Ambedkar: Now with regard to that, the relevant provision in the Madras Act is section 45. That section 45 deals with impartible estates. It does not deal with ordinary estates and the provision, so far as I understand it, is that the matter of deciding whether and how the compensation is to be distributed is left to a tribunal. This Bill does not add to the powers of the tribunal; this Bill does not take away any of the powers that are given to the tribunal for that particular Act. I think within that ambit things will proceed in the way the Madras Act has determined.
Dr. Deshmukh: May I ask a clarification of the Hon. Law Minister? The Hon. Doctor has told us that there is no intention to dispossess or limit the ryotwari tenures. There are six Acts of Bombay in the Schedule. If any of these Acts