498 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Dr. Ambedkar : I am prepared to accept his amendment.
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member Mr. Chandrika Ram accept the Law Minister’s version in regard to his amendment No. 4?
Some Hon. Members: Both are the same.
Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Minister’s amendment (No. 5) is better than Mr. Chandrika Ram’s amendment (No. 4). And I think amendment No. 7 by the Law Minister is also better in form than No. 6 of Mr. Chandrika Ram.
Dr. Deshmukh: I want amendment No. 8 of mine.
Dr. Ambedkar: I have examined the list and I have also consulted authority. Those contained in No. 8 have never been part of the Schedule. I do not accept amendment No. 8.
Amendments made :
In clause 3, in the proposed Sixth Schedule, under the heading ‘Delhi’, in entry No. 1, for “ Adharmi ” substitute “Adi-Dharmi”.
—[ Shri Chandrika Ram ]
In clause 3, in the proposed Sixth schedule, under the heading ‘Delhi’ in entry No. 14, after “Dhanak” insert “or Dhanuk”.
—[ Dr. Ambedkar ]
In clause 3, in the proposed Sixth schedule, under the heading ‘Delhi’ in entry No. 34. after “Rehgarh” insert “or Raighar”.
—[ Dr. Ambedkar ]
Dr. Deshmukh: I beg to move:
In clause 3, in the proposed Sixth Schedule, under the heading ‘Delhi’, at the end, add new entries:
“40. Nai (Barber).
- Dhiwar (fisherman)”.
While replying to my speech the hon. the Law Minister referred to my being discontented with Government. From the recent speech that he made it appears that he is also not too pleased with the Government of which he himself is a part.
Shri Sidhva: Are barbers untouchables?
Dr. Deshmukh: I am bringing this amendment on the strength of a representation that has been made to me. Secondly, in the list which was referred to by the Hon. the Law Minister— which is a notification by the Federal Public Service Commiossion, India, dated the 12th March 1949— these two castes are included.