932 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
I would like to say a word about the title of the Bill. It is not a very important point, but I think the name does matter. Shakespeare has said that rose smells as
3-00 P . M . sweet whether it is called rose or by some other name. I disagree with that statement of Shakespeare. I think that name is a very important matter, and I think that a good law ought to have a good and succinct name. What is the name of this Bill ? ‘A bill to provide punishment for the practice of untouchability or the enforcement of any disability arising therefrom’. I personally think that it is a very clumsy name and very mouthful. What really should be the name of the Bill may be a matter of dispute but I personally think that it ought to have been called ‘The Civil Rights (Untouchables) Protection Act’ After all, what you are doing is nothing more than protecting their civil rights. The emphasis ought to have been therefore on civil rights. I venture to tell my friend incharge of the Bill if he had referred to the case of the Negroes in the United States or to the Civil War, he would have found that the Bill that he is now proposing to be passed by Parliament has had its predecessor in the United States and that Bill, if he will refer to it he will find, is simply styled Civil Rights Protection Bill. Even the word ‘negro’ is not mentioned in it. I don’t know why he should keep on repeating untouchability and untouchables all the time. In the body of the Bill he is often speaking of scheduled castes. The Constitution speaks of the scheduled castes and I don’t know why he should fight shy of using the word scheduled castes in the title of the Bill itself. Personally for myself, I would be quite happy with the name Untouchables Civil Rights Protection Bill or Scheduled Castes Civil Rights Protection Bill. I hope my friend will take this into consideration.
Now, Sir, I find there are certain very grave omissions in the Bill and it is to these ommissions that I propose to draw the attention of the House. There is really, as a matter of fact, no provision for the removal of any bar against the exercise of civil and constitutional rights. No doubt the ultimate result of the Bill would be freedom to exercise civil and constitutional rights but I personally think that it would