reservation was backward class not for caste in constitution

 

                         Backward class reservation

Reservation was for backward class not for backward caste

Km munshi clarified it is a generic term not caste

 

30 NOVEMBER 1948 K M MUNSHI

we want to see that backward classes, classes who are really backward, should be given scope in the State services; for it is realised that State services give a status and an opportunity to serve the country, and this opportunity should be extended to every community, even among the backward people. That being so, we have to find out some generic term and the word "backward class" was the best possible term. When it is read with article 301 it is perfectly clear that the word "backward" signifies that class of people--does not matter whether you call them untouchables or touchables, belonging to this community or that,--a class of people who are so backward that special protection is required in the services and I see no reason why any member should be apprehensive of regard to the word "backward."

Ambedkar even did not mention it as a caste

AMBEDKAR 30 NOVEMBER 1948

"What is a backward community"? Well, I think any one who reads the language of the draft itself will find that we have left it to be determined by each local Government. A backward community is a community which is backward in the opinion of the Government. My honourable Friend, Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari asked me whether this rule will be justiciable. It is rather difficult to give a dogmatic answer. Personally I think it would be a justiciable matter. If the local Government included in this category of reservations such a large number of seats, I think one could very well go to the Federal Court and the Supreme Court and say that the reservation is of such a magnitude that the rule regarding equality of opportunity has been destroyed and the court will then come to the conclusion whether the local Government or the State Government has acted in a reasonable and prudent manner. Mr. Krishnamachari asked: "Who is a reasonable man and who is a prudent man? These are matters of litigation". Of course, they are matters of litigation, but my honourable Friend, Mr. Krishnamachari will understand that the words "reasonable persons and prudent persons" have been used in very many laws and if he will refer only to the Transfer of Property Act, he will find that in very many cases the words "a reasonable person and a prudent person" have very well been defined and the court will not find any difficulty in defining it. I hope, therefore that the amendments which I have accepted, will be accepted by the House. Mr. Vice-President: I am now going to put the amendments to vote, one by one

Amambedkar 23 august 1949

   The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

: The function of a member of the Public Service Commission is a general one. He cannot be there to protect the interests of any particular class. He shall have to apply his mind to the general question of finding out who is the best and the most efficient candidate for an appointment. The real protection, the real method of protection is one that has been adopted, namely, to permit the Legislature to fix a certain quota to be filled by these classes. I am also asked to define what are backward classes. Well, I think the words "backward classes" so far as this country is concerned is almost elementary. I do not think that I can use a simpler word than the word "Backward Classes". Everybody in the province knows who are the backward classes, and I think it is, therefore, better to leave the matter as has been done in this Constitution to the Commission which is to be appointed which will investigate into the conditions of the state of society, and to ascertain which are to be regarded as backward classes in this country.

14  OCTOBER 1949

Shri R. K. Sidhva :

 Then I move my amendment, Sir.

 

"as the President may on receipt of the report of a Commission appointed

under clause (1) of article 301 of this Constitution by order specify

and" be deleted

Sir, I do not want to speak at length because I have touched upon this point

in my previous amendment. I know there is the article 301 which specifies

backward classes. I am not quite sure that it will be easy for the President

to find out who are the backward classes. I do feel that this backward classes

article will remain a dead article, because I know that people who will come

in the name of the backward classes will come only for their own personal

position and personal aggrandisement to insert themselves as backward classes

to win their own personal ends I know people would come in the name of the

backward classes only to get a few posts, leaving the poor masses of that

community in the lurch. I am therefore strongly opposed to the inclusion of

the term 'backward classes'. Article 301 says investigate the conditions of

socially and educationally backward classes". Now, What does that mean ?

80 per cent. of our people are illiterate. Are they all backward ? Sometimes

people who are illiterate have a far better sense of argument than the

literate people.

 

Therefore, Sir, I contend that there is no such class as a backward class. The

Britishers wanted to dub many as backward classes and then play them up to the

whole world and say that India consists of so many backward classes and so

they do not deserve freedom. I do not want this term "backward

,classes" perpetuated in our Constitution. The sooner we do away with

this, the better for our country, the 'better for our position in the world.

Beyond the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, I do not want any kind

of reservation for anybody. If there is any class which feels that their

interests have not been justly represented in the services, they should go to

the proper authorities and find the remedy. After hearing Sardar Patel, I do

not think there will be any injustice to any class people who really deserve

some kind of sympathy and justice. If there is any injustice,, then our

leaders are there who will look after their interests. With these few words, I

commend my amendment for the acceptance of the House.

30 november 1948 km munshi

An Honourable Member: Who are those backward classes?

Shri K. M. Munshi: Article 301 makes it clear thatthere will be a Commision appointed for the purpose ofinvestigating what are backward classes. Some reference hasbeen made to Madras. I may point out that in the province ofBombay for several years now, there has been a definition ofbackward classes, which includes not only Scheduled Castesand Scheduled Tribes but also other backward classes who areeconomically, educationally and socially backward. We neednot, therefore, define or restrict the scope of the word`backward' to a particular community. Whoever is backwardwill be covered by it and I think the apprehensions of theHonourable Members are not justifie

30 november 1948

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, Iam afraid I am in a position of disadvantage, coming as I doafter Mr. Munshi, whom the House knows as a very learnedlawyer. I now see that his technique in advocacy is toconfuse the judge, as--if I had heard him aright--he musthave confused the minds of those Members of this House whohad some doubts in regard to the provisions of article 10.Sir, I was reading recently in a newspaper the comments onthis Constitution by a celebrated author ity--Prof. IvorJennings. Vice-Chancellor of the Ceylon University--and hecharacterises this chapter of fundamental rights as aparadise for lawyers. And, as a piece of loose drafting,article 10 takes the palm. My own view, if I may bepermitted to state it, is that this article had better notfind a place in this Chapter on Fundamental Rights.

Let me take clause (1): "There shall be equality ofopportunity for all citizens in matters of employment underthe State." What class of citizens? Literates? Illiterates? Could an illiterate file a suit before the Supreme Court alleging that he has been denied equality ofopportunity? This is not my own view. This is a statement of the view which I found expressed in Professor Jennings'criticism.

I now move on to clause (2). I am afraid this House hasbeen put to a lot of trouble merely because of the attemptto accommodate my Honourable Friend Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoorby including the word `residence' in this clause after theword `birth'. This has been beginning of all the trouble. Wehave had an amendment by Shri K. M. Munshi and another byShri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar. Is it at all necessary toinclude the word `residence?' I put it to the House that it is not necessary, because if there is discrimination becauseof `residence' as there may be, you are not going to coverit up by putting it in here and taking it out in clause 2(a).

An Honourable Member: Delete 2 (a) then.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: That is a matter for theHouse. But I suggest to the House that we can be impartialin this matter. We shall deny Mr. Jaspat Roy Kapoor theright to put in `residence' and we shall deny Shri AlladiKrishnaswami Ayyar the occasion to bring in an explanatorysub-clause which would whittle down the concession given asmuch as possible.

Now let us turn to the wording of the particularamendment moved by Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar on whichmy Honourable Friend Mr. Munshi dilated at length. Sir, as Isaid before, I am not presuming to give any advice on thematter. Let us see what the Parliament is going to do? Is itgoing to pass a comprehensive law covering the needs of allthe States, all the local bodies, all the village panchayats(which will also be States under the definition in Article7) and all the universities? Or, is it going to enact freshlegislation as and when occasion arises and as and when aparticular local body or university or village panchayatasks for special exemption? Nothing is known as to what isnaturally contemplated. We do not know what procedure isgoing to be laid down for this purpose, and this clause isso beautifully vague that we do not know whether Parliamentis at all going to be moved in the matter for acomprehensive piece of legislation. Even then what is thetype of legislation it could enact?

The proposal of my friend Shri Jaspat Roy can benullified if Parliament decides that there should beresidence of at least ten years before a person can qualifyfor an officer in the area. Or, is Parliament going to putdown one year or is it going to cover the position ofrefugees by putting in six months or nothing at all? My ownview is that, instead of putting in a clause like 2

(a)which is so vague,--the doubt raised by my friend Mr. Kamathis quite right--we can safely trust the good sense ofParliament. We are leaving the whole thing to the good senseof Parliament, the legislatures, the Supreme Court and theadvocates who will appear before that Court when we enactthis Constitution in the manner in which it has beenpresented to us. I am afraid there must be some region whereyou must leave it to the good sense of some people, becausewe are here trying to prevent the good sense of people fromnullifying the ideas which we hold today.

Sir, the amendment of Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyarsays: ".....under any State for the time being specified in the First Schedule or any local or other authority withinits territory, any requirement as to residence within thatState prior to such employment or appointment." I cannotreally understand where any State comes in here, even afterhearing the very able advocacy and admirable advocacy ofShri Munshi in support of the amendment. I suggest that boththe ammendments be dropped. If any particular Statedisregards our views and insists on residentialqualification it would not matter very much.

I now come to clause (3). Quite a number of friendsobjected to the word `backward' in this clause. I have nodoubt many of them have pointed out that when this House took a decision in this regard in thisparticular matter on a former occasion the word `backward'did not find a place. It was an after-thought which thecumulative wisdom of the Drafting Committee has devised for the purpose of anticipating the possibility of thisprovision being applied to a large section of the community.

May I ask who are the backward class of citizens? Itdoes not apply to a backward caste. It does not apply to aScheduled caste or to any particular community. I say thebasis of any future division as between `backward' and`forward' or non-backward might be in the basis of literacy.If the basis of division is literacy, 80 per cent. of ourpeople fall into the backward class citizens. Who is goingto give the ultimate award? Perhaps the Supreme Court. Itwill have to find out what the intention of the framers wasas to who should come under the category of backwardclasses. It does not say `caste.' It says `class.' Is it aclass which is based on grounds of economic status or ongrounds of literacy or on grounds of birth? What is it?

My honourable Friend Mr. Munshi thinks that this wordhas fallen from heaven like manna and snatched by theDrafting Committee in all their wisdom. I say this is aparadise for lawyers. I do not know if the lawyers who havebeen on the Committee have really not tried to improve thebusiness prospects of their clan and the opportunities of their community or class by framing a constitution so fullof pitfalls.

Shri K. M. Munshi: Well, my honourable friend canattempt to become a lawyer.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: I am afraid I may have to,when people like Mr. Munshi desert the profession for othermore lucrative occupations. If my friend wants me to saysomething saucy I can tell him that I could attempt that anddo some justice to it.

Shri K. M. Munshi: You can, I know.

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: I must apologise to you, Mr.Vice-President, for carrying on a conversation with Mr.Munshi notwithstanding the fact that he has beenprovocative. Anyhow the subject is not one which merits suchsallies.

Sir, coming back to the merits of clause (3) my feelingis that this article is very loosely worded. That the word`backward' is liable to different interpretations is thefear of some of my friends, though I feel that there is noneed for such fear, because I have no doubt it is going to be ultimately interpreted by the Supreme author ity on somebasis, caste, community, religion, literacy or economicstatus. So I cannot congratulate the Drafting Committee onputting this particular word in; whatever might be theimplication they had in their mind, I cannot help feelingthat this clause will lead to a lot of litigation.

Sir, before I sit down I would like to put before theHouse a suggestion not to block the issue further either byadmitting the amendment of Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor or, as asequel to it, the amendment of Shri Alladi Krishnaswami