how article 3 favours the underdog

R K Sidhwa: I do not accept the arguments advanced by Mr. Santanam against the amendment moved by Professor Shah. He stated that if in the Madras legislature a motion for the separation of the Andhra is lost by a majority, the Members affected will have the right to represent their case to the President at the Centre, under the proposition moved by Dr. Ambedkar.

If, Sir, that is the effect of the proposition, I do not welcome it. It will be unfair to seek the aid of the President against the expressed wish of the majority under democracy. If the majority says that they do not want separation of the Andhras, the minority should not have the right to go to the President by the backdoor and urge separation.

But Sir, I do not share the views of Professor Shah in this matter. Dr. Ambedkar's amendment is very clear and comprehensive. It states that if anybody wants a change of name or separation, he can move for that in the local legislature. This is what Prof. Shah wants too. But I do feel that Dr. Ambedkar's official amendment is more comprehensive and should be supported.

Though Professor Shah says that he has in mind referendum on matters of this kind, the amendment does not mention it. If a referendum is to be taken, the legislature has the necessary power to ask that it be done. The arguments advanced by Mr. Santhanam do not appeal to me. But, as I said, Professor Shah's amendment restricts the utility of the Provision. I therefore commend the amendment of Dr. Ambedkar to the House.

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru (United Provinces: General): Mr Vice-President, I beg to move: "that in the amendment of Dr. Ambedkar as just moved, for the words 'the previous consent' the words 'the views' and for the words 'has been' the words 'have been' be substituted respectively." consent" for the word "views" in part (a) of the proviso as moved by Dr. Ambedkar.

Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava (East Punjab: General): Mr. Vice-President, I have come here to express my views on this amendment and on the amendment moved by Prof. K. T. Shah. The amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar on this Bill is more stringent than the original one.

The first point which I would like to submit is that every part of India should be given this facility, that, should it decide to secede from one part and to accede to another, then there should be no impediment in its way. India of ours, which was under the domination of the British, is sub-divided into inhomogeneous parts which have grown in haphazard manner.

Not only there are districts, which want to secede from one province and to accede to another, but there are even Tahsils and parts comprising ten to twenty villages who want to secede from one part and to accede to other parts. This Article is sufficient to throttle them.

For example, I would like to mention that Haryana, which is at present included in East Punjab, has been trying for the last forty years to get itself attached to areas whose language, customs and traditions are similar to its own and to get itself constituted into a separate province.

On November 18, 1948, the debate on Article 3 continued.

R K Sidhwa (C. P. & Berar: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, several members have stated that this amendment deprives the right of a member to move a Bill to the effect mentioned in this amendment. I am rather surprised at the argument advanced by certain members to this effect.

But, while the amendment of Dr. Ambedkar says that the consent of the President should be obtained, it should not be understood that it deprives the member of any right. To state that the rights of members have been deprived by this motion of Dr. Ambedkar is incorrect. No decision has been taken in any legislature.

The legislatures in Bihar, Bengal, Bombay, all have discussed the matter and copies of the printed proceedings have been supplied to us. But, consent means consent of the State. I do not agree with those who say that consent means the consent of the State.

I do not agree with those who say that consent means the consent of the Ruler.

With these observations, I support the amendment strongly and I hope Dr. Ambedkar will clear the point why a differentiation has been made in the case of the States, why he has stated that the views of the legislature should be ascertained in the case of the provinces, whereas in the case of the States he has stated that their previous consent should be obtained.