TIOL - Tax News, GST, Income Tax, Service Tax, Customs, Central Excise, International Taxation, Fiscal Policy, Monetary Policy, Economy, Revenue, Judicial Decisions, Tax Rulings & Tax Video

Constituent Assembly Of India -Volume IX

Dated: August 12, 1949

I shall now come to article 5A. It is this article that has been occupying the attention of the Members since yesterday. It has been criticised on the ground that its provisions are Undesirably wide and that it throws open the door of citizenship to people who have no moral right to be regarded as Indian citizens.I do.not personally.-agree with the critics of this article. Let us consider calmly what article 5A lays down and the circumstances that require that such an article should form part of our Constitution. Article 5A and article 5AA contain extraordinary provisions arising out of the present extra-ordinary circumstances, - sing out of the extraordinary situation created by the partition of India. Youwill find no counterpart to them in the Constitution of any other country. We have to define clearly the position of those persons who had to leave Pakistan for some reason or other after the partition of India or about that time. There is such a large number of such persons here that their position had to be taken fully into consideration. The representatives of these people have made every effort to get these people recognised as citizens of India from the very start, without being required to fulfil any conditions. The Draft Constitution provided that people coming from outside India should get themselves registered as Indian ,citizens and that, in order to prove their domicile, they should show that they had been resident in India for a month before their registration. But these conditions were not acceptable to the, representatives of the refugees. They wanted that these people should unconditionally be regarded as Indian citizens. Consequently, it has been laid down in article 5C that all those people who migrated to India permanently leaving their homes in Pakistan up to the 19th July 1948 will, without complying with any condition, be citizens of India, if they have been residing here since their migration.

Then, the next category of persons that article 5A takes account of is persons who have migrated to India since the 19th July 1948. Now, if we had listened to those who wanted that all the people, who had come from Pakistan up to the present time or up to the date of the coming into force of this Constitution, should, without any enquiry and without fulfilling any condition, regarded as citizens of India, I am sure this article would have been subjected to much severer criticism. It would then have been justly pointed out that it provided an opportunity for the acquisition of Indian citizenship by those who had no claim to it.

Sir, it has been said that we should consider whether as desired in an amendment of Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava, that the provisions of this article should not be made more restrictive, so that it may apply only to persons who had left their homes on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances It will be very strange if such a condition is laid down. How will it be possible for a person to prove that he left his home on account of the particular cause referred to above? And how would the registering officers be in a position to decide whether the claim was valid or not? There is an even more serious ,objection to Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava's amendment. He says that the citizenship of India should be open to persons who have not merely migrated to India on account of civil disturbances or fear of such disturbances, but also to persons who having the domicile of India as defined in the Government of India Act 1935 and being resident in India before the partition, have decided,to reside permanently in India, or have migrated to the territory of India from the territory now included in Pakistan. Now, the first thing that requires attention in connection with his amendment is the words "having the domicile of India." We know that these words have created difficulties. We know what was said in this connection when the article- relating to the establishment of an Election Commission were placed before the House.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: Sir, may I point out in article 5 also the same words occur "having the domicile of India". These are exactly the same words.

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru: This is true but a,; my honourable Friend knows, difficulties have cropped up in this connection. But there are other objections too to his amendment. Take the persons who did not leave Pakistan because of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances. Take the people who lived in Sylhet ........

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: Those persons mentioned in (,a) are not to be registered as citizens, because they never migrated.

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru: "Migrated" means, as I understand it, that they have left their previous homes permanently and have now come to live in India. Suppose people who were living in Sylhet after the Radcliffe Award shifted to Assam or Bengal. What will their position be if Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava's amendment is accepted ? Again, take the people who, say, entered a province after 1943, say in 1944 or 1945. They have not had the time to get naturalised in this country, and them will be a large number of such people. What will their position be if Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava's amendment is accepted ? The amendment that he has proposed will raise many difficulties that he has not thought of. It will probably raise difficulties with regard to the position of the people who have migrated from East Bengal to West Bengal. It will be very difficult for these people to prove that they have left their homes in Eastern Pakistan because of civil 'disturbances or fear of such disturbances. There are millions of non-Muslims still living in Eastern Pakistan. How will these people then be able to prove that there was any justification for their fears that civil disturbances might break out. The House will thus see that Pandit 'Thakur Das Bhargava's amendment, instead of removing any real difficulty, will create many more difficulties of a more serious character. I do not think, therefore, that it can be accepted.

Sir, there is one other criticism brought against the Draft placed before us that requires consideration. Article 5AA has been criticised by persons holding opposite points of view. There are one or two Members who feel that people who had migrated from India to Pakistan should not be allowed to return to India and claim Indian citizenship except under stringent conditions. There are others who hold a different view and who think that all those persons who left this country after the partition should without any question be allowed to return to their former homes. As, regards the people holding the first point of view, I should like to point out that advantage can be taken of article 5AA only by persons who have returned to India under a permit for resettlement or permanent return issued to them under any law. Such permit holders who return to India will be regarded as persons who had migrated to the territory of India after the 19th July 1948. Ibis means that only the permit holders who return to India by the 25th July 1949 will be able to claim citizenship at the date of the commencement of this Constitution. The permit holders returning to India after the 25th July 1949 will not be able to show that they had been living in this country for six months since their return. Now, the permit holders, that is the people who have returned with a permit allowing them to resettle or reside permanently in India, are entitled to be regarded as citizens of India. They were in India and our Government, taking all things into 'account, taking into account all the fears "Pressed by Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava and others of his point of view, have allowed them to come back.

Can we in accordance with any canon of justice refuse to regard them as Indian citizens ? It was open to the Government of India not to allow these people to return. and it was also open to the Government of India not to allow them to settle permanently in this country; but permission having been given to them to return and settle down here by our Government, I do not think it will be honourable on our part now to go behind this Permission and say that these people should be treated as strangers now. Beside,; their number is limited. There need therefore be no fear that their return will be detrimental to our interests. As regards the future, Parliament will by law decide the conditions under which a man can acquire and renounce Indian citizenship. I do not think, therefore, that however apprehensive anybody may be of the possible conse-quences of article 5AA, it can be regarded as dangerous to the peace and security of India. I think the conditions that I have referred to are of such a character as to take full account of the essential interests of this country.

Sir, the point of view of those who hold a different opinion from that just discussed by me is that people who migrated from India to Pakistan should be. allowed to come back unconditionally if after living for sometime in Pakistan, they found that the conditions there would not suit them. I have listened very attentively to the appeal made by these persons, but I do not think that their claim is justified. We all know the circumstances in which certain or to be more explicit, a certain number of Muslims, left I Pakistan and not all of them left India because of civil a good many left India in order to settle down in Pakistan because they had supported the idea of the establishment of Pakistan when it was put forward and because they thought that they would be able to lead a fuller fife in a Muslim country. Can we justifiably be asked to allow these people to come back without complying with any conditions? When they were in India they were against the maintenance of the integrity of India and they left India at the earliest opportunity that they could get in order to live in the country of their choice. They have no moral right in these circumstances to demand that they should be allowed lb return unconditionally to this country. There are, however, Muslim, who wanted to live in India even after the Partition but they had to leave it under compulsion. Any one that remembers the conditions that prevailed, say, in Delhi, in September 1947 can easily visualize the state of mind of 'the members of the Muslim Community. If at that time thousands of Muslims left Delhi for Pakistan should we be justified in refusing to them the right of re-entry or the right of citizenship after a careful scrutiny of their antecedents ? I do not think, Sir, that in the case of these people whom we by our conduct drove out of India we can object ' to their retention of the right of citizenship under the safeguards that I have mentioned. Fairness and morality require that their right to Indian citizenship should be fully recognised and article 5-AA does nothing more than this' I hope Sir, that I have shown that the objections urged against article 5-A and 5-AA are founded either on a misapprehension of the provisions contained in them or on an imperfect realization of the consequences that the amendments would lead to. If my argument is sound, it shows that the draft before us has pursued a middle course; it recognised the just rights of all people without losing sight of the essential condition that only those persons should-be regarded as citizens of India who in their heart of hearts owe allegiance to it.

Mr. President: I may inform Members that I propose to close the discussion of these articles at a quarter past twelve, when I would call upon Dr. Ambedkar to reply and then the amendments win be put to vote.

Shri Rohini Kumar Chauduri (Assam: Gneral): Mr. President, Sir. it is rather unfortunate for me that I should have come to speak at a moment when the debate has been raised to a very high level by my honourable Friends, Shri Brajeshwar Prasad and Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru. They were speaking in terms of Hindu-Muslim unity. Indo--Pakistan unity and all the rest of it. But, I am here to state some plain facts without any fear, and without any desire for favour. I would ask the honourable Members of this House to judge for themselves after hearing (he facts whether we have to support the amendment of Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava or not. The same amendment was also tabled by my honourable Friend Mr. Jhunjhunwala, (he spoke on it 'yesterday) and was tabled by me who is supposed to represent the Assamese Hindus, by my Honourable Friend Mr. Basu Matari who represents the tribal people in Assam and by my Friend Mr. Laskar, who represents the Bengal Scheduled Castes ofAssam. These are the three different groups of persons who have supported Pandit Bhargava. I would, therefore, once more request the House to consider carefully the actual facts, not merely suppositions, not merely theories or, wish as to how certain things ought to be done and to decide for themselves whether to support this amendment or the amendment of Dr. Ambedkar.

By this amendment, I want citizenship rights for those persons--I am particularly concerned with Assam who had come from East Bengal because they found things impossible for them there. It may be argued in a narrow way that .very one who has come from East Bengal was not really actuated by fear or disturbance or actually living in a place where disturbance had taken place'. Can any one imagine for a moment that there is, no fear of disturbance in the winds of these East Bengal people who had come over to West Bengal orAssam? Was there any sense of security in their minds? Ha.-, that sense of Security,now after a period of two years, been enhanced by the fact that Pakistan has been converted into a theocratic State ? I should say in answer to the criticism of Pandit.Kunzru, that you need not insist in. such cases that the man should be actuated by fear of disturbance or that disturbance should have taken place. The fear is latent in the mind of everybody. The moment any Hindu or a person of any minority community raises a protest against any action which is taken there, disturbances- would immediately follow, Is there any doubt about that ?

Therefore, Sir, in answer to Pandit Kunzru's criticism, I would say that this condition of fear. of disturbance should not at all be insisted in the case of a person coming from Pakistan over to West Bengal or Assam or any other place in India.

Secondly..............

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru: You can easily have a permit system there and control the influx of outsiders.

Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: So far, it has not been done. (Interruption.)Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri: Secondly, I want citizenship........

Shri Raj Bahadur (United State of Matsya) : Why not divide East Bengal ?

Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri: I want citizenship rights to this class of people, who have originally belonged to Sylhet in ' the province of Assam, who, long before the partition, have come to the Assam Valley as a citizen 'of that province and are staying in the present province of Assam. I ask, have they got citizenship or not ? These people belonged to the, province of Assam, Sylhet. They had come to Assam on some business or other; they had come as government servants or as employees of business-men. They had not migrated; no question of migration arose at that time.

They had come on business; they are now in Assam; they want to be in Assam. Have they got citizenship rights or not? I want citizenship rights for them.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I want citizenship-rights for those people of East Bengal who had gone over to West Bengal or Assam out of fear of disturbance in the future or from a sense of insecurity and- also for thosepeople who have come over from Sylhet, who at the time of coming had no fear of disturbance or anything of that kind, but who, on account of fear of disturbances now have decided to live here.

At the same time, I also have the temerity,to say in this House that I would exclude those persons who came only three years ago, who set up the civil disobedience movement forcibly occupied land which was not meant for them, and forced the benevolent and benign Government to have recourse to the military to keep peace in the province I should be the last person to say, and I hope every one has Honestly acknowledged that, that class of persons should be any mean be granted citizenship rights in the province. I also make it quite plain that. I desire to exclude those persons who surreptitiously introduced themselves into my province and who now having mixed themselves with their own brethren, now desire to have citizenship rights, not out of any sense of insecurity on their part, in their own provinces but with a desire to exploit more from that province of Assam. I desire to exclude these people because they had not, long ago set up the struggle for Pakistan, they had not long before taken an active Dart in _compelling the politicians of India to agree for Partition; they have their own property and are living peacefully on their own property; not only that, they have brought about such a state of things that they have been able to purchase.property for mere nothing, property which belongs to the minority who had come out of fear,

Shri Mahavir Tyagi (United Provinces : General): What is their number, please.

Shri Robini Kumar Chandhuri: I do not know. , I would ask then honourable Member to listen to me. I am making things 'quite plain for myself. 'There need not be any doubt or interruption of my speech.

I want make it quite clear that I do not want citizenship rights to.be granted to those people who are not property of the minority who their own property, but enjoying the come away, in some places paying nothing and in other cases paying only a nominal price. I do not want these persons to get citizenship right a at all.

I do not know how you have framed this amendment; how defective is the amendment of Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava or how beautiful is the amendment of Dr. Ambedkar. I do not want to waste the time of the House by an interpretation of that. I only want that those classes of persons whom I have mentioned should be included and should get citizenship rights and those classes,of persons whom I want to exclude should not get rights of citizenship. If you adjust them in the light of the facts that I have mentioned, let me see after going through them whether these conditions are satisfied or not. It all depends upon the definition of the word 'migration'. Migration has been defined just now by my Friend who had preceded me. He said, migration means that a person leaves a particular place, having disposed of or having abandoned property which he has and has come and lived in some other place With a view to live there. If that definition is , correct, as I am constrained to think that it is correct, if you read Dr. Ambedkar's amendment, you will find exactly that what I want shall not take place And what somebody else,.wants will take place.

Now if you define the word migration, according to Dictionary it means mere moving from one place to the other or in the case of birds it is 'moving times of season from one place to the other. But to,my mind the definition which has been given by Mr. Kunzru is the most reasonable definition. If you act upon that you will find the people from not when it was in the province of Assam and those who came to Assam either as Government servant or businessmen they had not migrated in the sense the word is understood. Therefore they will not fall under the definition of Dr. Ambedkar. They will be fore they will not fall under the definition of Dr. Ambedkar. they will beautomatically excluded. It is for this reason that Pandit Bhargava has given this amendment that those people who were domiciled in India under the Government of India Act 1935 would automatically be included as citizens if they are prevented from going back now for fear. Those people who went to Assam for service or business long before Partition, they cannot be said to have migrated. Now they are unable to go back to their own homes for fear of disturbance. If they remain they will not get the citizenship rights under Dr. Ambedkar's amendments. Even as things stand at present they do not get admission for their children in the colleges as they do not fulfil certain conditions re domicile of the Province. In order to be domiciled in a province they have to live there for ten years and have their own house and land. What will be their condition now? If under this definition they would not get citizenship either, what will be their position?

Unless Dr. Ambedkar assures us on the authority of his knowledge of English words and English legal phraseology that the 'migration' will include also such persons, then I Submit that this amendment of Pandit Bhargava will have to be accepted. Many persons belonging to Pakistan are coming who have no insecurity there and who can have their vocation and service. I am stating only facts. What is the position of minorities in East Bengal ? They cannot get any Government Service. No person of minority community holds 'even a junior post there. Go to Assam and you will find high positions like the Secretary of Finance. Education etc. are held by minorities. Take the case of business organisations and insurance companies in East Bengal. Many insurance companies have closed their branches there and come away to India, and so where is the vocation for these minorities ? Even doctors have been denied patronage. Even permits by which the majority of business is done are not given to the members of minority community in East Bengal. Then, what is the reason why the people of that majority community in East Bengal who have all these advantages should come to Assam ? The reason is to exploit and get some advantages. Are you going to encourage this ? You will be surprised to learn that the Government of Assam have requested the Government of India to give them the authority to issue permits to restrict such entries, but they have been denied. I stand corrected if my information is wrong. Honourable Friend Pandit Kunzru and other honourable Members of this House must have read in newspapers that in a meeting of the Muslim League at Dacca it was said with some, regret-I hope it was with some real regret that about three lakhs of Muslims had migrated from East Bengal on account of some economic. difficulty. Now, you imagine, if three lacs is the figure which is given by the Muslim League in East Bengal, what must have been the real figure of people who have been infiltrating like this. Every province would like to be prosperous but it should not be at the cost of other persons. If you wish to govern a province properly, you should always try to see that the balance of the population is not so much disturbed and you, should see that you do not give citizenship to persons whose presence in that province would be undesirable and prejudicial to the interests of the Dominion of India. That is the test I would apply to these cases. The main condition which ought to be accepted to draw up an article of this kind is absolutely wasted if you are going to give citizenship right to each and everybody irrespective of the fact whether they are likely to be good citizens or not.

Sir, I have said things quite frankly, and I know some honourable Members will be dissatisfied with me. But I have no doubt at all in my mind that the people of all communities in my province, including Muslims who belong to Assam, will absolutely agree with me. Muslims who have made Assam their home will agree with me. But people who have newly come there, expectingto be in a position to create a barrier to the proper and smooth administration of that province, I know, will resent the remarks which I have made. I quite see that I am subjected to a lot of misunderstanding. Some people have interpreted the amendment which I have tabled as an amendment which aims against the entry of Bengalee Hindus into Assam. That is the interpretation which some friends of mine have unfortunately put on the amendment. I may also remind you that in my own province a number of no-confidence resolutions have been passed against me, because as the adviser of the refugees I had advocated the cause of East Bengal Hindu refugees. And it will be of interest ,to note that most of these people who have no-confidence in me belong to ladies' associations. Of course my honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar will say that I should not worry, because women will always be woman : and I also console myself with that thought. I have never been a persona grata with the women of this country or with the women of any country; and at this age I can very easily endure the ordeal of being not a persona grata with the ladies section of the people of this country. But leaving aside the ladies organisations, I only wish that the reasonable men should consider this question in proper perspection. That is my purpose. I will be satisfied if reasonable men support me. If they support Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava, not only will the welfare. of my province be safeguarded, not only will the interest of East Bengal refugees be safeguarded but also ultimately it will be to the general welfare of India. You will have a province which will be absolutely loyal, which will be absolutely faithful to the government of the Province and which will be unanimously faithful to the Dominion of India. If you do not accept Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava's amendment, and if you do not bring in any other amendment to the same effect, you will expose your frontier, you will expose that province and that province will become a source of great danger to you. Already I have been to Cachar and I have seen in that district, from which crossing the Barak river you come into India, there is trouble; and if this amendment of Dr. Ambedkar is accepted, this district of Cachar will be entirely one district of Pakistan, and who will be responsible for giving one district which should have been kept in our province and which was retained after a good deal of fight but which will be sent to Pakistan ? It will be this amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar.

The Honourable Shri N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar (Madras : General) : Sir, I do not think I would make a speech covering all the draft articles on this question of citizenship. They have been dealt with. very fully by various speakers already. I would confine myself, only to two particular questions that have been the subject of much discussion in the course of this debate.

The first thing that I would take up is. the question of persons who migrated from India to Pakistan and subsequently changed their mind and applied for coming back to India, to their own old homes and lands,-whether in cases of that description, they should be treated on the same, footing as persons who have merely migrated from Pakistan to India. The general class of people who migrated from Pakistan to India, particularly in or about the time of the Partition were people who had their permanent homes originally in Pakistan and were squeezed out of their homes and had to find their permanent homes in India. With reference to that class, the draft article 5A provides that, if their migration from Pakistan to India took place before the 19th July, 1948, provided they had resided continuously from the time at which they migrated to India, in India,, then they will automatically be regarded as citizens of India. In the case of such persons who migrated from Pakistan to India after the enactment of the Ordinance relating to the issue of permits for influx from Pakistan to India, in the case of those persons, we have restricted the acquisition of citizenship only to a small category which would come under the description that they applied for and obtained from the authorities of the Government of India permits enabling them permanently to return to India and resettle there. In the case of these,persons, they will not be automatically registered as citizens. They have to make applications to authorities who will be designated for the purpose, and those authorities will take the full history of each of these persons into consideration before they grant a recognition of citizenship.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: Could you tell us what will be the approximate number of such persons?

The Honourable Shri N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar: Some time back, the number that was given to me was about 2,000, say, about two months back. It could not now exceed 3,000; that is my present estimate-may be a few persons ever this limit or under this limit.

Sardar Hukam Singh (East Punjab: Sikh) : What will be the value of their property?

The Honourable Shri N. Gopaiaswami Ayyangar: I am afraid I am not in a position to estimate the value of the property belonging to these persons. On this question of property, I want to make the position clear. People who migrated from India to Pakistan, even if they remained permanently in Pakistan, retain their title to properties which they have left behind. When subsequently they obtain permits for permanent return and resettlement in India they come back; and in addition to the ownership title in most cases, if they have been allowed to resettle, they regain possession of those properties. That being so, I do not see how in justice we can refuse recognition of their rights to apply for and obtain citizenship. Citizenship may be refused by the officer who has the right to grant that application on grounds other than these; but so far as property goes I do not see how we can go behind it. But there is of course the legal point which my honourable Friend Shri Alladi Krishnaswamy lyer made that there is really no necessary connection between citizenship and property. It will be for us to decide what we shall do with the property,--whether having lost possession of their property we should allow them to get back to their property. As a matter of fact the grant of these permits for permanent return and resettlement implies their being allowed to resettle on their property But there have been cases where this has not been found possible and some people who have returned on these permits have been settled on other property That is a matter of detail which we can settle independently of the question of citizenship. Now so far as this matter is concerned it is a matter of the solemn word of the Government of India, as more than one speaker has pointed out. Having allowed these people to return on the authority of inquiries made by our own officers and documents issued by authorities who were specially empowered for this purpose it would not be in keeping with honesty on the part of any Government to say,"We shall not give the recognition that is due to persons who possess these documents."

I do not wish to go further into this matter, but there were one or two points which were raised by one speaker. The first point was that people who comer back on permits of this description should automatically get back their citizenship and should not be compelled to apply to an officer and await a grant by him of 'the right of citizenship to them. The point for us to consider is whether in the case of these people it is at all wise or necessary for us to put them on a higher level than people who owned property in Pakistan and have had to give up that property and come here after the 19th July 1948. Though their intention for permanently settling in this country is clear they have to apply to an officer for the purpose of obtaining rights of citizenship. I do not think that people who deliberately migrated from India to Pakistan' should be put on a higher level ban those people who were squeezed out of Pakistan out oftheir properties and had to come here after the 19th July. That is one point which I would like (he House to consider. They say that there were cases of a considerable number of people who, on account of statements made by certain persons or supposed notifications issued by people under some authority or other, have returned to this country without obtaining permits and they should not be prejudiced by the fact that they had not obtained these permits. I think, Sir, that so far as people who migrated to Pakistan from India are concerned, there is this definite fact that their first act was one of giving up their allegiance to India and owning their allegiance to a different 'State. Before we take them back into India and give them rights of citizenship we must have some definite method by which their intention to return to India is unequivocally expressed. Also we must have definite evidence of the fact that they come back to this country which the imprimatur of the Government of this country. And that is why in this article 5AA we have restricted this eligibility for citizenship to persons who have come back to India on permits issued tinder the authority of a law issued by us and by our own officers.

If we travel out of this category of persons-we shall have to consider the cases of a large number of persons whose title to anything like citizenship in this country is of the flimsiest possible description. It is possible that sonic people who have come back to India have made India again their permanent home and want to be citizens of India and do not want to go back to Pakistan. Their cases must be left to be decided by laws which will be made by Parliament hereafter. Their cases are not so clear that we must include them in the Constitution itself. Therefore it is that I would earnestly beg the House to accept the position that we have translated into words in this article 5AA. It States the general proposition that a person who has migrated from India to Pakistan shall not be deemed to be a citizen of India. It has one proviso which gives the right to such a person to claim to be a citizen again of India if he applies for and obtains a permit from our own authorities which permits him to come and resettle in India permanently in his own home and on his own lands.

The other point I wish to refer to is one which has been raised by my honourable Friends from Assam. I must say that I have not been able clearly to follow the particular position that they take in regard to the matter which worries them. It is no doubt a fact that a substantial number of Muslims do go from East Bengal to Assam. But this kind of migration-from what little study I have made of things happening between East Bengal and Assam in the past-is nothing new. The numbers vary a bit perhaps; but the question that is put to us is that under this particular provision in the draft we shall open the door for a very large number of Muslims who will come over to India from Pakistan and who will apply for registration and get registered, much to the detriment of the economy of Assam Now, let us analyse the position. It is said, for instance, that Assam wanted a permit system to be applied as between East Bengal and Assam. The Assam Government and the Government of India have discussed the matter between themselves. They have held more than one conference for the purpose of arriving at a solution of this trouble. And I shall not be revealing a secret if I say that at the last conference we had on this, subject, the general consensus of opinion amongst both representatives of the Government of India and the representatives of Assam was that it was not wise to introduce anything like a permit system between East Bengal and Assam on the same lines a obtain between West Pakistan and India. There are complications which perhaps it is unnecessary for me to go into in detail. One very big, complication is the repercussion it will have as regards the movement of persons between East and West Bengal. Now, by permitting the extension of the, Permit system as it works between West Pakistan and India to the area between East Bengal and Assam, we shall be inviting Pakistan to introduce such a systemas between East and West Bengal and I only mention this to people who are acquainted with both West Bengal and Assam for them to realize all the enormous complications, on the economy of West Bengal which it will entail. The last conference merely came to the conclusion that we should seek and apply ,other methods for preventing or mitigating the influx of a large number of Muslims from East Bengal to Assam, and this matter is being investigated and, for my own part, I think it will be possible to devise some kind of legislation which will enable Assam to stem the tide very substantially. I would not like that we should adopt any methods which would complicate the situation in the eastern borders of the country. I could realize what, for the time being, it does mean to Assam--a number of Muslims coming in who are not wanted there--but we should not altogether ignore the possibility that conditions being what they are in Assam, this kind of thing might be applied by over-zealous officials of the Assam Government so as to be prejudicial to, say, the Bengalis who have migrated from East Bengal to Assam and perhaps even from West Bengal to Assam. We have got to take into consideration all these things. Now, I would earnestly request the House that we should not complicate the solution of this problem of citizenship by bringing in this particular trouble between East Bengal and Assam for which we are devising other measures of solution.

Sardar Hukam Singh (East Punjab: Sikh) : Sir, we have been told that the Muslims, who left their property here and have come back, retain their titles to the property that was left here, and when they come back, it is simple justice to return them that property. Government cannot do anything else. Ibis is very good. I want to know from the honourable Mover whether according to his logic, we, who have come from Pakistan and left our properties there, also retain our titles to those properties. Can he suggest us some court or tribunal before whom we can go and place those title deeds to get justice that is being accorded to these people here by this proviso?

The Honourable Shri N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar: Sir, there is a slight inaccuracy in the honourable Member's statement of the position I took in, regard lo properties left behind in India by the Muslims who have migrated to Pakistan and returned permanently to reside in our own country. My position was that the migration itself did not extinguish their title to property in India' That title continues until a final settlement takes place between the two governments for the extinguishment of titles in both countries. Till then, the title of each person continues with him. The property might have vested in the Custodian, he may be managing it, he may be recovering rents from it, but when a particular person comes back and is allowed to resettle on his own land, the thing that ought to occur and for which, I believe, provision exists in our evacuee property law, is that when he gets the right to resume possession of his land and satisfies every authority here concerned that he has come back for permanently settling in this country, then what was treated as evacuee property could be restored to him. Similar law exists on the other side also. People who have left Pakistan and come to India retain their titles, but if they go back on anything like a permit, of the description that I have given, issued by the Pakistan Government, they will be entitled to the same kind of treatment as we contemplate in the case of Muslims who have returned to India.

Now, I do not want the House to go further and ask me whether this thing actually takes place. I am talking of the law on the subject. There is nothing which prevents us from going back and claiming the land or the property, whatever it may be. As a matter of fact, while we have had about three thousand Persons who have obtained these permits and probably a very much larger number who have applied for them and not got them yet, I am afraid we shall be able tocount non-Muslims who have come over frown Pakistan to India and wishing to go back to Pakistan on our fingers' ends. There is no doubt of the fact that there is no desire, anything like a substantial desire, on the part of our own people who have come over as refugees to go back and resume possession of their lands, while it is a fact that a considerable number of Muslims who have, gone over to the other side want to come back.

Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: What is the explanation ?

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: We are prepared to go back in case the Military also accompanies us.

The Honourable Shri N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar: Yes, that is true, but you have got to recognise the fact that the Muslims are coming back here without insisting upon the military.

Shri Bikramlal Sondhi (East Punjab : General): Because it is one-way traffic.

The Honourable Shri N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar: Well, the legal position is, I do not think, different in the two countries.

As for the other question which the honourable Member asked me as to which tribunal we can go to for the purpose of having this right to go back and resume possession of our properties on other side enforced, my only answer is that the legal jurisdiction are different. There is no Court of law to which you can go on this question. The only thing you can do is to worry our own Government to see that similar rights are conceded to our people on the other side, and that, as you know, is being done incessantly, constantly by this Government.

Shri Algu Rai Shastri (United Provinces: General) *[I beg to submit Sir, that the articles relating to citizenship which are under consideration at present are very important, ones, and the nature of discussion so far held indicates that they require some further discussion. If we adopt them in a hurry, we may perhaps have to repent for it later on. Before we take any decision regarding these articles, we shall have to decide many important questions relating to them. In my opinion it would be better, Sir, that we consider them again in the next sitting of the Assembly. I beg to submit that if we adopt these articles in a hurry, it would be a grave injustice to such Members as want to express their opinion on it and have not so far got any opportunity to do so. It is necessary to consider the several other questions that are connected with this matter. I would, therefore, request that these important articles relating to citizenship should not be rushed through.]

Mr. President: *[We have already devoted more than nine hours to a discussion of this question.]

Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: May I ask a question? The real question which my Friend intended to ask was, to what extent there is reciprocity so far as admission of non-Muslims in the Pakistan areas was concerned, and I do not think any satisfactory answer was given to that question. What we want to know is to what extent has the Honourable Minister found the Pakistan Government reciprocating to the ideas and ideals that we hold, and propagate and the policies that we adopt ?

The Honourable Shri N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar: I must confess in practice the response has not been as satisfactory as I should wish.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: Let us not discuss the failure of our Government. Let us look into the Constitution.

The Honourable Shri N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar: That is true. The question is that two Governments meet together for settling a proposition. If there is

------------------------------------------------------------

*[] Translation of Hindustani speech.

no agreement there is a failure. But whether the failure, attaches to one side or to both sides is a question.

Shri Phool Singh (United Provinces : General) : *[Mr. President, what is your decision about concluding the discussion on these articles today?]

Mr. President: [ I am just putting the question.] I had thought that we had discussed these articles sufficiently during the nine hours 'that we had spent on them, and I would personally like to put the matter now to vote. As a desire has been expressed by some Members that they would like to speak and further discuss it, I would put it to the House.

The question is:

"That the question be now put."

The Assembly divided by show of hands.

Ayes-59 Noes-35

The motion was adopted.

Shri Algu Rai Shastri : Sir, although the number of votes for closure is greater, considering also the big number who want the discussion to go on, I crave your indulgence to allow more discussion on this point.

Mr. President: I do not think any useful purpose will be served by further speeches. The amendments are all there before the Members; they are free to vote in favour of any amendment they like.

The Honourable Dr. 'R. R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General) : Mr. President, Sir, it has not been possible for me to note down every point that has been made by those who have criticised the draft articles which I have moved. I do not think it is necessary to pursue every line of criticism. It is enough if I take the more substantial points and meet them.

My Friend, Dr. Deshmukh said that by the draft articles we had made that any man who, as a result of the disturbances went to Pakistan with the intention of residing permanently there, loses his right of citizenship in India. It is to provide for these two things that we converted this natural assumption into a rule of law and laid down that anyone who has gone to Pakistan after 1st March shall not be entitled to say that he still has a domicile in India. According to Article 5 where domicile is an essential ingredient in citizenship, those persons having gone to Pakistan lost their domicile and their citizenship.

Now I come to an exception. There are people who, having left India for Pakistan, have subsequently returned to India. Well, there again our rule is that anyone who returns to India is not to be deemed a citizen unless he satisfies certain special circumstances. Going to Pakistan and returning to India does not make any alteration in the general rule we have laid down, namely that such a person shall not be a citizen. The exception is this: as my honourable friend Shri N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar said, in the course of the negotiations between the two Governments, the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan, they came to some arrangement whereby the Government of India agreed to permit certain persons who went from India to Pakistan to return to India and allowed them to return not merely as temporary travellers or as merchants or for some other purpose of a temporary character to visit a sick relation, but expressly permitted them to return to India and to settle permanently and to remain in India permanently. We have got such persons in India now. The question therefore is whether the rule which I have said we have enunciated in this article, not to permit anyone who has gone from India to Pakistan after the Ist March, 1947, should have an exception or not. It was felt, and speaking for myself I submit very rightly felt that when a Government has given an undertaking to a person to permit him to return to his old domicile and to settle there permanently, it would not be right to take away from that person the eligibility to become a citizen. As my friend, Mr. Gopalaswami Ayyangar has said, the class of people covered by this category, having regard to the very large population both of Hindus and Muslims we have, is very small, something between two to three thousand. It would, in my judgement look very invidious, it would in my judgement look a breach of faith if we now said that we should not allow these people whom our own Government whether rightly or wrongly, allowed to come away from Pakistan for the purpose of permanent residents here, to have this privilege. It would be quite open to this House to bring in a Bill to prevent the Government of India from continuing the permit system hereafter. That is within the privilege and power of this House, but I do not think that the House will be acting rightly or in accordance with what I call public conscience if it says that these people who, as I said, are so small, who have come on the assurance of our own Govt. to make their home here, should be denied the right of citizenship. Sir, I do not think therefore that there is any substance in the criticism that has been levelled against these articles and I hope the House will accept them as they are.

Mr. President: Now I will have to put the various amendments to the vote. It is somewhat difficult to decide the order in which these amendments should be taken up.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Let all of them be withdrawn.

Mr. President: I will put the amendments to the vote in the order in which they were moved by the various speakers and if any honourable Member wishes to withdraw any amendment, he may express his desire to that effect. I will first take up the amendments moved by Dr. Deshmukh.

The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1 above, for the proposed article 5, the following be substituted:-

�5 (i) Every person residing in India-

who is born of Indian parents; or

who is naturalized under the law of naturalization; and

every person who is a Hindu or a Sikh by religion and is not a citizen of any other State, wherever he resides shall be entitled to be a citizen of India".

The amendment was negatived.

Dr. P.S. Deshmukh: I beg leave to withdraw amendments Nos. 29, 116, 118 and 119.

Amendments Nos. 29, 116, 118 and 119 were, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.

Mr. President: Then I will take up Amendment No. 120.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari (Madras:General): If amendment No. 130 is accepted this does not arise.

Mr. President: No. 120 goes out. Then the amendments moved by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. They are all of a verbal nature. No. 4.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim): No reply has been given to this, but I do not press it.

The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.

Mr. President: Then amendment No. 18. These are all of a verbal nature and they might be left to the Drafting Committee for its consideration.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: All my amendments may be considered by the Drafting Committee.

Mr. President: Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad leaves all his amendments to the Drafting Committee to consider. So, they are not to be put to the vote. Does the House permit him to withdraw his amendments in that sense?

All the amendments of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad were, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.

Mr. President: Then we come to the amendments moved by Mr. Jaspat Roy Kapoor. Amendment No. 5.

Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor (United Provinces: General): I want to spare my amendments the fate of being defeated. Therefore I would like to withdraw them.

All the amendments of Mr. Jaspat Roy Kapoor were, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.

Mr. President: Then amendment No. 203 by Professor Shah.

The question is:

"That in clause (a) of article 5 after the words �grand-parents� the words �on the paternal-side� be added".

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"that in clause (b) of article 5, after the words �grand-parents� the words on the paternal-side� be added".

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1 above, in the proposed article-

after the figure "5" the brackets and figure "(1)" be inserted;

before the Explanation, the following proviso be added:-

'Provided further that the nationality by birth of any citizen of India shall not be affected in any other country whose Municipal Law permits the local citizenship of that country being acquired without prejudice to the nationality by birth of any of the citizens; and

Provided that where under the Municipal Law no citizen is compelled either to renounce his nationality by birth before acquiring the citizenship of that country, or where under the Municipal Law nationality by birth of any citizen does not cease automatically on the acquisition of the citizenship of that country�.;

after the Explanation, the following new clause be added:-

�(2) Subject to this Constitution, parliament shall regulate by law the grant or acquirement of the citizenship of India".

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 6 above, after the proposed new clause (2) of article 5, the following proviso be added:-

�Provided that Parliament shall not accord equal rights of citizenship to the nationals of any country which denies equal treatment to the nationals of India settled there and desirous of acquiring the local citizenship".

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: Then we come to amendment No. 20 by Prof. K.T. Shah. I think this is more or less of a drafting nature. Could it be left to the Drafting Committee?

An Honourable Member: Yes.

Mr. President: I had better leave it to the Drafting Committee to consider this amendment.

Amendment No. 152. The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Third Week) of Amendments to Amendments, at the end of sub-clause (I) of clause (b) of the proposed new article �A. But before the word "and", the following proviso be added:-

"provided that any person who has so migrated to the areas now included in Pakistan, but has returned from the area to the territory of India since the nineteenth day of July, 1948, shall produce such evidence, documentary or otherwise, as may be deemed necessary to prove his intention to be domiciled in India and reside permanently there".

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: The question is:

"That in amendment No. 1 above, at the end of clause ( c ) of the proposed article 55, the words �and subject to the jurisdiction �thereof� be inserted".

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. President: Then there is amendment No. 12 by Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena.

Prof. Shibban Lal Sakesena (United Provinces: General): I beg leave to with-draw my amendment.

The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.

Mr. President : The question is:

"that in amendment No. 1 of List 1 (Third Week) of Amendments to Amendments in clause (C) of the proposed article 5, for the words five years the words ten years be substituted."

The amendment was negatied.