sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bombay State, Madhya Bharat, Vindhya Pradesh, Western Zonal Council

1353 States Reorganisation [RAJYASABHA] Bill, 1956 1354

such an utterance; and, secondly, whether it SHRI P. N. SAPRU (Uttar ): was right on his part to indicate that nothing I would say that from a constitutional would be changed when one of the Houses point of view the Prime Minister was had yet to discuss the matter and bring to bear perfectly right in saying what he actual its wise judgment upon it. This is the submis- ly said. The responsibility of the sion I would like to make. Government is primarily to the Lok (Interruptions.) Sabha and it is the ...... (Interruptions.) SHRI H. P. SAKSENA (Uttar Pra desh): Most of the Members of the SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: There I join House do not in any way feel that the issue with the hon. Member. It is not a speech of the Prime Minister...... question of to whom the Government is responsible. We are dealing with the question SHRI K. S. HEGDE (Madras): What was of how a thing becomes law. An eminent said was that Lok Sabha's decision was final lawyer like my hon. friend should not mix up subject to 's concurrence. the two issues. Sir, you are the guardian of the rights and privileges of the House and I (Interruptions.) request you to take up this matter with the SHRI S. N. MAZUMDAR (): authorities concerned so that in future we do The question is this. The Government not have a repetition of such things. probably may think that because of its majority this decision is final but here the SHRI P. N. SAPRU: We are prepared question raised is a question of privilege of to dicsuss this fully and ...... this • House. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order. MR. CHAIRMAN: When a Bill comes to the Rajya Sabha from the Lok Sabha, it should not be taken that the Bill is going to be returned to the Lok Sabha in the form in THE STATES REORGANISATION which it came. This House has got the full BILL, 1956 liberty to consider, deliberate upon, modify, amend or return it as it is. That is a privilege THE MINISTER IN THE MINISTRY OF which this House has, and when the Prime HOME AFFAIRS (SHRI B. N. DATAR) : Sir, I Minister said about Parliament, there is no beg to move: doubt that he meant the two Houses. Under the Constitution Parliament means both the "That the Bill to provide for the Houses, Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Without reorganisation of the States of and for the concurrence of this House, no Bill can matters connected therewith, as passed by become law. An Act of Parliament means the Lok Sabha, be taken into something which is agreed to by both the consideration." Houses and assented to by the President. Sir, the question of the reorganisation of SHRI JASPAT ROY KAPOOR (Uttar the States has been before the country since Pradesh): Sir, I would like to point out December 1953 when a Commission was that the report that has been read out appointed for the purpose of considering all from some paper—I do not know what the circumstances bearing on the question of it is...... reorganisation and for submitting a report. SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: It is Statesman. Thereupon this Commission submitted their Report in October 1955 and since then this SHRI JASPAT ROY KAPOOR: Whatever House and the other House considered the it is, the report is not a full and complete recommendations of the Commission in all report. What the Prime Minister said was— their aspects in December or thereabout. The we were present there—that the Bill had to recommendations were also considered at an come up before the Rajya Sabha. He said so earlier stage by the various States Legis- definitely and categorically and that part of latures. There was also public opinion his speech has not been reported on and hence reflected through the representation of various it is not a correct version. bodies and persons as also of the public in general. On the strength of all these materials, that had been received, the took certain decisions and announced them 1355 Slates Reorganisation [16 AUG. 1956] Bill, 1956 1356 on the 16th January 1956. Thereafter, Sir, the i minently before the public was regarding the question arose of drafting a Bill for the future of Bombay. On that question also the purpose of sending the Bill to the State Government had taken a certain decision and Legislatures for their opinion as laid down in in the Joint Select Committee also naturally article 3 of the Constitution. In the meanwhile, the form remained in which the Government's as the House is aware, there was a proposal decision had been formerly embodied. But, mooted out by the Chief Ministers of West thanks to the efforts, thanks to the earnestness Bengal and for the purpose of having an that was exhibited by a number of hon. administrative union of the territories under Members of both the Houses of Parliament, it these two States, and this matter was now became possible for the Lok Sabha to considered for a number of months, and that consider a bilingual formula so far as the was the reason why, when a Bill had to be formerly proposed States of and prepared in accordance with the Government's and the proposed territory of Bombay decisions on the recommendations of the S. R. were concerned; and this proposal, Sir, though C, no provision was first made regarding West it came suddenly, was one that could be Bengal and Bihar. For that another Bill was welcomed beoause a very important problem, subsequently introduced in Parliament. That a very complicated problem, namely the Bill was submitted to the Joint Select tangle over the Bombay question, had been in Committee and their Report has now been a way solved in as satisfactory a manner as placed on the Tables of both the' Houses, and possible. The honourable House is already the West Bengal and Bihar (Transfer of aware that the Members of the States Reor- Territories) Bill will be taken up in the other ganisation Commission also were anxious that House just today. So far as these two states are so far as Bombay was concerned, Bombay's concerned, they could not, therefore, be the importance in the Indian Union should be kept subject matter of the States Reorganisation up and enhanced to the extent that was neces- Bill. Therefore, in respect of practically all the sary by having a bilingual State. Now, the recommendations made by the States bilingual State that has emerged is larger than Reorganisation Commission the Government the bilingual State that was conceived of and prepared a Bill and, as I stated, sent it out to recommended by the S. R. C. Now, you would the various State Governments with a desire find, Sir, that so far as the new that the State Legislatures should be is concerned, it consists of the whole of the consulted. Their opinions were received, and Maharashtra area proposed to be transferred thereafter Government with slight modifica- under the first Bill to the Maharashtra State, tions introduced the Bill in the other House, the whole of the Gujarat area—and the and there was a reference of the Bill to the Gujarat area, as you are aware, consists of the Joint Select Committee. Similarly, that matter State of Gujarat, the Part C State of Kutch and was also heard here, and this House was also also the Part C State of . So far as pleased to select the names of persons who Maharashtra is concerned, the Marathi- were to be on the Joint Select Committee so speaking districts in the Bombay State, the far as the Rajya Sabha was concerned. This district from the State Joint Select Committee went into the whole and the Marathi-speaking districts of the matter and a number of amendments were present Madhya I Pradesh State have all been introduced by them, and the Joint Select put to-! gether. We have all the Marathi- Committee's Report was placed on the Tables speaking areas in India and all the Gujerati- of both the Houses. speaking areas in India coupled together and put under a common administration in which Thereafter about a fortnight ago the Bill, as naturally Bombay City and Greater Bombay recommended by the Joint Select Committee, have been included, and thus we have the was taken into consideration in the other happy spectacle of our dream regarding the House, and the stupendous nature of the future of Bombay being realised. The discussions that went on there would be clear ambition that we had of having a larger to this House in that there were as many as bilingual State has been now fulfilled. Thanks 607 amendments tabled to the Bill as it again to the great efforts that the hon. emerged from the Joint Select Committee. Members of Parliament in this House and in Naturally, Sir, as you are aware, the question the other that was most pro- 1357 States Reorganisation [ RAJYA SA1JHA] Bill, 1956 1358

[Shri B. N. Datar.] am quite confident, would be in the direction made, you will find, Sir, that so far as this of supporting the provisions of the present question is concerned it has received the Bill. largest measure of support so far as the other House is concerned. When this particular SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA (West Bengal): formula regarding the new bilingual State of Will the hon. Minister give some of the views Bombay was pressed to a division by the held by Gujaratis in this respect? other parties in the Lok Sabha, 241 hon. Members voted in favour of this joint SHRI B. N. DATAR: II the hon. Member bilingual formula and the opposition will kindly hear me, I shall deal with all the consisted of only 40 Members. That would aspects, including more or less the very show, Sir, that the laudable efforts that were irrelevant aspect that the hon. Member has in carried on by the Members of Parliament view. were fully appreciated by the Lok Sabha, and I am quite confident, Sir, that it will equally Sir, after lhis Bill emerged from the be appreciated by the hon. Members of this proceedings of the Joint Select Committee, as House because the Bill has now come to its I stated, certain amendments were made, and I last stage. would point out to this honourable House the amendments that were introduced by the Lok Sabha, so far as the provisions contained in So far as the earlier stages are concerned, this Bill were concerned. I have already all the hon. Members are aware of the great pointed out to this House that in place of the difficulties that the Government had to go two States of Maharashtra and Gujarat and the through so far as the decisions on a number of territory of Bombay as proposed, we have complicated problems were concerned. Hap- now a bilingual State comprising all these pily, Sir, we have taken decisions based either three areas. on agreement or on a correct appreciation of the position with regard to certain matters. SHRI JASWANT SINGH (): Therefore, I am happy on this occasion when Minus Abu? the Bill comes for setting the seal of approval of this House—and 1 would point out to you, SHRI B. N. DATAR: So far as Abu is Sir, that we are equally proud of this House, concerned, Abu has gone into Rajasthan, and and there is no reason for supposing that any the districts of the present Bombay attempt is made either by Government or by State have gone into Mysore, if the hon. the Lok Sabha or by others for belittling the Members desire me to refer to this importance of the honourable House of elders circumstance. of Parliament. When the matter is coming before this honourable House for the last time Then, Sir, so far as the changes were during its last stages, I am quite confident that concerned, I was detailing them as introduced the Members of Parliament will give it due by the Lok Sabha in the Bill as it emerged out consideration and appreciate also what has of the Joint Select Committee's deliberations. been done either by Government in When this matter was before the Joint Select consultation with various parties and Committee, the Government had placed their organisations or by the hon. Members of proposals that so far as new Parliament. Thus, it is, Sir, that I am happy to was concerned consisting of the - place this Bill in its present form before this speaking districts of the present Madhya honourable House for its full and deliberate Pradesh, Part C States of consideration. and , and Part B State of — it also ought to have a Legislative Now, Sir, so far as this matter is Council. The Government had also received concerned, as I stated, in the other House it representations to this effect. On the question received full consideration, the debate went of Legislative Councils, Sir, as you are aware, on for 35 long hours and the matter was there was a time a few years ago when public considered in all its aspects; and it is certainly opinion had ranged itself more or less against open to every hon. Member to express his the continuance, much less the establishment, views and it is certainly open to the of Legislative Councils. I myself am aware. honourable House to express its views, Sir, that about two years ago, the Bombay which, I Legislative Assembly had passed a Resolution and 1359 Stales Reorganisation [16 AUG. 1956] Bill, 1956 1360 expressed their opinion that there ought to be lhen, Sir, so far as the Andhra no for the present Pradesh or the former Andhra and Bombay State. But after the Report of the were concerned, the matter States Reorganisation Commission the swing stood on an entirely different footing. is in the other way, and a number of States are When the was formed or now anxious to have Legislative Councils. carved out of the first undivided Mad And in this connection, we have two or ras State—the Legislature three cases. First it was contended by the is bicameral in the sense that there is Maharashtrian Members that the then proposed a Legislative Council for Madras—the Maharashtra State ought to have a Legislative Andhra Members of Parliament of both Council. That was a naurally legitimate desire, the Houses, it would appear, were not because you will find, Sir, that when the in favour of having a separate Legisla present Bombay State would have been tive Council for Andhra. So far as split up and when the new Maharashtra State Telangana is concerned, Telangana is would have been formed according to part of the , and the the proposals then, then naturally Hyderabad State has only a unitary Maharashtra would have been a large area, and Legislature. So far as either Andhra or it would have been to use the technical Telangana was concerned, it was con expression used in the States Reorganisation sidered that the matter might be left to Bill, the principal successor State. Therefore, the new Legislature of the Andhra Sir, there was no difficulty felt by the Joint Pradesh ...... Select Committee in according its support to the desire of the Maharashtrian Members that they should have a Legislative Council. But PROF. G. RANG A (Andhra): Why is it so far as Madhya Pradesh was concerned, there that this time the Members of Parliament was a feeling that perhaps it would be better if representing both Andhra and Telangana have Madhya Pradesh had no Legislative Council at not been consulted in regard to this matter? all; and it was therefore that the Joint Select Committee considered that Maharashtra should be given a Legislative Council, mistake not, SHRI B. N. DATAR: Sir, it was felt article 169 of the Constitution. There is a that inasmuch as Telangana or Hydera permanent provision. Sir, in article 169 of the bad had no Council and the Andhra Constitution whereby it is open to a State to State Legislature had no Council...... express its opinion either in favour of a Legisla- tive Council, if there was one, or in favour of the establishment of a Legislative Council, if SHRI AKBAR ALI KHAN (Hyderabad): there was none. And then the matter comes May I point out, Sir, that the Andhra before Parliament, and according to a special Assembly passed the Resolution that there majority that is prescribed it is open to should be a Legislative Council, and the Parliament either to abolish the Council where Hyderabad Assemblv also passed the it exists or to allow a new Legislative Resolution that there should be a Legislative Council to be formed. Therefore, Sir, Council? The Joint Committee on that score Government considered that so far as said, "Put the case of new Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh was concerned, there was and on the same footing." a very keenly-felt desire that even with the inauguration of the expanded Madhya Pradesh y SHRI B. N. DATAR: May I point out to my State, there ought to be a Legislative hon. friend that when the matter came before Council, and that desire was conceded by the the Joint Select Committee, the opinion in Lok Sabha, and, therefore, all the necessary favour of a separate Legislative Council for amendments have been made. Andhra Pradesh was not very strong? (Interruptions.) Let me complete, Sir. SHRI GOPIKRISHNA VIJAIVAR-GIYA (Madhya Bharat): That was provided in the original Bill also. Therefore, Sir, so far as the new Andhra Pradesh State is concerned, it would be better SHRI B. N. DATAR: Yes, it was provided to follow the normal procedure laid down in therein. article 169 instead of having a Legislative Council, because as I stated, the opinion before the Joint Select Committee was not so strong, with due deference to my 1361 Slates Reorganisation [RAJYASABHA] Bill, 1956 1362

[Shri B. N. Datar.] the settlement of the capital at a certain place and certain other matters which are more or friend, Shri Kishen Chand, and others, less not only of a preliminary but of an and, therefore, the Joint Select Com interim nature. On account of all these mittee came to the conclusion that circumstances, it was felt that perhaps after Maharashtra, as it then was conceived the passage of this Bill by the end of this of, and Madhya Pradesh ought to have month or early next month, only a very short a Legislative Council, and the normal period of about 6 to 7 weeks might have been remedy left to other States including left for the Government, for the people and the new Andhra Pradesh State. If, for for others to take all necessary measures for example, they desire to have a change the purpose of bringing about the inaugura- in that respect ...... tion of the new States on the 1st October 1956. PROF. G. RANGA: May I ask for some information, Sir? Is it not a fact, Sir, that the SHRI K. S. HEGDE (Madras): There would Governments of Andhra as well as Hyderabad have been only three weeks. had also supported the Resolutions passed by their respective Legislatures, and they had SHRI B. N. DATAR: As the hon. Member suggested to the Government of India that points out, there would have been only three they should make provision for a second weeks. Therefore, Government accepted an Chamber? amendment moved by an hon. Member that the appointed day ought to be not 1st October 1956 but 1st November 1956. SHRI B. N. DATAR: May I point out to the hon. Member, Sir, with due deference that, Then, there are some other changes also. For subsequently, it is true that opinion began to example, we have various Zonal Councils. So gather round, but by that time the Joint Select far as the Western was Committee had taken a decision. concerned, we had the three contemplated States or territories, viz., the Bombay territory, Maha- SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: Was it before rashtra and Gujarat. When the whole are a the Bombay decision was changed? comprised in the Western Zone formed only one State, it became necessary to add some other State to it so as to make it really a Zone and not SHRI H. N. KUNZRU (): We can change the provisions here. merely a State; and for that reason it was considered advisable that inasmuch as the SHRI B. N. DATAR: It wil be open to the Southern Zone comprised four States, one of honourable House to do so, if if so desires at these States, viz-Mysore, ought to be transferred this last stage. or changed over to the Western Zone, viz. the Then, Sir, the more important change that Bombay Zone. Some of my friends wanted to was effected was that the appointed day as know why was taken away from originally contemplated was the 1st of the Southern Zone. The object was that there October, 1956. But there was naturally some ought to be one more State at least so far as the delay on account of which the matter could Western Zone was concerned, and Mysore was not be considered as early as possible because near at hand, and it was, * therefore, considered, we had started with the time-table that by the in view of the historical relationship between time the last session of Parliament went into certain parts of the expanded Mysore State, viz. recess, all these Bills would have been passed the Kannada parts of Bombay State, and the new into law. On account of a number of Bombay State, perhaps, it would be better to add circumstances in respect of which there is no Mysore to the Western Zone. desire to complain, the matter could not be SHRI RAGHAVENDRARAO (Hy- proceeded with at the rate of progress that was derabad): What about Hyderabad? originally bargained for. Before the new States are formed or a proper reorganisation SHRI B. N. DATAR: Hyderabad also. I said takes place, a number of preliminaries have to "parts of the expanded Mvsore State." Let the be gone through. We have first the deli- hon. Member follow me correctly. mitation of constituencies. We should have at least a provisional allotment of service personnel, and a number of other' things also have to be done like 1363 States Reorganisation [16 AUG. 1956] Bill, 1956 1364

SHRI H. C. DASAPPA (Mysore): May I name. Now, these are the changes that have know if the States were consulted in this been introduced. matter? SHRI K. S. HEGDE: May I know why, so SHRI B. N. DATAR: We had the far as the Council of States is concerned, four consultations in the Lok Sabha. We have seats have been transferred from Bombay to Mysore Members—along with the Mysore Mysore instead of two as recommended by Members the Hyderabad Members also—and the Joint Select Committee? all of them welcomed this proposal. I would submit that this was a change which was SHRI B. N. DATAR: Will the hon. Member introduced for the purpose of having a Western kindly allow me to proceed? I would also Zone consisting of more administrative units briefly mention the provisions on which than one. certain decisions have been taken by either the Government of India or the Lok Sabha. Now, Then, another point also will be noted in oftentimes representations were addressed this connection, so far as the Zonal Councils regarding these border questions. Some are concerned. That was a point on which the attempts were made to bring about an Joint Select Committee took a decision. It was amicable settlement with some success. Here I pointed out' to the Joint Select Committee would like to put on record my appreciation that there might arise occasions when there of what the Hyderabad Ministry did regarding might be questions at issue not necessarily Bidar and certain other areas. That is the way between members or States in one Zonal all such questions have to be approached. So Council but between a State belonging to one far as the district of Bidar was concerned, Zonal Council and another State belonging to which was a trilingual area, it must be said to another Zonal Council. It was quite legitimate the credit of the Hyderabad Ministry that it and relevant, and, therefore, what was took a decision that certain taluks should go considered was that a provision should be to Andhra and certain others should go to made in the Chapter dealing with the rights, Marathwada or Maharashtra. functions and procedures of the Zonal Councils that, whenever such an occasion DR. R. B. GOUR (Hyderabad): Is it not the arose, it ought to be open to the two Zonal decision of the Legislature? Councils to hold a joint meeting. The SHRI B. N. DATAR: Why cannot the hon. usefulness of the Zonal Councils has been Member allow me to compliment the enhanced to a certain degree by the provision Hyderabad Cabinet? I am prepared to extend now made for having joint Zonal Council the scope of my appreciation also to the hon. meetings. Members of the Hyderabad Legislature. I have no objection. 1 believe in respect of Then, the other change is—it is not very Adilabad district also, there were two material—that so far as the four Tamil taluks predominantly Marathi taluks or certain of Travancore-Cochin State are concerned, it places and again the Hyderabad State, the was decided, as the Bill now provides, that Hyderabad Cabinet and I would add, the these four taluks—a fairly compact area and Hyderabad Legislature, came and appealed its population, if I mistake not, is in the and they settled these questions in a very neighbourhood of ten lakhs—instead of being satisfactory manner and we have accepted the added to the Tirunelveli district, should form agreements and we have incorporated them in a separate district by themselves. After the the Bill. reorganisation, it is open to them to have such divisions or districts as they please. So far as the present arrangement is concerned, the new DR. R. B. GOUR: Why did you not district will be known as the Kanya Kumari accept the recommendation for Siron-cha? district. Kanya Kumari is a verv sacred name, and even by the mention of the district of SHRI B. N. DATAR: For the simple reason Kanya Kumari, any devotee in the whole of that in respect of Sironcha there was no India from community will know agreement at all. Let the hon. Member wait where it is. Some importance has been given and he will have his full chance. In respect of to the great Goddess Kanya Kumari, because others— I was coming to refer to other ques- now this district will be known after that tions like border disputes or other minor great border adjustments—the policy 1365 Stales Reorganisation [RAJYASABHA] Sill, 1956 1366

[Shri B. N. Datar.] that the Government people, then people would be thinking of followed and the Government even now sticks nothing else but the border disputes and the to is this. So far Government have accepted, very important questions, which, to some in May, the principles or the criteria laid down extent, have been neglected by us during the by the Joint Select Committee regarding the last 8 to 10 months, namely, the redrawing of the internal map of India. As developmental projects, the successful they have stated, the district ought to be taken achievement of the second Five Year Plan and ordinarily as the unit and in exceptional cases, similar other things, would again remain in the a taluk has to be taken as a unit and except for background. Therefore, it was considered that very strong and binding reasons, they should it would not be advisable to accept an not go below the taluk level and secondly, amendment regarding the possible they have also pointed out that 70 per cent, of appointment of a Boundary Commission at a the population ought to be there before any subsequent date and, therefore, the only way compact area could be transferred from one that has been left, rightly left, for a minor administrative unit to the other. All these are adjustment of boundaries is for the parties to the principles of the Government that have come together—and here, by 'parties' I would been laid down and that are fairly satisfactory mean, the new States after they have been because they have got the seal of sanction of formed and we Jiave got the machinery of the the two commissions, namely the Dar Zonal Councils. Even apart from the Commission as also the Fazl Ali Commission. machinery of the Zona! Councils, it is Therefore, so far as these principles are certainly open for new States to take up these concerned, if Government have to take any questions regarding border disputes, especially decision, naturally they would follow these of a minor nature, and meet and discuss this principles but it is certainly open to units, it is question at Governmental levels and come to certainly open, in particular, to States to come certain decisions. Therefore, except where to their own conclusions and to come to there is such an agreement, it would not be certain agreements. If, for example, on a possible for the Government to rake up this particular question there has been the largest question or to keep up the controversy over measure of agreement, then, naturally, such the question by conceding to the appointment agreements,—it was stated in the Joint Select of a Boundry Commission at some other time. Committee, it was also stated on behalf of the As the Home Minister in the other House Government in the other House —provided stated, the Government have an inherent right they are agreements and they put an end to all of appointing a Boundary Commission but controversies so far as these questions are that does not mean that a Boundary concerned, would be accepted by the Commission has to be appointed as a matter of Government. course or as a matter of statutory obligation so far as the present measure is concerned. Apart from all other considerations, therefore, it is Then in the other House some hon. our desire that the question of the States Members raised—and perhaps here also, reorganis-tion should be considered as having some hon. Members would raise —that been solved with the passage of the Bill as it is question, namely, there ought to be a before this honourable House. Subsequent Boundary Commission. Now, it might be steps might be taken hereafter, as I have noted that so far as the Commission itself was alreadv pointed out to this House and I would concerned, they considered other not repeat it, but it might be noted that it is circumstances and they also recommended to open to the Zonal Councils to take up such us the boundaries so far as it was possible for questions and by bringing the parties together them and you are aware that during the last 8 remove even the small grounds of irritation to 10 months, there has been such a large and wherever they exist. perhaps a bitter controversy so far as certain border questions were concerned. Now, we [MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN in the Chair.] have achieved a measure of, what I can say, agreement or a measure of a satisfactory My submission is that the Govern-I ment, in decision so far as almost all other questions respect of all the States thatI have been are concerned. Therefore, it for example, what formed or reformed—andthere are as many T can say, the ghost of a Boundary as 12 States which' are affected, if not Commission were to be kept before the more,—have tried 1367 States Reorganisation [16 AUG. 1956] Bill, 1956 1368 to evolve as large a measure of agreement as Courts were concerned, you are aware that we possible or failing an agreement. Government had High Courts in different stages so far as have come to certain decisions which have the various areas were concerned. So far as the been generally accepted by the public and. British provinces were concerned, we had therefore, I would submit that it would not be various High Courts established by the British necessary nor would it be advisable to keep Government, some about a hundred years this question of territorial adjustments open by back. If I mistake not, the three High Courts, accepting a proposal for the appointment of a or rather the three Presidency High Courts, as Boundary Commission at some conceivable they were called, of Bombay, Calcutta and time. For example, if the parties be in a mood Madras, were established as early as 1861 and of compromise and approach each other, in about live years' time we shall have the especially at the Government level, as I stated centenary of these great High Courts, it was done in the case of the Hyderabad including the High Court of Bombay whose Government, I am confident that in the highest fate was hanging in the balance due to certain interests of the country all such questions will circumstances. But happily the whole problem be very properly settled. In these States—I has been fully and satisfactorily solved and the would not call them exactly unilingual States, great tradition of the Bombay High Court because in each of these States we have got would remain as it is. But, Sir, so far as the large areas especially on the border where other territories which came into the Indian there are more languages than one that are Union were concerned, for example, the Part B being spoken—in spite of all agreements that States, we had formerly High Courts in diffe- might be come to at the last stage, the question rent States. I know that in some States, the of more languages than one within one king or the ruler himself was the High Court administrative union will always remain and. and then the British administrators considered therefore, all of us have to consider that even that the rulers should not be the High Courts at though a particular group of persons will not all. Then some sort of High Courts were be speaking the main language of the territory established in the various Indian States. But or the State, still all have equal rights and ultimately, when the question of integration especially the rights of linguistic minorities came in, then a number of States were grouped have to be duly safeguarded. I shall be together and we had the unions of States under discussing this question at a later stage, but I the Raj-pramukhs, except in respect of the do desire that with the greatest goodwill on the three great States, namely, Mysore, Hyderabad part of both, wherever it is possible, the parties and Travancore-Cochin. Then, after this come to an agreement; it is open at the integration was made, after the achievemnet of Government level to come to such agreements independence, Government were trying very and. therefore, naturally the further pursuit of hard to see that so far as these Part B States this question would not be a matter of any were concerned, there should be common difficulty. I would request hon. Members to High Courts and that the conditions of service consider the implications of the acceptance of that were granted to the members of the High a motion for a Boundary Commission, because Courts should be as satisfactory as possible. I all these things will remain there and we shall, would like to tell hon. Members that for the more or less, all of us be obsessed only with last three or four years, we have been trying the idea of having this village or this territory hard to bring in the scales of pay of the High or this taluk or that taluk, and we shall not be Courts in the Part B States to as high a stage as thinking of the greater and more important possible. In some cases it was Rs. 1,200 to Rs. problems that are crying for solution at the 1,500 and in some cases it was Rs. 1,500 to hands of the country. Rs. 2,000. It compared ill with the scales of pay that were offered to the High Court Judges as also to the Chief Justices of the various Part SHRI AKBAR ALI KHAN: What are you A States. Before the Constitution an ordinary doing to safeguard the rights of these High Court Judge was given Rs. 4,000 and the minorities? Chief Justice got Rs. 4,500. SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: No, no, Rs. SHRI B. N. DATAR: I will now deal with 5,000. other points. So far as the High 1369 States Reorganisation [RAJYASABHA] Bill, 1956 I37O

SHRI B. N. DATAR: Very well, Rs. be accepted, whatever might be the 5,000. Now, it was considered that these pay considerations to the contrary. Ultimately, 1 scales should be reduced to a certain extent am happy to point out that this question was and, therefore, the Constitution provided unanimously approached by the Members of for Rs. 3,500 as the pay of the Puisne the Joint Select Committee and they stated Judge of the High Court and Rs. 4,000 as that the difference sought to be made between the pay of the Chief Justice. This certainly these High Courts -on the one hand and the was not reached by the various High Courts. other High Courts on the other, was to be High Courts like those of Mysore, if I done away with. mistake not, pay Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 2,500 so far as these two classes are SHRI JASWANT SINGH: But Rajasthan concerned. When the subject of States State agreed to it long before the Joint Select reorganisation was taken up, the question Committee decided the question. arose as to whether all the High Courts were to be put on the same footing, so far SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: No, No, it was as pay scales were concerned, or whether agreed to only during the Joint Select some sort of difference should be made Committee stage. between the pays of certain High Courts and the pays of other High Courts. There is SHRI JASWANT SINGH: But the one view that we should appreciate, Rajasthan Legislature decided long ago namely, that after all, it is the State that...... Government which has to finance all this. They will have to pay the new scales of pay MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order. to the High Court Judges. Especially, one Chief Minister of a State was of the SHRI B. N. DATAR: But there were other opinion, for example, that if the pay scales States also. Let not the hon. Member think were so raised as to give about Rs. 1,500 that the view of the Rajasthan was the view of per mensem more, either to an ordinary High all the three States. Ultimately, they also Court Judge or to a Chief Justice, then he agreed— and it must be said to theij credit— feared that there would be repercussions in that there ought to be parity of treatment so other directions, especially so far as the pay far as this question was concerned, because scales of the lower service personnel were ultimately, the more important question was concerned. Certain States, three States in the administration of justice and the High particular, were anxious that they should not Court, as you are aware, in every State has to be saddled with additional burden. The be treated in the same way and ought to have Travancore-Cochin State was one. the same scales of pay. Mysore State was another and Rajasthan State was the third. Therefore, with due Then, naturally, other questions arose. As regard to the views of these States, what we hon. Members will find, the Joint Select had originally proposed in the Bill, as it was Committee stated that so far as the High sent out to the State Governments, was Courts in Part B States were concerned, they that so far as the other High Courts were should be abolished. That question was not concerned, they should have the same fully appreciated even in the other place and I scales of pay, as pointed out by me, and so had to explain the whole position. The far as these three High Courts were abolition of all the High Courts and the concerned, the pay scales should be Rs. 2,500 simultaneous establishment of similar High and Rs. 3,000 respectively. Then, after this Courts for these areas was due to the fact that Bill was published, there was great the Joint Select Committee considered that it controversy and there was considerable ought to be open to Government to select the opposition, almost united opposition, to what new personnel so far as the High Court Judges was called the disparity in the scales of were concerned. As I stated in' the other pay, on the one hand, of the Judges of these House, though all the Judges were carrying on three High Courts and the Judges of the very well and doing satisfactory work, the other High Courts on the other. So, this question was whether it ought not to be open question was taken up by the Joint Select to us to see that all the Judges of all (he High Committee and they came to the view that Courts came up to the great expectations that the principle of the uniformity of pay of had been formed about all the High Court Judges was so | important and so absolute that it was to 1371 S.ates Reorganisation [16 AUG. 1956] Bill 1956 1372 the High Courts. Therefore, some power of a particular provision in the Constitution. It was reserved to the Government under would be clear to hon. Members when the which in consultation with the Chief Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Bill is Justice, it would be open to Govern taken into consideration. The States ment to find out with what nature of Reorganisation Commission have also dealt the work a particular Judge in a Part with this question and have suggested that B High Court was concerned and then the minorities should not be allowed to either to select him or, if he is not develop a separatist tendency; they selected, to see to what extent we can should not ask for a state within a state or help him by giving him some other something else incompatible with their post or office more or less, equivalent citizenship of that particular State. Still, it to the one he was holding. There is is essential, especially where there are no desire to cause any injustice or linguistic minorities, that some proper inconvenience to any person. But ulti safeguards should be evolved. For that mately, Sir, you will agree, the needs of purpose, certain provisions have to be merit are the highest, especially when included in the Constitution. Now, we are paying such very good scales some Members of the Joint Committee in of pay. It would happen that in some particular were not happy; they desired that cases the increase would be Rs. 1,500 something more should be done and, in per month and ...... particular, they were anxious that these safeguards should be statutorily recognised, SHRI K. S. HEGDE: No, in one case it was that is, either they should be placed in the Rs. 800 in 1947 and now it is Rs. 3,500. States Reorganisation Bill itself or in the Constitution. That question was considered SHRI B. N. DATAR: But I am speaking by the Home Ministry and we have already about the present scales of pay. Let us not go sent out to the various State Governments a back into history now. circular, a copy of which was placed before the Joint I Committee. This circular has SHRI P. N. SAPRU (Uttar Pradesh): Would been j published along with the Report of the it not be for the old established High Courts? Joint Select Committee. In that hon. Members will find that certain safeguards SHRI B. N. DATAR: So far as the High have been suggested regarding middle or Courts in Part A States are concerned, to high schools, regarding concessions in respect which my hon. friend had the great honour of of administrative matters, etc. It was belonging, they remain where they are. It is suggested that the Governor ought to have our ambition to bring the High Courts in the some powers of making enquiries into these Part B States, so far as efficiency and other matters. The Governor also will be matters are concerned,—what we expect is making enquiries in the light of the amendment not ordinary efficiency but extraordinary that has been proposed in the Constitution efficiency—to the level of the other High (Ninth Amendment) Bill. It was further Courts. We are anxious that the judiciary contended that it would not be sufficient unless remains at the highest level. Judiciary ought we have got statutory safeguards. So far as always to remain a symbol of justice and these statutory safeguards are concerned, it was independence and, therefore, we desire that in considered that it would not be advisable, in these historical circumstances through which the interests of the linguistic minorities the various High Courts have passed, the new themselves, to have these safeguards. High Courts in the new States should also What is most important is that though certain come up not to ordinary expectations but to rights have to be safeguarded to the the highest expectations. minorities, they have to develop a sense of oneness and harmony with the rest of the I have already explained the point about population and the rest of the population also Zonal Councils. should not believe that these people have got separatist tendencies. If certain statutory Before the Joint Select Committee as also safeguards were introduced, it was felt that in the Lok Sabha, very strong arguments were they would lead rather to the worsening of the advanced and it was said that something more good relations between the linguistic minorities should be done than what had been proposed and others than to anv improvement. at present in the case of linguistic minorities. Therefore, all that could be done was to send This they wanted done by the insertion 3—13 out R.S./56. 1373 State Reorganisation [RAJYASABHA] Bill, 1956 I374

[Shri B. N. Datar.] a circular to the State the only two all-India services and what has Governments pointing out broadly the main been decided is that there would be fresh teatures of such safeguards with the desire that cadres so far as the new States are concerned they should protect or safeguard the interests and officers would be transferred from one of the minorities to the extent possible subject cadre to another after taking all the relevant to the reservations that I have already pointed circumstances into account, e.g., the out. It was also suggested that just as we have requirements of the States and also the work in the case of the Scheduled Castes and the that these officers had carried on. That process Tribes, a Commissioner appointed by the would be completed after the work is started. Government who goes into the various States, The work has to go on and the process would finds out the position and then makes a be complete as early as possible. recommendation or a report which is considered by the Government of India, the State Governments—this report is also laid on So far as the State services are concerned, the Table of the House when it is discussed certain principles have been laid down. One and debated—and others, there ought to be a such principle is that in the case of a whole separate officer for the purpose of finding out State merging in another bigger State, for the position so far as the linguistic minorities example, Coorg in Mysore, Ajmer in are concerned. On behalf of Government, an Rajasthan and a number of States—three—in assurance was given that this question* would Madhya Pradesh, all the officers at various be duly considered by the Government of India levels will be carried over into that State. The and if they find that the appointment of such difficulty arises when you have to deal with an officer would be useful to the interests of the question of the transfer of certain portions the linguistic minorities then such an officer of a territory to one State and another portion would be appointed. However, I would point to other States, as in the case of Hyderabad, as out that so far as statutory guarantees are in the case of Bombay and, to some extent, as concerned, I would desire that these in the case of Madras and Travancore-Cochin. guarantees should not be insisted upon This question principally arises in the case of because, after all, we have to develop a sense gazetted officers. So far as the non-gazetted of oneness. In any State and every State there officers are concerned, officers at the lower are bound to be linguistic minorities and their levels are concerned, they would be naturally attempt ought to be to completely harmonise absorbed in a particular State. In some cases, themselves with the majority community. The we have got more States than one that are majority community has also to be generous successor States. In these cases, for the sake of so far as the legitimate rights of these people convenience, one State is considered as the are concerned. So, this process of mental principal successor State. A provisional approach towards each other would perhaps be allocation is made —unless a final allocation halted or at least adversely affected if such has already been made—and the final guarantees are given. We would then think allocation would A>e made with the good more and more of the guarantees and of the offices of the Government of India and we enforcement of these guarantees through the have got clause 117 according to which pM courts of law or otherwise. This will result in ultimately the Government of India has to step the relations getting embittered and will be in when this question has to be considered in harmful to the ultimate interests of the nation. consultation with or in conjunction with a This is what might be found to a certain extent number of States, for example, in the case of in the States Reorganisation Bill. This ques- Hyderabad, Mysore and to some extent tion will be considered at a greater length Bombay and Madhya Pradesh. There, Sir, a when the Constitution (Ninth Amendment) number of considerations would be taken into Bill comes before the House for consideration. account. There will be a very proper and equitable treatment so far as the officer is So far as the services are concerned, concerned. His interests will be taken into attempts have been made to lay down the account to the extent possible, and then the general principles. There are only two all- interests of the services. The interest of the India services, namelv, the I. A. S., and the I. new States also will be taken into account and P. S. These are thus an attempt would be made to harmonise the various requirements and 1375 States Reorganisation [16 AUG. 1956] Bill, 1956 1376

then to allot the officers finally either to this bers to go through the Bill and to offer very State or to the other State. Now for that useful suggestions. Thank you. purpose, Sir, certain powers have been reserved by this Bill to the Government of India. They are to appoint an advisory MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Motion committee or committees and then with the moved: advice of such committees and in consultation with the States concerned the final allocation "That the Bill to provide for the will be made so far as the officers are reorganisation of the States of India and concerned, and here we have taken into for matters connected therewith, as passed account this circumstance that, as far as by the Lok Sabha, be taken into possible, all the three or four considerations consideration." would be taken together and the least injustice done to the officer. Ultimately, the question of SHRI K. S. HEGDE: Mr. Deputy reorganisation is a very important one and the Chairman, normally, having been a interests of the State or the State Member of the Joint Select Committee administration are naturally higher than the and having tried to give my very best individual conveniences of inconveniences of to the Bill under consideration, I a particular officer and, therefore, Sir, the should not have sought your leave to Government of India steps in with a view to intervene in the debate, but certain meeting the different viewpoints and, as far as difficulties have arisen which have made possible, solving these inequalities. That is the it necessary for me to place my view reason, Sir, why certain powers have been point before this House. You are quite reserved to the Government of India. So these aware, Sir, and so are the Members of are the main powers. this House, that I was deeply interested in the question of Kasaragod. I had sought to place my viewpoint before So far as some minor questions are this House on an earlier occasion and concerned, Sir we are examining the question, I thought I had also the sympathy and specially so far as the transfer of four seats as understanding of the Government in from Bombay to the Mysore Legislative carrying out my viewpoint. I tried to Council and one or two other problems are persuade the Joint Select Committee to concerned to which a reference was made by the best of my ability, but I have failed my friend, Shri Hegde. Just now we are in persuading the Joint Select Com examining these questions. These have been mittee to accept my viewpoint ...... occasioned, as the House knows, on account of the last minute change brought about by the SHRI H. N. KUNZRU: What is it? desire of the hon. Members of Parliament to have a bigger bilingual Bombay State. That is SHRI K. S. HEGDE:...... about the the reason, Sir, why some adjustments have to change of Kasaragod. I am now be made here and there and I would promise confining my statement only with reference to my hon. friends that this question would be that and I shall not travel much beyond that. examined fully, and if at all there is injustice, Although I had not achieved my object in the that injustice would be corrected. Otherwise, Joint Select Committee, still I thought it Sir, I have explained the whole position. would not be desirable to append a Minute of Dissent. But this has given rise to a good deal {Interruption.) of misunderstanding about my position and that of some of my colleagues on the Joint It is not there. There is no question of Select Committee in our own areas, and we deprivation. In any case I promise to have the have been asked if we agreed to the decision whole question studied, and I shall be able to arrived at by the Joint Select Committee so far convince this House that what we have done as Kasaragod was concerned and if we is right, or we might accept their suggestions. considered that decision just, and if we did not consider the decision just why we did not So, Sir, these are the various points append a Minute of Dissent. There are certain made, and I have dealt with some of extreme sections which have been demanding, , them with a view to enabling hon. Mem- evidently inspired by certain other resignations, that if we considered the decision unjust on which they did not see any difference of opinion between them and us, why 1377 States Reorganisation [RAJYASABHA] J5t7/, 1956 1378

[Shri K. S. Hegde.] don't we resign from see any reason why the whole taluk should be the House? These are questions which I split up and it would be to administrative would like to address myself today. convenience to transfer the whole taluk. Now, so far as the merits of the ques This is the only argument that has been tion are concerned, I had no doubts advanced. Now, Sir, permit me to remind you at any time and I do not entertain any of a bit of history on this point. This portion to doubt now that Kasaragod is a part of the south of the Chandragiri was never a part that famous small little land known as of my district. It was an area conquered by Tulu country. It continues to be and one of the Kannada kings known as Ikkeri. He I hope, God willing, it will added it on to the district and when the British aga administration took it over they retained it in merely as a part of the administrative come back to us. But arguments have been organisation. Now, this part had a separate advanced recently encouraged by the distinct administrative machinery; it had a decisions of the States Reorganisation separate sub-taluk; it had a separate District Commission and encouraged by the decision Munsiff's court; it had a separate police thana of the Government that there is a case for and it had a separate every other concomitant joining this area to the State of Kerala. In the of an administration. Now, on the Congress other House as well as in this House some administrative side also whereas the northern facts and figures were given to justify this side was within the jurisdiction of the inclusion. My submission would be that Karanataka Pradesh Congress Committee the these are all atferthoughts and without any southern side was within the jurisdiction of the basis. Sir, this is part of the country known Malabar Pradesh Congress Committee. This as Tulu from the dawn of history. If you was the position which was accepted to be the refer to any historical books, if you refer to correct position by all the parties concerned. the writings of the Greek travellers in this But then what happened? While the States country, you will find this has been always Reorganisation Commission took the district considered as a part of the Tulu land, which as a unit, when it came to Malabar every is a constituent unit of the State. It possible concession was made to the Malabar is not a new claim that we are making. area. Malabar was the beneficiary both under Nearly a century ago district gazetteers were the States Reorganisation Commission and written both about South Kanara and about under the benevolent hands of our benign Malabar. These were written by impartial Government. I do not know the reason why students of history. Both of them concurred every enunciated rule was broken by the in this that the boundary between Kerala and Commission when it came to the question of Tulu land was the river Chandragiri. This considering the case of Kerala. was a well accepted position. When the States Reorganisation Commission went to SHRI PERATH NARAYANAN NAIR my district, unfortunately Dr. Kunzru was (Madras): What about Gudalur? not there, but the other two Members came. Before them there was not a single SHRI K. S. HEGDE: I shall come to it. I organisation, I dare say, not a single have much more to say about it. As I was organisation ever claimed that area—north saying they suggested the district as the unit of the Chandragiri river for the new Kerala but when they came to Kasaragod taluk, the State. It was accepted by both the parts that rule of the district being considered a unit was the river Chandragiri should be the natural entirely forgotten. Then, they laid down the and the necessary boundary line between the principle of 70 per cent of the population for two. Mr. Panikkar suggested that that was any area to be considered a unilingual area but the historical boundary line and we thought when they came to Devikulam, this rule was there was no dispute about this matter. To discarded because according to them the our great surprise, when the Report came, population was floating. They said, -we shall the Report suggested that this area should go not split any taluk'. But when they came to along with other areas to the Kerala State. Shenkotta, the taluka was split for the benefit The only argument advanced in the States of the Malayalees. My friend was pointing out Reorganisation Commission's Reoort is that about Gudalur. the public opinion in South Kanara concedes that the area to the south of the Chandragiri river should go to Kerala and 'we' do not 1379 States Reorganisation [16 AUG. 1956] Bill, 1956 1380

In Gudalur the percentage of Malayalee claim for this area. Would the future Kerala population according to the Census is only 45 State be able to provide, with its slender per cent, yet my friend has got the courage to finances, with its difficult economic position, ask, 'what about Gudalur?'. for the education of all these students? May I proceed further? Out of the eight High SHRI PERATH NARAYANAN Schools that are in this area, seven are having NAIR: But the Census figures are Kannada as their medium. Only one schoolhas not ...... Malayalam as medium. Does this add to the administrative convenience? May I go SHRI K. S. HEGDE: I shall deal with that aspect also. I shall deal with all the aspects further? Out of the 4,000 and odd documents systematically. Now, considering all these, it that are registered every year in this area, is strange that a part of the country which hardly four documents are registered in revolted against the party in power, which Malayalam. Is that again administrative practically defeated almost all the Congress convenience? The entire commerce of this candidates, has evoked more sympathy from area is connected with Mangalore town. It has the Congress administration than we who got nothing to do with the rest of the portion. thought that the Congress organisation would Sir, in this matter the public have a right to be just to us. We were loyal to the organi- accuse us. When the Commission was there sation at every stage. Our district stood by the on this question we thought that in the Congress throughout. We elected congress interests of the public it was improper to claim candidates to practically every seat. So, there an area which was predominantly a is this charge that we who served the Malayalam area. That is why I along with Congress have been kicked. Whether that other representatives of the Congress when we charge is right or wrong, it is for the public to appeared before the Commission said that the determine at a later stage. Sir, it is not on the area south of Chandragiri must go to the basis of the language that the Commission Kerala and this concession has been exploited recommended a portion of the taluk to be by the Commission—I advisedly use the word handed over to Malabar. According to them it 'exploited'—and it has cost us very much. was for administrative convenience. Now, let us see further. What exactly is the public opinion on this issue? That is the most Now I shall examine this question of important test in a matter like this. The administrative convenience. There are opinion of the representatives from that area in this area 22.000 and odd students must be considered the public opinion. There who are attending the primary schools are two Members elected from this area to the and out of them 20,000 and odd are Madras Legislature and both of them say that having Kannada as their medium. this area should got to Karnataka. There is one Hardly 1,600 students are having Member of Parliament who has been elected Malayalam as their medium. Is this from this area and he also wants that this area administrative convenience? Can the should go to Karnataka. Out of 36 panchayats, future State of Kerala provide educa 34 have passed unanimous resolutions to say tional facilities for all these students? that this area must go to Karnataka. Out of the I ask my friends who today are so very four district board members, there have been vigorous in their support to the claims asking that this area must go to Karnataka. of Kerala, is this administrative con Can there be greater unanimity of public venience? My friend. Mr. Naravanan opinion than the opinion that has been placed Nair, representing the Communist Party before the Government? Yet, what strange today says that this area must go to form of democracy is this that the unanimous Kerala. That is his view, as I under will of the people is not respected merely stand him but his party in the district because it does not suit somebody, because alwavs stood for this area being in somebody does not agree to this position. That the Karanataka State. But here he is the question before the public now and that says ...... is the question that has got to be answered. SHRI PERATH NARAYANAN NAIR: I Now, my hon. friend, Mr. Narayanan Nair shall make that position clear. referred to the population question. Nobody SHRI K. S. HEGDE: You shall have to can understand the make it very much clear before the public to reconcile your stand. When the Communist Party appeared before the Commission, they never made any 1381 States Reorganisation [RAJYASABHA] Bill, 1956 1382

[Shri K. S. Hegde.] SHRI K. S. HEGDE: You are sorry, I am sorry also, but your friend behind population position of South Kanara unless he is not. The question is that Kerala belongs to the place. Generally speaking and State has got its own problems. You essentially it is a Kannada district. I am proud have only added one more problem. to be called a Kannadiga. Everyone of us will Anybody who knows the conditions in be proud to be called Kannadigas. I may tell Kerala would rather sympathise with my hon. friend that 82 per cent of the people them rather than envy their present in that district speak a language other than position. Everybody knows that Kannada. At home Kannada is not the spoken democracy is in a very dangerous position in language. But every community has got its Kerala. It is only hanging by a slender thread: own language; every group has got its own the additional territories will be millstone on language. This is a district which is entirely their neck. I want them to consider the matter peculiar from any other district anywhere in calmly and dispassionately. There are many India. Language is based on the community or champions from Kerala now after the S. R. C. a group of communities. It is for that reason to claim this area. Let them calmly think over that our friends have been saying, 'what about the matter. Let them decide for themselves the language position?' If that is the principle, whether it will be in the interests of the people then 82 per cent of the people do not speak of Kerala to have it for them or not. Kannada and it is on that basis the exponents of Aikya Kerala, as they call it, wanted an area up to Gokarnam. They wanted the entire Now, the next question that arises is, if I South Kanara district. So, this is not the basis considered this decision as wrong basically on which a decision has been taken. Because and fundamentally, then why did I and other in this area also there is the same difficulty as colleagues of mine not give our minutes of in other areas, the difficulty of people dissent? In this matter I should like to take this speaking different tongues. Here people speak House and also the country outside and, parti- some form of corrupt Malayalam, but that is cularly, my part of the country into my not the language of the school; that is not the confidence. Right from the beginning attempts language of the documents; that is not the were made to reconcile disputes and to rectify language normally used for daily affairs. At defects. I may tell you that even before the home they speak a colloquial form of Mala- States Reorganisation Commission published yalam or Tulu which is again claimed to be a its Report, some days before that, an eminent direct offshoot of Malayalam. I myself do not Malayalee gentleman and myself were dining speak Kannada at home; I speak Tulu at in one of the restaurants in this very home. If that were the basis, then all of us Parliament House —and he is well connected must go to Kerala. My primary point is, did with one of the Members of the Commission. anybody claim this area for the Kerala In the course of our discussion it came out that people? Did any organisation come before the it was likely that Kasaragod taluk would go to Commission and demand it? Did the party of Kerala. I asked "Is it the whole of it or part of my friend go before the Commission and did it?" He said "It might be portion of it, I don't it claim this area for Kerala? If that is not so, know." That excited my suspicion. I made it was hardly just on their part to have given enquiries and I was sorry to learn that the this area to Kerala. Sir, my friends are elated Commission had tentatively come to the by the success that they have got; they are conclusion to recommend that the whole of pleased with their booty and the plunder. They the Kasaragod taluk was to be merged with think that they have got a beautiful damsel Kerala. Immediately I wrote a letter to the with whom they would have Rakshas Vivah. Chairman of the Commission setting out the Whether this will be the maiden of their entire history, setting out what happened in choice or this will be the Visa-kanya time the district. I also sent copies of that letter to alone can show it. Dr. Kunzru and Mr. Panikkar. The inevitable still happened. The recommendation was there. Immediately after that I wrote to the SHRI S. N. MAZUMDAR (West Bengal): hon. the Home Minister setting out the entire Are you sorry for the loss of the damsel? circumstances. The Home Minister was pleas- ed to appreciate the position. I got a very sympathetic letter from him. My 1383 States Reorganisation [16 AUG. 1956] Bill, 1956 1384 point of view had been considered with matter after the Joint Select Committee sympathy by the hon. the Home Minister. submitted its Report. But one principle which Well we tried to do our very best to see he always put forward was that he would not that there were no untoward incidents. make a change unilaterally without the consent We thought that it would weaken our of the opposing parties in the matter. case rather than strengthen it for inclusion That had become necessary because he did of this area in the Karnataka State. Every not know whether, if he made one change, it effort was made to convince the High Com- would not open the floodgates, whether mand about the justice of our case. I may it would not provoke demands for changes in inform this House that at one stage it was other places, however just the case might be. reported in the Press that the Four-Man Now, I could very well appreciate the difficult Committee did come to the conclusion that this position of the hon. the Home Minister. There area should be added to Karnataka and was undoubtedly a genuine and a Gudalur was to be given to Kerala. This was sincere effort on his part to do justice to us. It reported to be the decision of the Congress is because of this and it is because of the High Command. Days went by and it was hope that the matter could be further later reported by the Press that at the changed after the Joint Select Committee's intervention of one of the Chief Ministers the Report that I did not think it was necessary to decision was changed and a decision was enter a caveat at that stage. I know that to write again taken to go back to the original a minute of dissent is merely an act of recommendation of the S. R. C. How far this desperation. When a man fails in everything, is correct I leave it to the Government to tell us he emits some fire and leaves it at that. But I on the floor of the House, to tell us whether did not lose hope. Even at that stage I these reports are substantially true or not. thought that further attempts would be One thing is certain. At every stage when I made even after the Joint Select Committee's had occasion to discuss this matter with Report, to bring about a reconciliation the hon. the Home Minister, I thought our case Everybodv in this House knows, Sir, that the had been fully understood by him. If Congress Party at the instance of the hon. the there was still no inclination to rectify the Home Minister made further attempts to defects, I thought that it might to due to the reconcile this dispute. At one stage arbitration question of a policy, and not because our case was proposed, and the name of the hon. the did not deserve the Government's sympathy Chairman of this House was reported to have and support. With this point in view I again been suggested. Undoubtedly, the Vice- went to the Joint Select Committee. I met the President could not accept that responsibility. hon. the Home Minister more than once. I It is not because of lack of efforts on our acquainted him with our point of view part—if anything had happened, it was the and there was no necessity to labour at it. He time factor that stood in our way. Bombay knew every bit of the case, probably he knew overshadowed everything. It was the main about the case as much as I knew about it or topic of discussions. The bulk of the probably a little more. I thought I had his discussions was taken up by Bombay. Other svmpathv, and I have no doubt that I had his subjects could not be given the attention that sympathy. He understood our case and he was they required. They were more or less put on anxious to do justice. Members belonging to the back racks. The Government must give Malabar were called in for discussion with a further consideration to this matter even after view to arriving at an amicable settlement. He the passing of this Bill. It is not merely my tried his very best to see whether there was an area that is concerned. There are a few amicable settlement. He suggested arbitration. other areas which are also badly treated, But he could have done nothing more in the wrongly treated, for which matter, and I take this opportunity to give reconsideration might be absolutely my sincere thanks to him for all that he did. necessary. So, under these circumstances I The only thing he could not do was to thought that I should not write a minute of impose a decision. Short of imposing a dissent, and not because I thought I agreed decision whatever he could do in the matter with the decisions of the Joint Select undoubtedlv he did. Time was against us, Committee on this point. It was only to keep there is no doubt about it, and yet he gave us to the door open, it was only with a view to understand that further efforts would be made making further efforts in the matter that I did in this not write a minute of dissent.. Let me make it 1385 States Reorganisation [RAJYA SABHA] Bill, 1956 1386

[Shri K. S. Hegde.] perfectly clear that it is Now, so far as there is...... not my view, it is not my conclusion, that the decision of the S. R. C. or the decision of the SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: You can Government is correct. advance your arguments without casting aspersions on any other party. There is one other aspect that has come up again. There have been a few resignations SHRI K|. Sj. HEGDE: When you invite here and there on this issue. It is a highly aspersions, take them with grace. emotional issue. People undoubtedly are very much perturbed. The enemies of the country SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: You can are busy fostering disputes. Every emotional go on with your own case. question is being exploited. Many of them go to Bombay. Ahmadabad or Poona, to every SHRI K. S. HEGDE: That is why I said, Sir, troubled, spot, and an impetus is given to that if there is any accusation, that accusation every agitation. It is in this context that the must be shared bv all the parties, not by one resignations must be viewed. By itself it is a single party. No single party was unanimous. very emotional question. By themselves the In the verv nature of things, it could not be people are very fond of a language, they unanimous, because always there are local would like to be with their relations, they feelings in this matter and local emotions. would like to be with their friends, they would That is why I can very well appreciate the like to be with people whom they know rather difficulty of any political party or the than with those whom they do not know. difficulty of any Government in this matter. These aspects are there. Added to these, But is the method of resignations any proper subterfuge attempts are being made to set one approach to a problem like this? Can there by section of the people against another. But one any single decision which can be accepted by thing is clear on this issue. No political party everybody to be satisfactory? I think not. Any is united on this question. It is not merely the one of us could never have rendered a Congress Party that has not been united on judgment better than what the Government this point. The P. S. P. is not united; the have done. Of course, difficulties are there, Communists are not united, they speak in and they have got to be solved and settled. different voices and the linguistic feeling They have got to be tackled undoubtedly. But claims greater loyalty with them. to say that there have been wrong judgments is one thing, and to say that the Government have bungled in this matter is another. I do not SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: It is not a fact. think any other set of leaders could have We are united. tackled this problem as satisfactorily as the present Government have done, if you take the SHRI K. S. HEGDE: Mr. Bhupesh Gupta is overall view. If you take, of course, the local thoroughly ignorant. I want to invite his view, undoubtedly, there have been mistakes. attention to the claim of the Communist But if you take an all-India view, it has been a Member of the Bihar Legislature. He tremendously successful solution to the demanded that not an inch of Bihar should be problem. It is one thing to say that you cannot given to Bengal. You forget it. May I ask you ignore the local view merely by taking an all- as what is your attitude so far as Bengal-Bihar India view. The local view also will have to be disrjute is concerned? You claim not only that taken into consideration in due course, if not area but more. now, maybe at a later stage. After all, Sir, we SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: I do not have got to approach such problems in a want to enter into a discussion on this democratic way. If every minority which is matter ...... defeated in the Legislature, tries to revolt, revolt in the form of a satyagraha, revolt in SHRI K. S. HEGDE: You come to my the form of a strike, revolt in the form of a district. The Communists in my place are resignation, where would be democracy? Is claiming the disputed area. Look at Mr. the method of resignation a democratic Narayanan Nair. What is the use of pretending approach? Are you going to solve this unanimity when there is none? They can only problem in that way? If you have any faith in argue and create trouble. There is no reason in democracy, you must accept the verdict of the their argument. majority in Parliament as legally correct. If you think 1387 States Reorganisation [16 AUG. 1956] Bill, 1956 1388 it is wrong, it is your duty to persuade it to a country today is blessed with the leadership different view, if not now, at a later stage. But that we are blessed with. No country probably let us not lose faith in ourselves and let us not could have tackled such a problem in the lose faith in democracy. Let us not say that the manner in which this country has done. In Government has failed and the Government spite of petty minds, in spite of trouble- has made a blunder. That is not the approach shooters, and in spite of pin-pricks at every which we should adopt to this problem. We stage, we are nearing our goal, and we are have to judge things by taking an overall view nearing the schedule that the country has and not by taking a narrow or a petty view or placed before itself. I am quite sure that this a localised view of the whole matter. It is true measure will create units which will be the that at a time like this there are demands from strongest units of the Indian Union and which local areas which are obsessed by local will prosper and prosper. And with the conditions, and which do not know the all- present Government and its leaders, I have no India difficulties in the matter. doubt that this country has a bright future. I have blessed this Bill already and 1 bless it again with all my heart. And I can assure my Sir, it was my proud privilege to serve on people that given endurance and faith in the Joint Select Committee, and I know what democratic and constitutional procedure, their amount of sterenuous work it was for the right case, their just case, is bound to succeed. Home Minister. A lesser man would have They have got only to wait. That is all that I crumbled in no time. I know what amount of can say at this stage. With these few remarks. strain he had to bear and how many Sir, I commend this Bill to the House. difficulties had to be solved. He had to work from 10 o'clock in the morning till 11 o'clock SHRI ABHIMANYU RATH (Orissa): Sir, in the night. It was a continuous meeting and from the lengthy speech of the hon. Minister, it was a continuous tackling of the problem. Mr. Datar, I conclude that possibly with the He was battling against age and battling against power and prestige which the Treasury ill-health and battling against problems, big Benches enjoy, they may think and small. Sir, had it not been for his reconsideration of this Bill below their stewardship at this juncture, there would have dignity. Sir, I can say— chaos in the country. No country has probably solved such a gigantic problem as we have solved, and we must indeed be proud of it. No party could have solved this problem as best as the Congress Party has done it. If there have been any minor mistakes here and there, it is our duty to see that they are corrected. It is certainly not our duty to get desperate in regard to this matter. Being desperate will bring us no dividends. It is not for anybody to " run away from his post of duty. There should Sir, the Congress in the days of its agitation be a sense of loyalty to the Constitution and to against the British regime was committed to the Government. It is that sense of duty to this country that makes us think twice, think thrice the reorganisation of States on a linguistic and think many a time, before we take any basis, and the 1928 Pandit Motilal Nehru step which the history might consider to be Committee gave birth to the States improper, wrong and unjustified in the context reorganisation. Now, Sir, in order to vindicate of things. Sir, I am extremely sorry that we the position of the Congress, Shri Jawahar-lal have had to face this tough problem, and I am Nehru, our Prime Minister, has brought extremely happy over the fact that this great forward this Bill without considering the problem, a problem which defied all solution, has been solved, by and large, to the present situation existing in our country and satisfaction of the entire country. I have no without perhaps fully realising the doubt, Sir, that the entire credit for this implications of the measure which is before solution goes to the leadership of India. Parliament. No The days, months and years ahead are of critical importance to our country. Hence, Sir, with all my respect for our Prime Minister, I submit that there should not be any superimposition of a blunder in the form of a wrong decision 1389 States Reorganisation [RAJYASABHA] BiU,\95G 1390

[Shri Abhimanyu Rath.] given evidence of bankruptcy of imagination. and the ill-timed action of the Government. If The Government has miserably failed to take the time is inopportune, let the decision be into account the hard realities about Orissa appropriate. Sir, I believe that this Bill is State. Here are some references to relevant aimed at forging national unity, achieving facts. In the first place, I would draw the emotional integration and ensuring attention of the House to the fact that the administrative convenience, as also States Reorganisation Commission also harmonious economic development. As such, admitted the claim of Orissa over Singhbhum Sir, unity and security of India can be better while discussing the transfer of Saraikella and secured by resolving controversies, reducing Kharsawan. tensions and making people feel that there is "This can be avoided only if the whole non-discrimination, equality and justice for all of Singhbhum is transferred to units, irrespective of their size and strength. Orissa...... on administrative and other grounds, such a transfer is not Sir, it cannot be denied that this Bill has advisable". generated more of friction and tension than it has forged national unity. A bilingual Sir, I wonder at the extent to which the Bombay State may perhaps be claimed as a Government can invoke the dubious phrase of prize doll by the Congress. But we have to 'administrative convenience* to deny justice bear in mind that that is a fact to be accom- to the innocent Oriyas. I contend that a plished yet. In Bombay a heavy toll of life democratic Government should have a through police firing and now everyday loss scrupulous regard for the rights and of life in are a positive loss to the sentiments of the people. If the Congress has nation. Besides, the Prime Minister has lost any regard for the late Sardar Patel, the then the services of a valuable colleague, Shri C. Deputy , then I request D. Desh-mukh. a financial expert. Again, I the hon. Members of the Treasury Benches to venture to say that the decision about Bombay reconcile the present arrangement with the which was arrived at overnight clearly statement made by Sardar Patel in January indicates that the Maharashtra Congress 1948 with regard to Seraikella and Kharsa- Committee gave a threat to the Centre. wan. Regarding the goal of emotional "It was temporarily transferred to integration, this can emerge from a precise Singhbhum since, by then, the feudatory definition of geographical factors, State of Mayurbhanj had not been merged considerations of culture, language, racial with Orissa". affinities and distribution of economic resources coupled with a spirit of oneness and Now, when the State of Mayurbhanj is with tolerance. I am afraid, Sir, that some of the Orissa, I see no reason why Seraikella and measures suggested in the Bill commit a Kharsawan and Singhbhum should not be flagrant breach of all these rational principles. transferred to their rightful owners. Again, if the verdict of the people is the essence of Coming to administrative convenience, in democracy, then the last election result of Shri my opinion the problem specific to certain Miharkabi elected to the Bihar Legislative geographical areas may admit of being Assembly on this issue of Orissa's claim over tackled expeditiously and in an atmosphere of Seraikella and Kharsawan is a glaring co-operation and mutual goodwill, but it is example, and besides, seven out of twelve essential that the borders of the various States Singhbhum M. L. As. in the Bihar Legislative should be so demarcated that none of them Assembly are still supporting Orissa's claim. becomes so cumbersome as to either become Again, the recent 1956 local body elections of unwieldy or carry a potential and real threat Seraikella and Kharsawan prove the claim of of exploiting the neighbours. I find to my Orissa to those places. great surprise and regret that this power- intoxicated Government has ventured to make Sir, hon. Members of the House will certain recommendations verging on insanity, perhaps be shocked to realise that this is not as their recommendations and suggestions are merely an exception but that another grievous the seeds of conflict and strife. At certain loss has been inflicted on Orissa. This was the places the Congress has failure to restore to her the areas in the south that were recommended by Philip Duff 1391 States Reorganisation [16 AUG. 1956] Bill, 1956 1392

Enquiry Committee of 1924. In fact the SHRI AHMAD SAID KJHAJN ^uttar boundary of* Orissa in the south should be Pradesh): Sir, everybody is wiser after the pushed up to Pundi Railway Station where it event but it is not my intention here to say meets the Grand Trunk Road. Similarly, in what ought to have been done and what ought Madhya Pradesh. Orissa has a strong case not to have been done. On the other hand, I over Bastar district, Sankara tract of Raighar feel that the States Reorganisation district, Saraipali Basna, Mainpur and Commission was entrusted with a very Deobhog, Phuljar, Bindhra Nuagarh, etc. difficult task and their task was made still Racial affinity and geographical! contiguity more difficult by the depth and the strength of and above all the voice of the majority of the the feeling of the people for their mother- people there warrant their immediate merger tongue. It did not make the position easier. with Orissa. Refusal to listen to the voice of They made long tours, there were lot of the people is a negation of democracy. Our evidences before them and they came to Prime Minister's refusal to meet a people's certain conclusions which I think were delegation from Orissa is an act of adding embodied in their Report. Personally, I think insult to injury. The Government can they made a good job of it and they deserve implement the brainwaves of those who are in our thanks. On the other hand, as far as the helm of affairs and also satisfy their fads, Government is concerned, most of the but Orissa is having its bad days and is provisions in this Bill are based on the groaning under the misrule of a batch of recommendations of the Commission. They effeminates in the matter of administration. tried their very best to get all the people concerned agree to those recommendations Our Prime Minister should remember that and this was the democratic way. Most of their nothing is permanent in politics. The recommendations were more or less accepted boundary problem can remain even as long as by the people except in one State, namely, the the country is there. I beg your permission to State of Bombay. Well, we all regret the warn them that there is nothing static about unfortunate incidents hap-•pened there. I reorganisation or political power. Power sympathise with all those who suffered should not eliminate sagacity from irrespective of the fact whether they belonged Government action. If Government agrees, no to one party or the other. However, let us hope time should be lost in bringing before Parlia- now that the solution that has been found will ment a separate Bill for the merger of Oriya be acceptable or at least be given a fair trial outlying areas with Orissa. and all these incidents which are even now taking place will disappear. I think that it is very regrettable for the country when we find Finally, Sir, I do not want to waste the time that there are such disturbances and such of the House. Before I conclude I regard it as passions shown over the linguistic! question. I my duty to apologise to my colleagues who think that this chapter of discord and conflict may charge me with partisan-thinking should be closed now for ever. For these because of my advocacy of the case of Orissa, reasons, I think that I can give my whole- but I am confident that all of us would like to hearted support to this Bill as a whole. support or reject a particular case on merits and my humble submission is that, as the Now. I would like to make a few States reorganisation is a national question, observations about certain parts of the Bill. In one should not be guided by parochial the Bill they have said that there are going to thinking or party mandates. This alone will be some territories which will be regarded as set the climate for the unqualified application Union Territories. I know that the inhabitants of the Pancha Shila principles to the internal of those territories have been given the right situation of our Federal Republic. to send their representatives to both the Houses of Parliament and some weightage Coming to the subject of harmonious has also been given to them but I beg to economic development, I do not like to bore submit that this is not enough to satisfy the the House, because no economist of repute democratic urge of the people to be associated was associated with the work of the S. R. C. with the day-to-day affairs of the State or the In this respect, Orissa has been a sad territory to which they belong. It is true that spectacle of internal colonialism. we deal here with very important questions vital to the well- With these words, I resume my seat. 1393 States Reorganisation [RAJYASABHA] BUI, 1956 1394

[Shri Ahmad Said Khan.] being, defence duty of all of us to strengthen it and to make it and welfare of the whole nation and the popular all' over the country. But about other country, but questions which affect the languages, assurances were given that they persons in their daily lives are mostly those will not only be protected but they will which come under the category of State receive the generous help for development subjects, and I submit that some effort should and progress. The Commission came to the be made by the Government to associate the conclusion that perhaps these assurances are people of the territory in the administration of not being carried out and, therefore, they those subjects also. It will have many thought it fit to devote one full chapter to this advantages, it will give them satisfaction and question. it will be a great help to the administrator because he will be able to know the feelings DR. R. B. GOUR: Only a chapter-not a of the people about certain orders issued by recommendation. him or certain policy followed by him. SHRI AHMAD SAID KHAN: I could not My next point is about Zonal Councils. I follow the hon. Member. With your believe that this new addition to our permission I would like to quote a few words administrative machinery has been made for from their Report. They have said: this reason that it will enable various States to "There is no reason however why the get together to co-operate with each other, to Governor should not function as an agent associate with each other and exchange views of the Central Government in regard to a and it will help in rubbing off the angles of matter which is of national concern. There linguistic and other differences. is nothing anti-democratic about such an If it is going to serve this purpose, well and arrangement because the Central Gov- good. But I, for one, would have much ernment will be responsible to the Union preferred an Inter-State Council like the one Parliament for functions performed by the proposed by my hon. colleague Shri Governor as its agent. It will amount only Biswanath Das. namely, an Inter-State to supervision of the larger democracy over Council with its headquarters at and the smaller democracy in respect of matters with the Prime Minister and the Home of national concern". Minister as its e*-officio President and Vice- President and some people nominated by the ,So, they have described it as a matter of Prime Minister on it. I would have much national concern and quite rightly too. preferred that to this Zonal Council. However, Because the criterion generally is that those if it has been thought fit to introduce it, it may subjects, which are confined to any one State, be given a fair trial. are regarded as State subjects, but anything which is concerning several States and spread Now, I would like to say a few words about all over India should be regarded as a national linguistic minorities. If there is any point on concern and the concern of the Centre. The which the Commission has focussed the whole question is such that there are many attention of the public as well as of the minorities, each speaking a certain language Government more clearly, more forcefully and they are living all over the country. In and more vividly, it is this one point. They every State you will find some of the people went, round the country, they took evidence speaking the minority language. Therefore, I and they came to the conclusion that linguistic think that, those minorities are not only minorities are not feeling satisfied. Perhaps, linguistic minorities of any one State, but they they think that a fair deal is not being given to are the linguistic minorities of the whole of their mother-tongue. They also came to the India and for this reason I think the conclusion that there is a feeling that in spite Commission came to the right conclusion and of the fact that the Constitution has given they have made this recommendation. certain assurances, those assurances are not being carried out. The Constitution has got 14 [THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRIMATI SHARDA national languages apart from Hindi which is BHARGAVA in the Chair.] our official language. Of course, Hindi stands on a different pedestal. It is an all-India Madam, the hon. Minister while language and it is the introducing this Bill made some reference to the ninth amendment to the 1395 States Reorganisation [16 AUG. 1956] Bill, 1956 1396

Constitution and what is going to be put there be passed and not a single amendment was for the protection of the linguistic minorities. going to be accepted by the Government. I do not want to deal with that question here, because when that measure comes up we will SHRI H. P. SAKSENA (Uttar Pradesh): He discuss it. But I only want to say here that I did not say that. He made ample amends in do not agree with one argument of the hon. his subsequent remarks, by telling that huge Minister. He said that if the subject of audience over there that the Bill had been linguistic minorities was made a Central passed by the Lok Sabha and it was to come subject, then it would disturb friendly before the Rajya Sabha and then, of course, it relations. But how? That is what I would like would become an Act of Parliament. to know. What does he mean by it? Does he mean to say that the State Governments will DR. R. B. GOUR: I do not know, Madam, be very hostile if this is made a Central why my hon. friend Mr. Saksena should get responsibility? I do not think so. I think it will angry. be a very undesirable reflection on our State Governments. Or does it mean that the SHRI H. P. SAKSENA: Because I was majority will be very hostile if it becomes a present there and you are not speaking the Central subject? I do not think so. because our truth. majority is not so ungenerous as to think that if it is made a Central subject, then they THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRIMATI should be hostile to the minority. After all, in SHARDA BHARGAVA) : Order, order. Let him the words of the Commission, one democracy continue. is supervising the other smaller democracies. The larger democracy is supervising the D8. R. B. GOUR : Everyone of us was smaller democracies. Therefore, I do not present there. agree with this argument put forward by the hon. Minister. SHRI SATYAPRIYA BANERIEE (West Bengal): We were there and we heard I also notice that a certain circular was sent him. to various States. So far as that circular goes, I welcome it and I am glad that it has been DR. R. B. GOUR: He said: sent. I am also of the opinion that it will be a "Lok Sabha ka faisla patthar ki laheer good thing if some officer is appointed in the hai aur us main koi tabdili nahin ho sakti." Centre who will look after the linguistic minorities' interests and send annual reports SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: That is as it was to the President which may be placed before published in the Evening News yesterday. both the Houses. After all, it is Parliament which is responsible for the management of DR. R. B. GOUR: Anyway, I am prepared the whole of India, for the administration of to join issue with Mr. Saksena on this point. the whole country, and if a report is placed before Parliament, I think nobody should SHRI H. P. SAKSENA: I am prepared to object to it. accept the challenge.

With these words, I would like to conclude THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRIMATI my speech. SHARDA BHARGAVA) : Let him continue, please. DR. R. B. GOUR: Madam Vice-Chairman, we are discussing this Bill today though I DR. R. B. GOUR: The question is, know as a matter of fact that the Government the Head of the Government has is not prepared to accept any amendment. In declared yesterday that the decision of fact, I am speaking with a very serious and the Lok Sabha is going to ...... heavy sense of responsibility particularly, because the Prime Minister yesterday on a SHRI SATYAPRIYA BANERJEE: The very ceremonious occasion said that already Chair can fix a time for the duel between Mr. the Bill as passed by the Lok Sabha was going Saksena and Dr. Gour. to THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRIMATI SHARADA BHARGAVA) : Let him continue please 1397 States Reorganisation [RAJYASABHA] Bill, 1956 1398

DR. R. B. GOUR: He said that the Bill as Samyukta Maharashtra with Bombay city passed by the Lok Sabha was not going to be and a separate Maha Gujarat. amended. In so many words he said it; but of course, if through the good offices of Mr. Next, I will go to other points and deal only Saksena we can make the Treasury Benches with one of them, because I do not want to amend this Bill in this House then I will be dilate on the other aspects of the Bill which only too glad. my other colleagues will do in course of time. I come to that particular point straightaway and that is the question of the linguistic SHRI H. P. SAKSENA: I may myself minorities. 1 was glad that the Nawab of propose some amendment. There is no Chhatari spoke on this point and I am also disappointment in my mind. glad to find that Congress Members have also begun to speak about this subject of linguistic THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRIMATI minorities. But to my mind, Madam, linguistic SHARDA BHARGAVA) : Let him continue. Let minorities is the one question that has not him say what he has to say. been dealt with properly. In spite of the fact that we have not only got ample experience of maltreatment of minorities in this country, DR. R. B. GOUR: Madam Vice-Chairman, through the reorganisation of the States, both in spite of that, we are here discussing this as its cause and as its result, we are creating Bill, yesterday we were told that Parliament fresh linguistic minorities in the various was sovereign and this decision of Parliament States. Madam, the States Reorganisation must be respected by the country. Madam, the Commission dealt with this question of source of the sovereignty of Parliament are the linguistic minorities not only in the wider people and if the .very people are opposed to a perspective of how linguistic minorities are particular decision, then I do not think any dealt with in other States and in other coun- question of prestige should haunt us in tries, but also in relation to certain experiences changing any decision that we as a sovereign that we ourselves had in this country. Parliament might have taken at some other time. Madam, the whole people of Gujarat In spite of the fact that the Constitution of who have a distinct language, who are a the Republic of India guarantees that the distinct cultural entity, are being converted President, if he so desires, can ask a particular into a minority for the sake of certain arbitrary Government t© adopt a certain language that decisions that might suit certain of those who is the language of the minority community in are highly placed. But surely the people are that particular State for official purposes, that not happy and surely the people, emotional as particular clause of the Constitution has not they are, are not going to accept it. Hence the been honoured even though it has been on the trouble that we are seeing. Let us not forget Statute Book for the last so many years. this point and let us not accuse each other on Madam, I want, specifically, to refer to the, this point. And let us not say that certain State of U. P. Urdu is a language recognised trouble-shooters are responsible for all this. in this country and Urdu is a language which The people of Gujarat—the overwhelming is recognised as one of the fourteen languages majority of them—are with the Congress. No in the Constitution; and I should say that so opposition party can claim even a very far as its being spoken by the people, by substantial minority behind it in that part of sections of the people in this country, is our country. Yet if these people are agitated concerned, it is more important than even and going out of the Congress, then the Sanskrit which is also one of the fourteen Government should think deeply on this point. languages. Sanskrit is a good language, is a They should think whether a particular rich language, is an old language; decision, which was arbitrary and which was nevertheless, people speaking that language taken because certain other decisions they are not found in the country among the masses wanted to avoid or they could not carry out, but Urdu surely is more important than should remain. Therefore, Madam, I think it is Sanskrit. Nevertheless, it is this Urdu that is high time that the Treasury Benches and the being given a step-motherly treatment. I know rest of the House think on this point very that Mr. Saksena is feeling uneasy and wants seriously and the decision about having a to interrupt me but bilingual Bombay State should be amended so. as to create 1399 States Reorganisation [16 AUG. 1956] Bill, 1956 1400

that language is getting that treatment Anyway, Madam, our demand that Urdu be in the place, in the State, where it was recognised as a regional language is not and born and bred. Twenty lakhs of should not be interpreted as a demand for an Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs—all com exclusive region for Urdu in U. P. We say munities—signed a memorandum and that Urdu belongs to the same region as submitted it to the President that Hindi. That is the only thing. You can use any memorandum has still not been replied other word you like. No other word was to and no action has been taken on it, available to us and so we use that,word. The Madam, the entire House knows, the same word is used in the Indian Constitution. tntire world knows, how, in the U. P. I know that these deliberate distortions and Legislature, on the 10th of August, a mis-statements have taken place. When a question concerning this language and stalwart leader like Dr. Zakir Hussain went to the future status of this language was , he was mobbed and angry people replied to by the Chief Minister of asked him as to whether he wanted to divide that State. He refused to recognise the U. P. and have a separate Urdu region in U. P. position of Urdu in U. P. Well, Madam, He had to explain to them patiently. Twenty the question is that Urdu ...... lakhs of signatures have been affixed to the memorandum; the various organisations like SHRI H. P. SAKSENA: Madam, I the Anjuman-e-Taraqqi-e-Urdu and the must again rise to contradict this various Urdu organisations want that Urdu mis-statement. The Chief Minister of should be recognised as a regional language U. P. has not declined to accept the in U. P. They have made their position very position of Urdu. What he has declined clear. They have said that they want Urdu to to do is this that he is not prepared to . be given a place in that region which is called adopt Urdu as one of the regional Ian- Uttar Pradesh. Madam, there is another point. guages. That is all. These are the Of course, an elephant is a big animal and, mis-statements which my hon. friend is obviously, in relation to this animal, its tail is making. very small, but an elephant's tail is bigger than a goat's tail, if I may say so. Similarly, in DR. R. B. GOUR: Madam, these three that big elephant State of U. P., the Urdu- minute of interruption must be debited to the speaking minority could be considered Congress Benches because they have divided small—I do not know the percentage but it our time according to parties here in this may be 15 per cent—but if you take the num- House. Certain gentlemen of U. Pfl ber, in that huge State, the number of Urdu- misinterpret and deliberately, if I could say so speaking people is more than the population tell the people that our demand to accept of many of the States that are coming into Urdu as a regional language is \ a demand for existence. You want to deny to such a huge the division of U. P., for i carving out a State number and to such a big people their within that State. I denounce that sort of language and friends like Mr. Sharma are interpretation. I saying here, in this House—such a responsible Member, I should say—that this language SHRI B. B. SHARMA (Uttar Pradesh): Is does not exist. It is this tendency that is ruling there any language called Urdu? Nobody the State of Uttar Pradesh, that is governing speaks it, Sir. the State of Uttar Pradesh and that wants to suppress the language.

DR. R. B. GOUR: There is no 'Sir* here; SHRI B. B. SHARMTA: I want to know, there is only the Madam. which region of U. P., he is representing.

R THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRIMATI D . R. B. GOUR: We are in the Parliament SHARDA BHARGAVA) : Let him continue. You representing the whole of India. I am not will get your chance. talking of this or that particular region or State. (Interruption.) I am proud that in South DR. R. B. GOUR: My hon. friend says India Urdu gets better treatment than what it that there is no language but I think Mr. gets in U. P. I am proud that in Andhra, Saksena will contradict him.

SHRI H. P. SAKSENA: I do contradict him.

DR. R. B. GOUR: So, I am in very safe company and need not worry about Mr. Sharma's interruption. 1401 Stales Reorganisation [RAJYA SABHA] Bill, 1956 1402

[Dr. R. B. Gour.] with a much less number opening of such schools. Are we going forward of Urdu-speaking people, they have got their or backward? You are going even behind some own schools and institutions. Government of the things that are being implemented by the there is providing them with all necessities but State Governments. What is this? Are you that is not the position in Uttar Pradesh where making an advance in the protection of Urdu was born, where it was bred, where even minorities or are you withdrawing the today live people writing poetry and prose. Let privileges that the minorities are already Mr. Sharma be angry with me, let him shout at enjoying under executive orders? Such being rhe but I am not prepared to yield. Madam, the the position the minorities do not feel that they question of linguistic minorities is there and will get square deal in this set-up that we are that cannot be handled or dealt with merely in having, particularly when we see the position the reports without any positive statutory in Uttar Pradesh. Of course, every State is not recommendation from us. Much has been said like the Andhra State. Sometimes we feel and about the treatment of minorities in U. P. and ask unto ourselves this question: Do the Bihar. Urdu language has not got any special Ministers of Andhra State and of the State of position here but you have certain obligations Uttar Pradesh belong to the same political towards that language and the people speaking party and follow the same Prime Minister in that language. Obviously, Urdu language has this respect? We feel that there is a world of got its position; Urdu language has got its difference between the two policies adopted. I literature and has not only got its past but, I am want this House to consider this question so prepared to say, shall, must and will have a that one State Government does not differ with very great future also. This does not mean that the other State Governments in dealing with there are only Urdu-speaking minorities here; these minorities and the practice in one State is there will be minorities of all types, of all not different from that in another State. We sorts. Even my friend, Mr. Sharma, might find have to include certain statutory safeguards in himself in a minority in Calcutta. He will find the Bill itself. Against this demand for statutory himself a minority in Hyderabad; he will find guarantees there is the Home Ministry himself in a minority in Tamil Nad and he will Memorandum which says that if such find himself to be a minority in that another guarantees are given, if an all-India board is chhota Uttar Pradesh, the new Bombay State, established, if such a law is there, then in that that is being created. Madam, this question of case the minorities will always look beyond minorities is there to be tackled rather the borders of the State concerned and in that seriously and not in the light-hearted manner case common nationhood will not develop. I that it is being dealt with now. We, therefore, cannot understand such an argument coming want that there should be statutory guarantees out of the pen of the Home Minister himself. afforded to the linguistic minorities. The States What is the practice, Madam? Even if a dead Reorganisation Commission tells us and even rat is found opposite the office of a bustee the Conference of State Education Ministers Congress Committee wires are sent to the passed a resolution in 1954 concerning the Home Minister and to the Congress President. medium of instruction in the primary and Is this not looking beyond the corners of their secondary schools in the various States. There own State? If there is a statutory guarantee, if are those minorities and their institutions in there is a law guaranteeing the minorities' Hyderabad, in Andhra, in Tamil Nad and so rights, then the minorities will develop a pride on, even in Bombay. There are fifteen or in that law, will develop a pride in their twenty or even forty students and three or four country, and this will obviously strengthen the classes. Even in such cases, they allow that bonds of common nationhood and certainly not particular medium of instruction. divide them among their own brethren within Administrative difficulties may be there but the country. Therefore, legal guarantees, they can be overcome. Here is the Ministry of statutory guarantees, where they are being Home Affairs of the Government of India, provided in the law itself, are surely going to saying in its note to the Joint Committee that be conducive to a democratic outlook, con- schools in that language should be opened ducive to a common nationhood and certainly where the number of students or parents living not to its disruption. In fact, by not providing is 250 or 300 and they desire the such a law, not providing such guarantees in this statute 1403 Stales Reorganisation [ 16 AUG. 1956 ] Bill, 1956 1404

Itself, you are creating frustration among the statistics the services problem after dis- minorities, and you are creating certainly a integration of the State of Hyderabad feeling among them that they are not obviously, demands due attention. If the protected. There is every possibility that the allotment is made on the basis of same Congress Government in this State or population, 1,458 officers will be allotted to that State might go against the very policies Andhra Pradesh, 608 to the new Bombay enunciated or followed in certain other States. State and 368 to the Mysore State, and the So, with these words, Madam, 1 very strongly non-gazetted staff would go the same way. suggest—and we are submitting amendments 30,000 employees who speak Telugu are also—that these guarantees must be provided available, but the Andhra Pradesh for the minorities in the very Bill, the States requires 55,000. Now, in such case the Reorganisation Bill itself. remaining number may be allotted to the non- Telugu men in the services. Similarly, the Marathi-speaking employees, for Next, Madam, I come to the question of instance, are 23,000 and the requirement of services. Of course, I don't have figures about the Bombay State on the basis of the other States, but I think, wherever States are population that is being added on to the new being disintegrated or reorganised, wherever Bombay State from Marath-wada is 25,000. territories are being taken away or added on, Similarly, in Karnataka 13,000 employees obviously the problem of the services is going speak Kannada. but Karnataka requires to be similar to that in Hyderabad. I have got about 15,000 employees according to the the figures to produce before you from redistribution of the population. But, Hyderabad. The problem is very important, Madam, there are to be certain principles. but you are not giving the guarantees to the We know this is a very serious problem. Its services. Your Bill provides that retrenchment magnitude is great and we have to very could be there and change of service condi- carefully and coolly tackle the whole tions could be there but only with the problem. Therefore, it is very necessary permission of the Central Government. We that the question of division of the services and want deletion of that particular clause "except their service conditions, which is very with the' previous approval of the Central important, should be carefully handled. It is a Government." We do not want any change in subject-matter of great worry among the the service conditions. We do not want any employees of Hyderabad, both gazetted retrenchment to take place. Of course, the and non-gazetted. Their families are problem is a very serious problem and I would worried There are cases where families will be like to dilate on it for a few minutes and I partitioned, and, therefore, it is very hope, Madam, you will not mind these few important that on this services question very minutes for me. "The services in strict rules are framed and they are adhered to. Hyderabad"— I am quoting from the The suggestion has been made in proceedings of the Hyderabad Legislature— Hyderabad and I want to make the suggestion "are manned by 2,431 gazetted and 92,734 here also. You have not framed any rules. In non-gazetted officers to which may also be fact, in the Bill you are claiming that, with the added the 32,000 Class IV employees. Out of permission of the Central Government, this, 577 gazetted officers are those whose retrenchment could be effected. With the mother-tongue is Telugu; 339 are those whose permission of the Central Government service mother-tongue is Marathi: 211 are those conditions could be affected adversely also. whose mother-tongue is Kannada and 814 are The Chief Minister of Mysore State has those whose mother-tongue is Urdu. 426 already threatened that the employees in belong to other languages and the mother- Mysore State are getting lesser salaries and, tongue of 64 has not been determined". That is therefore, those employees who are added on the position of the gazetted services. In the to Mysore State from either the Bombay State non-gazetted group 30,172 have Telugu as or the present Hyderabad State will have to their mother-tongue and 15,540 have 34,096 either accept a cut in their salaries or shall have Urdu as their mother-34.096 have Urdu go out of the new Mysore State and seek as their mother-tongue; 5,173 speak other their livelihood elsewhere. You are not languages and 1,380 are those whose mother- allowing full pension even if they have to tongue has not been determined. In view of retire before their service is over. You only this want to say that you are giving proportionate ♦—13 R. S./56 pension. Therefore, this 1405 States Reorganisation [RAJYASABHA] Bill, 1956 1406

[Dr. R. B. Gour.] human way, if I may say so. Their service problem is a serious problem and must conditions should not be altered, this problem be very seriously considered. Now, 1 is going to arise not only in Andhra Pradesh but have had the opportunity of speaking everywhere. The service conditions in about this problem to a very high-placed Telangana will be different from the conditions official in Hyderabad. He told me that in Andhra. Salaries are different; wage scales there were certain principles that they are different. In these circumstances seniority had evolved. One is the mother-tongue. shall have to be adhered to on the basis Quite good. The second is whether the of the date of appointment and a new Pay employee concerned has property in a Commission will be very much necessitated. particular region. Very good. The third But here there is no indication that in course of is where the imployee concerned has time a new-Pay Commission will be passed his years during his employment, appointed to investigate the entire question in which region has he served more. of tne pay structure and to evolve a uniform Very good principle. But then I told pay structure, or course, not adversely affecting him: "Well, do stick to these principles; those who are getting better conditions do stick to these three principles. If today. This question of services, those are the principles, then much less Madam, is, therefore, a verv important trouble will be there, but kindly do not question. It concerns the life of thousands of give in to all sorts of recommendations, people and their families and I think—as I favouritism and nepotism." At this he have given trie figures for Hyderabad State—a just bent his head low and said, "Well, similar situation will be there in other areas my dear boy,...... also. Madhya Pradesh might present a similar picture as also other States where SHRI V. K. DHAGE (Hyderabad): Did he territories are either being added on to or are call you "boy"? being taken away from. [. therefore, insist that there should be a proper formula. Proper rules DR. R. B. GOUR: Of course. He is very must be framed and they should be adhered to. senior to me. "My dear boy, that is the fourth And the basic thing should be the right of and most important principle," he said. appeal. In any case the rights of ttie employees So 'favouritism', 'recommendations', that is should not be adversely affected. These going to be the fourth and in fact the first and are some of my observations that 1 am the most important principle. Now, placing before this House on this Bill Madam, this is a very serious position. He was that is before us. I. therefore, hope that this interested to know if my party | is not going to House will consider these problems very make any capital out of the situation. I told seriously and the Government will take into him: "If you stick to the first three principles consideration these matters and take a there won't be any agitation; there will be proper decision on them. some difficulty, but the people will somehow adjust themselves and in the national Lastly, Madam, I must, of course j with a interests they can be persuaded to adjust heavy heart, reply to my friend Mr. Hegde. He themselves but, if there is going to be this just wanted to have a dig against the fourth principle, then there is going to be Communist Party. He told us that on this all the trouble and you will get it in the neck. parties were divided; perhaps he was saying Then you should not blame us of having that from his own experience. He said that the capitalised out of a certain situation." Communist Party also was divided. I want to remind hUh, and through him all our Kannada So, this is uZ important problem. We, friends, that it is not so. Which was the party in therefore, want that this problem must be Andhra or Telangana which stood solidly with tackled on the basis of principles and rules their claim on Bellary and Hospet? The States and the emDloyees must be given option. Reorganisation Commission had suggested that One and all employees must be treated fairly Hospet should go to Andhra Pradesh., It was and there should be a right to appeal. If this our party in Karnataka, Mysore, Andhra and fourth principle of nepotism and favouritism Telangana which said, "No." However much and recommendation is going to be the major Hospet may be claimed because of the principle, quite obviously the employee must headworks of Tungabhadra. we said, "No". have the right to appeal if there is any On the injustice. And there must be a proper forum to decide that appeal. And lastly, this question of services will have to be tackled in a 1407 States Reorganisation [ 16 AUG. 1956] Bill, 1956 1408 question of Bellary also, it was our party would never have happened. Even today as a which was one with them on the linguistic Gujarati I do feel ashamed of the things principle, on a principle that held well with happening in the streets of Ahmedabad and both of us on this particular point. Take the other places in Gujarat. 1 was hoping eight question of Madras city. Did not our party days ago that it was only a passing phase but take a principled stand that Madras city evidently the poison or venom has entered a should go to Tamil Nad? On the same score little deeper than 1 expected, but this does not and on the same principle our party took the make me change my views. I take it that this stand that Bombay should go to Maharashtra. sort of hooliganism and vandalism is a On all the major issues involved in the challenge to democracy; it is a challenge to reorganisation of the States, our party has the Indian Parliament; and it is the business of taken a common stand throughout the country. every person, who believes in democracy, Even on the question of borders, my friend who believes in the supremacy of Parliament, Mr. Hegde was telling us that our party was to support the Government in this instance. divided on this question in Malabar and There are ways and means whereby Karnataka. But no; the entire party stands on parliamentary decisions may be upset. After one principle on this boundary question and all, Parliament is composed only of human that is the principle of deciding the question beings and all human beings are fallible. It on the basis of language, on the principle of may be that an Act of Parliament is a mistake village as the unit, on the basis of contiguity but then it is not for the people to go about of the area. You accept that basis and on that attacking people in the streets, destroying basis if a particular territory goes to Karnataka Government and private property and or Malabar, the Communists will support that. bullying the weak and the law-abiding people. Our party is the only party that, has taken a That is not the way in which democracy can principled stand, a stand with one voice, on all function. Therefore, 1 do hope that the the the major issues that have been facing this State which produced Mahatma Gandhi, the country in this connection. With these words, State which perhaps boasts of the largest Madam, I would like that my friend Mr. number of vegetarians, will appreciate the Hegde, however much he must have been position and bow down to the will of disillusioned about the Congress, should feel Parliament and if they are dissatisfied it is that the Communist Party is the one party that open to them to carry on a constitutional stands on principle unhesitatingly. agitation and take whatever steps the Constitution allows them to take.

PROF. A. R. WADIA (Nominated): Madam On one thing I am feeling extremely happy. Vice-Chairman, when I spoke last on this We know that democracy cannot function important subject of reorganisation of the without parties and we also know that parties States, I supported half-heartedly the principle cannot function without party discipline. That of Central administration for Bombay city. is why it has happened on more than one But even at that time I was hoping that the occasion even in this House that members principle of bilingual Bombay would come to belonging to a particular party even when they be accepted though 1 was not optimistic do not accept certain provisions of a Bill, vote enough to believe that it would ever come to for its acceptance as a matter of party disci- be. Today, I am in a very happy position that pline. I am very happy, Sir, that on this the principle of bilingual Bombay State has question the lead has been taken by private been accepted. That was the only possible Members in the other House.. They took the solution, the only desirable solution and I lead of influencing the opinion of their have to congratulate the States Reorganisation colleagues and evolved a measure coming Commission on this recommendation that practically from all the parties with perhaps they had first made. The only pity is that one exception, formulating a bilingual various forces influenced the Government and Bombay and 1 am very happy that the made them wobble at a very critical stage. If Government have accepted that proposition. the Government had been as strong then as Thereby the Government has proved that they are now, all the misfortunes that the democracy exists in India. Sir, I do not country has had to suffer during the last six understand why the one party that aims at the months unification of the whole world under the banner of the hammer and 1409 States Reorganisation [RAJYASABHA] BUI, 1956 1410

[Prof. A. R. Wadia.] the sickle should be very fine contribution to fostering the ideal of particularly interested in dividing people who Indian unity. And I am even more happy that have been very friendly and who have lived these Zonal Councils will not be merely together for nearly two centuries and even concerned with the problems of their own more. I should imagine that they would be all States—may be, two or three, as the case may in favour of encouraging that tendency of be—but they will also hold inter-Zonal Council friendly relations and not trying to create meetings so that the problems which affect difficulties in which only the innocent people more than one State or problems which affect lose their lives, in which only the innocent three or four States may be considered round people lose their property, in which Govern- the table and happy solutions arrived at. After ment property suffers and for which you and I all, Madam, important democratic principles also suffer. Sir, I do hope that good cannot be solved on the streets, whether on commonsense will dawn on all of us, and if the streets of Bombay or on the streets of we believe in democracy, we will accept the Ahmedabad. They can be much better solved democratic practice of agitating by round the table, perhaps with a shake of constitutional means only. hands; it conduces to goodwill, it conduces to sober consideration of important problems. I SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: At the moment am not concerned to suggest that the Bill as it democracy has a Madam in the Chair. exists is a perfect one. No human being is PROF. A. R. WADIA: Well, it is only one perfect. But I am not in favour of accepting practical exemplification. There are many any amendments at this stage, however more examples of that type. Nothing pleased reasonable and good they may be, for the me more in the States Reorganisation simple reason that it involves delay, and the Commission's Report than the chapter on the sooner the whole of India learns that this has unity of India. It is a splendid chapter. I wish become an Act—may be that the final shape it could be studied by all the authorities in our was given in the Lok Sabha—and the sooner Universities, especially by the members of the it is accepted by all people in that way the Senates and the Syndicates. They would learn better for us. I do appreciate the difficulties of something very precious. They are so the minorities in the different States. 1 am obsessed by the narrow vision of the frog in afraid that for centuries together we have been the well that they are apt to overlook the developing our own fissiparous tendencies so interests of wider India—maybe, in the much that the moment a section finds itself in interests of their own narrow language or of a majority, there is a tendency on its part to their own narrow State—and this chapter overlook the claims of the minorities. In this should be a real corrective on that point. I respect at least I am one hundred per cent, in wish, Madam, that this chapter could be sympathy with the words that fell from my incorporated as a sort of text-book in our friend Dr. Gour on the other side. He spoke schools and colleges, because it is the one eloquently, he spoke forcefully and he spoke corrective to the fissiparous tendencies which cogently. I agree with the Nawab of Chhatari have marred our history unfortunately from its when he said that it was really the interest and very beginning. We have yet to learn that the business of the Central Government to lesson that India is a unity, that we live in the have a certain check and control over the different States only if India lives. If India different States which were apt to overlook does not live as India, I am afraid the the rights of the minorities. I am afraid that ambitions of all the other States will sooner or my friend Mr. Datar was not convincing when later be completely frustrated. That is the one he said that by making the minorities look lesson that, I have learnt from Indian history always to the Centre they would never and, unfortunately, the lesson is so patent, and acclimatize themselves, so to say, in their own yet it has been forgotten by people who get sphere. I admit there is that danger, but the into power in the different States. other danger is so great that it should be the business of the Government to keep a very I am very happy that the Bill provides a watchful eye on the rights of the minorities to very happy corrective to the tendencies of see that they are not exploited, to see that they emphasising the importance of States, and that are not treated unjustly in the name of is the constitution of the Zonal Councils. It democracy, in the name of is a 1411 States Reorganisation [ 16 AUG. 1956 ] Bill, 1956 1412

the majority. It is a very important principle especially when we find today that one party rules not merely in the Centre but practically in all the States, and the Congress as an organisation has got tremendous influence on all the Legislatures. It should be all the more easy for the Congress to exert its influence for all that it is worth in the interests of the minorities.

I entirely agree with what has been said on behalf of the Urdu language. I do not know what Mr. Sharma had in his mind when he said ......

SHRI B. B. SHARMA: What I meant was that it is not a regional language. We are talking about the language being spoken by a number of people in the U. P. It is not a localised language.

PROF. A. R. WADIA: I am grateful to Mr. Sharma for his explanation. It seems to me that Urdu is spoken by so many millions that it is really fit to be a regional language much in the same way that in the bilingual Bombay Gujarati and Marathi are regional languages. Nothing wrong about that. Urdu is something more than that, something more than a regional language. It is undoubtedly an all- India language because there is hardly any Province in India which does not speak Urdu.

These are the difficulties, I do admit them. I am perfectly certain that the Government is not going to have an easy time after this Bill is passed. It will have many many severe headaches on so many different questions which will be coming up. But I do hope that the Government will make up its mind once and for all on important problems and have the courage to stick to these decisions. It is impossible to please everybody in this world, and by trying to please all we please none. I think that is a very important lesson which we have learnt in the last six months, and all these questions about the services, about the languages, about the rights of the minorities could be very easily solved partly through the agency of the Zonal Councils and partly through the com-monsense, statesmanship and patriotism of our Chief Ministers and their colleagues in the different States. If that is done, I for one believe that there is a future for democracy in India and we shall all be happy about it.

1413 States Reorganisation [RAJYASABHA] Bill, 1956 1414

1415 States Reorganisation [ 16 AUG. 1956 ] Bill, 1956 1416

1417 States Reorganisation [RAJYASABHA] Bill, 1956 1418

DR. R. B. GOUR: IS he prepared to enquire into the Bombay disturbances'? It is an insinuation against the Communist Party.

SHRI K. S. HEGDE: It is not an insinuation. DR. R. B. GOUR: It is an insinuation. SHRI K. S. HEGDE: It is a definite allegation.

DR. R. B. GOUR: He says that the Communist Party is responsible for all the loot and arson. In that case, he must be prepared for an enquiry. I never said that the Congress Party was responsible for the rioting and looting of property. SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: The gentlemen there are trying to indulge in the business of passing on the baby now to somebody else. Let us not do it. He can advance arguments and proceed with his account.

1419 States Reorganisation [ 16 AUG. 1956 ] BiW, 1956 1420

1421 Stales Reorganisation [RAJYASABHA] Bill, 1956 1422

1423 States Reorganisation [ 16 AUG. 1956 ] Bill, 1956 1424

1425 States Reorganisation [RAJYASABHA] Bill, 1956 1426

1427 States Reorganisation [ 16 AUG. 1956 ] Bill, 1956 1428

"The bane of our life is our exclusive provincialism, whereas my province must be coextensive with the Indian boundary so that ultimately it extends to the boundary of the Earth. Else it perishes".

SHRI GOVINDAN NAIR (Travan-core- Cochin): Mr. Deputy Chairman, since this Bill was accepted by the Lok Sabha, certain developments have taken place in this country which should open our eyes. If this Bill, as accepted by the Lok Sabha, is going to be adopted here also, the result would be disastrous. It is not as if this Bill does not contain beneficial provisions. The formation of Kerala, Andhra and so many other States is really helpful to the people but the denial of a linguistic State for the Maharashtrians, a linguistic State for the people of Gujarat and this last minute somersault for a bilingual State for Bombay have disappointed people both in Gujarat as well as in Maharashtra. I had been to those areas and I can speak with better authority than those Members who are here and who say that they represent people in those areas.

SHRI K. S. HEGDE: Wish is father to thought.

SHRI GOVINDAN NAIR: Repeated statements by the leaders of the ruling party that they are against unilingual States and the provision of Zonal Councils have created doubts in the minds of certain persons about the future of 1429 States Reorganisation [RAJYASABHA] Bill, 1956 1430

[Shri Govindan Nair.] many of the States SHAIK GALIB (Andhra): Rajagopalachari that are now going to be formed. The was your honoured leader in 1942. failure to ensure safeguards for the linguistic minorities and also ignoring the SHRI GOVINDAN NAIR: Even problem of the tribal areas have made this Bill defective. I am happy that a discussion otherwise; even before. took place this morning about the position of this Bill itself. Yesterday, hearing the Now, Sir, Shri Rajagopalachari, who is in Prime Minister I also feared that this Bill favour of multilingual States, has himself had already become law as the Lok made it very clear that the difference between Sabha had accepted it. Today, however, Periyar and himself was very little. Shri the Chairman made it very clear that this Rajagopalachari and others of his view feel will not become law until we accept it. that if all the southern States are united, with So, in between the passing of this Bill by the that force they can fight the north. Within the Lok Sabha and our adopting it, there is an State he feels that one group can be played opportunity for us to amend it if necessary. I against the other. feel that these defects which 1 have pointed out in this Bill could be amended by us and Now coming to Bombay, the same is the we should do it. In this; it is not a question of position. You speak about the unity of India. passion or partisan spirit that should You speak about the solidarity of India. But weigh with our friends on the other side. what would be the future of the bilingual State Let us very coolly and calmly view the which you are now forming? You are playing whole question and if we had gone wrong in Gujaratis against the Maharasn-trians and then our decisions, let us correct them. The sowing seeds of dissension among the other day, I happened to hear from the Prime Maharashtrians. Thus you are not going to get Minister himself, while speaking about the a strong State there, take it from me. So, it is formation of the bilingual State of not those people who demand unilingual Bombay, that this last minute decision was States that stand against the unity of India. On taken because they felt that they would be the other hand it is those who are now fighting committing a mistake otherwise. I point against unilingual Slates, who are for out this to show that if you in view multilingual States, that are really going to of certain developments that have taken disrupt the unity of India. place in certain parts of the country, feel that the formation of a bilingual State is a Now, it was referred to that some of us mistake, you can correct it. I expected went to Ahmedabad. I am also one who some Members of the ruling party itself to happened to go there. There is no meaning in come forward with some amendments to belittling the movement that had already been this effect but was disappointed. Even after started there and there is no meaning in hearing many of our friends, 1 am not able anybody pointing his finger towards us. As has to comprehend this counterpoising of a been said here, neither the Communists nor the linguistic State with national unity as P. S. P. are a force in that area; everybody if they are contradictory. I ask you, are knows that. Not only that. For the last forty Mahara-shtrians who demanded a years or more, no part of the country has stood linguistic State for themselves, against the so solidly behind the Congress as the people of unity of India? Are the people of Gujarat Gujarat, and do you mean to say that overnight against the unity of India? I ask you to point nearly two crores of such people wcf<, turned out at least one section of the community against the Congress by us? "that is really who demand a linguistic State and who flattering, but it is not true, and we decline that are, at the same time, opposed to the unity compliment from the people on the other side. of India. On our way to Ahmedabad, the moment we entered the borders of Bombay State we SHRI M. GOVTNDA REDDY realised that the whole people—it is not only a (Mysore): Are vou for the unity of India? few students as you tried to belittle that SHRI GOVINDAN NAIR: Yes. At movement—not a few students, in that locality the same time, you examine the people were up against this decision of a bilingual who now stand for multi-lingual States. Bombay State. How did it come about? Now Let us be frank about these things. you speak about democracy. You speak about From the South our honoured leader, the sove- Shri Rajagopalachari...... 1431 States Reorganisation [ 16 AUG. 1956 ] Bill, 1956 1432 reignty of our House. Who is undermining the worst part of it. I enquired of so many it? If the sovereignty of Parliament is people and this is the information I gathered undermined, it is by the Members of the and if you want to verify it you yourself may Parliament, I mean, it is by the ruling party go and do so, but my information is that if the itself. We know that this States City Congress President had behaved Reorganisation Commission has tactfully and decently, this development recommended a bilingual State for Bombay. would not have taken place. On the other But what was the Congress decision? You hand, without a warning, without even trying said: No bilingual State. Gujaratis will have tear gas, without even lathl-charging, the a Maha Gujarat. The Congress Committee of police started firing and two fell dead in front Gujarat had demanded a Maha Gujarat, and of the Congress house. This is how the whole you know the history. Till the last minute thing started. Now, is it democracy? Is it the nobody knew that this, thing was coming. way you deal with these things? There is no use Then finally somebody started a signature sneering at other people. This is a mistake campaign and got the signatures of 200 which you have committed and 1 am wonder- Members or more and one fine morning you struck at your attitude. Nearly one and a half informed them that instead of Maha Gujarat crores of people who are very loyal to you, they are going to have a bigger bilingual who are very peaceful—why is it that Bombay State. Did you take into account the they became so wild against you? Why don't violent shock that you had given to the you think about it? Or do you, like the people of Gujarat? kings of old, believe that you can do no wrong? If you have such a solid faith, why have they SHRI H. P. SAKSENA: Did you also feel reacted so voilent-ly? Why don't you re- that shock? examine the position; if you can, why don't you correct it? That is my point. Many people— SHRI GOVINDAN NAIR: NOW did anyone even our friends here today—remarked that of you think that it was necessary to go and this movement will die out within a few davs. consult the people there before you took this You are thoroughly mistaken. Even before I final decision? Did any Member of left for Ahmedabad I heard this kind of talk Parliament from Gujarat or otherwise going on here. When I went there, at every belonging to the Congress Party go and station I found large crowds shouting discuss the whole matter with the people 'Maha Gujarat Zindabad'. Passing trains there, with youj own organisation there? I were all crowed with people who were ask. Like i bolt from the blue you took the shouting this same slogan. In the city of decisior and the people have violently Ahmedabad I moved about the whole area. I reacted tc it, and when that situation came, am not a leader. I talked with ordinary people; hov did you react? Your leaders in Gujarat I I talked with every type of people and one know how they behaved. Nearh 80,000 information I gathered was that from the mill- students, all loyal to the Con gress, more owner to the worker, from the Mayor to the loyal than the Congres leaders sweeper, everyone is united in this that they themselves, went to the Con gress House, must win Maha Gujarat. On our way in the not to demolish it but t< demand an train we met a batch of students coming explanation from the Cit Congress from Anand, from the Vallabhbhai President. They wanted hin to come out Institute of Engineering. They told us that and explain to them ho\ this decision was they had taken a vow not to return to the taken. And what dl he do? Arrogance and College till they had won Maha Gujarat. Mind rudeness wa responsible for the you, Sir, 3,000 of them unanimously have happenings i Ahmedabad—he asked taken this decision. You know, the Mayor, them to clea out. Instead of going to the Deputy Mayor, members of the them an explaining matters to them he Corporation, Municipal Councillors, your aske them to get out. own party workers I are all resigning from your organisation. Do you mean to say that this SHRI MAHESH SARAN (Bihar is a movement which will die out within a day Were you present then? or two? Do you mean to say that this I is a movement concerning only one section of 1 SHRI GOVINDAN NAIR: No. I w; not. the people or some young men? You are but I know it for a fact. Now anybody has mistaken. The whole any doubts and if yc have any doubts you yourself can i and enauire into it. You are sitting in Delhi and passing judgment—that is 1433 States Reorganisation [jRAJYA SABHA ] Bill, 1956 1434

[Shri Govindan Nair.] Gujarat will rise as SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: It is very j one and they will carry on their agitation till important with regard to the Bill I they attain their goal. Much has been said because it indicates the reactions to the i about hooliganism and violence. Sir, hooli- proposals that are before us, and the ganism of the masses or the violent outbursts relevant facts are being given. Hon. are only a temporary phase and about that Members who have spoken said so also I can tell you that there was no looting in many things. We are entitled to con- Ahmedabad. vince—at least try to convince—the House by telling how the people of SHRI K. S. HEGDE: According to you in Gujarat have reacted and how they Bombay also. have been treated by the Congress Government. SHRI GOVINDAN NAIR: I did not go there. 1 am speaking about Ahmedabad. In MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: You Ahmedabad I found that there was no looting have said enough about it. in any part. I also met a number of Maharashtrians living there. They were all SHRI GOVINDAN NAIR: Now, Sir, very friendly and there was no fratricidal fight without any provocation, without any between the Maharashtrians and the Gujaratis. stone-throwing, the police are going But all of them were united in this demand through the streets and shooting down that they should get Maha Gujarat. I enquired people. Is it democracy? Is it the way from other friends about the situation in other you enforce your decision? I had been towns. No town or city in Gujarat is much to a street where a number of women different from Ahmedabad on this question. came and said that it was only the You have introduced curfew in three or four other day that 500 of them marched places. You are reading from papers reports of to the Police Station and requested the arrests, reports of lathi charge and reports of police not to tear-gas them because demonstrations every day. And remember the children got so much suffocated by from press reports, from the unanimous press the gas and many of them swooned. reports of all papers, two lakhs of people These women also said that they would defied the curfew and held a martyrs' day. guarantee complete peace in that area Now, at least now, should you not think but still they were tear-gassed ...... seriously as to what is it that has made these people react so violently? That you are not SHRI K. S. HEGDE: For representing doing. You speak about violence. The other that they should not be tear-gassed? day you condemned the Maharashtrians as hooligans and goondas. Now you have turned MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Let him towards the Gujaratis. In this respect I would proceed. request you to do a little bit of introspection. You turn towards yourself. Sir, I have brought SHRI GOVINDAN NAIR: Why with me a few photographs which I shall place should my friend be so much perturb-. ed? before the House. Innocent children—could you say that a boy of ten or a boy of five did MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Come to any hooliganism—why did you shoot them the Bill, Mr. Nair. All these may be relevant down? A boy of 17 who was so much loved in the Bombay Assembly. We are not by the people of that place because it was only discussing the Ahmedabad situation here. the other day that he saved the life of another boy from drowning, that boy was shot dead. I SHRI GOVINDAN NAIR: Now, I am have got a large number of photographs with very much concerned about this question me and I want everyone of you to see them. because it is this attitude of the Now, you speak about nonviolence. representatives of the people and of the Sometimes, I feel why is it that these people Government that is really undermining the are not ashamed to speak of non-violence off sovereignty and prestige of Parliament. and on. That is my point. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: We are not 4 P.M. discussing the Ahmedabad situation here. You speak on the Bill. Sir, another thing, which is very pertinent here, which I was able to gather was that now a vast majority of people in Gujarat feel that Bombay should be left to the Maharashtrians and the Gujaratis must have a Maha Gujarat without Bombay. This changs 1435 States Reorganisation [16 AUG. 1956] Bill, 1956 1436

in the attitude of the vast majority of the people in Gujarat is a factor which this House should take into consideration, because what was agitating our minds from the very beginning was this tussle over Bombay. Now the general feeling in Gujarat is that in order to safeguard the interests of a few Gujaratis in Bombay, a few monied people in Bombay, first the interests of the Maharashtrians were proposed to be sacrificed, and now they are sacrificing the interests of the vast majority of the people of Gujarat. This is the general slogan of the Maharashtrians and the people of Gujarat. So, I would request that party considerations should not stand in your way. You should also remember that it is not the Communist Party that is going to gain by this kind of change; on the other hand, it is the Congress Party. Yoii should also remember that even now most of the people are still loyal to the Congress, and if you give anv weight to that consideration, then you should change your decision.

Then, about certain other points which my friend from Karnataka, Mr. Hegde, raised. Let me assure him thai as far as the Communist Party of Kerala is concerned, if certain parts of Kasaragod where Karnataka people are in a majority should go to Karnataka, we have absolutely no objection. A similar situation may exist in various other States. That is why we suggested that a Boundary Commission must be provided for in the Bill so that such questions may be settled. The States Reorganisation Commission have primarily taken the district as the basis. In some cases they have taken the • taluks, and in certain cases they have divided the taluks also. If the village as a unit is accepted and the border questions are settled on that basis, this linguistic minority problem can be lessened to a certain extent. So, I feel that our friends in Karnataka should not feel that for a bit of land which has fortunately or unfortunately come to us we are grudging to give it back to them. But the position is that there should be some provision, some arrangement, by which certain mutual adjustments can be made.

1437 States Reorganisation [RAJYASABHA] Bill, 1956 1438

1439 States Reorganisation f 16 AUG. 1956] Bill, 1956 1440

SHRI MAHESH SARAN: Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, I strongly welcome this Bill, and before Actually dealing with it, I would like to say a few words with regard to the speech that was made by my friend opposite. I am surprised, Sir, that wherever there is trouble, we will find these gentlemen there. For no rhyme or reason they must be there, and in no constructive work and in no good work is their hand visible. SHRI V. PRASAD RAO (Hyderabad): Why do you create troubles?

SHRI MAHESH SARAN: You are at the back of all these troubles.

SHRI V. PRASAD RAO: You can avoid them.

SHRI MAHESH SARAN: I do not know why these gentlemen went to Ahmedabad where they found a good opportunity of creating difficulties. Sir. they are...... (Interruptions.) You are talking about the problems of Gujarat and Maharashtra and you are expressing the views of Gujaratis and Mahara-shtrians. You were there only for a day and you met some people in Ahmedabad in some corner, and you are now claiming that you are speaking on behalf of Gujaratis and Maharash-trians. Sir, I would like to request them to think more constructively, to be loyal citizens of this country, and to help in the reconstruction of this beautiful India instead of trying to damage the reputation of this country and trying to create difficulties for us. Sir, generally I do not say these things, but the hon. friend went too far, and T could read between the lines and I could read from his speech that his only motive was just to create difficulties and to paint them in a way which is neither true nor honest. 1441 Slates Reorganisation [RAJYASABHA] Bill, 1956 1442

[Shri Mahesh Saran.] India will not shine if people who somelimes Sir, 1 have said on a previous occasion that go about creating trouble are left free to do all 1 am for bilingual States. I consider that that is the mischief that they can. I feel very strongly the essence of unity and solidarity. These on this point and, therefore, it is necessary to unilingual States have created difficulties, repeat that we should try to foster unity and because the people's minds get concentrated not create disunity, which is a disloyal act, an on 'One language, one State', and that creates act which can never be liked by any diversity instead of unity. When I found that a reasonable person. We saw what happened bilingual Bombay State was going to be when it was decided to have a separate created, I felt very much pleased. And Maharashtra and a separate Gujarat and it was previously when no agreement could be decided that Bombay should be Centrally arrived at and when there was a talk of having administered. You felt at that time that Maharashtra and Gujarat States, with Bombay something was wrong somewhere and that Centrally administered, I felt extremely sad, people's minds had gone astray. Ugly and 1 felt that that was not a move in the right incidents took place. We forgot that there was direction. But then God came to our rescue, no difference between Maharashtrians and and all of a sudden we found that efforts were Gujaratis. For the time being the mind was made to come to a right decision. And clouded and people thought of 'One language, ultimately we have decided to have a bilingual one State', which is not the proper thing to do. State. Sir, I fervently hope that this experiment It was a demonstration that, if you put too will usher in a new era and the people will much emphasis on language, things would go forget the idea of having States on a linguistic wrong and India would not be great and that if basis, and will consider themselves part and India were divided into small units, it would parcel of this great India, and will try to do all be to the detriment of the interest of India. that they can to make India strong, beautiful Our congratulations go to the States and prosperous. In every State you will find Reorganisation Commission also, because different languages spoken. As a matter of they were the first people to think of a fact, there is no Stale where one language bilingual State, and I am glad that it was taken alone is spoken. Therefore, we have to see that up by the Members of Parliament. We now we arrive at such a stage where men's minds see sorry incidents in Ahmedabad. I wish to are not concentrated on the question of emphasise this point to my friends opposite language, because it narrows down men's that that is not the way of showing opposition. outlook, it makes them narrow-minded and it There are other decent ways. makes them less tolerant and less large- hearted. Therefore, I submit that this new pro- posal gives me very great pleasure and I feel SHRI MAHESH SARAN: You can proud of our Parliament which initiated such a decent ways. great move, because it is a move in the right direction. When the Government was very doubtful as to what they should do—they were SHRI K. S. HEGDE: Other and have not very clear themselves and did not feel difference of opinion, but how to express it, happy at the proposal that they had put that is the question. Some people will express forward—Members of Parliament rose to the it in a decent way and others will try to occasion, sat down together and put forward express it in a way that not only harms this beautiful and remarkable plan, which will themselves but harms the country, because it help towards the solidarity of India and will be talked outside that people in India towards making it a great country. I am very fight over small things. There may be glad that this has come and I feel that it will disagreement; I do not say that there is not, help the other States which are based on the but civilised people express it in a way unilingual principle to realise that after all different from the uncivilised people, and I language is only one of the many criteria and feel that the things that are going on in that it is really the unity and solidarity of Ahmedabad now are not in keeping with the people speaking different languages which is civilised way of life. I hope that beUer essential, because after all India can shine only counsel will prevail and that men who have when it is united, when it is able to deliver the influence will explain to the people that these goods. are wrong ways, and are not proper ways and that they should desist from them and that, if they do not desist, steps 1443 States Reoigamsalion [16 AUG. 1956] Bill, 1956 1444 must be taken to see that these things are not dual should think how he can help in building allowed to go on. our motherland into a country which will be the pride of the world. I come to another good proposition in the Bill, and that is about Zonal Councils. If I If, on the other hand, peoples' minds are were to have my say, 1 would like the whole agitated and they are quarrelling among of India to be divided into five zones, instead themselves, then there will be no time for cf there being merely five Zonal Councils. reconstruction of this great country. I feel that But ai least I am glad about this provision, the Bill has come at the right moment and because people of different States in a Zone that after this Bill is passed into an Act, all will come together, discuss common controversies wdl cease and every Indian will problems and thereby there will be a bond of consider it his duty to help in the unity amongst them. This is a very good thing reconstruction of India by helping in the and will add to the strength of India. As we Second Five Year Plan. find from the duties of these Councils, they will discuss any matter of common interest in the field of economic and social planning, I have promised to be very brief and, matters concerning border disputes, linguistic therefore, I wish only to add that the different minorities and inter-State transport. These are details are to be worked, after all, later on, but the things which create difficulty. When these the one thing that really makes me feel happy Zonal Councils are there, they will look into is that the right approach has started now and these things and see that there is smooth at the instance of the Members of Parliament. running of the administration. This I wish to stress because it was emphasised by some people opposite that All the time I have been thinking of States should be formed on the basis of safeguards that should be provided for the language. We have seen too much of what minorities, because every where there are difficulties have arisen, we have seen too minorities. At present we want to have much of how brothers have become enemies. safeguards, but I hope that the Governments We have seen enough of this and, therefore, of the States which are to take over in the in the future the attempt should be to remove future will so conduct themselves that people these differences which today exist because begin to have faith in these Governments and after all, when* we talk of India abroad, we feel that there is no difference between don't talk of Punjab or we don't talk of U. P. majority and minority. When they see that or we don't talk of Bihar. But we talk of India both are treated alike, that will be° the time and, therefore, when we talk of India, we when no safeguards will be necessary. But in should be proud to talk of India. There should the beginning, I think it is the duty of the be no ugly incidents which should mar the Governments that take over to see that they so fair name of India. Therefore, I feel that all of conduct themselves that these minority us should, for the time being, forget to what troubles never arise, that people get faith in particular party we belong and march on the fact that those at the top look to the shoulder to shoulder trying to remove the interests of all with the same eye and that barriers and not think of linguistic States but there is no distinction between majority and think of India as one unit, India which is minority. When that day comes, it will be talked of in the world, to which people look to realised that these safeguards are only for with respect, and therefore it is our duty, our administrative purposes because all the people foremost duty, to forget our little differences of India are one and they have decided to and come together and help in the Second march together in order to reconstruct India in Five Year Plan to make India great and a beautiful and sound manner. beautiful.

I am, particularly, glad that this Bill has SHRI JASPAT ROY KAPOOR (Uttar come at this stage, because we have so much Pradesh): Sir, I want to rise on a point of to do in the future. If people's minds are order. I understand that the hon. Member, Mr. agitated as they were some time back, the Nair, has, a few minutes ago, handed a few Second Five Year Plan will not have the full copies of photographs to the Secretary, co-operation from the people which it obviously, I presume, with the object of deserves. At this stage it is necessary that placing them on the Table of the House to every indivi- form part of the proceedings. 1445 Slates Reorganisation [16 AUG. 1956] Bill, 1956 1446

AN HON. MEMBER: How could it? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: They are not part of the proceedings. SHRI JASPAT ROY KAPOOR: I am glad that they are not. Then the next question is, what are they intended to be? Since they have been handed over to the Secretary, where will they be? If they are not to form part of the proceedings—and rightly so, as you have said; our House is not a picture gallery where photographs are to be shown— where will they be? We don't know what those photographs are, who had them, who is responsible for them, what they relate to. There is no authenticity about them. I submit, therefore, that they must be immediately returned to the hon. Member. For, they cannot form part of the proceedings. They cannot be hung here because this is not a picture gallery. What are we to do with them? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The office will look into it. There is no point of order. Let us go on. SHRI JASWANT SINGH: Sir, I want to submit ...... MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. SHRI JASWANT SINGH: In regard to what Mr. Kapoor said ...... MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Shri-mati Lakhanpal. SHRI JASPAT ROY KAPOOR: If they are to be thrown into the waste paper basket, we are satisfied.

1447 States Reorganisation [16 AUG. 1956] Bill, 1956 1448

1449 Statts Reorganisation [RAJYASABHA] Bill, 1956 J 450

1451 Statts Reorganisattt* [16 AUG- 1956] Bill, 1956 1452

1453 States Reorgmisatitn [RAJYA SABHA] Bill, 1956 1454

MESSAGES FROM THE LOK SABHA

I. INDIAN LAC CESS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1956

II.MULTI-UNIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIE TIES (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1956 SECRETARY: Sir, I have to report to the House two messages received from the Lok Sabha signed by the Secretary of the Lok Sabha. They are as follows: I "In accordance with the provisions of rule 157 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, I am directed to inform you that Lok Sabha, at its sitting held on the 14th August, 1956, agreed without any amendment to the Indian Lac Cess (Amendment) Bill, 1956, which was passed by Rajya Sabha at its sit- ting held on the 17th February, 1956.

II "In accordance with the provisions of rule 157 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, I am directed to inform you that Lok Sabha, at its sitting held on the 14th August, 1956, agreed without any amendment to the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 1956 which was passed by Rajya Sabha at its sitting held on the 16th February, 1956."

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The House stands adjourned till 11 A.M. tomorrow. The House then adjourned at two minutes past five of the clock till eleven of the clock on Friday, the 17th August 1956.