But there is one thing that I would like to say with regard to these clauses and it is this that if any action is taken under these clauses (g), (h) and (I), it must only be on the ground that public purpose justifies it. It must not be merely an arbitrary act on the part of the Government. It must not be a whim that Government wants to amalgamate one company with another or transfer the management of one to another. These clauses must be subject to the rule of public purpose. If that is so, then there is no objection to them,
Now going back to the other clauses, to (a) I have no objection; it may stand as it is.
With regard to (b) I do not know whether the first part of (b) is very different from (a). It seems to me that both are alike, but I would like to have some explanation as to what is meant by “modification of any rights in agricultural holdings. What does that mean? There is no explanation. As far as I understand, and agriculturist requires four rights. First is security of tenure; he must not be liable to ejection by the landlord without proper cause. Secondly, he would be liable to pay only what is called fair rent, as may be determined by a court if it is necessary. thirdly he must have transferability of tenure. If he wants to sell his holding, he should be free to sell it and the landlord should not stand in his way. And fourthly it must be hereditable, that is to say, if he dies, his descendants should have a right to claim the holding. Now these are the four things which I think a holder of an agricultural holding is interested in. Now Government would take power to modify these things. I do not know what is the nature of the modification and what are the rights which they propose to modify. I think some explanation is necessary.
Then comes (c), the fixation of the maximum extent of agricultural land, etc. Well, all that I can say is this that whether this particular clause will have positive results depends upon what is the maximum that you are going to fix. This is the pet idea of the Socialist Party. They want that land should be distributed after fixing the maximum holding of a tenant.
Mr. Chairman: Are not these matters to be taken up in the Joint Committee when it comes to discuss the thing?
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: it may be but the point is this that it is necessary to know whether these things are really good to be incorporated in the Constitution. My Friend Mr. Pant knows because he was the Chairman of the Committee on Land Tenures in UP which I have studied — that the maximum holding in UP is about two acres for a rotund I do not know that there is any part of India where ryotwari prevails where the holding is larger than two acres. What maximum can you fix I do not understand. therefore, this seems to me quite a futile thing.
The other thing about which I wish to make some reference is this. It says that the surplus land shall be transferred to the State or otherwise. I do not know what is meant by “otherwise”, whether it means that it may be given to other tenants; that might be the meaning. If so, I would like to utter a word of caution. I am of opinion that peasant proprietorship in this country is going to bring about complete ruination of the country. What we want is — although I am not a Communist — the Russian system of collective farming. That is the only way by which we can solve our agricultural problem. To create peasant proprietorship and to hand over land to peasants who have not got means of production is in my judgement…
Shri Tajamal Husain: Have they done it in Russia?
Mr. Chairman: Don’t bother, he takes it as an illustration.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: I am prepared to pick and choose from everyone, Socialist, Communist or other. I do not claim infallibility and as Buddha says there is nothing infallible; there is nothing final and everything is liable to examination.
Shri. Tajamal Husain: That is why we are amending the Constitution framed by Dr. Ambedkar.
Shri. S. Mohanty (Orissa): And voted by you.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Now with regard to vacant and wasteland. That proposition is of course a welcome proposition and I support it. But I have yet to see if you take vacant land without compensation, whether the municipality which would have to exercise this right would do so because I fear a large majority of municipal councillors are friends of the Sium-owners and therefore probably they will not exercise this right unless something more is done. Now with regard to management, all that I want to say is this. Most people do not realise what is involved in this. If the Government wants to take up the management of a mill because it is badly managed, there is no harm in doing that. But the question is this. Suppose the Government management turns out to be worse than the previous management and losses are created, who is going to be responsible for those losses?
