In fact, I find considerable difficulty to improve upon the arguments used in their speeches in support of this article.
I will therefore take up the other points. Most of them have also been dealt with by my friend, Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar and if, Sir, you had not called upon me. I would have said that his speech may be taken as my speech, because he has dealt with all the points which I have noted down.
Now, the only point which I noted down to which I had thought of making some reference during my reply was the point made by my friend, Professor K.T. Shah, that Fundamental Rights do not speak of the freedom of the press. The reply given by my friend, Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, in my judgment is a complete reply. The press is merely another way of describing an individual or a citizen. The press has no special rights which are not to be given, nor which are not to be exercised by the citizen in his individual capacity. The editor of a press or the manager are all citizens and therefore when they choose to write in newspapers, they are merely exercising their right of expression, and in my judgment therefore no special mention is necessary of the freedom of the press at all.
Now, about the question of bearing arms about which my friend Mr. Kamath was so terribly excited, I think the position that we have taken is very clear. It is quite true, and everyone knows that the Congress Party had been agitating that there should be right to bear arms. Nobody can deny that. That is history. At the same time, I think the House should not forget the fact that the circumstances when such resolutions were passed by the Congress no longer exist.
Shri H.V. Kamath: A very handy argument.
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: It is because the British Government had refused to allow Indians to bear arms, not on the ground of peace and order, but on the ground that a subject people should not have the right to bear arms against an alien government so that they could organise themselves to overthrow the Government, and consequently the basic considerations on which these resolutions were passed in my judgement have vanished. Under the present circumstances, I personally myself cannot conceive how it would be possible for the State to carry on its administration if every individual had the right to go into the market and purchase all sorts of instruments of attack without any let or hindrance from the State.
Shri H.V. Kamath: On a point of clarification, Sir, the proviso is there restricting that right.
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: The proviso does what? What does the proviso say? What the proviso can do is to regulate, and the term “regulation” has been judicially interpreted as prescribing the conditions, but the conditions can never be such as to completely abrogate the right of the citizen to bear arms. Therefore, regulation by itself will not prevent a citizen who wants to exercise the right to bear arms from having them. I question very much the policy of giving all citizens indiscriminately any such fundamental right. For instance, if Mr. Kamath’s proposition was accepted, that every citizen should have the fundamental right to bear arms, it would be open to thousands and thousands of citizens who are today described as criminal tribes to bear arms. It would be open to all sorts of people who are habitual criminals to claim the right to possess arms. You cannot say that under the proviso a man shall not be entitled to bear arms because he belongs to a particular class.
Shri H.V. Kamath: If Dr. Ambedkar understands the proviso fully and clearly, he will see that such will not be the effect of my amendment.
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: I cannot yield now. I have not got much time left. I am explaining the position that has been taken by the Drafting Committee. The point is that it is not possible to allow this indiscriminate right. On the other hand, my submission is that so far as bearing of arms is concerned, what we ought to insist upon is not the right of an individual to bear arms but his duty to bear arms. (An Honourable Member: Hear, hear). In fact, what we ought to secure is that when an emergency arises, when there is a war, when there is insurrection, when the stability Ard security of the State is endangered, the State shall be entitled to call upon every citizen to bear arms in defence of the State. That is the proposition that we ought to initiate and that position we have completely safeguarded by the proviso to article 17.
Shri H.V. Kamath: (rose to interrupt).
Mr. Vice-President: You do not interrupt, Mr. Kamath. You cannot say that I have not given you sufficient latitude.
(To be continued)
