Dr. Ambedkar: These directive principles ought to enunciate principles and ought not to go into the details of the working out of the principles. That is one reason why I feel that the period of three years ought to be eliminated from Article 39-A.
The second reason why I am forced to make this amendment is this. The expression “three years” has again brought about a sort of division of opinion amongst certain members of the House. Some say, if you have three years period, then no government is going to take any step until the third year has come into duration. You are practically permitting the provincial legislatures not to take any steps for three years by mentioning three years in this article. The other view is that three years may be too short. It may be that three years may be long enough so far as provinces are concerned, where the administrative machinery is well established and can be altered and amended so as to bring about the separation. But we have used the word “state” in the directive principles to cover not only the provincial governments but also the governments of the Indian States. It is contended that the administration in the Indian States for a long time may not be such as to bring about this desired result. Consequently the period of three years, so far as the Indian States are concerned, is too short. All these arguments have undoubtedly a certain amount of force which it is not possible to ignore. It is, therefore, thought that this article would serve the propose which we all of us have in view, if the article merely contained a mandatory provision, giving a direction to the State, both in provinces as well as in the Indian States, that this Constitution imposes, so to say, an obligation to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State, the intention being that where it is possible, it shall be done immediately without any delay, nonetheless, be accepted as an imperative obligation, the procrastination of which is not tolerated by the principles underlying this Constitution. I therefore submit that the amendment which I have moved meets all the points of view which are prevalent in this House, and I hope that this House will give its accord to this amendment.
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena (United Provinces: General): Sir, Dr. Ambedkar has already moved an amendment, that is he has added a new article No.39-A. Is it permissible to a member to amend his own amendment?
Mr. Vice-President: Yes. I would request you all to bear in mind that we have to go to the fundamentals and not to technicalities.
Shri R.K. Sidhwa (C.P. and Berar: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I am very glad that Dr. Ambedkar has moved this amendment and that at this late stage better counsels and sense have prevailed…
The motion was adopted.
Article 39-A was added to the Constitution.
Mr. Mohd. Tahir (Bihar: Muslim): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg to move: that after article 39, the following new article be inserted and the rest of the articles be renumbered:-
“40. It shall be the duty of the State to protect, safeguard and preserve the places of worship such as Gurdwaras, Churches, Temples, Mosques including the graveyards and burning ghats”,
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Sir, I do not accept the amendment.
Mr. Vice-President: I will now put the amendment to vote. The amendment was negatived. THE ARTICLE 40
Mr. Vice President: No.1018. Dr. Ambedkar.
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: I understand Mr. Karnath is moving an amendment.
Shri H.V. Kamath: I shall be moving my amendment after Dr. Ambedkar has moved his.
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move: “that for the existing article 40, the following be substituted:-
“40. The state shall-
(a) promote international peace and security;
(b) seek to maintain just and honourable relations between nations; and
(c) endeavour to sustain respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised people with one another”.
Sir, this, amendment merely simplifies the original article 40 and divides it into certain parts separating each idea from the other so that any one who reads the article will get a clear and complete idea of what is exactly intended to be covered by article 40. The propositions contained in this new article are so simple that it seems to be super-arrogation to try to explain them to the House by any lengthy speech.
Sir, I move (To be continued)
