On 19th August 1949, the following dialogue took place at the Constituent Assembly between Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Nagappa and V. I. Munusamy Pillai;
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: With regard to the merits of the proposition which has been tabled before the House, I have not seen any single constructive suggestions on the part of any members who has taken part in this debate as what should be the alternative Constitution of the Second Chamber. Here and there bits have been taken and emancipation have been indulged to point out either that that is useful provision or a dangerous provision. whereas I am prepared to say that this is a matter that there can be two opinion and I am not prepared to say that the opinion I hold or the opinion of the Drafting Committee is only correct in this matter. We have to provide some kind of Constitution and prepared to say the Constitution provided is as reasonable and as practicable as can be thought of in the present circumstances.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Then there were two points that were made, one of them by my Friend, Nagappa. He wanted that a provision for the representation of agricultural labour. Which I do not see any such provision is necessary for the representation of agricultural labour in the Upper Chamber, because the Lower Chamber will be in my Judgment having a very large representation of agricultural labour in view of the fact that the suffrage on which the Lower Chamber could be collected could be adult suffrage and I do not know—“
Shri S. Nagappa: If that is the case all other sections also to whom you are giving will also get representation to the Lower Chamber.
B. R. Ambedkar: We are provided for three different reasons; agricultural labour will be amply provided in the Chamber. My friend, C. Munusamy Pillai by an amendment raised a question that there should be a special representation for the Scheduled Caste in the Upper Chamber. Now I should like to point out to him that so far as the Drafting Committee is concerned it is governed by the report of the Advisory Committee which dealt with this matter. In the report of the Advisory Committee which was placed before the House during August 1947 the following provisions finds a place.
“[C] There shall be reservation of seats for the Muslims in Lower House of the Central and Provincial Legislatures on the basis the population.”
“[A] The section of Hindu Community referred to as Scheduled Caste and it defined in Schedule 1 to the Government of India Act, 1935, shall have the same rights and benefits which are herein provided for etc., etc.”
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Which mean that representation to be guaranteed to the Scheduled Caste shall be guaranteed only in the Lower Houses of the Central and Provincial Legislature. That being the decision of the Constituent Assembly, I do not think it is competent for the Drafting Committee to adopt any proposition which would be in contradiction to the decisions of the House. Hence I might say although I do not want to injure anybody’s feeling that if anyone was vociferously in favour to the decision, it was my Friend, Mr. Munusamy Pillai and I think he ought to be content is what he agreed by them—-
Shri S. Nagappa: “In view of the explanation given by Dr. Ambedkar, I beg leave to withdraw amendment No. 66, 67, 68 and 71.”
“The amendments were by leave of this Assembly withdrawn”
Shri Munusamy Pillai: “I beg leave to the House to withdraw an Amendment and I do not agree with the observation of Honourable Dr. Ambedkar.”
“The amendment was with the leave of Assembly withdrawn.”
Comment: Muslim representation in whatever Chamber met with the verbal chequered career and a Scheduled Caste representation were bestowed by British in 1935 itself. What is the destiny of Scheduled Tribes?