Dispute over the Language

After the partition of India, the Sardar Patel-led Advisory Committee, as it

claimed, concluded on the consent of the religious minority groups, particularly
Muslims and Sikhs, that they would not be considered for the purpose of
reservations. After this development, the Drafting Committee changed the
language of draft Article 296, thereby substituting the word “minorities” with
“SCs and STs.” However, in the Constituent Assembly on 26 August 1949,
Naziruddin Ahmad, on behalf on a minority community, asserted that he had only
agreed to giving up the “question of representation of minorities in the
legislature” (CAI 1949b).
In agreement, Sardar Hukam Singh stated the minorities did not agree that “all
safeguards will go or that the minorities are not to be treated as minorities”
(CAI 1949b). He pointed that though the original version of draft Article 296 was
neither a fundamental right, nor even a directive principle, its presence in the
draft Constitution was a sort of “only comfort of minorities,” that “in some
respects their interests will be cared for” (CAI 1949b). He added that “if that is
also taken away [then] it will be a violation of a gentlemen's agreement.” What is
clear from this speech is that members of minority groups considered the original
draft Article 296 as a form of agreement or a directive, which was never a
justiciable right.
Since the changed language of Article 296 created a controversy in the assembly,
Ambedkar formally moved a proposal on 14 October 1949 to substitute the term
“minorities” with “SCs and the Sts.” It is here that one member, Brajeshwar
Prasad, moved an amendment to substitute Ambedkar’s version with a new
language which provided that “the maintenance of efficiency of administration
shall be the only consideration” in relation to “appointment to services and posts
in connection with the affairs of the union or of a state” (CAI 1949c). Prasad’s
argument was that only “a handful of people, constituting the cream of the
Harijan society” clamoured for reservation. His amendment and contention on
efficiency were rejected by the assembly.
Another member, Guptanath Singh, moved an amendment which sought to add
the words “and such other castes who are educationally and socially backward” in
the draft Article 296. This amendment, Singh argued, would protect the claims of
“agricultural and pastoral classes,” who were not explicitly covered under the
proposed draft article. The said amendment was also not approved. However, H V
Kamath tried to dispel Guptanath Singh’s “misapprehension” by explaining that
the claims of all backward classes are covered under draft Article 10(3), which “is
not a [mere] directive principle of state policy,” but a fundamental right. Kamath
expressed that “if there is no representation for [backward classes] in the services
they can take the government to task on that account” (CAI 1949c). That right,
according to him, “would be an adequate safeguard for them so far as their share
in the services is concerned,” irrespective of draft Article 296, which did not -
include the word “backward” (CAI 1949c).
The assembly eventually adopted Ambedkar’s version of draft Article 296, which
used the words “SCs and STs.” With this, draft Article 296 became a directive or
agreement (as it was already perceived by the members) with the future
governments that the claims of SCs and STs would be taken into consideration for
appointments in services. This directive seemed independent of the mandatory
right of representation prescribed by draft Article 10(3), as demonstrated by
Kamath. Furthermore, by rejecting Prasad’s amendment, the Constituent
Assembly did not allow the notion of efficiency to have an overriding effect on the
claims of SCs and STs. Later, draft Article 10(3) was numbered as 16(4), draft
Article 286 as 320, and draft Article 296 as 335.
The Broad Scope of Article 16(4)
The Drafting Committee had made an amendment in Clause 4 of Article 320. It
added the words “the members of the SCs or STs or” to the effect that it would
not be required to consult the Public Service Commission regarding the manner in
which appointments and posts are to be “reserved in favour of the members of
the SCs or STs or any backward class of citizens in the union or states”
(CAI 1949d).
When this amended Article 320 came for consideration before the Constituent
Assembly during a reading of the draft Constitution on 14 November 1949, Pandit
Thakur Das Bhargava, a Brahmin Congress member from erstwhile East Punjab,
moved a proposal for deletion of the newly added words “the members of
the SCs or Sts or” (CAI 1949d). Bhargava argued that Article 16(4) provided for
reservations for only “backward class of citizens” and would, hence not be
applicable to the SCs and STs. For them, the only safeguard, according to
Bhargava, is prescribed under Article 335, which only provides for taking their
claims into consideration, and hence they do not have a right of reservation in
their favour. Bhargava’s contention was that the Drafting Committee was trying
to do “smuggling” of the reservation for the SCs and STs by the “back door” of the
amended draft Article 320(4).
He went on to argue that the amended draft Article 320(4) “takes away the effect
of Article 335,” which imposes a “positive command” that the claims of
the SCs and STs “must be considered consistently with the maintenance of
efficiency of administration” (CAI 1949d). With regard to Article 16(4), Bhargava
stated that the “reservation of posts has not been decided.” He added that if the
state did not reserve any posts, then Article 16(4) would “neither benefit the
backward classes nor any other class,” and therefore the Constituent Assembly
was not justified “in having in this clause (4) [of Article 320] a contingency for
which reservation could be made” (CAI 1949d). Bhargava was only in favour of a
strict operation of Article 335, which need not necessarily “be implemented by
reservation.”
Bhargava’s contentions were contrary to what was already accepted in the
Constituent Assembly. As Munshi had clarified earlier (on 30 November 1948),
the SCs and STs were to be always treated as a special category within the
broader “backward class” category for the purpose of reservation. Pillai spoke
against Bhargava’s amendment, arguing that if it is accepted, “it will mean that
the SCs or Tribes will not count for reservation in the services” (CAI 1949d). P S
Deshmukh
demanded that in similarity to Article 320(4), the word “backward classes” be
added to Article 335. Khandekar argued that amendments, such as by Bhargava,
“are being moved at this stage to bury down the [SCs].” R K Sidhwa, a Parsi from
erstwhile Central Provinces, opposed Bhargava’s amendment and supported the
Drafting Committee, stating that “what [wrongs have] been done during the past
150 years” must be undone as soon as possible.
Mahavir Tyagi, a Brahmin member from United Provinces, stated that the
“communal virus” in Article 335 was unnecessarily being introduced in another
Article 320(4). According to Tyagi, it was a perception in the assembly that Article
335 was “only a directive article,” which “directs the policy of future
governments,” and thus questioned why a provision related to reservation was
introduced in another article. Responding to Tyagi, Jaipal Singh strongly objected
to the accusations against “the Drafting Committee and the SCs and the Sts and
any other backward classes of aligning ourselves as a communal group”
(CAI 1949d). He stated that if reservations are to be provided for the most
backward groups, it must be done “without any mental reservations.” He closed
his speech with a simple message to the Constituent Assembly: “be generous and
mean it.” Supporting the amendment proposed by Ambedkar, K Santhanam (a
Brahmin member from Madras) stated that Article 320(4) was just “purely
consequential to Article 335.” He said that reservations should be made “purely at
the discretion and judgment of either the central or local government” and can be
done under Article 335.
Kunzru gave the clearest explanation on the scope and relation between Articles
320(4), 335 and 16(4). He stated that under Article 16(4), it is not necessary for
the central government or the state government to consult the Public Service
Commissions with regard to the reservation of posts for any or all of the
backward classes. The article would apply to the SCs and STs. Kunzru stated that
the term “SC and the STs” has been “specifically mentioned in several places” in
the Constitution to place emphasis on their rights, as “they are believed to be
more backward than the classes called backward according to the official
terminology of the Provincial Governments” (CAI 1949d).
Thus, Article 335 “is of limited application” than Article 16, and that even if there
was no Clause 4 present in Article 320, Clause 3 of Article 320 would be subject
“to the provisions of clause (4) of Article 16 which embodies a fundamental right”
(CAI 1949d). According to Kunzru, an inference may be drawn from Article 335
that “the State has the power to reserve posts for the SCs and the Backward
Tribes,” but it is in Article 16(4) that a power is provided to the state in clear and
“express terms” to make reservations in appointments or posts in favour of any
backward class of citizens. Article 320(4) “is in accord with or that it is
consequential to the power given to the state by Article 16” (CAI 1949d). Kunzru’s
explanation implies that both Articles 320 and 335 would be subject to Article
16(4).
Taking all these concerns and propositions into consideration, the Drafting
Committee moved a revised amendment to the debated version of Article 320(4).
The new version of the amendment provided: “Nothing in clause (3) shall require
a Public Service Commission to be consulted as respects the manner in which any
provision referred to in clause (4) of Article 16 may be made or as respects the
manner in which effect may be given to the provisions of Article 335” (CAI 1949e).
This amendment came up for consideration before the assembly on 15 November
1949, where T T Krishnamachari (a member of the Drafting Committee) made a
reference to it. The amendment was adopted by the assembly on 16 November
1949 in the final draft of the Constitution.
The discussion in the Constituent Assembly shows that it was only Article 16(4)
which mandated and empowered the state to make reservations for backward
classes of citizens, including the SCs and STs. Article 320 was consequential to
Article 16(4). Article 335, as pointed out consistently by members—particularly by
those opposed to reservation—was being treated as a mere directive. The
Constituent Assembly never made Article 16(4) subject to Article 335 or 320,
rather accepted it as a stand-alone and overriding provision, as can be understood
by Kunzru’s analysis in the assembly. Reservation, as provided under Article 16(4),
was thus not subjected to notion of efficiency mentioned in Article 335.
Debunking the Myth of Efficiency

While the members of the Constituent Assembly congratulated Ambedkar and

the Drafting Committee on the completion of the final draft of the Constitution,
Dharanidhar Basu Matari, a member from Assam, highlighted the plight of the
tribals and their expectations from the Constitution (23 November 1949). He
remarked that the “advanced communities will have to make special efforts,
particular sacrifices if the backward classes are to come up” (CAI 1949f). He added
that the tribals, who had been neglected and exploited in the past and would
continue to be suppressed, “unless there is special arrangement made for their
advancement.” This can be done, Matari said, only when tribals are recruited: “to
all branches of service, from the lowest to the highest”; “not only in the provinces
but also at the centre;” and “not only should there be a minimum quota fixed for
their appointments, but their promotion must equally be seen to, so that they do
not stick where they begin” (CAI 1949f).
“For this to happen,” Matari further added, “the advanced classes must make a
sacrifice” and “recede.” Matari discarded the arguments about “efficiency of
administration” as “just dodges to perpetuate class or territorial interests.” He
stated that the so-called upper castes were benefited in the “jobs, the contacts
and the privileges” during the British regime, and that these “sections that have
captured the services will see to it that their superiority is never threatened or
endangered” (CAI 1949f). He, however, hoped that the rights of the tribals would
be protected under the new constitutional regime. Matari was not the first one to
bulldoze the argument of “efficiency of administration.” Ambedkar had been
already doing that for a couple of decades.
The notion of “efficiency of administration” was an exclusionary construct in the
colonial and precolonial eras. It was used by the British to exclude Indians from
becoming a part of the administration. After continuous demands, the case for
“Indianisation of services” (BAWS, Vol 2, p 393) was accepted by the Royal
Commission on Public Services in India, also known as the Islington Commission,
in 1915. The proportion between the Indians and the Europeans in the
different services was then given effect to (BAWS, Vol 2, p 393). The upper castes,
who got the benefit of the opening of the services and became part of the British
administration, thereafter, used this colonial notion of “efficiency of
administration” against the inclusion of the lower castes within the services. In his
submissions before the Simon Commission 4 in 1928, Ambedkar noted:
It is notorious that the public services of the country in so far as they are open to
Indians have become by reason of various circumstances a close preserve for the
Brahmins and allied castes. The non-Brahmins, the depressed classes and the
Mohamedans are virtually excluded from them. (BAWS, Vol 2, p 394)
Ambedkar further noted that “the Brahmins and the allied castes” opposed the
inclusion of the backward classes within the services on the ground “that the
interests of the State require that efficiency should be the only consideration in
the matters of appointment to public offices.” They relied upon “educational
merit” and “competitive examinations” as the “only test which can be taken to
guarantee efficiency” (BAWS, Vol 2, p 394). Ambedkar rejected this argument,
stating unequivocally:
The system of competitive examination relied upon may result in fairness to all
castes and creeds under a given set of circumstances. But those circumstances
presuppose that the educational system of the State is sufficiently democratic and
is such that facilities for education are sufficiently widespread and sufficiently used
to permit all classes from which good public servants are likely to be forthcoming
to complete. Otherwise even with the system of open competition large classes
are sure to be left out in the cold. This basic condition is conspicuous by its
absence in India, so that to invite backward classes to rely upon the results of
competitive examination as a means of entry into the public services is to practise
a delusion upon them and very rightly the backward classes have refused to be
deceived by it. (BAWS, Vol 2, p 395)
Questioning Bias, Privilege and Merit
Ambedkar destroyed this myth of efficiency with several arguments. Before the
Simon Commission, he presented a case of “administrative utility” and a “moral
case” for the backward classes to have a “favoured treatment” for their inclusion
in the public services. Ambedkar gave examples from the past of how so-called
upper-caste officers acted “to the aggrandisement of their community and to the
detriment of the general public” (BAWS, Vol 2, p 396). For this reason, Ambedkar
argued:
[The] disadvantages arising from the class bias of the officers belonging to
Brahmin and allied castes has outweighed all the advantages attending upon their
efficiency and that on the total they have done more harm than good.
The remedy, he thus suggested, was “a proper admixture of the different
communities in the public service”, which will supply “a most valuable corrective
to the evils of class bias” (BAWS, Vol 2, p 396). Ambedkar then argued that the
case of exclusion of backward classes from the administrative services was
morally wrong and evil in the same way as exclusion of Indians from public
services. He posed several questions to the opponents of inclusion of backward
classes within public services:
Now what one would like to ask those who deny the justice of the case of the
backward classes for entry into the public service is whether it is not open to the
backward classes to allege against the Brahmins and allied castes all that was
alleged by the late Mr Gokhale5 on behalf of Indian people against the foreign
agency? ... Can [the backward classes] not complain that as a result of their
exclusion they are obliged to live all the days of their lives in an atmosphere of
inferiority, and that the tallest of them has to bend in order that the exigencies of
the existing system may be satisfied? Can they not assert that the upward
impulses which every school-boy of the Brahmanical community feels that he may
one day be a Sinha, a Sastri, a Ranade or a Paranjpye, and which may draw forth
from him the best efforts of which he is capable is denied to them? ... Can they not
lament that the moral elevation which every self-governing people feel cannot be
felt by them and that their administrative talents must gradually disappear owing
to sheer disgust till at last their lot as hewers of wood and drawers of water in
their own country is stereotyped? (BAWS, Vol 2, pp 397–98)
The answers to all these questions, Ambedkar said, are in the “affirmative.” What
Ambedkar explained through the above questions was a system of exclusion
against backward classes, which was in existence even before the British regime
began in India. The colonial construct of “efficiency” was a repackaging of the
social traditions of stereotypes, prejudices, and subsequent ostracism.
Ambedkar also reminded the so-called upper castes that they had received their
privileges and social advancement not because of any merit (BAWS, Vol 9, p
477).6 They “acquired their political power not by force of intellect—for intellect is
nobody’s monopoly—but by sheer communalism” (BAWS, Vol 9, p 477), a kind of
absolute reservation since the existence of ancient society. Ambedkar stated
that Manusmriti, the ancient sociolegal code, had provided that the important
administrative, military, and ministerial posts “were all reserved for the
Brahmins” (BAWS, Vol 9, p 477). Apart from that, laws were enacted because of
which “education was made the monopoly and privilege of Brahmins,” while it
was criminalised for the lower castes “to acquire learning,” and included “cruel
and inhuman punishment such as cutting the tongue of the criminal and filling his
ear with hot molten lead” (BAWS, Vol 9, p 478). While these reservations for
Brahmins did not exist during British rule, Ambedkar pointed out that “the
advantages derived from their continuance over several centuries have
remained” (BAWS, Vol 9, p 478).
In his view, the argument of “efficiency” was a method of the upper castes to
protect their own interests and structural advantages. Ambedkar stated that
instead of making any sacrifice of their interests for an inclusive India, the upper
castes made a “cry of ‘nationalism in danger’” and “efficiency” against
reservations (BAWS, Vol 9, pp 472, 478). The upper castes left “no occasion to
deprecate and to ridicule reservations” (BAWS, Vol 9, p 472). Ambedkar made a
sharp critique of this tendency by stating that:
The governing classes [upper castes] are bent on giving the reservations a bad
name in order to be able to hang those who are insisting upon them (BAWS, Vol 9,
482) … If the governing class in India stands on the principle of efficiency and
efficiency alone it is because it is actuated by the selfish motive of monopolising
the instrumentalities of government (BAWS, Vol 9, 481) … Efficiency combined
with selfish class interests instead of producing good government is far more likely
to become a mere engine of suppression of the servile classes. (BAWS, Vol 9, p
480)
Ambedkar reiterated these points during the deliberations on the Constitution.
He had written a letter to Jawaharlal Nehru, charging that “the administration
was unsympathetic to SCs because it was manned wholly by caste Hindu officers
… who practiced tyranny and oppression” on the SCs (Austin 1999: 25). The best
way to remedy this situation, Ambedkar argued, was for the SCs to “become
members of the various governments in India and thereby to ensure that [SCs]
also became members of the civil services” (Austin 1999: 25). The notion of
“efficiency,” as it was invoked by the upper castes, was contrary to the
representation of backward classes in services and the legislature.
Efficient Administration versus Good Governance

Ambedkar had consistently distinguished the colonial construct of “efficiency of

administration” with that of “good administration.” He asserted that a good
administration or government is one which is truly representative. In one of the
articles, he had noted:
[The] view that good government was better than efficient government … must
also be made applicable to the field of administration. It was through
administration that the State came directly in contact with the masses. No
administration could do any good unless it was sympathetic … As against this the
Brahmins have been taking their stand on efficiency pure and simple. They know
that this is the only card they can play successfully by reason of their advanced
position in education. But they forget that if efficiency was the only criterion then
in all probability there would be very little chance for them to monopolise state
service in the way and to the extent they have done. For if efficiency was made the
only criterion there would be nothing wrong in employing Englishmen,
Frenchmen, Germans and Turks instead of the Brahmins of India. (BAWS, Vol 12,
pp 723–24)
Ambedkar elaborated on this point by asserting that the “Indianisation” of public
services was also based on the notions of representation and inclusiveness, and
not on exclusionary notion of “efficiency.” Therefore, a good government would
require the inclusion of backward classes, and that it must not be opposed. He
argued:
The case for Indianisation, it must be remembered, did not rest upon efficient
administration. It rested upon considerations of good administration. It was not
challenged that the Indian was inferior to the European in the qualities that go
into the make-up of an efficient administrator. It was not denied that the
European bureaucracy had improved their roads, constructed canals on more
scientific principles, effected transportation by rail, carried their letters by penny
post, flashed their messages by lightning, improved their currency, regulated their
weights and measures, corrected their notions of geography, astronomy and
medicine, and stopped their internal quarrels. Nothing can be a greater testimony
to the fact that the European bureaucracy constituted the most efficient
government possible. All the same the European bureaucracy, efficient though it
was, was condemned as it was found to be wanting in those qualities which make
for human administration. It is therefore somewhat strange that those who
clamoured for Indianisation should oppose the stream flowing in the direction of
the backward classes, forgetting that the case for Indianisation also includes the
case for the Backward Classes. (BAWS, Vol 2, p 398); (emphasis added)
Ambedkar further noted that “the question of entry into the public service is … a
question of life and death” for the SCs, as they did not have openings for a career
in trade and industry because of untouchability and biases against them
(BAWS, Vol 10, p 416). Since “it is only in government service that they can find a
career” (BAWS, Vol 10, p 416), this created, Ambedkar argued, a “natural idealism
of the backward communities” and “aspirations” to contribute to the governance
(BAWS, Vol 2, pp 349–50). In his view, the reservation for the backward
communities “makes available for the national service such powerful social
forces, in the absence of which any Parliamentary government may be deemed to
be poorer” (BAWS, Vol 2, pp 349–50). Thus, for Ambedkar, giving due
representation would have enhanced efficiency. In other words, his conception of
“good government” meant that efficiency would be measured by the test of
representation and inclusion of underrepresented social groups.
Ambedkar strongly asserted his arguments even at the Round Table Conferences
in London in 1930–31, where he stated that a government which did not have
representatives from under-represented communities, would not be a
“responsible government” (Bhaskar 2020: 11). The admixture of all castes and
creeds with “minimum efficiency” would make any administration to be a good
administration (BAWS, Vol 12, p 724). “Minimum efficiency” may be measured by
certain basic tests, and not as an abstract criterion (BAWS, Vol 9, p 48). Moreover,
he argued that reservations, by providing representation to backward classes,
would act as a system of countercheck to protect the political democracy from
being subverted by particular privileged groups (BAWS, Vol 9, p 171). According to
Ambedkar, reservations “are only another name for what the Americans call
checks and balances which every constitution must have, if democracy is not to
be overwhelmed by the enemies of democracy” (BAWS, Vol 9, p 482).
It is for these reasons that Ambedkar made a consistent case before the British
government that the moral wrong of excluding lower castes from public offices
and services must be corrected through reservations. He continuously argued for
the provisions of representation in the public services and legislatures to be
included in the future constitution. During the framing of the Constitution,
Ambedkar even walked away from the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly,
when Sardar Patel had taken a decision to do away with political reservations
for SCs and STs from the Constitution (Vundru 2017: 138). Eventually, Ambedkar’s
stand on the inclusion of reservation was accepted by the Constituent Assembly.
Conclusions
As narrated in this paper, the arguments of “efficiency” and “merit” were used
against reservations even during the framing of the Constitution. The Constituent
Assembly consciously rejected these arguments. Furthermore, there was a
contentious debate among the members on the scope of Article 16(4), which
provided for reservation in services, and Article 335, which mentioned the term
“efficiency” while referring to rights of SCs and STs. Some members had enquired
whether Article 335 is independent of Article 16. The Constituent Assembly
Debates show that Article 16(4) has a broader view and would not be restricted
by any other constitutional provision. On the other hand, Article 335 was
perceived as a mere directive to the future governments. It was clarified that
references to the rights and claims of SCs and STs were mentioned in more than
one article to emphasise on the importance of their rights. SCs and STs are
a special category within the definition of “backward classes” under Article 16(4).
It is in Article 16(4) that the power is provided to the state in clear terms to make
reservations for any backward class of citizens.
At the same time, it can be inferred that Article 16(4) is not a mere directive, as it
was enshrined in the chapter on fundamental rights. This made Kamath express
that if representation is not provided to backward classes, then the state can be
held accountable in a court of law. There was also a view in the Constituent
Assembly expressed in favour of reservations in promotions. As stated by Matari,
overcoming backwardness of certain communities, such as tribals, requires that
reservations in services should be extended to reservation in promotions as well,
so that individuals from these communities do not stick to where they begin.
Furthermore, in the final stages of the drafting of the Constitution, Matari had
called the argument of “efficiency” as a method “to perpetuate” class interests.
Ambedkar had been writing for several decades that the term “efficiency of
administration” was a colonial and precolonial construct, which was used as an
exclusionary criterion and as an attempt by the upper castes to maintain their
structural advantages and privileges. His writings clearly suggest that in a post-
independence era, the notion of “efficiency of administration” cannot be used
against reservations. Instead, “efficiency of administration” would be measured
or enhanced by ensuring due representation.
Article 16(4) thus cannot be understood in the context of any exclusionary notion
of “efficiency of administration.” In that sense, it cannot be used as a ground to
cast aspersions on reservations, which are provided for under Articles 15 and 16.
When the term “efficiency of administration” is used in Article 335, it refers to
“representation” and “minimum efficiency,” as Ambedkar argued. The 82nd
amendment7 to the Constitution, which provided for a minimum criterion for
recruitment in the matters of promotions, reflects this understanding.
Furthermore, Ambedkar’s understanding has been solidified by few empirical
studies, which show that reservation in services does not dilute efficiency in any
way (Deshpande and Weisskopf 2014; Bhavnani and Lee 2020). Economists have,
in fact, suggested that reservation or “affirmative action in hiring might improve
economic performance—particularly in high-level jobs” (Deshpande and
Weisskopf 2014: 177).
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court confused this basic understanding on
reservations and erroneously considered Article 335 to be a limitation to Article
16(4) in several judgments. The B K Pavitra (II) judgment offers a fresh look in this
regard. Both, the Constituent Assembly Debates and Ambedkar’s writings,
demonstrate that Article 16(4) would have a broader and independent standing in
the Constitution. The concern of Ambedkar that the provision of reservation
under Article 16(4) might become a subject of unjust scrutiny through “judicial -
interpretation” has come true.
Notes
1 Article 16(4) of the Constitution provides: “Nothing in this article shall prevent
the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts
in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is
not adequately represented in the services under the state.”
2 Article 335 of the Constitution provided: “The claims of the members of
the SCs and the Sts shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the
maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to
services and posts in connection with the affairs of the union or of a state.”
3 Later, the Constituent Assembly included Scheduled Tribes for the benefits of
reservation.
4 In 1928, the British government sent a group of seven members of the British
parliament to India to study constitutional reforms and make recommendations
to the government. The commission was originally named the Indian Statutory
Commission. It came to be known as the Simon Commission after its chairman,
John Simon.
5 Ambedkar was referring to the submissions made by Gopal Krishna Gokhale
(1866–1915) before the Welby Commission, which was appointed in 1895 by
British government to inquire into the administration and management of the
military and civil expenditure incurred under the authority of the Secretary of
State for India-in-council. Gokhale had submitted: “The excessive costliness of the
foreign agency is not however its only evil. There is a moral evil, which, if
anything, is even greater. A kind of dwarfing or stunting of the Indian race is going
on under the present system. We must live all the days of our life in an
atmosphere of inferiority and tallest of us must bend in order that the exigencies
of the existing system may be satisfied. The upward impulse, if I may use such an
expression, which every school-boy at Eton or Harrow may feel that he may one
day be a Gladstone, a. Nelson, or a Wellington, and which may draw forth the
best efforts of which he is capable, is denied to us. The full height to which our
manhood is capable of rising can never be reached by us under the
present system. The moral elevation which every self-governing people feel
cannot be felt by us. Our administrative and military talents must gradually
disappear, owing to sheer disuse, till at last our lot, as hewers of wood and
drawers of water in our own country, is stereotyped” (BAWS, Vol 2, p 397).
6 Ambedkar stated: “The governing class does not bother to inquire into the ways
and means by which it has acquired its supremacy. It does not feel the necessity
of doing so, partly because it believes that it acquired its supremacy by dint of
merit and partly because it believes that no matter how it acquired its power it is
enough that it is in a position to dictate its policy on the servile classes” (BAWS,
Vol 9, p 477).
7 The 82nd constitutional amendment inserted a proviso to Article 335 of the
Constitution to the effect: “Provided that nothing in this article shall prevent in
making of any provision in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or
lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion to
any class or classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union
or of a State.”