At the introduction of the UOA in the Lok Sabha, many Dalit lawmakers argued that the act was too little and too late. N. Somanna made the case most clearly that the penal law, limited to imposing negative injunctions on citizens, did not go far enough in imposing positive responsibilities on the state to address the economic dependency of Dalits on Caste Hindus that made any assertion of rights or complaints impossible. He called for the implementation of land reforms, resettlement of Dalits, provision of employment for Dalit people and educational concessions for Dalit students.[1]
These sentiments were echoed by nearly every Dalit legislator who insisted that without adequate attention to the economic roots of untouchability, piecemeal legislation was likely to remain a dead letter.[2] In the words of N Rachaiah “ The social revolution cannot be achieved without the economic revolution and the economic revolution cannot be achieved without the social revolution: Both are closely knit together…”[3]
K.S Rao chimed in to call the bill “calculated eyewash to hoodwink the Harijan population”, he added that similar penal laws that were in force in the provinces and had failed to make a dent and called for propaganda to raise awareness of civil rights and for economic upliftment and education for Dalit citizens. He stated that the union government was non-serious about addressing the untouchability issue as their bill failed to provide for resettlement for Dalit citizens.[4]
Many of the MPs reported complaints that they had received from their constituents or indignities they themselves had endured that required a broader law to address their problems. They argued that the bill treated the symptom of untouchability instead of the disease of the caste system in that it failed to protect the rights to land ownership or the rights to housing for Dalit citizens,[5] and allowed private untouchability to go unregulated.[6]
G.H. Deshpande and a few others disagreed that the bill was inadequate. Recounting his experiences participating in temple-entry satyagrahas in Bombay province, he argued that the presence of anti-untouchability law in that state allowed activists appeal to the police to force caste Hindus to capitulate.[7]
After four days of deliberation, an irritable Katju argued that these suggestions were irrelevant as the bill before the house was a limited one. He said that he would support schemes to improve access to land, education, employment, etc, but said, “What has all this got to do with this unfortunate bill? That is not punishment for removal of disability!.”[8]
When asked why the ambit of the Bill could not be expanded, he argued that the government was engaged in the economic upliftment process through the five-year plans, and state legislatures were the appropriate forum for the promulgation of such measures. The present bill would be limited to making untouchability punishable by law.
While Katju won the day in the end, the conflict remained unresolved. Even in the final reading of the bill in the Rajya Sabha, S.N. Mazumdar and others stressed on the economic conditions that made untouchability possible and advocated for more comprehensive legislation rather than piecemeal penal laws as a solution to the untouchability problem.[9]
In the Rajya Sabha, Dr. Ambedkar stated that the enactment should be renamed the “Civil Rights (Untouchables Protection) Act and should explicitly mention its objects in protecting the civil rights and constitutional rights of Dalit citizens.[10] He supported penalisation but made it clear that untouchability was only being penalised to ensure that Dalit citizens were able to exercise their civil rights. He opposed the imposition of fines on offenders unless those fines were to be given as compensation to victims. He called for the union government to invalidate laws that imposed civil disabilities in Punjab, Madras, and Bombay, going so far as to indict the law ministry as “lazy” for not having done so already. He also called for explicit criminalisation of social boycotts.
He went on to stress that if the UOA were to work, it would require offences to be non-compoundable and for mandatory minimum punishments far beyond what had been proposed to ensure deterrence. He went further than most in suggesting that magistrates ought to demand bonds for good behaviour from repeat offenders and even confine them pre-emptively during times of heightened tensions. He argued that without these safeguards, the law would be a dead letter.[11]
PT Leuva, speaking the next day in the Rajya Sabha, posited that since a simple penal bill was being proposed it was not productive to press the government for a different more comprehensive legislation and focussed on pointing out lacunae in the UOA. Confronting the argument that lighter criminal penalties would lead to resentment and riots he asked why the resentment and anger felt by Dalits at routine caste violence did not merit the same consideration. He also expressed deep fears about officers of the state, such as judges and policemen, subverting the legislation at the behest of Caste Hindus and called for harsher punishments for officials neglecting their duty and disqualification of elected representatives if they practice untouchability.[12]
S.N. Mazumdar argued that there were two kinds of offenders: those who practised untouchability because they believed it was their religious duty and feudal elements in villages who practised untouchability to teach upwardly mobile Dalits a lesson and to maintain their domination. And that the latter sort would be let off scot-free if offences were made compoundable as they were able to unduly influence and pressure Dalits into settling cases, thereby defeating the purpose of the legislation.[13]
B.N. Datar, the Deputy Minister for Home Affairs, speaking on behalf of the government, responded to Dr.Ambedkar and clarified that the provisions of the bill would remain non-compoundable and cognizable. Though he insisted on maintaining the lighter punishments arguing that since Dalits lived in the same villages as Caste Hindus, a moderate approach that seeks to persuade rather than provoke, lest they provoke riots, was appropriate.[14] He also argued that the government could only regulate public conduct, not private behaviour and that this was a penal law and not a civil rights legislation since civil rights had already been granted to Dalits within the Constitution. [15]
The call for harsher penalties was repeatedly made by many MPs at the first reading of the bill[16] and also by members of the Joint Committee of the Parliament, who suggested stricter punishment for repeat offenders and shifting the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused where acts prohibited under the law were committed against Dalits.[17]
By the time the Bill was reintroduced in parliament in April 1955, it had undergone several changes. While punishments had not been increased, the offences were made cognizable and a rebuttable presumption that shifted the burden of proof was put in place and adopted by Parliament on 28th April 1955.[18] Even though Pandit Bhargava, RV Dhulekar, and K.S. Raghavacharya and Lilavati Munshi opposed the reversal of the burden of proof, reasoning that the presumption cast the net too wide and contravened principles of natural justice.[19] And other MPs resistant to the bill argued that provisions on temple entry impinged on the religious rights of Caste Hindus and that the legislation would be futile in trying to force social reforms through the law.[20]
However, the offences under the bill were made compoundable. R.Velayudhan wrote a comprehensive dissenting note to the Joint Parliamentary Committee. One of his chief concerns was that the compoundability of offences, combined with lighter punishments, would render the bill ineffective. He argued that the state machinery charged with enforcing the act would themselves belong to “offending class(es)” and would exploit these weaknesses.[21] A plurality of MPs such as S.L. Saksena, Sadhan Gupta, Rama Rao, and Raghaviah in the Lok Sabha also took exception to the offences being made compoundable.[22]
But the new Home Minister Govind Ballabh Pant, who enjoyed more confidence with Dalit MPs, argued that the offences were only compoundable through permission of courts, protecting against any mischief and that these offences were essentially civil in nature but were being penalised to hasten an end to untouchability. He warned against “vindictiveness” and argued that a gentler approach coupled with moral persuasion would create less backlash.[23]
Many MPs also sought to move amendments on the house floor to increase punishments, including N. Rachiah, Elayaperumal, Pandit Bhargava, Jangde and Khardekar.[24] Upendra Barman, who drafted the bill in the Joint Committee, argued that these amendments would be counterproductive as judges might not convict if they viewed sentences as unjust and that the bill provided more severe punishment for repeat offenders.[25]
Addressing similar concerns in the Rajya Sabha at the final reading of the bill, B.N. Datar argued that the UOA incorporated lighter punishments because the law sought to change the attitudes of people who thought that “untouchability was sanctified by custom or by religion,” and a harsh penalties would lead to resentment and backlash by dominant communities against numerically smaller dalit communities in villages. He argued that lighter punishments would more effectively lead to members of the dominant community being “converted to a feeling that what they were doing was wrong”[26]
He also argued that while these offences were made compoundable in cases involving “amicable settlements” to restore cordial relations between parties and avoid “future law and order situations,” these compromises had to be supervised by courts who were to act as “protectors of rights of the complainant in particular.” And that courts were charged with ensuring the compromise was voluntary and not caused due to pressure or undue influence.[27]
In highlighting the issue of compoundability and severity of punishment as central to the debate, perhaps he sought to avoid discussion of a more expansive approach to the untouchability issue. But he was not successful as S.N. Dwivedy,[28] S. N Mazumdar, [29] T. Bodra, [30] Anup Singh,[31] and Govinda Reddy all stressed on the economic roots of the untouchability problem with Govinda Reddy even indicting the government for not having a comprehensive plan for the economic upliftment of Dalits. [32]
R.U. Agnibhoj argued that the bill should tackle the larger caste system rather than focussing on the symptom of untouchability. And argued that the bill should be remaned the “Social Equality Bill”. He cited Voltaire and Rousseau to argue that when they began a movement for liberty, fraternity and equality they did not do so because they were “touchable” or “untouchable” but because they wanted equality. He argued that abolishing untouchability was only a step toward achieving equality, which was necessary to achieve complete freedom. [33]
R.P Tamta cited the preamble of the constitution and argued that the bill was a milestone in the path to achieving equality of status and opportunity for all its citizens even as he bristled at the fact that the bill contained references to “untouchability”, arguing that the citizen-centred framing of the fundamental rights provisions and Article 15 of the Constitution should have been adopted.[34]
Clearly, Dalit MPs did not behave as a monolith and expressed a range of views: that penal legislation would be necessary but insufficient to eradicate untouchability, that civil laws addressing economic factors were required, and that penal legislation would not serve as a deterrent due to lighter punishments and compoundability of offences.
[1] N.Somanna, Lok Sabha Debates (Vol.4, 1954,27 August 1954) 431-434.
[2] See for example N Rachiah, Lok Sabha Debates (Vol.4, 1954,27 August 1954)463 ; Bogawat, Lok Sabha Debates (Vol.4, 1954,30 August 1954) 536-539; Ramaswamy, Lok Sabha Debates(Vol.4, 1954, 31 August 1954)644-646.
[3] N. Rachaiah, Lok Sabha Debates (Vol.4, 1954,27August 1954)461
[4] K.S. Rao, Lok Sabha Debates (Vol.4, 1954,27 August 1954)450-453.
[5] Lok Sabha Debates (Vol.4, 1954 31 August 1954)663-664
[6] ‘Untouchability Bill for Select Committee: Economic Advancement of Harijans stressed by MPs’ The Times of India (1 September 1954) 8.
[7] G.H.Deshpande, Lok Sabha Debates (Vol.4, 1954,31 August 1954) 672.
[8] K.N. Katju, Lok Sabha Debates(Vol.4, 1954,31 August 1954) 733.
[9] S.N. Mazumdar, Rajya Sabha Debates, Untouchability Offences Bill, 1955( 2 May 1955) 6518-6520.
[10] ‘Imprisonment for Practice of Untouchability: Dr Ambedkar’s Plea in Rajya Sabha’ The Times of India (17 September 1954) 10.
[11] B.R. Ambedkar, Rajya Sabha Debates, (16 September 1954) 2424-2445; ‘Imprisonment for Practice of Untouchability: Dr Ambedkar’s Plea in Rajya Sabha’ The Times of India (17 September 1954)10.
[12] B.R. Ambedkar, Rajya Sabha Debates, (16 September 1954) 2512-2541; ‘Untouchability Bill to be referred to Select Body: Plea for Ban on Offenders Entering Public Bodies’ The Times of India (18 September 1954) 10.
[13] S.N. Mazumdar, Rajya Sabha Debates, Untouchability Offences Bill, 1955 ( 2 May 1955) 6521.
[14] B.N. Datar, Rajya Sabha Debates (17 September 1954) 2617-2620
[15] ‘Untouchability Bill to be referred to Select Body: Plea for Ban on Offenders Entering Public Bodies’ The Times of India (18 September 1954)10 ; ‘Punishment for Practice of Untouchability: Bill Passed Amidst Cheers from All Sections’ The Times of India (3 May 1955) 8.
[16] ‘Need Stressed to Establish New World Order: Untouchability Bill Discussion’ The Times of India (31 August 1954) 8.
[17] Report of Joint Committee, Untouchability Offences Bill, Lok Sabha (December 1954) xi. ; ‘Enforcing Law on Untouchability: Select Body’s Report’ The Times of India (4 December 1954) 11.
[18] ‘Pandit Pant Cheered: Lok Sabha Untouchability Bill Moved’ The Times of India (28 April 1955) 1.
[19] See Munshi’s Dissenting note to the joint committee in Lok Sabha, Report of Joint Committee, Untouchability Offences Bill( December 1954)viii; Lok Sabha Debates (Vol. 3,28 April 1955) 6794,6800,6807; ‘Untouchability Offences Bill Passed: Detailed Discussion’ The Times of India (29 April 1955).8.
[20] ‘Untouchability Bill for Select Committee: Economic Advancement of Harijans stressed by MPs’ The Times of India (1 September 1954) 8.
[21] Report of Joint Committee, Untouchability Offences Bill, Lok Sabha, (December 1954)ix-x.
[22] S.L.Saksena, Sadhan Gupta, Rama Rao, Raghaviah,Lok Sabha Debates(Vol.3, 1955,28 April 1955) 6809,6799,6803,6806
[23] G.B. Pant, Lok Sabha Debates (Vol.3, 1955,28 April 1955) 6812-6813
[24] Lok Sabha Debates (Vol.3, 1955 28 April 1955) 6757-6769,6779-6780,6720
[25] U Barman, Lok Sabha Debates (Vol.3, 1955,28 April 1955) 6716-1617
[26] B.N. Datar, Rajya Sabha Debates, Untouchability Offences Bill, 1955 (2 May 1955) 6495.
[27] B.N. Datar, Rajya Sabha Debates, Untouchability Offences Bill, 1955 (2 May 1955) 6506-6507
[28] S.N. Dwivedy,Rajya Sabha Debates, Untouchability Offences Bill, 1955( 2 May 1955) 6543
[29] S.N. Mazumdar,Rajya Sabha Debates, Untouchability Offences Bill, 1955( 2 May 1955) 6517
[30] T Bodra, Rajya Sabha Debates, Untouchability Offences Bill, 1955( 2 May 1955) 6583
[31] Anup Singh,Rajya Sabha Debates, Untouchability Offences Bill, 1955( 2 May 1955) 6582
[32] Govinda Reddy,Rajya Sabha Debates, Untouchability Offences Bill, 1955( 2 May 1955) 6588-6590
[33] R.U. Agnibhoj ,Rajya Sabha Debates, Untouchability Offences Bill, 1955( 2 May 1955) 6541.
[34] R.P. Tamta ,Rajya Sabha Debates, Untouchability Offences Bill, 1955( 2 May 1955) 6595-6598.
The Article 17 Project 
Leave a comment