User:Selvamraja

SPEECHES OF ‘SIR A.T. PANEER SELVAM

IN THE MADRAS LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

AND THE MADRAS LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

VOLUME FOUR * 1937 * m Monday the twentieth 1937.

The House met in the Assembly Building at eleven of the clock. Mr. Speaker The Hon’ble B. Samaamurthy in the Chair.

I - Prayer – Point of Order.

The proceedings commenced with the singing of the Vande Materam song when all but a few members in the opposition benches stood up in their seats. Mr. B. Raja Rao: “I rise to a point of order; Sir:” Mr. Speaker: “What is the point of order?” Mr. B.R.R: Is it permissible for some members to be sitting While the prayer is on,? Rao Bahadur A.T. Pannerselvam; May, I know, Sir, whether the Vande Materam is a prayer at all? Mr. Sp. I shall deal with all these matters afterwards.

THE MADRAS AGRICULTURISTS RELIEF BILL OF * 1937 *

12 P.M. Introduced by The Hon’ble Premier Mr. C. Rajagopalachari. (Mr. C.R. speaks) 1.15 P.M. Mr. Basheer Ahmed Khan intervenes Mr. Sp. THE Hon. Member has alredy spoken for over half an hour. Mr. B.A. S: If I may point out I think there is no limit of time for speeches on bills. If there is any, Sir, …” Mr. Sp. The rule says that the speaker may by general order prescribe a time limit for speeches on Bills, but I have not done so. Still the Hon. Mems. must observe a time limits for themselves an I have drawn attention of the Hon. Mem. to it. He has already spoken for more than halg an hour. R.B/A.T.P: May I suggest that in discussing a measure of this sort which vitally affects the interest of the people at large, the debate may not be guided - by the clock, but by the importance of the speeches and -- fullness of their contribution made thereby. Mr. Sp. The Hon. Mem. will note that half an hour’s speech is certainly a substantial speech. If an Hour. Mem. Is found to give facts and figures in an elaborately prepared speech which requires some more time, I have never objected to give him more time. The thing is generally speeches must be limited; they must be as brief as possible. So Hon. Mems. will see that they must prescribe a time limit for themselves. I have not at any time prescribed and I do propose to do so even with regards to discussion on this bill. R.B./A.T.P. We are entirely in your hands and you can regulate the debate and say when it has to come to a reasonable end I only suggest that we must not be bound entirely by the clock. Mr. Sp. The attention of the Hon. Mem. is drawn to the wording of rule 64, which says: No member except a Mem. of Government or the leader of the opposition or a member moving Bill shall speak for more the thirty minutes. 2) the speaker may by general order prescribe a time limit for speeches on bills or resolutions or adjournment motions under rule 36. Mr. B.A.S. Sir, the speaker has absolute powers. Mr. Sp. Apart from absolute powers of the speaker it is the rules that lay down that no member shall speak for than thirty minutes. Indulgence has already been shown. Mem. will finish as possible. Mr. BAS.: Sir, I prescribe to myself two hours (laughter) to say what all I have to say. I must respectfully point out that so far I have not repeated myself and I do not propose to do so …….. The hon. the premier took nearly 1 1/2 hours and more for finishing his speech. Mr. Sp. The HON. Premier took only an hour and ten minutes.  According to the rule no member of government or leader of the opposition or the member moving a bill shall speak for more than thirty minutes.  The member in charge of a bill is entitled to speak for more than 30 minutes but others cannot and the hon. member should not have claimed for himself two hours to speak on this motion (loud laughter) The Hon. Premier C.R. I must be permitted Mr. Speaker to make a small observation in this connection. If I had rule 64 before me and if I found that I had not been included within the exception then I would not have spoken for one minute more than the thirty minutes allowed to the others. I do not think that my precedent should be claimed by any members for taking mor time. In a sen there is something in - the author of these --of these rules, when they gave time to the Mover of the Bill to go beyond thirty minutes and prescribed for others only thirty minutes, because what is taken by any member is really taking away from the share of the other members of the House. So far as the Mover of the Bill is concerned he has to answer all possible objections that may be raised by various sections of the House. The other side could not claim to have the same time as them over of the bill. If that were done we would not be able to do business. I humbly protest as leader of the House, against this precedent being drawn. It is not a question of favouritism, it is only a question of how to conduct the business of the House in the best possible way. But if the other Hon. Members here will accept an arrangement by the Hon. Mem. who has been speaking shall have all the time and they do not need any time, I have no objection to a special ordinance being issued by the Speaker, over and above Rule 64. But I must point out that rule 64 does not permit the infringement that you Sir, perhaps propose to allow out your discretion.”

Mr. Abdul Hameed Khan:- “May I know Sir, How long this discussion is going to carried on?”

Mr. Speaker:-“The Hon. Mem. Mr. BAS. Will kindly continue his speech and finish it within a few minutes.”

Mr. BAS.:- I want to make only this submission. Unless Hon. Mems. of this House are informed what the time available to the House for considering an extremely important Bill of this kind is, it will be difficult for them to adjust the hours? Within the time limit that the rules have prescribed.

Mr. Speaker: the rules have been there since the beginning of the Legislative Assembly and they must be observed. They are not a dead letter though they have not been shown and will be shown; but all the same half an hour must be considered a fairly long period for even a lengthy speech. The Hon. Mem. will please continue; with regard to the observation of Mr. Abdul Hameed Khan, who has had very long parliamentary experience, nobody can prophesy when the discussion will come to a close. (laughter)

Mr. BAS In that case there is no. meaning ……..

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Mem. will continue his speech etc; etc;

Rao Bahadur A.T. Pannerselvam:- “Sir, I shall try to be as brief as possible.

The objects, of the Bill, as set forth in the Statement of Objects and Reasons are I admit, un-expectionable. That statement breathes such noble sentiments and sets forth such high principles that I consider, it will be the height of temerity on the part of anyone to oppose the Bill. If, nevertheless, I venture to oppose this Bill in toto, it is because of my feeling that the provisions of this Bill run altogether contrary to its professed objectives.

I feel that this Bill is not going to achieve any of the objects set out so well and so elaborately in the Statement. I believe that far from following the high-sounding principles elaborately detailed in the Statement of Objects and Reasons, the Bill is based on fundamentally wrong principles; and I also felt that far from the Agriculturist – the real person actually holding the plough and tilling the soil, being benefited by this measure, this Bill is going to deny to the poor landholder, whatever relief’s are today available to him.

I, submit, Sir, that the Bill is first of all based on wrong principles; and I say it for this reason that the Bill is an expropriatory measure, a confiscatory piece of legislation. In support of my statement I shall only refer Hon. Members to clauses 8 & 12 of the Bill. Clause 8 of the Bill sub-clause (v) says that ‘all interest outstanding on the first October 1937, in favour of any creditor of an agriculturist…. Shall be deemed to be discharged.’ Again sub-clause (2) of the same clause says that ‘when a debtor has paid towards his debt twice the about of the principle advanced – it matters not at what rate of interest, it matters not at what how long the debtor has been paid off. Thirdly clause 12 refers to the rent in arrears due from the tenant to the landlord. I ask, Sir, How can anyone feel that the interest that has accrued to the creditor up to the 1st of October, 1937, or debts due to him or amounts advanced by him, probably 15 or 20 years ago or that the rent due to the landlord for such a long time, is not his own property? By way of illustration, let me take the case of a small agriculturist who lives on a meager income, who probably denies himself every luxury and sometimes even the necessaries of life and thus manages to put by against a wintry day, small sums of money representing the savings out of his income, month by month, year by year, amounting to a few hundred rupees or even a few thousand rupees. Well after sometime, he himself become as small landed agriculturist, by purchasing a few acres of land. Take another agriculturist who sells the land and invests the proceeds on shares. A third agriculturist saves money in small sums over a long period and invests it in building a house. It comes to this: if a person purchases the land and enjoys the produce thereof, he will not be affected, a person can get his dividends alright, can sell the shares from time to time at nominally higher prices and get profits and that man also will not be affected. But, in the case of an agriculturist, who saves small sums by hard labour, over a long period, even by denying himself the absolute necessities of life, and by stingy habits and under-going all sorts of discomforts, if he does not adopt any of these three measures referred to by me- of purchasing lands or investing on shares or building a house, but lends his savings to a brother agriculturists, in the same place, at a moderate rate of interest, he is affected by this measure. But why should this man be denied the right of getting any profit out of his savings, even like the person who has purchased lands or invested on shares or built a house? Why should the first three kinds of agriculturists escape and the fourth alone suffer, I ask?

I contend, Sir that the interest provided by a creditor to a debtor is his own property; and if it is which authorizes it is an expropriatory measure a confiscatory measure. In the same way Sir when money has been advanced for a comparatively long time at a reasonable rate has been paid- no matter how long the amount is due or how much is due to the creditor- you are straight-away writing off the amount by this Bill. It may be also in a third class of cases, where lands are cultivated by tenants that a tenant may have a right to cultivate and retain his own share; a tenant without paying the rent regularly. Is not the landlord entitled to the accrued rent I ask? And when you deny him that rent are you not expropriating the landlord? No doubt during emergencies during times of national crisis confiscatory measures may perhaps be justified but ordinarily ought not to be considered or adopted by civilized government much less by a democratic Government which this Government professes itself to be.

“Sir, perhaps I will not be mistaken, if I go further and suggest that measures such as this are decided to be brought in the name of the Government by one individual, whom we might call a dictators; but generally we Indians are loath much less we in this province are loath to be dictator. We have had the speeches from them from many a platform that the Hon. Mr. C. Rajagopalachari is no dictator. We have had the statement from the followers of the Hon. the Premier and speeches from them from many a platform that the Ho. Mr. C. Rajagopalachari is no dictator. Therefore I ask, are we to have this expropriatory measure, this confiscatory measure, which is sought to be passed by a democratic House like this, when each member is supposed to exercise his right of individual freedom, without being dictated to by any one individual? Probably there is nothing but the best of motives in that one individual, who happens to be sitting at the top, but that is not what we are concerned with here. Therefore Sir, I oppose this measure, first and foremost as being expropriatory.

I oppose this Bill next, because I consider it to be class measure. The measure is intended to benefit one community at the expense of another. You are going to deprive a certain section of the people of their property in order to benefit some other section. The people whom you are going to benefit may no doubt be more numerous in your view and the injured people may be less numerous, but just because the persons whom you are going to benefit are more numerous than others, if you want to pass this measure then I say there is a motive behind this measure. This Bill is intended to set up one community against another. (One Hon. Mem. No.) I hope I will not be misunderstood if I give expression to what is in my mind. Would it be too much for the opposition to say that this measure is aimed and intended purely as a sort of propagandist measure, merely for the sake of party politics; merely to go back to the electorate and say to the poorer people who are naturally more numerous, ‘Well, we have benefited you by this measure, however unjust or unreasonable it may be to all the others?’ I say sir, this is a measure intended not for the benefit of the people in the country, but for the benefit of the party, which today happens to be in power.

“Sir, I oppose this measure also on the ground that the person you are going to benefit by this measure, is not the agriculturists. The Agriculturist defined in sub clause (ii) of clause (3) of this Bill, is not the person who is in need of any relief. In the statement of Objects and Reasons, you have said, ‘It is the duty of any modern Government which is alive to it’s responsibilities to the people, to relieve the producers of the people’s food from such an intolerable burden. It would not be right for the State to permit the hereditary skill of the agriculturist to pass into unemployment, allowing land to fall into the hands of people who are strangers to the calling of agriculture.’ Are you going to achieve this object by a measure of this sort? Who is the producer of the food after all, I ask? Is it the man who owns say, 5000 or 6000 acres of land or even 20 or 30 acres of land? Have they been for ever or even for generations in possession of their lands? Are there not, on the contrary investors on the land, are there not idle investors of the land,? Would you call them agriculturists? Do you call them producers of food? If you want to help the producer by all means do it. By the definition of agriculturists, in this Bill you are including men who do not take any active part in the production of food, men who have never held the plough, men who do not promoting or helping the hereditary skill of the agriculturist. There are so many instances of whole villages being owned by one man. He cultivates the land through his farm servants. He may be a Chetti of Chettinad. What happens to the land? Cultivation goes on; the farm servant cultivates, paddy is raised and harvested, the Chetti reaps the benefit; there is no question of any hereditary skill being lost to the country. Take the case of creditors. Who are the kind of creditors whom you are going to touch? Everybody will realise that there are creditors and creditors. There are usurious money-lenders, who are charging exhorbitant rates of interest and who strike unconscionable bargains. By all means in such cases set things right.

But why should you touch the ordinary agriculturist who lends money? With my knowledge of my part of the country, Tanjore, I may say that landing is done in most cases by one agriculturists to another agriculturist. That is the case with poor agriculturists particularly; it may not be the case with richer men. We have one community of Brahmins living in 18 villages – Vathimas – whose profession is mainly money-lending. All of them are agriculturists also. In the case of poor mirasdars owning 10, 15, or 20 acres, money lending is done by the more economical and more prudent agriculturists, to the less prudent and less economical ones. I ask, is it fair that we must ask a creditor in such a case to lose what he had lent? He might have lent the amount perhaps by starving himself; he might have lent the amount at reasonable rate of interest six percentage, 9% or even 12% in villages for small amounts is not considered to be unreasonable rate of interest. Are we going to deprive him of his money? Are we going to deprive him of this small additional income? He might have been charitable to his neighbour and he is entitled to get back the amount perhaps at the next harvest season. Why should we deny him that right?

“Have you got any facts and figures to show what proportion of the debt of Rs.200/- crores of the agriculturists is owing to the usurious and professional money-lender, to the rack-renting sowear, and what proportion is owning to the neighbours, to the poor widow, or orphan, referred to by my Hon. friend Mr. BAS? In the absence of figures how can decide that the major portion of the money is owing to men who can afford to loose it? What justification have you to, say that there can be only a few hard cases, rare cases, and that we cannot provide for them,? By this measure you may be hitting a large number of agriculturists themselves.

“Then reference was made to ‘damdupat’, paying double the principal amount. Hindu dharmas and sastras have been quoted. A man like myself is concerned more with economic effects then the effects of religion. Religious beliefs and tenants have their own place and are entitled to all respect. But we will be heading towards a catastrophe, if we base things on what we consider to be pure high ethics. We politicians had better take note of things as they are. We ought to take note of the fact, that we should not legislate, for the benefit of one class and the injury to another class. There is also the moral principle of not doing any injustice, if you can possibly avoid it. I submit you will be doing immense injury to some classes of people by enacting this measure. I do not propose at this stage to go the main objectives of this Bill. To take away what is the creditors and hand it over to the debtor, is, I wish to say with due deference, nothing short of highway robber. I would submit that no Government should be guilty of an act which would be tantamount to that.

“I may be asked if I have any alternative suggestion for affording relief to the agriculturist. My alternative suggestion would be this. Establish Debt Conciliation Boards in every taluk. You say in the statement of Objects and Reasons that Debt Conciliation Boards have not been successful. Why do you give up the experiment without sufficiently long trial? What is the number of such boards that you have set up in the various districts? What was the reason for their failure? Was it not due to the debtor objection of the debtor himself to approach the conciliation board? If you find these boards have not been working successfully, the defects may be remedied. Why not look into the Act and amend it and invest Conciliation Boards with more powers if necessary? Set up these Boards not only in each district but each taluk. Let notices to every village that every debtor might appeal to the debt conciliation Board, which will look into each case and give each debtor necessary relief. After doing that it will not do if you remain idle and quiet. Set up these Conciliation Boards, scale down these debts to reasonable amounts and provide facilities for the immediate satisfaction of the scaled down debts. Then you will be able to displace the usurious money-lender. Set up Land mortgage ---Banks and co-operative societies in every place possible and issue instructions to all that applications should be dealt with expeditiously; they should not take, as is the case now, six months and nine months before applications are looked into and the loans are sanctioned. Side by side with this measure reduce land revenue. The Hon Premier stated this morning- it was shock and surprise to the House to hear it – that the Government is not in a position to consider the question of further land revenue remissions. I think it is a matter which cannot be postponed for a very long time. I am sure he would look into the question if only he found that it would be to the best advantage of the ryots to reduce land revenue. At the same time bring further knowledge to the villager so that he may raise better crops from the lands he is cultivating so that he may make the land yield more than it has been doing in the past. Next improve village communications so that the villager might find a ready and easy market for his produce and get a better price. These are the measures I would suggest. If you do all these things, you would be helping the agriculturists and relieving him from his difficulties, you will be affording him the greatest relief.

“By the present measure, you are doing much harm to the villager. You are breaking up the moral fabric of the village. He had been taking loans and paying principal and interest also. It may be that we cultured people take the view that rent is not property, interest is not property, interest has neither legal obligation nor statutory obligation; by denying rent, the terms of the contract are not violated. These arguments may perhaps appeal to us. But the ordinary villager has got moral strength and moral fibre even now. You must give up this measure and adopt other ameliorative measures by which you can make him stand on his own legs and enable him to look, after himself. If you do all these things, you will be building up the nation.

“For these reasons, Sir, I oppose the measure. I feel that no amount of clipping and pruning will improve this Bill. It is based on wrong principles, principles which no Government ought to adopt.

I would appeal to the Government not to press on with this Bill.”