Sir, in order to clear our minds on this point let us consider whether we would approve of such an arrangement in connection with the plains districts. Somebody may say, if it is desirable for a local body to enjoy the rights that are being conferred on regional and district councils under Schedule Six, there is no reason why the more advanced people should not enjoy them. What would our reply be in that case? Our reply would be that, however good the provisions of the Sixth Schedule might seem, they segregate people living in different districts and thus make unity much more difficult. I feel the same difficulty in connection with the inclusion of what were partially excluded areas before in the table placed before us by Dr. Ambedkar. When these people have reached a state of development in which they can better look after themselves than those who are living, say in the Naga Hills District, why should we regret that fact? Why should we make the arrangements with regard to them rigid and make future changes more difficult? Our policy should be to take advantage of the natural progress made by them in respect of the understanding of their interests and bring them closer to the other areas, that is, to the plains districts without in any way affecting heir essential interests. This is the purpose of the first amendment I have moved. If the position that I have taken up is correct and honourable Members share my view, then it is obviously desirable, unless Dr. Ambedkar can give us convincing reasons to the contrary, that the arrangements for the tribes mentioned in Part IA of my table should be different from those made for the tribal areas mentioned in Part I.
