Sir, I believe it is accepted on all hands that cultural and educational rights have to be protected and this is the intention of article 23. There can be no gainsaying on that point. The clause as it originally stood and as it was approved by this House intended to lay down that no laws, no regulations shall be passed which would adversely affect a minority in maintaining and fostering their own culture and language. That is to say, no such laws shall be passed which would nullify a right which was being conceded to a linguistic minority. If the clause were to stand as I have put it and as the House originally approved, the result would be that there will be adequate remedy at the disposal of a minority, to see that the intentions of this House are carried into effect. But, if you look to the language used in the Draft Constitution, it comes to this only that the minority or a section of the citizens shall be entitled to conserve its own language. What does it mean? What is its effect? It simply means this that a body of citizens shall be entitled to use their own language in their private intercourse. But the question is whether they will be entitled to use their own language in elementary education given at the state expense. No doubt, under another clause of this article, a minority can establish institutions of its own and by virtue of this clause (1), it will be open to that minority to impart, say, elementary education through its own mother tongue. But if the State were to establish institutions as it would do,–naturally there will be so many minorities which will not be in a position to start institutions of their own–, then the question arises, will it be possible for the minority to demand that, in those institutions which are being established by the State, in pursuance of any legislation, municipal or provincial, which makes free elementary education compulsory, elementary education be imparted through the medium of their own language?
