Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I rise to oppose the amendments moved by Prof. K. T. Shah, more specially his last one, No.1125 on the list. I may repeat what has been said several times previously and it is that the type of constitution Prof. K. T. Shah has in view can either be accepted in its entirety or cannot be accepted at all. At times such amendments as the present one, are moved by Prof. K. T. Shah which seek to make some changes in the constitution or in the basic concept on which it is founded. If a single amendment of Prof. Shah is accepted in any part of the Constitution, the entire structure of the constitution would be changed. His idea in moving this amendment is that our President–the President of our Republic–should be a person who has no private financial interests of his own at all. He wants that the President of our Republic should have no financial interest at all but at the same time in course of his speech he has said that if the President has any shares in any property the same should be purchased by the Government so that he may not become a pauper. The dread of private property seems to have influenced him in making this proposal even though he does not seem to desire the abolition of private property itself. He does not propose to expropriate the person, who is to be elected President, of his entire property. It is thus plain that he does not stand for the abolition of private property. His only objective is that any person, after being elected President, should sell away all his financial interests or they may be acquired by the Government, and that such a person should make a specific declaration that he has no financial interest anywhere. It appears to me that these two ideas are contradictory to each other. On the one hand the institution of private property would remain when we allow him to own the monied wealth he receives on sale of his property and such an ownership is permitted by Prof. Shah because he apprehends that otherwise such a person will become a pauper. On the other hand he seems in my opinion, to have in view Plato’s idealistic and Utopian communism under which rulers shall have no property, no financial interest and no money of their own and there would be a common kitchen and the rules would be leading an ideal life like saints and hermits having no personal financial interests. We can very well lay down in the Constitution that a person who owns a property or has any shares in any enterprise shall not be eligible for President ship. The object behind the amendment moved by Professor K. T. Shah is that after a person is elected President he should hold no share in any property but he can hold the same before being elected. In my opinion Professor Shah should aim at the abolition of individual ownership of property and nationalisation of the same so that no individual may possess any property. But we have already accepted and given a place to individual ownership of property in the articles we have passed earlier. Now at this stage it does not appear necessary to me to pass a provision enjoining upon a person to make a particular declaration and relinquish all his financial interests in order that he may honestly discharge the duties of his office. Of course, I do visualise a society in which the individual ownership of property is gradually abolished and commodity be brought under social ownership. I would prefer such a society. We can not accept the ideal of Plato’s or such a communism which reduces our life to a mere hotel life. Such a society cannot be stable. It is possible to establish such a society in small communes. But it is difficult to run even a small municipal board on these lines. I have seen that the financial questions bedevils the working of even small bodies. Even in the ‘Maths’ of Sadhus disputes arise for succession to the Gadi. We must keep the reality in view and from the point of view of reality the proposed restriction is unnecessary. I, therefore, oppose the amendment moved by Mr. Shah
