I do not exactly know my own position. Unofficially I am hearing that I am the object of these proposed rules. I am the target. It is an open secret that I am the target–not the unhappy target but the happy target. If that is so, I should acknowledge a deep debt of gratitude to the honourable lady Member who has done me this signal honour, viz., proposing the most unconstitutional, most undemocratic rule expressing want or faith in a particular Member in the House and also with a lurking suspicion about the ability of the Chair–whoever may be for the time being occupying the Chair–his ability to conduct the proceedings of the House. Sir, in these circumstance I feel highly honoured by this. My object is not to carry amendments. My object is in my own humble way to suggest improvements. It may be that in the ultimate analysis and on further consideration, I may be proved to be wrong and my amendments unsubstantial. I shall be very glad if they are ruled out after consideration but that is not what is taking place. I have not been moving all my amendments. There are similar amendments in various groups where I have moved only one as a type and I have refrained from moving the rest because I know the same arguments will be repeated. In these circumstances I beg to submit that the rules should not be directed against one or two men. The other rule is–Part (3) of the rule–perhaps directed against another respected and indefatigable member of the House, viz., Professor K. T. Shah. In fact this is the impression which is freely being given out. I do not think, Sir, you should be given rules to gag Members. Even if the rules are accepted by the unanimous vote of the House you will not exercise them without asking for the reason, without knowing the purpose and the effect of the amendments. I submit amendments cannot be ruled out on their face value. They may have, and they often have, very substantial value. I submit the way the amendments are being dealt with in the House gives co lour to that impression. While we are framing the Constitution, while we are providing for freedom of thought and expression and action subject to certain well-recognized checks, here you are checking, curtailing the very freedom of debate, the freedom of an individual Member who has devoted some time and energy in a humble attempt in a most insignificant capacity to improve the drafting. But I am not discouraged by the fact that they are not accepted. A good work according to philosophers is its own reward and I shall be happy if after all these, these rules are accepted and my amendments are ridden roughshod over. Provided I have attempted to do my duty, I shall be happy. If I am ruled out the responsibility will not be mine. The responsibility will be that of the Members and of you, Sir. I submit that these rules should be withdrawn. From a drafting point of view they are badly handled and they are misconceived. They give out a very bad dour. There is something like a High Command feeling behind these rules. I submit that this gives the impression of totalitarianism. If you do not tolerate the reasonable debate of the minority–I am using the word minority not in the communal sense but in a numerical sense–then the freedom that you think of would be a mockery. If this Constituent Assembly should show us this example, then the underlings of Government, the various Provincial Authorities will ride rough-shod over the minority and that is fatal to democracy. The efficacy of democracy is the right given to a minority to express their views freely, subject only to rules of relevancy and other rules which are well known. These artificial rules for the sake of decency, for the sake of appearance and for the good name of the House, should be dropped. I submit, Sir, these proceedings will be read all the world over and I submit that we should……….
