Sir, the motion moved by Shrimati Durgabai is comprehensive enough. It gives scope for fair discussion and expresses the fullest confidence in the Chair to give ample opportunities to Members to discuss all aspects of every question. It makes mention of ‘comprehensive amendment’. It is very clear. To give an illustration: Suppose amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have been given notice of. The Vice-President selects No. 8 or 7 and 8. These will be fully discussed and all shades of opinion would be placed before the House before the vote is taken on them. But I do not know why Shrimati Durgabai says at the end of the proposed sub-rule (3) `without discussion’. Nothing is being done without discussion. We discuss the whole thing. Nothing remains to be discussed after the comprehensive amendments have been debated, and that is why I have tabled my amendment for the omission of the words `without discussion’. I differ from my friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad in thinking that any amendment is put to the vote without discussion. That will be an injustice to the Honourable House and is never done. The procedure of the Constituent Assembly is different from that of the Legislatures. The Constituent Assembly has got its own procedure which allows full scope for the discussion of resolutions and other motions. If our friends want to take in Constitution-making as much time as the representatives of the States took in America in the 18th century, we will have to sit at it for one or two years and even more. Are my friends willing and anxious to devote that amount of time for this purpose? I say that the country is anxiously waiting for a Constitution. We want to bury alive this Act of 1935 as early as possible. How long are we to go on with Adaptations? Therefore I request my friends to accept the motion before the House, of course without the words without discussion’, for, nothing is done here without discussion.
