I understood you to say that we may proceed, with the discussion of article 299, because our decision about it will not affect our decision in respect of article 296. But out decision as regards article 296 will affect our decision about article 299. The two are inter connected. I cannot see really how the two can be discussed separately. The words ‘minority communities‘ are used in both these articles. If the argument is that, as the Anglo-Indian community is to be treated as a minority in respect of the services for ten years, therefore the words ‘minority communities’ can be justifiably used in article 299, then the same argument applies to article 296. And so it is all the more necessary that this article also should be postponed. As you have decided that the, discussion on article 296 should be postponed, I think it logically follows that he discussion on article 299 also should be postponed.
