Mr. Chairman, the point that at present I am called upon to reply to, is the question of my amendment to the Hon’ble Dr.Jayakar’s amendment being in order. I wish to submit that if Dr. Jayakar’s amendment is in order, my amendment to that amendment is in order. It must be assumed that I have not done anything more than pointing out the legality or orderliness of that amendment. I have always been feeling that if Dr. Jayakar wants the whole thing to be shelved, it cannot possibly come in as an amendment. An amendment means correction. The Hon’ble Dr. Jayakar’s amendment therefore means that the Hon’ble Pandit Nehru’s original Resolution should be passed as corrected by him. That may mean an amendment. If you wish to completely obliterate the main Resolution and want that there should be no further discussion for an indeterminate period, I fail to understand what Dr. Jayakar is trying to amend. He had better amend his own amendment first. I assume that amendment may go through and therefore I have given notice of my amendment. But, Mr. Chairman, you will further find that with some mental reservation about the legality of his amendment and mine, I have supplemented it by giving notice of another amendment to the original Resolution, which substantially reproduce the terms of my present amendment. Now, briefly stated, my case is this. If this amendment of the Hon’ble Dr. Jayakar is in order and is to be, discussed, I am entitled to correct it. If on the other hand, that amendment is ruled out of order, I do not wish to move my amendment.
