Sir, I may at the outset say that this amendment has no communal character, and there is no political motive behind it. I have to make this statement in view of my past experience. What this amendment asks for is only to put in writing in the Constitution what is admitted to be the convention. No doubt, the convention prevails, that the Ministers shall hold office only so long as they enjoy the confidence of the House of the People. So long as the Ministers enjoy the confidence of the House of the People, certainly they will not be dismissed by the President. But as a matter of practice, it is not a fact to say that the Ministers hold office during the pleasure of the President. It is really a fiction to say that the Ministers hold office during the pleasure of the President. It is not so, as a matter of fact. No doubt, the convention prevails in Great Britain and some other countries. But when we are providing for the country a written Constitution, I do not see any reason why we should hang on to the conventions that obtain in other parts of the world. Even when we have got an opportunity to put down everything clearly in the Constitution, should we be left to quote the precedents of the United Kingdom or the United States? There is absolutely no harm in putting on paper, in the Constitution, the actual state of affairs, namely, that the ministers shall hold office so long as they enjoy the confidence of the people. I am saying this in anticipation of the only possible objection to this amendment, viz., that it is a convention that obtains in the rest of the world and therefore it is not necessary to put it down in writing in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, I feel myself at a disadvantage on account of the procedure that is being followed; under this procedure one is not in a position to know what the real objection to an amendment is until the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar gets up and states his objection. He has the last word on the subject. There is no opportunity for the Mover or any of the other members of the House to deal with the objections or tell the House whether the objections are valid or not. I am not in the least questioning the procedure. I simply state what the procedure followed is. Therefore I am driven to the necessity of anticipating what possible objection there can be to an innocent amendment like this.
