You will permit, me, Sir, to remind the House of what Dr. Ambedkar told us a couple of days ago when replying to the debate on Article 47. I hope I have his leave as well to remind the House and remind him too about the words he used when replying to that debate. Referring to an amendment regarding a similar provision for the President to declare to Parliament and to divest himself of all right, interest, share or title in any business or enterprise owned or controlled, subsidised or aided by the State, Dr. Ambedkar said, “If at all such a provision is necessary, it should be with regard to the Prime Minister and the other Ministers of State, because, it is they who are in complete control of the administration of the State, If any person under the Government of India has any opportunity of aggrandising himself, it is either the Prime Minister or the Ministers of State and such a provision,–mark his words–such a provision ought to have been made–he did not say may be made, he said ‘ought to have been’ imposed–on their tenure and not on the President.” I hope Dr. Ambedkar will reply to this particular amendment after great consideration and in detail and I hope he will not find a way out of the tangle that might have been caused by the words, by the language that he employed on a previous occasion. I hope he will stick to the views which he expressed only a couple of days ago, not a year or two ago; and I hope during these two days, he has not been prevailed upon, or he has not had the occasion or opportunity, or has not been persuaded to change his views in the matter. After reminding the House and Dr. Ambedkar about what he himself said a couple of days ago, I do not think there is anything more for me to say, but that Dr. Ambedkar will not hesitate to uphold his own view, not a very ancient view, but a very recent view and will see his way to accept this amendment.
[Amendment Nos. 1333, and 1334 and 1335, were not moved.]