The other important clause is No. (5) which states that a minister who, for any period of six consecutive months, is not a member of either House of Parliament shall at the expiration of that period cease to be a minister. Such a clause existed in the 1935 Act, and it has been borrowed from there. I wish that such a clause should not exist in our Constitution, for the simple reason that in our new legislature there will be about five hundred members, and if we cannot secure a minister with technical or expert knowledge that may be necessary it would be a slur on the legislature if it does not contain a single person with the requisite expert knowledge. Apart from that, Sir, our whole Constitution is based on the Parliamentary system of Great Britain and in Great Britain elections are run on the party system. There they take care to see that persons who are likely to be Ministers, with special knowledge and who are experts, are given party tickets, and they see to it that those candidates are returned. We also shall be running, under this Constitution, similar party elections, and care should be taken to see that persons with special knowledge are given tickets to contest the seats. Sir, I do not understand why, except probably in the case of the Ministry of Law and that of Finance, where knowledge of certain special subjects is required, the other Ministers should have any special expert qualifications, except common sense, practical knowledge, ability, perseverance, strong will, tenacity of purpose and a pushing nature. These are the qualifications that a Minister should possess, rather than mere theoretical knowledge. These are the qualifications the Ministers should possess. A man with theoretical knowledge fails as we know, in practical politics. In my opinion a man with practical knowledge is far superior to one who possesses only theoretical knowledge. Sir, even assuming that we want a person with theoretical knowledge, I am sure that the party running the elections will take care to see that such a person is given a party ticket. Further I consider it a slur on the Legislature that we should have to go outside the ranks of members for filling the post of a particular Minister. Such things have happened in the past. But hereafter it will be unnecessary to have in the Cabinet, as we have in the Legislatures, a combination of Members some of whom do not necessarily advocate the policy of the party in power. I therefore feel that this matter should be really considered from that point of view. In the British Cabinet I have not seen anyone who is not a Member of Parliament is taken in the cabinet. Whatever may have happened in the past, today this is the case. It may be argued that a non-Member would be in the Cabinet only for six months. I object for even one day an outsider to be a member of the cabinet. Why should we have for six months a non-Member who should hold office when we can find among Members suitable person? I therefore do contend that this clause should be deleted.
