In the circumstances I do not see on what ground people here grumble against this party practice. But even if they grumble, the people approve the practice of the party, discussing questions in its meetings so that its spokesmen may express their opinions in the House and so that the other members of the party may not indulge in unnecessary speeches and the time of the House may be saved. I submit, that we would be involved in an unending affair and would not be able to make any progress towards the completion of our business, if we listen to those who wish to adopt delaying tactics and to be free to make changes in punctuation marks, as a comma here and a full stop there. In my opinion, such a course would be grossly unfair to our poor people. I believe it will not do to agree to the proposal that Members should be permitted to speak without any restriction or that there should not be a rule–what some Members here refer as ‘Section 144’–for the regulation of the debate in the House.
