You have already ruled that amendments to amendments may be given but new amendments of the Constitution itself should not be submitted. Amendment No. 11 on the First List totally replaces article 94; amendment No. 12 replaces article 95 and amendment No. 13 replaces article 96. These amendments are new and are amendments to the Constitution itself. I am not raising a mere technical objection, but these embody very serious changes. I have no doubt whatsoever that the way we are proceeding with the consideration of the Draft Constitution, the way we are proceeding backwards and forwards, considering one article here and then switching over to another article there, I think this is certain to lead to anomalies and inconsistencies which cannot be detected on the spur of the moment. It is for this reason that I had suggested that we should have a final production from the Drafting Committee. The House should have a complete picture of what is really intended. Instead of this, we are showered daily with absolutely new amendments, new ideas and new thoughts. This, to say the least, is extremely difficult and inconvenient, if not utterly confusing. I submit, Sir, that the suggestion that I made a few days ago that there should be a little adjournment was made so that the Drafting Committee may have time to give us final picture of their own mind to enable us to come thoroughly prepared. Unfortunately, that suggestion of mine was taken to be a dilatory move. I had nothing like that whatsoever in my mind. I have already detected serious inconsistencies in the Draft Constitution as we have accepted and I do not know how many more inconsistencies are lurking behind these innocent looking new amendments. I ask you, Sir, to consider whether it would be easy or convenient for the Members to consider these new amendments to the Constitution itself if they are sent in from they today. I do not, I confess, possess the mental dexterity of some of the Members. I am a little slow to understand these things and therefore desire that things should proceed in such a way that the slowest Member like myself may be able easily to follow them. I suggest that something should be done to relieve this difficult situation. At present what happens is that when Honourable Dr.Ambedkar gets up, and proposes a new clause, it has a paralysing effect on the House. The majority are not in a position to understand it, and it is passed as a matter of course. Sometimes after general discussions has begun, Dr.Ambedkar has proposed an amendment and even that has been accepted. If it is the desire that the Members should only hear what he says and must agree as a matter of courtesy, then it is all right. But I contend that every Member has a duty to follow what is happening.
