Now I am sorry that Dr. Ambedkar has come forward just with a little trick-the trick of a school-boy, it he will pardon me. What he has done is, he has brought on the words “solemnly affirm” above the line, and brought God under the line. If it is to be only a trick, I would not mind it. But we should see that the people do not get the idea that now, after Swaraj, God has gone under. So, I say since the Constituent Assembly has once decided in connection with the oath, these words, “Swear in the name of God” should be above the line, and the other words must be below the line, and naturally too. I say naturally, because even in spite of the presence of some agnostics in India, there are still the vast majority of the masses who believe in God. And while we are making a Constitution here, the masses have not given us a blank cheque for us to do as we choose. We have to make the Constitution to the liking of the masses whose representatives we are. I submit, Sir, that Dr. Ambedkar, honest as he always is, is sometimes too clever, I would say. He has been quite honest and outspoken. So I would request him not to do anything which is against the wishes of the masses whom he represents. Why bring in a little personal prejudice of his and make God go under the line? What is the significance of putting God under the line? What is God? Sir, God is Truth. So an oath taken in the name of God means that it is an oath in the name of Truth. And ‘affirmation‘ as opposed to God is expediency Sublimated so to speak. So the position is Truth versus ‘expediency sublimated‘. “What is the need of taking an oath“? They say, a gentleman when he affirms a thing, it may be taken that he means it and shall act up to it. Similarly, one would argue that when a gentlemen is elected to an office voluntarily, why need he even affirm ? Why ask him for an affirmation? It must be taken for granted that he will remain a gentleman, and he will always be acting in a truthful manner. Then why have the formality of having any affirmation or oath. But when we are having the formality of an oath, I should be allowed to distinguish between an oath and an affirmation. As I have said, God is Truth and affirmation is ‘expediency sublimated‘. I desire expediency to go under the, line and Truth to go up. I am afraid some of the Honourable Members may not attach much importance to this question, and really I also admit that it is not a matter of very great importance. But Dr. Ambedkar seems to be playing pranks with us. Why does Dr. Ambedkar come out with an amendment when on a previous occasion the House had already given its decision on this question? Through his amendment Dr. Ambedkar wants the whole House to commit itself to putting God under the line. But let us not forget that India gave the idea of God to the whole world. I have heard leaders of his House say that we must own the international numerals as against the Hindi numerals because the, former were given to the world by India. Similarly I submit that when the world was rotting in chaos, we gave it the idea and conception of Truth and God. India gave it to the world. Why then should God go down particularly when He has made us free? God primarily belongs to India. This is the land of God. So God should be, above and affirmation below. Let us stick to the original draft. So I hope the House will not accept Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment. There is no question of party discipline, let not the Members be afraid of any Whips. My appeal to them is to reject the amendment of Dr. Ambedkar. Let us not be duped by what agnostics say–I am sorry for the word, but…………
