Sir, I find a storm has been raised unnecessarily about the form which has been suggested by Dr. Ambedkar. In fact this one has been brought in, in place of two forms. Two alternative forms have been put into one form. Some people swear in the name of God and others solemnly affirm. Instead of having two different forms, it is put in one form. If originally instead of underlining, there was a stroke between “swear in the name of God and solemnly affirm“, that also will serve the purpose. There is no meaning in suggesting that because in the amendment or the form proposed by Dr. Ambedkar, “solemnly affirm” has been put above the line, and the words “swear in the name of God” underneath, there is a suggestion that one is more important than the other. Alternative forms had to be used by those who either belong to the Christian religion who “swear” and the Hindus and other solemnly affirm. Therefore, there is no reason why there should be any formal amendments In fact, the form suggested by Dr. Ambedkar and the form suggested by Mr. Kamath are one and the same. Whichever is accepted it will make no difference.
