With regard to amendment No. 143, this is partly substantial and partly verbal. I fail to see why this Assembly should be described in this cumbrous fashion–“the body functioning as the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution…..” The draft of this article as it originally stood was much simpler. In regard to the words “the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion of India”, I feel that even here the word “Dominion” could be usefully and rightly omitted. If myhonourable Colleagues in this House would turn for a moment to the cover of this book–The Draft Constitution–they will see that the Assembly is described as the “Constituent Assembly of India” and not of the “Dominion of India”. I do not know why some honourableMembers are fond of using this word ‘Dominion’ in season and out of season. Where it is of course necessary in legislation it may be used. I have no quarrel with that. Where it can be omitted without detriment to the meaning of a clause or article, I fail to see why we should go on harping on this word Dominion, Dominion, Dominion. The Constituent Assembly, really speaking is that of a free country. Unfortunately or accidentally, circumstances have so conspired in our country that we had to convene a Constituent Assembly before India became completely free.Historically speaking it is only when a country his shaken itself free of foreign yoke that a Constituent Assembly is convened. We have ourselves in the rules made in this House–rules of procedure and standing orders-referred to the Constituent Assembly of India, and the very first rule says: “In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires, the Assembly means the Constituent Assembly of India”. So there is no justification or necessity for using the word “dominion” in this context and it may be very reasonably and wisely dropped entirely without detriment to the meaning that the clause is intended to convey.
