My object is very clear. What I want is to restore the original proposal that had already been accepted by this House. I cannot understand why the Drafting Committee has thought it fit to bring about this change. So far as that article stood in its original form, it was considered as a safeguard for the minorities, and I must say that it was only a solemn affirmation of bona fides on behalf of the majority, and a mental satisfaction to the minority. Other wise it had not very much value. That right was not justiciable in any court of law and it could not be enforced anywhere else as well. It had no binding force. But in spite of that, it is being taken away now. I must, at the same time, make myself clear that so far as I can think out, it was no blot on, our secularism and it did not soil our nationalism as well. The minorities have always been advised to repose full confidence in the majority. Article 296 as originally framed, in my opinion, was that complete reposal of confidence by the minorities in the majority and nothing beyond that. The only thing that the members of the minority could do at any time, in cases of violation was that the attention of the majority could be drawn to the fact, that there was some pledge or an undertaking; and that is also being removed.
