Sir, I oppose both the amendments. The article says that no tax shall be imposed the proceeds of which will be specifically ear-marked for supporting any religious denomination. Syed Abdur Rouf’s amendment desires that we should use the words “wholly or partly“. I believe the whole includes the part, and therefore, that amendment is unnecessary. The other amendment moved by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (amendment No. 633) absolutely is inconsistent with the object of the article. The article says that unlike in the past where particular kings imposed a kind of tax to give importance to the religion which they professed, the article is intended to see that no such tax is imposed in any name or form, the proceeds of which will be ear-marked for encouraging any particular denomination or sect.
