z:\ ambedkar\vol-02\vol2-04.indd MK SJ+YS 21-9-2013/YS-8-11-2013 239
ON PARTICIPATION IN THE WAR 239
to the distribution of irrigation water, and his amendment suggested certain remedies to be applied “as far as practicable”. A point of order was raised that this was an ambiguous amendment and it was disallowed. My submission is that the case I am referring to, so far as this resolution is concerned, is governed by this ruling and, therefore, should be declared out of order.
The Honourable Mr. B. G. Kher : I submit that the rule to which my honourable friend referred has no application at all here. The rule only says that the resolution should be clearly and precisely expressed. My resolution says that “this Assembly regrets that the situation in India has not been rightly understood by His Majesty’s Government when authorising the statement that has been made on their behalf in regard to India.” The question, therefore, is and the definite issue is : does the statement which has been made on His Majesty’s behalf correctly represent the situation in India ? That is the definite and precise issue, and there is no vagueness in it. I submit further that it is one definite issue as is contemplated by Rule 75(a). Therefore, the objection raised by the honourable member has no application here. I can quite understand the ruling given about “as far as practicable”, because that may mean anything. Here we are referring to the statement—that statement is not an unknown matter, that statement is before the House—and—
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I might invite the attention of the Honourable the Prime Minister to the fact that the wording is that “the situation in India has not been rightly understood” ; and my submission is that the House is entitled to know in what respect the Government of India has not rightly understood the situation.
† Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay City) : Sir, I beg to move the following four amendments. My first amendment is this :
The Honourable the Speaker : I am taking it as one amendment.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I beg to move—
Delete the words—
“and have further in complete disregard of Indian opinion passed laws and adopted measures curtailing the powers and activities of the Provincial Governments”.
The Honourable Mr. K. M. Munshi : Sir, on a point of order, with regard to your last ruling that the four amendments of the honourable member Dr. Ambedkar should be treated as one amendment. It may be possible for the House to accept one part of this amendment and not the others. Then, difficulty will be created if it is taken as one.
The Honourable the Speaker : Even though it is taken as one amendment, when putting it to the vote it may be divided in two parts. If that is the desire of the House, I shall certainly do so.
†B.L.A. Debates, Vol. 7, p. 1972, dated 25th October 1939.