DRAFT CONSTITUTION 339
may be discussed in the particular State legislature which may be affected, so that ultimately the initiation will be by the local legislature and not by the Parliament at all. I therefore submit that the amendment of Professor Shah is really unnecessary.
The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : ......But, unfortunately, in his enthusiasm for what he calls the principle, he has tabled an amendment which altogether defeats his object. I therefore suggest that the amendment should be rejected and the proposition moved by Dr. Ambedkar should be accepted.
Mr. Vice-President : Let us hear what Mr. Sidhwa has to say. We will certainly take up the amendments to which Mr. Kamath has drawn attention.
Shri R. K. Sidhwa : I do not accept the arguments advanced by Mr. Santhanam against the amendment moved by Professor Shah.......
......Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment is very clear and comprehensive....... I therefore commend the amendment of Dr. Ambedkar to the House.
[Amendment of Naziruddin Ahmed was not moved.]
*Mr. Vice-President : Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru.
Pandit Hirday nath Kunzru (United Provinces : General) : Mr. Vice-President, I beg to move:
“that in the amendment of Dr. Ambedkar as just moved, for the words ‘the previous consent’ the words ‘the views’ and for the words ‘has been’ the words ‘have been’ be substituted respectively.”
[This was followed by speech and discussion.]
†Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhari (Assam : General) : Sir, it is my misfortune to have to oppose the amendments moved by the two stalwart members of this House, namely, Prof. Shah and Pandit Kunzru. I oppose them not because I like them less, but because I like Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment more, as it meets the present situation very well.......
†Shri R. K. Sidhwa (C. P. Berar : General) : ......... I would like Dr. Ambedkar to enlighten the House as to why this difference has been made between States and Provinces......
*CAD, (Official Report), Vol. VII, 17th November 1948, p. 441.
† Ibid., p. 446.
‡ Ibid. pp. 456-59.