344 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Mr. Vice-President : I shall now put Amendment No. 150, as modified by the amendment of Pandit H. N. Kunzru to vote. ( Interruptions ). Kindly permit me to conduct the proceedings in the manner I wish it to be conducted.
*Mr. Vice-President : I am going to give my ruling. Under the Rules of the House I am not aware that there is anything which gives a right to the mover of an amendment to give a reply. If I asked Dr. Ambedkar to give a reply it was because he was asked certain questions and I thought it right and proper and fair that he should be given an opportunity of explaining his position. That is my ruling.
Now I shall put Pandit Kunzru’s amendment to the vote.
[The motion was negatived. The motion of Dr. Ambedkar alone was adopted.]
†Mr. Vice-President : It seems to me that the amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah, as well as the next set of amendments up to No. 175 fall through alter the acceptance of Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment.
(Amendment No. 176 was not moved.)
......That finishes Article 3. Is there anyone who wishes to discuss the Article as a whole ?
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (West Bengal : General) : What will be the position if the Honourable member is allowed to speak on the Article as a whole ? Will Dr. Ambedkar be called upon to reply to that again ?
Mr. Vice-President : Most certainly not.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : That whole article has not yet been disposed of and Dr. Ambedkar has so far replied only to the amendment and not to the whole article.
Mr. Vice-President : We shall listen to the Honourable member and if he traverses old ground, we shall ask him to desist.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : Therefore, Dr. Ambedkar is not entitled to reply as a right ?
Mr. Vice-President : No.
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar (Madras : General) : That is hypothetical. It does not arise.
*CAD, (Official-Report), Vol. VII. 18th November 1948, p. 461.
† Ibid., p. 462.