402 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
present moment I have here 25 notes from 25 different gentlemen all anxious to speak. There is no doubt that each one of them will be able to contribute something to the discussion. But the discussion cannot be prolonged indefinitely. This does not take into account those other gentlemen equally competent to give their opinion who stand up and who have denied to themselves the opportunity of sending me notes. I have tried to get the views of the house as a whole. If Honourable Members will kindly go through the list of speakers who have already addressed the House they will find that every province has been represented and every so-called minority from every province has been represented. In my view, in spite of what Pandit L. K. Maitra says Bengalees are a majority. In my view therefore the question has been fully discussed. But, as always, I would like to know whether it is the wish of the House that we should close this discussion.
Honourable Members : Yes, yes;
Mr. Vice-President : Then I call upon Dr. Ambedkar to reply.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General) : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, among the many amendments that have been moved to this article 13, I propose to accept amendment No.
415, No. 453 as amended by amendment No. 86 of Mr. Munshi, and amendment No. 49 in list I as modified by Mr. Thakur Dass Bhargava’s amendment to add the word ‘ reasonable’.
Mr. Vice-President : Will you kindly tell us how you proposed to accept amendment No. 415 ?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : The amendment which seeks to remove the words ‘subject to the other provisions of this article’.
Mr. Vice-President : And then ?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Then I accept No. 453 as modified by amendment No. 86, and amendment No. 49 in List I as modified by the amendment of Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava which introduces the word ‘reasonable’.
Now, Sir, coming to the other amendments and the point raised by the speakers in their speeches in moving those amendments, I find that there are just a few points which call for a reply.
With regard to the general attack on article 13 which has centred on the sub-clauses to clause (1), I think I may say that the House now