288 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
My object is continuance of the debate, consideration of the motion, and I want the consideration to be taken along with my motion. A further reading of the ruling relied upon by Dr. Ambedkar will make it absolutely clear:
“During the discussion on the Cotton excise Duty Abolition Resolution a motion was moved to adjourn the debate on the Resolution.
“The President while accepting the motion on this particular occasion without creating a precedent, remarked : The Chair cannot allow a motion to adjourn consideration of a proposition to be moved merely in order to enable another item of business to come forward. It must be supported on substantive grounds.”
As I understand it, there was at the time one motion before the House and there was another perhaps more interesting or more important in advance. A Member proposed the adjournment of the discussion of a resolution which was under consideration so that another more interesting Motion may be taken up. It was the attempt to adjourn the first Motion that was said to be unacceptable. Here I do not propose adjournment of the debate.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: It all comes to that.
Mr. Naziriruddin Ahmad: Here we are concerned with the interpretation of Rule 52. The plain reading of this rule would show that the motion is in order. Without abrogating the rule it cannot be held that it is out of order.
Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru (U. P. : General): This Bill admittedly has created a great deal of feeling and it would be most undesirable to add to it by restraining the discussion in any way. I think the only way of making every section of the House feel that full opportunity was being given to it to express its opinion on this and to allow the discussion. Whatever our individual views regarding the merits of the Bill before us may be, that should be no ground for opposing the Motion of my honourable friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad.
Dr. Ambedkar quoted a ruling of the Chair in regard to a matter that is not on all fours with that under consideration now. In the first place the ruling was given in regard to a Resolution and not in regard to a Bill. In the second place, the rules lay down clearly that so far as a Bill is concerned a Motion may be made not merely that the Bill be circulated but that it may be recirculated, not merely that it should be referred to a Select Committee but that it should be recommitted to it. The language is therefore absolutely clear. If, whenever a Motion is made for the re-committal or re-circulation of a Bill, it is opposed on the ground that it is a dilatory Motion, the clear