PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 257
Shri Sidhva (Madhya Pradesh) : First of all I take strong exception to the issue of an ordinance when the House was sitting in the month of March.
Dr. Ambedkar : The ordinance was issued some time in May. I wish that the points that were raised by my hon. Friends Mr. Sidhva and Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava had been reserved by them to the time when their amendments were taken up. It becomes somewhat embrassing to reply on matters which would, I have no doubt, be raised again when their amendments are moved. But, I cannot help now having to reply to the points raised by them : I shall do so rather briefly, because I know I shall have to say ……….
Mr. Speaker : I do not propose to allow any arguments on the amendments.
Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I am not going to move any amendment if my hon. friend dose not accept it.
Dr. Ambedkar : Mr. Sidhva has raised one or two points. The first point raised was why an Ordinance was made when the House was in session. The answer to that is two-fold. The first is this. The first question that was made to the Government of India in the matter of extension of time for the preparation of the Register came from the Government of Madras, and that too on or about the 15th of March 1950. That mean that only 13 days had been left for the period for the preparation of the roll to expire. That is one reason, the second reason is that after the receipt of this letter from the Government of Madras, informing the Government of India that it was not possible for them to complete the Register, naturally, it was necessary for the Government of India to find out from other States as to whether they were in a position to prepare their list by the date fixed, or whether they too wanted some extension. Naturally, there ensued correspondence between the Government of India and the various other States.
That undoubtedly took time, and must take time, with the result that by the time the Government of India had received the replies and was able to assess whether an amendment