PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 331
The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): No, no.
Pandit Kunzru: That may suit him and the Government of which he is an important member, but it is most unfair to the House that it should be called upon ……..
Shri Sidhva (Madhya Pradesh) : What is the unfairness ?
Pandit Kunzru: If Mr. Sidhva will have a little patience he will realise that every Member is not as enlightened as he is and that most of them require a little more instruction than he has ever done or ever will do ……….
The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): In the course of the debate yesterday, my friend Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru said that Government had done great injustice to the House by not explaining the necessity and the purposes of the various clauses in this Bill and that some one on the side of Government—and he referred particularly to me—should have got up to discharge that duty to the House. I do not know that any Member of the House will believe that a person of the intelligence of my hon. friend Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru is one who requires an explanation of this Bill. My friend Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee evidently did not require any explanation of the Bill. As soon as the Prime Minister finished, he stood up and opened his fire. And I do not think that my friend Pandit Kunzru is less intelligent than my friend Dr. Mookerjee. However, as Pandit Kunzru expressed the wish of many Members of this House, I thought it incumbent on my part to intervene in this debate and to clarify the position so as to dispel the two arguments which had been used in the course of the debate, that there was no necessity for the amendment of the Constitution, and secondly, that Government could wait and give the country and the public larger and longer time and should not rush through this measure. In the observations that I propose to make, I will take the Bill clause by clause and try to explain the necessity for making the changes which the Bill proposes to make.
P. D., Vol. 12, Part II, 18th May 1951, pp. 9004-32.