{"id":1811,"date":"2026-05-10T05:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-05-09T23:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bharatlex-rinkutai.com\/?p=1811"},"modified":"2026-05-07T21:42:35","modified_gmt":"2026-05-07T16:12:35","slug":"cad-pledge-to-proclaim-independence-of-india-part-11","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bharatlex-rinkutai.com\/?p=1811","title":{"rendered":"CAD: Pledge to Proclaim Independence of India: Part 11"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Speech of Hirday Nath Kunzru<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Hirday Nath Kunzru of United Provinces supported the amendment to adjourn the resolution till next session to wait for Muslim League. According to him people in support of the resolution treated the amendment as if it was inspired by a spirit of hostility. As the purpose of the resolution was to guide the deliberations of the Union Constituent Assembly, no harm would be done if its discussion was postponed for a while so that they may enable all those sections whose interests were affected by the resolution had an opportunity of expressing their views. There were people like Linlithgow who thought that British authority could be reasserted in India. Churchill and Simon were also working in that direction. Then he repeated all the things which were said in support of Amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kunzru started his political career by joining Congress Party. In 1918 National Liberation Federation was established an in 1934 he became president of this new liberal political party. Then he was elected to the Constituent Assembly on the ticket of Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speech of N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar of Madras gave his speech in support of the resolution moved by Nehru. He said that the amendment of Dr. Jayakar lacks imagination, because it forgot that members have just launched themselves on a very big task and it was necessary that they should impress the country and the world that they mean business. Dr. Jayakar wanted to wait for one month for Muslim League. But what about the Indian States? They were also having right to join the Assembly at start but they were also absent and Assembly was not at any fault in this matter. Assembly was not discussing about grouping, it was discussing about resolution which did not provided for grouping at that stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Congress was free to go to federal court regarding the interpretation of Cabinet Mission statement, and if Congress did so and if Federal Court gave decision in fever of Congress, then also Muslim League would not accept it as par the statements of the League members. Even His Majesty\u2019s Government was taking interpretation of League right and assured that they would not budge an inch from their view of the matter. The main difficulty was the method of voting in the Sections as the Secretary of States said in the House of Lords. As per para 19(v) of the Cabinet Mission, the voting must be by individuals and a simple majority would decide the question. For voting by provinces, modifications should be done by the Assembly by proper motion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Members of the House were not working under a provincial enactment or as members of a provincial legislature, or of the central legislature, working under a Statute of Parliament. They were in Constituent Assembly and whatever was not said in the document of Dt. 16.5.1946, was not prohibited for them, hence they were having residuary powers in full for completing the task of Constitution framing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chamber of Princes raised three objections publically on the working of the Assembly. The first was that the Resolution was objectionable because it was proposed to be considered and passed in the absence of the States representatives. Second was to use the words \u201cIndependent Sovereign Republic\u201d. Third objection was related to the Clause (4) of the Resolution, which provides that all the \u201cpowers are derived from the people.\u201d The Prince of Chamber said that the same doctrine was only imperfectly applicable even in England. Then Ayyangar pointed out that, it was definitely incontestable that in spite of a hereditary monarch as head of the State from whom, in the forms of law, all authority was supposed to flow, the substance of real power and authority in England was derived from the people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then Ayyangar quoted Reform Report of Mysore, \u201cIn such a polity, the head of the Sate, whether a hereditary ruler or an elected President, exercises, as representing the people’s sovereignty, a double prerogative, namely, one, in the sphere of legislation, the prerogative of ratification including the veto, and secondly, in the sphere of executive government, the prerogative of creating and uncreating the organ of Government, namely, the Ministry. And both these prerogatives are exercised much more fully, really and substantially than by the constitutional head of a limited Monarchy under responsible government.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then he further quoted extract from Report of Committee on Reforms in Hyderabad, \u201cThe British Constitution has grown out of England’s long history and is, the result of centuries of strenuous struggle between its King and its Parliament. There, the two-part system, sustained by the spirit of compromise and the conception of the sovereignty of the people, has struck deep roots into the soil. The peculiarity, on the other hand, of the Indian States is this: The Head of the State represents the people directly in his own person and, his connection with them, therefore, is more natural and binding than that of any passing elected representatives. He is both the supreme head of the State and the embodiment of the people’s sovereignty. Hence it is that, in such a polity the head of the State not merely retains the power to confirm or veto any piece of legislation, but also enjoys a special prerogative to make and unmake his executive or change the machinery of Government through which he meets the growing needs of his people.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As per these two reports, even in monarchy, the hereditary ruler was supposed to embody in his person the sovereignty of the people. But in actual fact, he had exercised his powers in disregard of the people\u2019s interest in several cases. Even at that time, under the existing conditions, the Provinces of British India an Indian States had a common center which administers such subjects as under any unitary or federal constitution for India as a whole, must stand ceded to the Center. Broadly speaking sovereign powers of India as a whole were vested in His Majesty subject to the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935. Then he said, \u201cIn this connection it is significant that paragraph 5 of the Memorandum on States, Treaties and Paramountcy Rights issued on 20th May, 1946, which deals with the extinction of paramountcy, speaks throughout only of the Indian States and not merely of their rulers.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the speech of N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar was too long, I divided it in two parts. For remaining part stay tuned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Note: This article is completely based on Constituent Assembly Debates and only for knowledge purpose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Read Previous Parts<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CAD: Pledge to Proclaim Independence of India: Part 8<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

CAD: Pledge to Proclaim Independence of India: Part 9<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

CAD: Pledge to Proclaim Independence of India: Part 10<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bookmark this site for more such informative articles related to law and legal history. Share it on your social circles and don’t forget to comment your opinion to shape the ongoing law making process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

Read your own Dhrama Granthas<\/mark>.<\/mark> <\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n \n \"Satanatan\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n Bestseller #1 <\/div>\n
\n \n

\n Satanatan Sanskriti Geeta press gorakh published shree Shreemad B… <\/h3>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n \u20b9180 <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n \n Buy on Amazon<\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n \n \"Shrimad\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n Bestseller #2 <\/div>\n
\n \n

\n Shrimad Bhagwat Gita ( Shankar Bhashya Hindi Anuvad Sahit ) (Gita… <\/h3>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n \u20b9226 <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n \n Buy on Amazon<\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n \n \"Brihadaranyak-Upanishad\"\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n Bestseller #3 <\/div>\n
\n \n

\n Brihadaranyak-Upanishad <\/h3>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n \u20b9280 <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n \n Buy on Amazon<\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

He said that the amendment of Dr. Jayakar lacks imagination, because it forgot that members have just launched themselves on a very big task and it was necessary that they should impress the country and the world that they mean business.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[97],"tags":[55,96],"class_list":["post-1811","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-making-of-constitution","tag-colonial-policy","tag-constituent-assembly-debates"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":false,"thumbnail":false,"medium":false,"medium_large":false,"large":false,"1536x1536":false,"2048x2048":false},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"Rinku Tai","author_link":"https:\/\/bharatlex-rinkutai.com\/?author=1"},"uagb_comment_info":0,"uagb_excerpt":"He said that the amendment of Dr. Jayakar lacks imagination, because it forgot that members have just launched themselves on a very big task and it was necessary that they should impress the country and the world that they mean business.","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bharatlex-rinkutai.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1811","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bharatlex-rinkutai.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bharatlex-rinkutai.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bharatlex-rinkutai.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bharatlex-rinkutai.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1811"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/bharatlex-rinkutai.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1811\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1829,"href":"https:\/\/bharatlex-rinkutai.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1811\/revisions\/1829"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bharatlex-rinkutai.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1811"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bharatlex-rinkutai.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1811"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bharatlex-rinkutai.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1811"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}