constituent assembly of india debates (proceedings)- volume vii

Assembly.
Mr. President: I think the newspapers will not only publish the fact that Mayurbhanj has been given
separate representation but also the statements which I Have made and you have made. Along with
these statements the information itself will have no effect of the kind that you apprehend and I would
therefore suggest to the honourable Member not to press his amendment.
Shri Ram Sahai [United State of Gwalior, Indore, Malwa (Madhya Bharat)]: *[ Mr. President, I would
like to know if an amendment which is contrary to the principles accepted by the Negotiating Committee
can be moved to the amendment now before us. For example, 50 per cent is fixed in it. Is it possible to
move an amendment that instead of 50 per cent. All the members should be elected or that they should
be nominated by the Raj Pramukhs or that the members must be elected on the basis of the electoral
rolls that had been prepared before in the States? I would like to know whether an amendment can be
moved which goes beyond the principles accepted by the Negotiating Committee.]*
Mr. President: I think we have to be very cautious in dealing with the States. We are proceeding on
the basis of the agreements entered into with the States and here we should not say or do anything
which may have the effect of going back upon any agreement which has been made with the States. All
these amendments are based upon agreements which have been made between the States Ministry and
the States concerned. The House will remember that originally there was one set of agreements but that
has become out of date and therefore we have a second set of agreements. All these amendments are
based upon these agreements and I would therefore suggest that nothing should be done to go back
upon any of the agreements that have been entered into.
I would ask Mr. Sidhwa not to press his amendment….
Several Honourable Members: He has not moved it.
Shri S. Nagappa (Madras: General ): Sir, I beg leave of the House to move the amendment of which
I have given notice just now. I am in agreement with the original motion but as regards the Annexure
Part I, third Column (viz. Authority for the purpose of the choosing of representatives in the Constituent
Assembly) I propose to move an amendment to the "word" Ruler of Hyderabad, Mysore, Kashmir and so
on. I would like to say that the rulers today do not have the real ruling power, as it has been transferred
to the people of the State, especially since August 15th 1947. So, Sir, I think the ruler of any State
should not be made the authority for the purpose of choosing representatives in the Constituent
Assembly, as he has not got the authority to choose. What is the good of calling someone an authority
who really has not got that authority? To me it does not look to be in order. I shall be thankful if the
Honourable the Mover accepts my amendment:
"That for the word ‘Ruler’ in column 3 of annexure Part I the word ‘people’ be substituted."
If you find that this is not in order then for instance, the Speaker of any Assembly, which has been
elected by the people of that State, occupies a more important place than that of the Ruler. No doubt the
Ruler is there as a nominal figurehead but the real person who rules is either the prime Minister or the
Legislative Assembly, wherever there is one. So, Sir, I would request that the Honourable the Mover
would accept this simple amendment. I have proposed a simple amendment and I need not explain it
further. I hope the House will be good enough to accept it.
Mr. President: I might point out that the Honourable member’s amendment is wholly misconceived.
It is not as if the Ruler is going to nominate the representatives. The Rulers have to be addressed for the
purpose of getting the representatives elected by the bodies who have the right to elect them. The Ruler