Dispatch #74: India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States (Part 2)
Excerpts from the Constituent Assembly Debates on Article 1
In this dispatch, we continue our discussion on the evolution of Article 1 and go through key discussions.
The discussion on draft Article 1 continued in the Constituent Assembly with members moving amendments on one hand and on the other hand accusing Dr. Ambedkar of not conforming to the draft Constitution on the lines of the Objectives Resolution passed by Nehru. Hasrat Mohani went on to say that the draft Constitution is nothing but a ‘bundle of inconsistencies and is worth throwing only into the wastepaper basket’. Naziruddin Ahmad moved an amendment to name the country as ‘The United States of India’. More amendments were introduced to change the phraseology of draft Article 1 and all of them were negatived by the Vice President.
4th November, 1948
But before we look at the 15th November debate, it is important to take a look at what Dr. Ambedkar said in the assembly on 4th November 1948 when he explained why draft Article 1 says ‘Union of States’ and not ‘Federation of States’.
Some critics have taken objection to the description of India in Article 1 of the Draft Constitution as a Union of States. It is said that the correct phraseology should be a Federation of States. It is true that South Africa which is a unitary State is described as a Union. But Canada which is a Federation is also called a Union. Thus the description of India as a Union, though its constitution is Federal, does no violence to usage. But what is important is that the use of the word Union is deliberate. I do not know why the word ‘Union’ was used in the Canadian Constitution. But I can tell you why the Drafting Committee has used it. The Drafting Committee wanted to make it clear that though India was to be a federation, the Federation was not the result of an agreement by the States to join in a Federation and that the Federation not being the result of an agreement no State has the right to secede from it. The Federation is a Union because it is indestructible. Though the country and the people may be divided into different States for convenience of administration the country is one integral whole, its people a single people living under a single imperiumderived from a single source. The Americans had to wage a civil war to establish that the States have no right of secession and that their Federation was indestructible. The Drafting Committee thought that it was better to make it clear at the outset rather than to leave it to speculation or to dispute.
15th November, 1948
Mahavir Tyagi: Sir, I am not very keen to have all the words mentioned in my amendment inserted. I do not want to make a speech and waste the time of the House. However, I want to make one point clear and with that end in view, I shall formally move this amendment:
“That in clause (1) of article 1, for the word ‘States’ the words ‘Republican States and the sovereignty of the Union shall reside in the whole body of the people’ be substituted.”
Mahavir Tyagi: In the Draft Constitution I find that the residence of sovereignty has not been described. Where sovereignty lies has not been definitely laid down. I want this may go on record. I shall be content if the Honourable mover of the Constitution would place before the House either in connection with the Preamble or some other Article of the Constitution, an amendment which will clearly lay down that the sovereignty shall reside in the whole body of the people. The word ‘State’ has one meaning in one place and another meaning elsewhere. It will therefore not be satisfactory to say that the sovereignty should rest in the States. What does the Honourable Member suggest? Whether the sovereignty resides in the Union or in the States? From the Draft, it is not clear. My amendment therefore seeks to lay down definitely where sovereignty resides or shall reside in the future.
Mahavir Tyagi: I want also to make one thing clear. If we remain in the family of the United Kingdom and remain attached to them, sovereignty will probably technically remain with the King. I want to save the country from that danger. I want to make it absolutely clear that sovereignty virtually, technically, and practically resides in the whole people……….
Vice-President: May I point out that the proper place for an amendment of this nature is the Preamble?
Mahavir Tyagi: It is neither defined in the Preamble in so many words. I want it should be clearly defined. I am a layman. I would like to know from the expert draftsmen whether the Preamble forms part of the body of the Constitution. Since the Preamble is not an Article of the Constitution, may I know if it comes in the body of the Constitution proper? Can the Preamble always override the law? I don’t think it does. What I want is that sovereignty should be defined in one of the Articles of the Constitution. The Preamble mentions only casually that we are constituting India into a sovereign union. From this, my friends on the Drafting Committee draw the conclusion that sovereignty resides in the “people”. That does not satisfy me. We cannot depend on the implication drawn. I insist that sovereignty should be defined in the body of the Constitution itself. I want sovereignty should reside in the whole people of the country, and not in State or Union. State may only mean to be a sort of Governmental structure in the Centre, or it may include the people as well, or it may be only the union or one or more states. The Provinces will also be known as States hereafter. Let us therefore define in unambiguous terms the actual residence of sovereignty for the future. I may submit that in the Constitution of China, it is stated that the sovereignty rests in the whole people. We may lay down the same thing in our Constitution also. I therefore beg to move this amendment.
Gopikrishna Vijayavargiya: Mr. Vice-President, I come from an Indian State and I have a particular interest in this amendment, and I wish the House accepts it. There are also Indian States coming in as states in this Constitution, We do not want the Rajpramukhs and others to be there permanently. Of course, as the covenants have been signed, let them be there for some time. But, in the Constitution, we should lay down that even the common people can become heads of the provinces and States, and this will be one of the methods by which we will bring the States into conformity with the provinces. This is an important question. This issue must have been engaging the attention of the States Ministry. This is therefore a very urgent affair. Even before we finish our labours at Constitution-making, we must make all attempts to see that the States do come on par with the provinces. This amendment can achieve that objective. Sovereignty is a very important power and, as has been pointed out, it has been laid down in the Chinese constitution also. So there is no harm in accepting this amendment. I request the Honourable Members to vote for it.
Shibban Lal Saxena: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, the amendment moved by Mr. Tyagi is a very important amendment. I have myself given notice of a similar amendment (No. 189) which runs as follows:
“That the following new Part be inserted after Part I and the subsequent Parts and articles be renumbered accordingly: –
Part I-A General Principles
6. The name of the Union shall be BHARAT.
7. Bharat shall be a sovereign, independent, democratic, socialist Republic.
8. All powers of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, shall be derived from the people and shall be exercisable only by or on the authority of the organs of the government established by this Constitution.
9. The National Flag of Bharat shall be the tricolour of saffron, white and green of pure hand-spun and hand-woven Khadi cloth, with the Dharmachakra of Asoka inscribed in blue in the centre in the middle stripe, the ratio between the width and breath being 2:1.10. Hindi written in the Devanagari script shall be the National language of Bharat:
Provided that each State in the Union shall have the right to choose its own regional language as its State language in addition to Hindi for use inside that particular State.
11. English shall be the second official language of Bharat during the transition period of the first five years of the inauguration of this Constitution.
12. The National Anthem of Bharat shall be the” Vandemataram” which is reproduced in the Second Scheduled.
13. The Arms of Bharat consist of the Three Lions above the pedestal and the Dharmachakra, as are depicted on the top of the Asoka pillar at Sarnath.”
Shibban Lal Saxena: I personally think that this amendment should not be incorporated in this clause. There should be a separate Clause containing the substance of the amendment I have given notice of. In Chapter II they have defined sovereignty. In my amendment, I have suggested how this should be put in. All powers of Government, legislative, executive, and judicial shall be derived from the people and shall be exercisable only by one on the authority of the Government established by this Constitution. So, the sovereignty shall reside in the people and all powers of the State, legislative, executive, and judicial, shall belong to the people.
Shibban Lal Saxena: Sir, my friend from the States just now pointed out that the matter is a very important one because if we do not say here that the source and the fountain of all authority are the people, the theory that kings have got divine rights will continue. Therefore, it is important that it should be stated in the Constitution that it is the people who have sovereignty. Here in our country where the States have been a standing sore which we hope to wipe out very soon, I think this provision should find a place in the Constitution. I would request my learned friend, Dr. Ambedkar to say, when he replies to this amendment, that he accepts this principle, I hope he will find a suitable place for its insertion in the Constitution. On the Irish model, I suggest that the next chapter should contain definite provisions relating to the name of the Union, its language, and other things. It may be stated therein that all power of government legislative, executive, and judicial, is derived from the people. I think this is an amendment of fundamental importance and as such I hope that it will not be rejected summarily and that Dr. Ambedkar will insert it in some suitable place in the Constitution.
Hasrat Mohani: Sir, I rise to support the amendment moved by Mr. Mahavir Tyagi for the reason that it conforms to the spirit of the Objectives Resolution of this House. Our Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that the Constitution should be in conformity with the Objectives Resolution not only recently but from the very beginning. He stated — I am reading from this printed book. “We are not changing the Objectives Resolution at all. The Objectives Resolution is history and we stand by all the principles laid down in it.“
Hasrat Mohani: May I remind my friend, Dr. Ambedkar, that when a Committee was formed to frame the Constitution, it was expressly mentioned that they would have to conform to the Objectives Resolution. Now Dr. Ambedkar has gone out of his way. He has not conformed to the Objectives Resolution and I request all of you to see what he has done. Instead of drafting the Constitution in conformity with the Objectives Resolution, he wants to make the Objectives Resolution conform to what he is proposing now. This Draft Constitution is a bundle of inconsistencies and is worth throwing only into the wastepaper basket. He has gone his own way and therefore all his efforts are only a waste of time and energy.
Vice-President: Please confine yourself to the amendment, MaulanaSaheb.
Hasrat Mohani: I support this amendment because it is strictly on the lines of the Objectives Resolution. Instead of conforming to the Objectives Resolution, Dr.Ambedkar has changed the word “Republic” into a “State” and the word “independent” into “Democratic”. This shows the way his mind is working. The Draft Constitution makes me sure that he wants to establish a unitary Indian Empire which will again be subject to the greater Anglo-American Empire consisting of America and its satellites, the Brit is the Commonwealth, and some of the Western Powers of Europe.
Vice-President: I will ask you again to confine yourself to the amendment.
Hasrat Mohani: Sir, I support the amendment of Mr.Tyagi and I oppose the whole Constitution. Maybe Dr.Ambedkar produced this Draft because as Law Minister he was asked to do it. But what he has produced is a wretched thing and therefore I think that he should make amends for the mistakes he has committed. With these words, I support the amendment.
Prabhu Dayal Himatsingka: Sir, I beg to oppose the amendment. It is absurd that an attempt should be made to put words here and there. The Draft Constitution is a complete framework and where sovereignty lies, what power is given to the executive and the legislatures, etc. have been defined by the different sections in it. To make an attempt to put in words here and there will be dangerous and if we accept such amendments, I think the whole Draft Constitution may upset and we do not know where we will be landed. Of course, if there is anything to be said on principle, that may be allowed, but to make verbal alterations in the Draft which has been considered by the Committee will mean a considerable waste of time and we should not accept amendments in this fashion.
Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: I beg to oppose the amendment. In the preamble, it is stated that “We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute, etc.” We are the persons who have met to give a Constitution for ourselves. Unless we are sovereign, we cannot give a Constitution for ourselves. Hitherto it was the Parliament in the United Kingdom that framed Constitutions. The fact that we have been elected by the various legislatures and come here to frame a Constitution shows that sovereignty is inherent in the people.
Mahavir Tyagi: Of course, we are here as a sovereign body. But what about the future? This sovereignty has been transferred to us by the British, why do you not vest it back with the people?
Vice-President: Allow him to proceed.
Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: I will answer Mr. Mahavir Tyagi. We have not come here on adult franchise, but we represent three hundred odd million people and are gathered here to frame a Constitution for ourselves. If we are in a position to give a constitution on behalf of the people, it follows that in the future the House elected on an adult franchise representing larger interests, will be even more sovereign. From this, it follows that sovereignty rests with the people. Therefore I cannot find any difficulty in leaving it as it is and no such introduction as is contemplated in the amendment is necessary. I would only draw the attention of the House to the preamble in the Constitution of the United States which says:
“We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity……..”
Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: There are a number of articles in this Constitution. Later on, the constitution was amended. The framers of the Constitution or the people of the United States who subsequently amended that Constitution never said that there was a lacuna in the Constitution or that the sovereignty vested in themselves rather than with the people. Therefore, it is unnecessary. A doubt is created and to avoid that doubt an amendment is sought to be moved. There is another difficulty also. I want the sleeping dogs to lie. So far as the States are concerned, the States rulers in some places have been claiming sovereignty and we are trying to liquidate these rulers. Many of them have been liquidated, and these rulers have come into these States. In part III of the 1st Scheduled the States are there with the rulers in some forms or other. The people are already beginning to assert themselves and the whole thing will disappear even on that ground. I do not want the clause to be inserted here as the amendment contemplates. It is enough to leave the Preamble to itself and to work itself. We are sovereign and in that capacity, we have gathered here and we shall give unto ourselves a Constitution. It is unnecessary to create a ghost and then afterward lay it. I oppose this amendment, Sir.
Lokanath Misra: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, one of the honourable members of this House has opposed this amendment on the ground that by the acceptance of this amendment, the whole structure and the whole scheme of the Draft Constitution will be changed. It seems to me that this is a bold statement and I would not like to digest a statement like this. This structure of the Constitution will be changed as if we are committed not to change it or we will abide by anything that will not change it. It seems to me therefore to be a dangerous statement to say that we will not accept because the structure of the scheme of the Draft Constitution will be changed. We are here to change it, if need be. Indirectly, it means also that the very basis, the scheme, or the structure of the Constitution is such that it militates against the very principle that underlies this amendment. If that is so, it is still more dangerous because this amendment clearly says–and no more than that – that the sovereignty of India rests in the whole body of the people of India.
Lokanath Misra: Now, one of my friends has just said that it does really vest with the people of India and therefore it will not be necessary. I submit it is a sort of hypocritical statement, because I remember hearing Dr.Ambedkar, while he was speaking somewhere that this sovereignty rests with the Government of India and I want to make a difference between the Government of India and the people of India; they may be identical, they may be different. It might be that the Government of India will be supposed to be one thing and the people of India might be supposed to be another thing. They were so one day. Therefore, we must make it clear where, after our freedom, sovereignty vests. In the people of India?In the Cabinet?In the Government?In the President or somewhere else? I therefore think that to avoid this snag once and for all, we ought to declare that the sovereignty vests in each one of the citizens of India, and for that purpose at least this amendment is very appropriate. I do not want to insist that this amendment should be passed and put in here, but it must be clear that there need be no reservation in the minds of us that sovereignty does not lie in each one of the citizens of India. I therefore support the spirit of this amendment and reiterate that really India’s sovereignty vests in each one of her citizens, however high or low, pandit or no pandit, fool or wise; it belongs to the people, each one of them, once and for all.
B. R. Ambedkar: Beyond doubt it vests with the people. I might also tell my friend that I shall not have the least objection if this matter was raised again when we are discussing the Preamble.
Mahavir Tyagi: Then I beg leave of the House to withdraw my amendment. The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.
K. T. Shah: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg to move:
“That in clause (1) of Article 1, after the word States’ the words `equal inter se’ be added.”
K. T. Shah: In commending this amendment to the House, I would like to express my gratitude to the Chairman of the Drafting Committee for giving us a new version of what the Constitution is intended to be. It was somewhat new, to me at least, to hear that a Constitution is a mechanism for regulating the various organs of Government and their functions; and that any desire to include in it any aspiration of the people might be regarded as somewhat out of place. I am grateful for this view of the matter, as in the future I shall conduct myself in my amendments and in my speeches accordingly. I must, however, add that when reference is made to the chapter on the Directives I can assure Dr.Ambedkar that I too have read them, though perhaps not with as much frequency and intensity with which he may have read it. The ‘Directives’ are, in my opinion, the vaguest, loosest, thickest smoke screen that could be drawn against the eyes of the people, and may be used to make them believe what the draftsmen never intended or meant perhaps. When those matters are brought before the tribunals for adjudication or arbitration, they might not be interpreted in the sense the people might believe those clauses to convey.
K. T. Shah: In proposing this particular amendment, Sir, I have no illusion about the actual state of affairs. In the States today, including both – what is called the Provinces and which have still to be called the States proper – I realise there is no equality, of population or possibilities, area or resources.
K. T. Shah: But I also recognise that even if equality of political status does not exist today, we have, at any rate, to strive towards a state of affairs in which they would really and truly be equal amongst themselves, as members of a Common Federation. If this Union is to be a true federation, as we are assured it is going to be, if this Union is going to be a democratic federation, as we have also been promised again and again, then, I suggest that it is of the utmost importance that the constituent parts of the Union should be and must be equal amongst themselves.
K. T. Shah: This equality, I may assure the House, does not exist, and need not consist in area or population, in revenue or resources, in industrial or educational development. Unfortunately, we are all aware that the various parts of this country, politically divided or geographically demarcated, are not all equally developed and advanced. It must be the first task of the Union to see that those who have, for no fault of theirs, lagged behind, shall not continue to remain backward, and those who have had, for some Adventitious reasons, some advantage over others and moved forward more than others, shall also not be so selfish as to insist upon retaining their position and keeping those who are backward still lagging behind. The country cannot progress, the ideals we have all in view regarding the future growth and prosperity of this country will not be realised, if any single part of it is not able to pull its full weight in the advance of the country. That is one reason why I suggest that we must, here and now, insert in the Constitution is properly framed and working, the units shall be regarded as politically equal amongst themselves. I mean equal politically, in the sense that if one unit, however large it may be has the power of taxation of a certain kind, other units, however small, shall also have that power; if one unit has the right to maintain and use its own police force, the others also would have it; if one unit has the right to maintain its exclusive army, then another unit also shall have it. This being my conception of equality of States inter se, the existing differentiation between those which have been called provinces and between those which have been called States, those States which have merged and those which have acceded will have to be abolished at the earliest opportunity, even though today it may be an unfortunate fact of our position.
K. T. Shah: This is not the only reason that actuates me inputting forward this suggestion before the House. I look forward to the day when this Union of India shall consist of a body of Village Panchayats, knit together amongst themselves as cooperative republics, which will combine together not only for the greater advancement of their own inherent resources but also for the greater prosperity of the country as a whole. In this view of the destiny of this Union, in this view of the position and potentiality of each component part of the Union, I think it would be the greatest hindrance if anyone is politically considered, or socially regarded as unequal to others. If it is thought that some only should have the leadership while others have the destiny of always being followers, it would be, I repeat, an untold disaster to the country. Just as we are resolved and are all agreed that we shall have amongst ourselves, as citizens or individuals, equality before the law, just as we have thought that all distinctions of caste and creed shall disappear from the face of this land, so also, I submit, that this country must consist, as soon as we can manage it, of equal units, equal parts of the federation, each anxious, each competent, each equipped with the utmost possible means for development of the resources and the possibilities inherent in it; each also intent upon and each also willing to co-operate in the strengthening and development of the entire country, to the best of its possibilities. We have many parts of this country which are admittedly very backward in all kinds of material or moral development. It is towards them, it is for them, that I feel it necessary to insist that if they are non-equal interset today, they shall be made equal at the earliest opportunity.
K. T. Shah: For this reason, the motion that was made just before, regarding the republican character of every component part of the Union, meets with my highest and heartiest approval. All these remnants, all these absurdities of economies, and all those anachronisms of history which are embodied in the so-called Ruling Princes, must disappear. It is only when we have got rid of these autocrats and plutocrats that we shall be able to design a humane and reasonable Constitution and try to attain the aims of life, which our great Teacher has placed before us.
K. T. Shah: It is for the same reason also that I have, in another part of this Constitution, tabled an amendment to the effect. I hope, Sir, that hereafter, at any rate, the Union of India shall consist of villages or groups of villages, which are each in themselves autonomous units, which are each in themselves republics, and each, if necessary, with the right to co-operate with their neighbours, so that as a result of their combined and collective effort, the Indian people just emerging from political bondage and economic slavery, may soon attain their rightful place in the role of the nations, and make their effective contribution to the progress of mankind.
H. V. Kamath: Mr. Vice-President Sir, I rise to support the amendment moved by my friend Professor Shah. In view of the fact that the House has not accepted the qualifying word ‘federal’ for the word Union, I think it is necessary for us to define the status of the States. As my friend remarked, the provinces or States or Chief Commissioners’ provinces certainly are not equal amongst themselves. Therefore, for the sake of clarity, for the sake of accuracy, for the sake of precision in constitutional terminology, it is essential for us to define the relationship or status of the States as between themselves. Therefore, the amendment of my friend Professor Shah is very apposite in my estimation. In a Constitution of this sort, which is essentially, as the footnote on page 2 says, federal in structure, there should not be one State superior to another, or one State inferior to another. There should not be any one State which may be called primus inter pares, that is first among equals. We should avoid this in the future constitutional set up. Obviously, it is necessary for us to define that all the States as amongst themselves should be equal. All the States should have only an equal status amongst themselves. If at all there is a superior State or Government or a mechanism, it is the mechanism of the Union Government. That is, if I may say so, it may be a super State or a supra State so far as India is concerned. So far as the States themselves are concerned, they should be absolutely equal amongst themselves. I, therefore, support the amendment of my friend Professor Shah to the effect that India shall be a Union of States which are equal inter se.
Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: What are the States? So far as representation is concerned, most of the States in Part I of the First Schedule are equal; there is no difference made between the one and the other. So far as the States in Part III of the First Schedule are concerned, they have come in by certain agreements. We have accepted the agreements and until we are able to revoke the agreements or introduce different sets of agreements, we cannot make them equal. Even amongst ourselves, in all the Provinces or States which are included in Part I of the First Schedule, there cannot be an equality of the kind envisaged. This is absolutely an indefinite amendment. So far as the States are concerned, according to the population they have representation both in the Lower and Upper Houses. Therefore this amendment is understandable, vague, and impractical and ought not to be accepted.
The amendment was negatived.
Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I beg to move:
“That at the end of clause (1) of Article 1, the following be inserted:
‘and shall be known as the United States of India’.”
Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, this is a non-controversial amendment. It gives a bigger, more dignified and more sonorous name to the Union. If any precedent is needed we have it in the “United States of America”. I submit that in order to keep the balance between the Western hemisphere and Eastern hemisphere we should adopt this expression in India. India is the leading country in the East and we should have a very dignified name. As I have submitted it is a non-controversial amendment, and I ask the House to consider it on its merits.
Naziruddin Ahmad: The other amendment is an alternative to this. I move:
“That at the end of clause (1) of Article 1, the following be inserted:’and shall be known as the Indian Union’.”
H. V. Kamath: Sir, I rise to oppose the amendment Nos. 110 and 112. As regards Amendment 110 the very argument that my friend advanced that we have a precedent in the United States, is itself an argument against accepting it, in my judgment. He said something to the effect that there should be a meeting of East and West or some words to that effect. I certainly stand for harmony, a synthesis of the East and West, but I certainly do not want any hybrid development. The amendment which my Honourable friend has moved before the House seeks to bring about such a hybrid development between the East and West and we do not want to be suspected at this stage when we are pursuing or supposed to be pursuing a neutral foreign policy. We do not want the faintest indication to be made here in this House that we are going to copy either the USSR or USA. As regards USSR, there is no effect or influence in this Constitution, and as regards USA, precisely because this will smack of copying the U.S.A. Constitution, I oppose this amendment which seeks to add “shall be known as the United States of India”.
H. V. Kamath: As regards No. 111. I support the amendment and we will thereby be eliminating or removing that hateful word ‘State’. Just now the House was pleased to throw out that amendment and I do not want the ‘State’ to come in by the back door again in describing the structure of the Indian Union and therefore I would support my Honourable friend Mr.Naziruddin Ahmad in referring to India as the Union of India.
H. V. Kamath: As regards No. 112, once we accept the words ‘Union of India’ there is no need to consider the third amendment. I think from the point of view of language, sound and its reaction on the ears, the Union of India is a much more dignified expression than the Indian Union. I therefore oppose 110 and 112 and support 111.
B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I oppose all these amendments. With regard to the First Amendment that India should be known as the United States of India, the argument set out by my friend Mr.Kamath is a perfectly valid argument and I accept it wholeheartedly. I have given my own views as to why I used the word ‘Union’ and did not use the word ‘Federation’.
B. R. Ambedkar: With regard to the other amendment that India should be known as the Union of India, I also say that this is unnecessary because we have all along meant that this country should be known as India without giving any indication as to what are the relations of the component parts of the Indian Union in the very title of the name of the country. India has been known as India throughout history and throughout all these past years. As a member of the U. N. O. the name of the country is India and all agreements are signed as such and personally, I think the name of the country should not in any sense give any indication as to what are the subordinate divisions it is composed of. I therefore oppose the amendments and maintain that the Draft as it is presented to the House is the best so far as these amendments are concerned.
On 17th November 1948, the discussion on other amendments to the draft Article 1 continued in the assembly. Looking at the members’ inability to reach any unanimity, Govind Ballabh Pant urged the Vice President to move to Article 2 and the members can revisit Article 1 later. Hence Article 1 was postponed and the Vice President decided that it would be put to vote later once all the amendments were considered. The Vice President postponed the discussion by saying that:
“I hold that a discussion of these few clauses should be held over till sufficient time has been given for arriving at some sort of understanding. This will be in the best interests of the House and of the country at large.”