Sir, before I develop my other argument, I would like to answer a point raised by Prof. Shah, which was, partially answered by Sir Alladi. In spite of Prof. Shah’s professions to the contrary, I could not help feeling that what he said dripped not only with a little vitriol, but certainly with a good deal of past venom. Prof. Shah took exception to the use of the word “ratification”. He felt that this word represented something reprehensible, that the Prime Minister had sought to present the House with a fait accompli and force it down its throat. Sir, as a lawyer, I find that thesis not only slender, but utterly untenable. The Prime Minister went to England on behalf of the peoples of India-his chief principals. He went as their agent, as their super-agent, and it is axiomatic in law that when a person goes as the agent with trust and responsibility, and if his principals feel that he has acted not mala fides, that he has acted in their best interests, then they are bound to ratify any undertaking that he may have entered into on their behalf. Is there anyone in this House who will dare say that the Prime Minister was prompted by mala fides? Will anyone say that he was not prompted only by the desire to secure the best interests of India against the present background?
