I have no objection to that, but still I feel that Members should be guided by the collective wisdom of many than by their own individual intelligence. At least I am prepared to merge my own In that of the bigger group. But still I have to tender my explanation for my attitude and the reasons which weighed with me then. The point is this. If there is a grave menace to peace and tranquillity, then how is such a delicate situation to be handled and by whom? Now you have to take into account the scheme of the Constitution which we have already accepted. I fully realize that we have agreed that the Governor will be elected by adult Suffrage but by adopting that method of election we do not convert him into a Sahasrabahu. He will still have not more than two hands and two eyes. The question is what will be the agency and under whom will the services be functioning. If it is considered that the Governor, being elected by the adult suffrage, should have control over the executive in the day-to-day administration, I can understand his ability to handle a delicate situation, but to keep the Governor aloof from the entire sphere of administration and then to ask him to but in the most delicate moment when those in charge of the administration are supposed not to be quite equal to it, is to create chaos and to make confusion worse confounded. One can understand the Governor being in charge throughout and thus being in a position to handle a delicate situation. But to keep a man out of water– and when there are storms to ask him to keep the boat sailing is to court disaster. That can never work, that is my apprehension.
