A Parliamentarian Before and After Independence, M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar Left His Mark
A scholar of distinction, seasoned lawyer, freedom fighter and skilful parliamentarian, Madabhooshi Ananthasayanam Ayyangar was a member of the Central Legislative Assembly in the year 1934 and unanimously elected first as Deputy Speaker of the First Lok Sabha and the Speaker twice in 1956 and 1957.
Ayyangar was born on February 4, 1891 at Tiruchanur near Tirupati in Andhra Pradesh in an orthodox Vaishnava Brahmin family. His father, Venkata Varadacharya, was a Sanskrit scholar and the family, though poor, was respected for its scholarly traditions.
Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty.
Having completed his initial education in the Devasthanam High School, Tirupati, Ayyangar got his BA degree from the Pachaiyappa's College, Madras. He then obtained his law degree from Madras Law College in 1913. He married Choodamnlal in 1919.
He had to suspend his legal practice for about a year during 1921-22 due to his participation in the national movement, after which he joined the bar again at the Madras high court. Ayyangar did not treat the profession only as a means to earn his livelihood. He was also deeply interested in the building judicial system of the country to suit the needs and aspirations of the masses.
He strongly advocated for independence of the judiciary and urged the government to raise the status of the Federal Court to that of a Supreme Court. He was very concerned about the humiliation as also the hardships faced by masses due to the vesting of ultimate authority of the judicial system in the hands of the Privy Council in England. His concern in this area is clearly evident in the following statement made by him on December 11, 1947 in the Constituent Assembly:
'I hope very soon we will have a Supreme Court established in this country and do away with the Privy Council. We ought not to be satisfied with this and prolong the agony of going to a foreign court. They may not understand many cases where religious matters are involved and what the kind of mart is put on an idol. Muslim Waqf cases go there. They do not know any of our cases. They want to hold supreme authority over us, and it is for that reason that, though the Judges there may be impartial, they do not feel one with the Community here.'
As a freedom fighter
Ayyangar started taking active part in the activities of the Indian National Congress which was spearheading the national movement for the liberation of the country from the clutches of British colonialism. He took part in the non-cooperation movement of 1921-22.
Ayyangar enlisted himself in the individual satyagraha campaign started by M.K. Gandhi in 1940 and was immediately jailed for eight months. Later he joined the "Quit India" agitation launched in August 1942 and suffered imprisonment till December 4, 1944.
Apart from taking active part in the fight for liberation of the country, Ayyangar was also a staunch follower of Gandhi's constructive programme for fighting social evils like untouchability which were prevalent at that time and were destroying our social fabric. He always advocated the upliftment of Dalits, particularly their right to temple entry.
As a parliamentarian
Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty
Ayyangar's career as a parliamentarian started long before independence when he took a seat in the Central Legislative Assembly in the year 1934. Ayyangar was elected to the House with an overwhelming majority.
He took his seat along with stalwarts like Govind Ballabh Pant, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Bhulabhai Desai and Satyamurti, whose objective was to fight the government from within.
He proved to be one of its indefatigable members with a vast treasure of knowledge and experience. Apart from his ability and popularity, Ayyangar possessed an abundant fund of humour which stood him in very good stead and helped challenge the heated atmosphere of the House from time to time into something bracing and tolerable. As a dedicated parliamentarian, he always took keen interest in the business of the House.
In recognition of his long parliamentary experience, Ayyangar was unanimously elected Deputy Speaker in 1948. His unopposed election on May 30, 1952 as the Deputy Speaker of the First Lok Sabha was a signal tribute to his ability and popularity. While thanking the members for electing him, Ayyangar said:
'Whatever the position may be, I still feel that it is not the position that makes it so important as the unanimous verdict of the House, the confidence of my Leader whose opinion I value very much, yourself Sir (Speaker) and the Members of the House. young and old repose in me. I hope that that confidence that they have reposed in me will make me strong and healthy and I shall try to do whatever work I am asked to do. The Deputy Speaker's position is somewhat difficult and delicate.'
After the demise of P.G. Mavalankar, Ayyangar was elected Speaker of Lok Sabha on March 8, 1956 and again in May 1957 when the Second Lok Sabha met after the general elections.
As Speaker, Ayyangar was quite aware of the heavy responsibility that a presiding officer had to shoulder. As he said:
"Under a dictatorship or an absolute monarchy there can be no guarantee of life or liberty to the citizens. The goodness of the dictator is the only guarantee. A democracy may also degenerate into a communal or linguistic dictatorship and begin to show favours to the members of its own community and oppress the minorities.Such tendencies have to be checked ruthlessly. The only person in such circumstances that can safeguard the interest of the minorities and prevent oppression is the Presiding Officer."
In 1952 Ayyangar attended the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference at Ottawa as a delegate. He led the Parliamentary delegations to China in 1956 and to the East European countries (Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and Poland) in 1959.
In December 1957, Ayyangar resigned from the membership of the Congress Parliamentary Party. In the 1962 general elections, he was again elected to the Lok Sabha but resigned its membership on his appointment as Governor of Bihar in the same year. After his tenure as governor, Ayyanagar retired from politics and moved back to Tirupati. He passed away on March 19, 1978 at the age of 87.
Qurban Ali is a trilingual journalist who has covered some of modern India's major political, social and economic developments. He has a keen interest in India's freedom struggle and is now documenting the history of the socialist movement in the country.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
Four arrested over pro-Palestine vandalism at UK air base
pro- Palestine protest (Image credits: AP) Four people have been arrested in connection with a pro-Palestinian protest that involved vandalising military aircraft at an airbase in in the United Kingdom, authorities said. On June 20, two activists from the group Palestine Action allegedly broke into the Royal Air Force's Brize Norton base in Oxfordshire, England, where they sprayed red paint on two refueling and transport aircraft and damaged them with crowbars. Three individuals, aged 29 to 36, were arrested on suspicion of committing, preparing, or instigating acts of terrorism. A fourth person, a 41-year-old woman, was arrested on suspicion of assisting an offender, according to UK police. UK moves to ban protest group Palestine Action Palestine Action, who claimed the action, responded to the arrests by accusing authorities of cracking down on "nonviolent protests" that disrupt the flow of weapons to Israel during what it called the country's "genocide in Palestine." Last week, British prime minister Keir Starmer labeled the act "disgraceful," while Home Secretary Yvette Cooper on Monday announced plans to ban Palestine Action under anti-terrorism laws. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng CFDs với sàn môi giới tin cậy IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo According to Cooper, the group's actions have become "more aggressive," with members showing a "willingness to use violence." The Home Secretary decided to proscribe the group following the incident. Once the ban takes effect next Friday, supporting the group will become a criminal offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Since the outbreak of the war in Gaza, Palestine Action has targeted facilities linked to Israeli defense contractor Elbit Systems, as well as other companies with ties to Israel.


The Print
30 minutes ago
- The Print
Not just ‘socialist, secular', a lot more from Emergency-era 42nd Amendment still part of Constitution
The 42nd was, by far, and still is, the most comprehensive of all the amendments. It not only amended the Preamble, but also 40 Articles and the Seventh Schedule, and added 14 new Articles. Hence, having altered the face of the Constitution of India, it is often referred to as the 'mini' Constitution. It was the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 that added the two words, but it did not just change the Preamble. New Delhi: RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale, speaking at an event to mark 50 years of the Emergency Thursday, called for a discussion and review of the words 'socialist' and 'secular', which were included in the Preamble to the Constitution during the Emergency. Among other things, the 1976 amendment made fundamental rights subservient to the Directive Principles of State Policy. It gave the Parliament unbridled powers to amend any part of the Constitution. It restricted the powers of the Supreme Court and high courts to strike down any laws that violated the Constitution. Through these changes, it destabilised the separation of powers, tilting the scales in favour of the ruling central government. Moreover, the 42nd Amendment added to the Constitution the fundamental duties that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party have often emphasised. In 2019, soon after his victory in the Lok Sabha elections, Modi called for a 'paradigm shift' in India from the centrality of 'fundamental rights' to that of 'fundamental duties'. While subsequent amendments and court judgments overturned the amendments introduced by Indira Gandhi, other changes, including the fundamental duties and the changes made to the Preamble, despite periodic opposition, seem to have stood the test of time. No political party has ever formalised a bill to bring changes to these provisions. ThePrint explains the changes inserted by the 42nd Amendment, the changes that remain, and the changes that subsequent amendments or judicial pronouncements removed. Fundamental duties The 42nd Amendment inserted the fundamental duties into the Constitution through Article 51-A. The original 1976 amendment included 10 such duties, calling upon citizens to respect the Constitution, the national flag, and the national anthem; to cherish the noble ideals of the freedom struggle; uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India; defend the country and render national service when called; promote harmony and common brotherhood among all the people of India; preserve the rich heritage of the composite culture of the nation; protect the natural environment and have compassion for living creatures; develop scientific temper, humanism, and spirit of inquiry and reform; safeguard public property and abjure violence; strive for excellence in all individual and collective activity. Atal Bihari Vajpayee added to these fundamental duties in 2002 through the 86th Amendment to the Constitution, calling upon parents and guardians to 'provide opportunities for the education of his child, or as the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen years'. The Swaran Singh Committee recommended that the fundamental duties, in nature, be made obligatory, suggesting a law to provide for the imposition of a penalty or punishment for non-compliance. However, the 10 fundamental duties eventually included in the Constitution were a modified form of the committee recommendations. Also Read: BJP has learned to exploit web of power relations created by India's Constitution Ones that remained The 42nd Amendment introduced changes to the Seventh Schedule, which deals with the division of the crucial lawmaking powers between the Centre and the states. It transferred five subjects—education, forests, weights and measures, protection of wild animals and birds, and administration of justice—from the state list to the concurrent list. A new entry, 20A, was also added to the Concurrent list, adding population control and family planning as a subject. Both Parliament and state governments can enact laws on the subjects listed under the concurrent list. However, according to Article 254, if there is a conflict between laws, the central law overrides the state law. The 42nd Amendment also introduced Articles 323A and 323B to the Constitution, establishing the tribunals. Article 323A pertains to administrative tribunals that look into disputes or complaints concerning recruitment or conditions of service of people appointed to government posts or public services. Article 323B is about the establishment of the other tribunals by the Parliament or the state legislatures on assessment or collection of any tax, labour disputes, land reforms, and elections, among other matters. The Constitution has retained the provisions related to the tribunals. Additionally, the 1976 amendment added Articles 39A (equal justice and free legal aid), 43A (participation of workers in the management of industries), 48A (protection and improvement of the environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife), and 39(f) (protection of children and youth). All of these provisions have also remained in the Constitution. Besides these, the 42nd Amendment made changes to Articles 81 and 82 of the Constitution, effectively freezing the number and boundaries of parliamentary constituencies– or the delimitation exercise— based on the 1971 Census until the publication of the post-2000 Census. In 2001, the 84th Amendment to the Constitution extended the deadline from 2000 to 2026. Ones that had to go Morarji Desai became the first non-Congress Prime Minister in India after the 1975 Emergency when the Janata Party assumed power. The Indira Gandhi government had to go, and so did many of the amendments it had introduced through the 42nd Amendment. The 42nd Amendment restricted the powers of the high courts, allowing them to consider only the constitutional validity of state laws, and gave exclusive power to the Supreme Court to consider the constitutional validity of central laws. It also added a provision requiring a minimum of seven judges to consider and a two-thirds majority of them to declare a law unconstitutional. The Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act 1977, however, removed these restrictions on the judiciary. The 42nd Amendment introduced a provision for Parliament to enact specific laws against anti-national activities and anti-national associations. However, the 43rd Amendment criticised the 'sweeping nature' of the powers and how open they were to 'abuse', leading to the deletion of the provision. The statement of objects and reasons of the 44th Amendment cites one of the primary objectives of the bill as providing safeguards to recent experiences that showed a 'transient majority' was capable of taking away fundamental rights. The 44th Amendment removed 'internal disturbance' as a ground for the proclamation of a national Emergency—the provision India Gandhi used. Instead, it included 'armed rebellion' as a ground for declaring an Emergency. The 42nd Amendment also increased the term of the Lok Sabha and the legislative assemblies from five to six years. However, the 44th Amendment restored their term to five years. Before the 44th amendment, Article 359 allowed the suspension of fundamental rights and their enforcement during an Emergency. However, the 44th Amendment reined in this power, asserting that even during an Emergency, the government could not suspend the rights in Articles 20 (protection in respect of conviction for offences) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty). Additionally, while Article 358 allowed the suspension of Article 19 during any national Emergency, the 44th Amendment inserted a safeguard—the government could suspend the right only when an Emergency was declared on the basis that 'war' or 'external aggression' threatened the security of India. Also Read: Is UCC a state issue or a national one? Uttarakhand vs the Constitution Minerva Mills case The changes made by the 42nd Amendment but not undone by subsequent amendments bore the brunt of a landmark Supreme Court judgment in what was popularly known as the Minerva Mills case. In the early 1970s, the Congress government nationalised Minerva Mills, a textile mill based in Karnataka, claiming that management of the mill affairs was highly detrimental to the public interest. Shareholders and creditors of the mills then approached the Supreme Court, challenging Congress's move. While the issues at the centre of their petitions were the government's nationalisation power and the right to property, it was the legendary jurist and lawyer Nani Palkhivala who decided to use the case to challenge Indira Gandhi's amendments. The key issues involved the amended Article 31C, giving the Directive Principles of State Policy primacy over the Fundamental Rights enshrined under Articles 14 (right to equality) and 19 (protection of certain rights, including freedom of speech and expression) of the Constitution. It meant that any laws made to give effect to any of the Directive Principles of State Policy could not be struck down by a court if they violated the right to equality or the freedom of speech and expression or other rights under Article 19. The 42nd Amendment also tweaked Article 368, which pertains to parliamentary powers to amend the Constitution. It provided the Parliament with unlimited powers to amend the Constitution. Meanwhile, it took away court powers to review the amendments. With the amendment to Article 368, the Congress government attempted to undo the landmark Kesavananda Bharati judgment, which laid down the basic structure doctrine, holding that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered by the Parliament through amendments. However, the Supreme Court, through the Minerva Mills verdict, struck down these amendments, which the Indira Gandhi government introduced during the Emergency. The seeds At a time, the government was operationalising the Emergency, the Sardar Swaran Singh Committee constituted in 1976 sowed the seeds for the 42nd Amendment. Appointed by then Congress President D.K. Barooah, Sardar Swaran Singh, the then external affairs minister, headed the 12-member committee. The committee report, while giving a plethora of recommendations, said that while the Constitution functioned without any serious impediment, the interpretation of some of its provisions threw up difficulties—'more particularly when they concern the right of Parliament to be the most authentic and effective instrument to give expression and content to the sovereign will of the people'. However, there were warning signs about the extent of the changes suggested. Renowned lawyer Nani Palkhivala had warned that the committee report 'will in reality change the basic structure of our Constitution'. In an article published in the 4 July 1976 edition of the Illustrated Weekly of India, Palkhivala lamented that 'our monumental apathy and fatalism are such that the proposals are less discussed in public and private than the vagaries of the monsoon or the availability of onions'. On 1 September, 1976, the Indira Gandhi government introduced the amendment bill in the Lok Sabha, incorporating several of the changes suggested by the Swaran Singh Committee. In her speech in the Lok Sabha, the then prime minister asserted that the purpose of the bill was 'to remedy the anomalies that have long been noticed, and to overcome obstacles put up by economic and political vested interests'. The Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha then passed the bill, which received the President's assent on 18 December 1976. (Edited by Madhurita Goswami) Also Read: Tharoor calls Bhagwat's embrace of Constitution 'triumph', Sibal warns against taking it at face value


Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
UK distances new spy chief from 'Nazi' grandfather
The British government has distanced the incoming head of its foreign intelligence service from her grandfather following reports he was a Nazi spy known as "the butcher". Blaise Metreweli will in the autumn become the first woman to lead MI6 in its 116-year-old history, the British government announced earlier this month. The Daily Mail newspaper reported this week that her grandfather Constantine Dobrowolski defected from the Soviet Union's Red Army to become a Nazi informant in the Chernigiv region of modern-day Ukraine. The newspaper said German archives showed Dobrowolski was known as "the Butcher" or "Agent No 30" by Wehrmacht commanders. "Blaise Metreweli neither knew nor met her paternal grandfather," a Foreign Office spokesperson said in a statement. Live Events "Blaise's ancestry is characterised by conflict and division and, as is the case for many with eastern European heritage, only partially understood. "It is precisely this complex heritage which has contributed to her commitment to prevent conflict and protect the British public from modern threats from today's hostile states, as the next chief of MI6." The Daily Mail said Dobrowolski had a 50,000 ruble bounty placed on him by Soviet leaders, and was dubbed the "worst enemy of the Ukrainian people". He also sent letters to superiors saying he "personally" took part "in the extermination of the Jews", the newspaper added. The head of MI6 is the only publicly named member of the organisation and reports directly to the foreign minister. Metreweli, 47, will be the 18th head of MI6. Like her predecessors she will be referred to as "C", not "M" as the chief is called in the James Bond film franchise.