Dhavan: there is a very interesting book on Napolean and Petel Bale says that we can go into history as an argument without end and this is what has really happened. One side is citing what they believe is surrender and we are citing what was the mood at that particular point in time as explained in the various provisions and the background. What is relevant is when look at the parliamentary history is not the background factors what is relevant is maybe the speech of the minister, the select committee and parliamentary debates.

Dhavan: All the rest of it are not relevant except for an exercise on movement. There has been so much of a difference between what we argued that an entire movement took place and their argument of surrender.... surrender always sounds like a stronger word than a movement but there was no surrender at any point in time, this argument is entirely and totally a play on words and nothing more than that.