“It ain’t what they call you, it’s what you answer to.” ― W.C. Fields.
Do names have any rational nexus with your existence or are they merely a corollary extension of your identification? In common parlance, people refer to India as “Bharat” and vice versa. To make choices between “Bharat” and “India,” it is essential to revisit the debates of our constituent assembly and interpret them in the light of the current situation. The primary focus should be on the discussions and deliberations regarding Article 1 during the assembly proceedings.
Pursuant to this purpose, it becomes relevant to specify article 1 and its draft form during the assembly proceedings: –
__________________
Part I
THE UNION AND ITS TERRITORY
ARTICLE 1
“1: Name and territory of the Union –
(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
[(2) The States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule.]
(3) The territory of India shall comprise –
(a) the territories of the States;
[(b) the Union territories specified in the First Schedule; and]
(c) such other territories as may be acquired”
______________________
THE DRAFT CONSTITUTION
Part I
THE UNION AND ITS TERRITORY [AND JURISDICTION]”
ARTICLE 1
“1: Name and territory of the Union –
(1) India shall be a Union of States.
(2) The States shall mean the States for the time being specified in Part I, II, and III of the First Schedule.
(3) The territory of India shall comprise – (a) the territories of the States;
b) the territories for the time being specified in Part IV of the First Schedule; and
(c) such other territories as may be acquired”
________________________________________________
B.R Ambedkar on 4 November 1948 presented the draft constitution of India in the constituent assembly. Members of the assembly were astounded by announcement of India to be “union of states” and not as “federation” . The majority of the discourse on Article 1 revolved around the questions over the use of the word “union” instead of “federal” and other concerns regarding the Quasi-federal features of Indian constitution.
India or Bharat
In one instance, a member named Ananthasayanam Ayyangar proposed “…..alternative names, or rather the substitution of names – BHARAT, BHARAT VARSHA, HINDUSTAN – for the word INDIA, in Article 1, clause (1)”.
On September 18, 1949, H V Kamath moved the first proposal for an amendment to change the name from India to “Bharat” or “Hind”. He went on to elaborate his rationale and arguments for this proposed change. :-
“…….There are various suggestions put forward as to the proper name which should be given to this new baby of the Indian Republic. The prominent suggestions have been Bharat, Hindustan, Hind and Bharatbhumi or Bharatvarsh and names of that kind. At this stage it would be desirable and perhaps profitable also to go into the question as to what name is best suited to this occasion of the birth of the new baby-the Indian Republic………. this name Bharat. Some ascribe it to the son of Dushyant and Shakuntala who was also known as “Sarvadamana” or all-conqueror and who established his suzerainty and kingdom in this ancient land. After him this land came to be known as Bharat. Another school of research scholars hold that Bharat dates back to Vedic…….. ..”
Additionally, this proposal was bolstered by many members including Kamalpati Tripathi by mentioning how Bharat is associated with India’s ancient wisdom, great leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, and other important philosophical teachings. As a response to H.V.kamth, Ambedkar remarked :-
“Is it necessary to trace all this? I do not understand the purpose of it. It may be well Interesting in some other place. My Friend accepts the word “Bharat”. The only thing is that he has got an alternative. I am very sorry but there ought to be some sense of proportion, in view of the limited time before the House.”.
In a later stage, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed attempted to introduce another motion to change the name of India to the United Nation of India. In response, Ambedkar stated,India has been known as India throughout history and 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. Personally, I think the name of the country should not in any sense give any indication as to what subordinate divisions it is composed of.
Seth Govind Das Voiced “Some people are under the delusion that India is the most ancient name of this country. Our most ancient books are the Vedas and now it is being recognised that they are the most ancient books of the world. No mention of India is to be found in the Vedas. The words “Idyam” and “Idanyah” can be found in the Rig Veda and the words “Ida” in Yajur Veda. These words have no connection with India.” “The word India does not occur in our ancient books. it began to be used when the Greeks came to India. They named our Sindhu river as Indus and India was derived from Indus. There is a mention of this in Encyclopaedia Britannica. On the contrary, if we look up the Vedas, the Upanishads the Brahmanas and our great and ancient book the Mahabharat, we find a mention of the name Bharat. (Bbisma Parva)”
The proposed amendment motion was ultimately negatived by the constituent assembly, with a recorded tally of 38 affirmative votes in favor and 51 negative votes in opposition.
Conclusion
By apprehending socio-economic and political landscape, it is imperative to contemplate the significance of the name, guided by the historical perspective of our constitutional forefathers. Article 1, in its current form, was officially adopted by the Constituent Assembly on September 18, 1949. It is essential to acknowledge that both the names “Bharat” and “India” hold constitutional significance within the Indian Constitution. Omitting either of these terms unequivocally represents a disservice and disparages the visionary ideals of our constitutional forefathers. Moreover, it is not advisable to dismiss names that have been deeply ingrained in the minds of the people for decades, dating back to the inception of our constitution.
law 4 man 