Following is the recording of debate in constituent assembly on 18th September, 1949. Through this debate our constitution makers gave our country the name "Bharat" see how :- CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME IX Sunday, the 18th September 1949 Constituent Assembly Debate On 18 September, 1949 The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at Nine of the Clock, Mr. President (The Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad) in the Chair. MOTION RE OCTOBER MEETING OF ASSEMBLY Shri K. M. Munshi (Bombay: General): Mr. President, Sir, may I move..... Shri Mahavir Tyagi (United Provinces : General): Sir, lest it happens that there is no quorum during the course of the day, I would suggest that the date of the next meeting be first decided. Shri K. M. Munshi: Mr. Tyagi may have patience. I am moving :"That the President may be authorised to fix such a date in October as he considers suitable for the next meeting of the Constituent Assembly." Shri M. Thirumala Rao (Madras: General,): Why should we have it in October ? Shri K. M. Munshi : The meeting has to be held in October. I request the House to adopt the Resolution I have moved. Shri H. V. Kamath (C.P. & Berar: General): May we know the probable date of the meeting in October? Mr. President : If the House is so pleased it may give me authority to call the next meeting at any date which I may consider necessary. I may provisionally announce that as at present advised I propose to all the next meeting to begin on 6th October. Due notice will be given to Members about it, An Honourable Member: How long will that session last ? Mr. President: It will up to 18th or 19th October. We shall finish that section before Deepavali on 21st October.Do I take it that the Resolution moved by Mr. Munshi is acceptable to the House ? Honourable Members: Yes.The motion was adopted. Mr. President : The House will now take up article 1. I think Mr. Kamath has moved amendment 220 and finished his speech. Shri H. V. Kamath : I have not finished my speech, Sir. Mr. President : Then, go ahead. Shri H. V. Kamath : I move "That in amendment No. 130 of List IV (Eighth Week), for the proposed clause (1) of article 1, the following be substituted :-- (1) Bharat or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States." or, alternatively,"That in amendment No. 130 of List IV (Eighth Week), for the proposed clause (1) of article 1, the following be substituted : '(1) Hind, or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States."' Sir, I move : "That in amendment No. 130 of List IV (Eighth Week), for the proposed clause (2) of article 1, the following be substituted : '(2) The. States shall mean the territories for the time being specified in Parts III and III of the First Schedule."' Taking my first amendment first, amendment No. 220, it is customary among most peoples of the world to have what is called a Namakaran or a naming ceremony for the new-born. India as a Republic is going to be born very shortly and naturally there has been a movement in the country among many sections--almost all sections-of the people that this birth of the new Republic should be accompanied by a Namakaran ceremony as well. There are various suggestions put for-ward 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. Some say, why name the baby at ail? India will suffice. Well and good. If there was no need for a Namakaran ceremony we could have continued India, but if we grant this point that there must be a new name to this baby, then of course the question arises as to what name should be given. Now, those who argue for Bharat or Bharatvarsh or Bharatbhumi, take their stand on the fact that this is the most ancient name of this land. Historians and philologists have delved deep into this matter of the name of this country, especially the origin of this name Bharat. All of them are not agreed as to the genesis of 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........ The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General): 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. Shri H. V. Kamath : I hope it is not for Dr. Ambedkar to regulate the business of the House. Mr. President: What amendment are you moving? Shri H. V. Kamath: I am moving two alternative amendments. Mr. President: Alternative amendments but not contradictory amendments. Shri H. V. Kamath : The idea is that if one is not accepted, the other may be accepted. In this I have followed the usual practice. I have got your ruling on previous occasions. Mr. President: Here, one excludes the other. You can choose one name. Shri H. V. Kamath : The first relates to the language of the amendment moved by Dr. Ambedkar, because he says "India, that is, Bharat". I have recast it in another form, It relates to the language, the phraseology, the constitution of the, sentence.Mr. President': So I take it that it is not a matter on which there need be long speeches. I do not think anything is gained by long speeches. Shri H. V. Kamath: I want only five minutes. Mr. President: You have already taken five minutes. (Shri Shankarrao Deo rose.) Shri H. V. Kamath: I need not obey you, Mr. Shankarrao Deo. I know the rules. Mr. President: You can move one. I permitted you to move both of them, but I find that the two amendments are contradictory. Shri H. V. Kamath: Are they contradictory, Sir? If you say they are contradictory, I have nothing to say. Mr. President: Yes, if one is accepted, the other is ruled out. Shri H. V. Kamath : My object is that if one is not accepted, the other may be accepted. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Why all this eloquence over it ? Shri Shankarrao Deo : (Bombay : General) : There should be no arguing with the Chair. Shri H. V. Kamath: I know the rules, Mr. Shankarrao Deo. Mr. President: You can move one. Shri H. V. Kamath : I shall move "Bharat". Mr. President: Then It is only a question of language. It is only I verbal change. Shri H. V. Kamath: I bow to your ruling, Sir, but I do think...... The Honourable Shri N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar: (Madras : General) There can be no 'but'. Shri H. V. Kamath: If Mr. Ayyangar is so impatient...... Shri K. M. Munshi: Order, order. Shri H. V. Kamath : It is not for Mr. Munshi to call me to order. Mr. President : I have told you that if you select the name "Bharat", it is only a question of language and it does not require any speech. Shri H. V. Kamath : I bow to your ruling. I only wish to refer to the Irish Constitution which was adopted twelve years ago. There the construction of the sentence is different from what has been proposed in clause (1) of this article. I feel that the expression "India, that is, Bharat"-I suppose it means "India, that is to say, Bharat"-I feel that in a Constitution it is somewhat clumsy; it would be much better if this expression, this construction were modified in a constitutionally more acceptable form and may I say in a more a esthetic from in(] definitely in a more correct form.if honourable colleagues in the House would take the trouble of referring to the Irish Constitution passed in 1937, they will see that the Irish Free State was one of the few countries in the modern world which changed its name or; achieving freedom; and the fourth article of its Constitution refers to the change in the name of the land. That article- of the Constitution of the, IrishFree State reads as follows : "The name of the State is Eire, or, in the English language, Ireland." I think that this is a much happier expression that "Bharat, or, in the English language, 'India, shall, be and such". I say specifically the English language. Why ? Because Members might ask me, why do you say "the English language" ? Is it not the same in all European languages ? No, it is not. The German word is 'Indian' and in many parts of Europe. the country is still referred to as in the olden days as "Hindustan" and all natives of this country are referred to as Hindus, whatever their religion may be. It is quite common in many parts of Europe. It must have come from the ancient name Hindu, derived from the river Sindhu. To sum up, I think that the construction of this clause "India, that is, Bharat" is a clumsy one, and I do not know why the Drafting Committee has tripped. In this fashion, has committed what is to me a constitutional slip. , Dr. Ambedkar has admitted so many slips in the past, I hope that he admits this one too, and revises the construction of this clause. Clause (2) as moved by Dr. Ambedkar reads as follows "The States and the territories thereof shall be those for the time being specified in Parts I, II and III of the First Schedule." Mr. President: In place of clause (2) "that the territories thereof shall mean" is only a verbal amendment. Shri. H. V. Kamath : I am sorry, Sir, you have not been able, to follow my amendment. It states "shall mean the territories". I have moved the deletion of the words "territories thereof". as Dr. Ambedkar's amendment states "and the territories thereof shall be those." Mr. President : They shall mean only the territories and nothing else. Shri H. V. Kamath: I am making out my point from the Schedule itself. I am not going to argue in the air. Unless the Schedule is altered,-that is a subsequent point for the House to decide,--I must take my stand on that. The Schedule as it stands reads thus : PART I The States and the territories of India. The territories known immediately before the commencement of this Constitution is the Governor's Provinces of-" Now, Sir, if the clause as moved by Dr. Ambedkar is accepted by the House how does that read? "The States and the territories thereof." May I invite Dr. Ambedkar's attention to the clause as it stood in the original draft, "the State shall mean the states for the time being specified". I do not know why this change in the phraseology and the construction or the wording of this clause has been made, because if you say States as referred to in Schedule One, Part 1, these States are defined there, and what are these ? The States which were Governors' provinces before the commencement of the Constitution; similarly the territories in Part II known as the Chief Commissioners' Provinces. Mr. President : I think your amendment arises on account of the fact that you do not know what form the First Schedule is going to take. Shri H. V. Kamath : I take my stand on the Schedule as it stands Mr. President: We have not taken up the First Schedule and therefore, you do not know the change or the form in which the First Schedule is to be put. Shri H. V. Kamath : Who is to know what is likely to be passed ? The best thing is to pass that Schedule first and take the other thing next. Mr. President: May I read out the form in which the First Schedule will be placed before the House ? "In Part I of the First Schedule, the following be substituted: In Part I the names of the States are given. Only the names are given in the Schedule.Then the territory of each of the States shall comprise such and such."' Shri H. V. Kamath : I had not the benefit of this draft before me, and therefore I took my stand on the Schedule as it stands in the Constitution, and there was therefore no alternative but to move my amendment. Now that you have drawn my attention to the Schedule as it will be brought before the House and I hope will be accepted by the House,-in the light of that,there is no need for me to speak further on this amendment. I move both amendments, Sir, and commend them to the House for consideration and acceptance. Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : (Bihar: General) : Mr. President, Sir, there are six amendments standing in my name. I would like to move only one, amendment No. 192, List V, Eighth week. Sir, I move: "That in amendment No. 130 of List IV (Eighth Week), for the proposed clause (1) of article 1, the following be Substituted : (1) India, that is, Bharat is one integral unit."' I am opposed to the incorporation of the words 'Union' and 'States' in our Constitution. There was a bitter and prolonged controversy in the United States of America on the question of the constitutional status of the constituent units. The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : (Madras: General) : On a point of order, Sir, we have already passed the Constitution defining the constitution of the States. Therefore, we cannot change the Constitution by a definition. Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : It is only here, I submit, Sir, that this point could have been raised. The use of the word 'States' for the first time occurs in article I of the Constitution. This fundamental question could have been raised only in this clause. Mr. President: As a matter of fact, the whole of the Constitution has been based on the assumption that there will be separate States, and that those States will constitute the Union. Now, you want to go back on that and say that there are no separate States, it is too late now, I think. Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: I object to the use of the word 'Union'. Both these words are inter-related and integrated. Shri S. Nagappa : (Madras: General) : What is the word objected to? Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: Have patience. Please permit the Chair to regulate the proceedings of the House. There was a prolonged and bitter controversy in the United States of America on the question of the constitutional status of the constituent units. It ultimately led to a bloody civil war. Mr. President : We have, as a matter of fact, fixed the status of the Units in the articles which we have already passed. Whatever status, the States have, has already been fixed.Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : The use of the word 'Union' further aggravates the malady. I will confine myself to the use of the word 'Union'.It ended in a bloody civil war. Having due regard to the lessons of American Constitutional history, I submit that the word 'Union' should be deleted from the Draft Constitution of India. We have not accepted the use of the word 'Union' anywhere in the Constitution. Mr. President : I think you mean that the use of the word State' should be omitted. Shri Brajeshwar Prasad: No, Sir. The word 'Union' should not be used. The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: We have got the 'Union List' which we have already passed. Dr. P. S. Deshmukh: (C. P.,& Berar: General) : The statement is wrong that we have not used the word 'Union'.