Monday, the 15th November, 1948

The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at Ten of the Clock, Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mokherjee) in the Chair.


The following Member took the Pledge and signed theRegister:

1. Shri P. S. Nataraja Pillai (Travancore).

Mr. Vice-President (Dr. H. C. Mookherjee): MaulanaHasrat Mohani:

Maulana Hasrat Mohani (United Provinces: Muslim): Sir,I beg to state that on the 6th November, I have notice of an amendment to this effect:

"That the consideration of the Draft Constitution clause by clause be postponed till after it has been finally decided which of the following three sets of words are to be incorporated in the Preamble of the same -

Sovereign Independent Republic,

Sovereign Democratic Republic,

Sovereign Democratic State."

It has not yet been decided which of these three sets is to be incorporated in the Constitution, and yet I understand that the Congress Party has decided to consider this Constitution, clause by clause, without deciding the most important question of what words should be there - Republicor State, in the Preamble.

I have a complaint to make. All the amendments of which notice was given to your office have been printed, but my amendment has been left out. May I know the reason why this has been left out?

Mr. Vice-President: I understand that this has come about at as a result of the form of procedure, and the amendment is out of order. I am fortified in my decision by what I am told is the procedure adopted in the House of Commons where the Preamble comes last of all.

Maulana Hasrat Mohani: May I point out one thing, Sir?On a previous occasion, when the same thing was done by me,it was decided by the President of the Constituent Assembly,and he has definitely given a ruling that my amendment tothis very effect which I have proposed today, was in order.He has definitely said so. I may read out his very words which have been printed in the official report -

"I think the amendment is in order. It is open to theHouse to throw it out."

So I have every right to propose my amendment. Ofcourse, it is open to the House to accept it or reject it.So I say this thing has been settled by the President. Ifyou like you may ask the President if it is a correct rulingor not.

Again, when the Union Constitution was presented before this House in July, on that occasion also, I raised objection to this very effect, and then also the President of the Constituent Assembly definitely said that my amendment cannot be ruled out of order. If you like, I may read out his exact words:

"I actually give a promise that whenever you move an amendment to that effect, it will not be ruled out of order."

So I request you not to rule me out of order, as it has been finally decided by the President that my amendment should be allowed. Of course, it is open to the House to accept or reject it, as on a previous occasion, when the Union Constitution was proposed by Pandit Nehru. It is very unfortunate that instead of Pandit Nehru, we have today Dr.Ambedkar. I think he has reversed the whole order of the business. I submit I have got every right to request you to protect my rights and allow me an opportunity to give my reasons for what I say. Of course, if the House is not willing to accept my amendment, the House can throw it out,as it did on a previous occasion. But I think I must not be discouraged in this way. My right to move any amendment must be protected.

Mr. Vice-President: I make a distinction between the time when the Preamble is to be considered and your right tomove an amendment. When the time comes, you have, of course,every right to move your amendment. My ruling is that the Preamble is not to be taken up first of all. That is final.

Now we propose to take up the discussion of the Draft Constitution, clause by clause.

Shri Algurai Shastri (United Provinces: General): *[Mr.President, before you take up

the consideration of thisconstitution, I want to draw your attention to an important matter. Have I your permission to do so?]

Mr. Vice-President: Please come to the mike.

Shri Algurai Shastri: *[Mr. President, I want to submit that two or three days back a report appeared in the papers that many Hindu Members of the Sind Assembly had been unseated because a large number of Sindhis had left Sind and had come over to India. Those people who have come to India appear to be fourteen lakhs in number and therefore, it appears to be necessary that these Sindhi brothers, who were compelled to leave their place and have come here leaving behind their homes and hearths, should find some representation in this Assembly. We are going to frame a constitution for the whole of India. In framing that constitution it is necessary that these brothers, who havebeen compelled to leave their homes, should find some representation. I want that some such arrangement may be made as may enable those people who have come here from Sind to get representation in this House. If you permit us, we shall move a regular resolution to that effect so that those people may be represented in this House.]


*] Translation of Hindustani speech.

Mr. Vice-President: This question cannot be taken up here.

It seems that I made a mistake in the procedure to be adopted. What I have to say now is that Article I should stand as part of the Constitution.

I understand that there is something to be said on this matter by our friend Mr. Ayyangar. As regards the amendments, he has certain proposals to make.


Shri M. Ananthasyanam Ayyangar (Madras: General): Sir,I submit that amendments Nos. 83 to 96, both inclusive, may kindly be allowed to stand over. They relate to the alternative names, or rather the substitution of names - BHARAT, BHARAT VARSHA, HINDUSTAN - for the word INDIA, inArticle 1, clause (1).

It requires some consideration. Through you I am requesting the Assembly to kindly pass over these items and allow these amendments to stand over for some time. A few days later when we come to the Preamble these amendments might be then taken up. I am referring to amendments Nos. 83 to 96, both inclusive, and also amendment No. 97 which reads:

"That in clause (1) of article 1, for the word 'India'the word `Bharat (India)' and for the word `States' the word`Provinces' be substituted."

So I would like all these to stand over.

Mr. Vice-President: Is that agreed to by the House?

Honourable Members: Yes.

Shri Lokanath Misra (Orissa: General): Of course I would have no objection, Sir, if you defer consideration of these amendments for two or three days, but I beg to bring to your notice that amendment No. 85, which stands in my name, does not only mean to change the name of India into`Bharatavarsha', but it means something more and I am afraid if you hold over this amendment those things would be inappropriate at a later stage. I am submitting that I may be allowed to move this amendment, of course without committing myself to the change of the name of India to`Bharatavarsha' or otherwise. Though I am not insisting on the change of name just now, I ask that I may be allowed to move the other part of my amendment.

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: My request was that amendments relating only to the name may stand over and in his case on the understanding that the word `India' be changed to some other name, he may move his amendment. I am not asking that the other portion of this amendment may not be moved.

Mr. Vice-President: So the Honourable Member may take the opportunity of moving the second part of his amendment at the proper place.

Now we shall go to the amendments. Amendment No. 98 stands in the name of Professor K. T. Shah.

Prof. K. T. Shah (Bihar: General): Sir, I beg to move:

"That in clause (1) of article 1, after the words`shall be a' the words `Secular, Federal Socialist' be inserted."and the amended article or clause will read as follows:


shall be a Secular, Federal, Socialist Union of States."

In submitting this motion to the House I want first of all to point out that owing to the arrangements by which the Preamble is not considered at this moment, it is a little difficult for those who would like to embody their hopes and aspirations in the Constitution to give expression to them by making amendments of specific clauses which necessarily are restricted in the legal technique as we all know. Had it been possible to consider the governing ideals, so to say,which are embodied in this Preamble to the Draft Constitution, it might have been easier to consider these proposals not only on their own merits, but also as following from such ideals embodied in the preamble as may have been accepted.

As it is, in suggesting this amendment, I am anxious to point out that this is not only a statement of fact as it exists, but also embodies an aspiration which it is hoped will be soon realized. The amendment tries to add three words to the descriptions of our State or Union: that is to say, the new Union shall be a Federal, Secular, Socialist Union of States. The Draft Constitution, may I add inpassing, has rendered our task very difficult by omitting a section on definitions, so that terms like "States" are usedin a variety of meanings from Article to Article, and therefore it is not always easy to distinguish between the various senses in which, and sometimes conflicting senses in which one and the same term is used. I take it, however,that in the present context the word "Union" stands for the composite aggregate of States, a new State by itself, which has to be according to my amendment a Federal, Secular Socialist State.

I take first the word `Federal'. This word implies that this is a Union which however is not a Unitary State,in as much as the component or Constituent parts, also described as States in the Draft Constitution, are equally parts and members of the Union, which have definite rights,definite powers and functions, not necessarily overlapping,often however concurrent with the powers and functions assigned to the Union or to the Federal Government. Accordingly it is necessary in my opinion to guard against any misapprehension or mis-description here after of this new State, the Union, which we shall describe as the Union of India.

Lest the term `Union' should lead any one to imagine that it is a unitary Government I should like to make itclear, in the very first article, the first clause of that article, that it is a `federal union'. By its very nature the term `federal' implies an agreed association on equal terms of the states forming part of the Federation. It would be no federation, I submit, there would be no real equality of status, if there is discrimination or differentiation between one member and another and the Union will not be strengthened, I venture to submit, in proportion as there are members States which are weaker in comparison to other States. If some members are less powerful than others, the strength of the Union, I venture to submit, will depend not upon the strongest member of it, but be limited by the weakest member. There will therefore have to be equality of status, powers and functions as between the several members, which I wish to ensure by this amendment by adding the word `Federal'.

So far as I remember, this word does not occur any where in the constitution to describe this new State of India as a Federation and this seems to me the best place to add this word, so as to leave no room for mistake or misunderstanding hereafter.

Next, as regards the Secular character of the State, we have been told time and again from every platform, that ours is a secular State. If that is true, if that holds good, I do not see why the term could not be added or inserted in the constitution itself, once again, to guard against any possibility of misunderstanding or misapprehension. The term`secular', I agree, does not find place necessarily in constitutions on which ours seems to have been modelled. But every

constitution is framed in the background of the people concerned. The mere fact, therefore, that such description is not formally or specifically adopted to distinguish one state from another, or to emphasis the character of ourstate is no reason, in my opinion, why we should not insert now at this hour, when we are making our constitution, this very clear and emphatic description of that State.

The secularity of the state must be stressed in view not only of the unhappy experiences we had last year and in the years before and the excesses to which, in the name of religion, communalism or sectarianism can go, but I intend also to emphasis by this description the character and nature of the state which we are constituting today, which would ensure to all its peoples, all its citizens that in all matters relating to the governance of the country and dealings between man and man and dealings between citizen and Government the consideration that will actuate will be the objective realities of the situation, the material factors that condition our being, our living and our acting.For that purpose and in that connection no extraneous considerations or authority will be allowed to interfere, so that the relations between man and man, the relation of the citizen to the state, the relations of the states inner semay not be influenced by those other considerations which will result in injustice or inequality as between the several citizens that constitute the people of India.

And last is the term `socialist'. I am fully aware that it would not be quite a correct description of the state today in India to call it a Socialist Union. I am afraid it is anything but Socialist so far. But I do not see any reason why we should not insert here an aspiration, which I trust many in this House share with me, that if not today,soon hereafter, the character and composition of the State will change, change so radically, so satisfactorily and effectively that the country would become a truly Socialist Union of States.

The term `socialist' is, I know, frightening to a number of people, who do not examine its implications, or would not understand the meaning of the term and all that it stands for. They merely consider the term `socialist' as synonymous with abuse, if one were using some such term, and therefore by the very sound, by the very name of it they get frightened and are prepared to oppose it. I know that a person who advocates socialism, or who is a declared or professed socialist is to them taboo, and therefore not even worth a moment's consideration......

Seth Govind Das (C.P. and Berar: General): It is absolutely wrong.

Prof. K. T. Shah: Thank you. If the assurance given by some friends is correct, I hope the House would have no objection to accept this amendment. I trust that those friends here who are very loud in this assertion will induce others in the House to set aside party barriers, and support me in this promising description, this encouraging epithet of the State.

By the term `socialist' I may assure my friends here that what is implied or conveyed by this amendment is a state in which equal justice and equal opportunity for everybody is assured, in which every one is expected to contribute by his labour, by his intelligence, and by his work all that he can to the maximum capacity, and every one would be assured of getting all that he needs and all that he wants for maintaining a decent civilised standard of existence.

I am sure this can be achieved without any violation of peaceful and orderly progress. I am sure that there is no need to fear in the implications of this term the possibility of a violent revolution resulting in the disestablishment of vested interests. Those who recognise the essential justice in this term, those who think with me that socialism is not only the coming order of the day, but is the only order in which justice between man and man can be assured, is the only order in which privileges of class exclusiveness property for exploiting elements can be dispensed with must support

me in this amendment. It is the only order in which, man would be restored to his natural right and enjoy equal opportunities and his life no longer regulated by artificial barriers, customs, conventions, laws and decrees that man has imposed on himself and his fellows in defence of vested interests. If this ideal is accepted I do not see that there is anything objectionable in inserting this epithet or designation or description in this article,and calling our Union a Socialist Union of States.

I have one more word to add. As I said at the very beginning this is not merely an addition or amendment to correct legal technicality, or make a factual change, but an aspiration and also a description of present facts. There are the words "shall be" in the draft itself. I therefore take my stand on the term "shall be", and read in them a promise and hope which I wish to amplify and definitise. I trust the majority, if not all the members of this House,will share with me.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General):Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah. My objections, stated briefly are two. In the first place the Constitution, as I stated in my opening speech in support of the motion I made before the House, is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State. It is not a mechanism where by particular members or particular parties are installed in office. What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether. If you state in the Constitution that the social organisation of the State shall take a particular form, you are, in my judgment, taking away the liberty of the people to decide what should be the social organisation in which they wish to live. It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the socialist organisation of society is better than the capitalist organisation of society. But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation which might be better than the socialist organisation of today or of tomorrow. I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves. This is one reason why the amendment should be opposed.

The second reason is that the amendment is purely superfluous. My Honourable friend, Prof. Shah, does not seem to have taken into account the fact that apart from the Fundamental Rights, which we have embodied in the Constitution, we have also introduced other sections which deal with directive principles of state policy. If my honourable friend were to read the Articles contained in Part IV, he will find that both the Legislature as well as the Executive have been placed by this Constitution under certain definite obligations as to the form of their policy.Now, to read only Article 31, which deals with this matter:It says:

"The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing -

(i) that the citizens, men and women equally,have the right to an adequate means of livelihood;

(ii) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good;

(iii) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment;

(iv) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;...."

There are some other items more or less in the same strain.What I would like to ask Professor Shah is this: If these directive principles to which I have drawn attention are not socialistic in their direction and in their content, I fail to understand what more socialism can be.

Therefore my submission is that

these socialist principles are already embodied in our Constitution and it is unnecessary to accept this amendment.

Shri H. V. Kamath (C.P. and Berar: General): Mr. Vice-President, the amendment moved by my honourable friend,Prof. K. T. Shah is, I submit somewhat out of place. Asregards the words `secular and socialist' suggested by him Ipersonally think that they should find a place, if at allonly in the Preamble. If you refer to the title of thisPart, it says, `Union and its Territory and jurisdiction'.Therefore this Part deals with Territory and thejurisdiction of the Union and not with what is going to bethe character of the future Constitutional structure.

As regards the word `Union' if Prof. Shah had referredto the footnote on 2 of the draft Constitution, he wouldhave found that "The Committee considers that following thelanguage of the Preamble to the Brit ish North America Act,1867, it would not be inappropriate to describe India as aUnion although its Constitution may be federal instructure". I have the Constitution of Brit ish North Americabefore me. Therein it is said:

"Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, haveexpressed a desire to be federally united", but subsequentlythe word "federal" is dropped, and only the word "Union"retained. Similarly, in our Constitution the emphasis shouldbe on the word `Union' rather than on the word `Federal'.The tendency to disintegrate in our body politic has beenrampant since the dawn of history and if this tendency is tobe curbed the word `federal' should be omitted from thisArticle.

You might remember, Sir, that the content of Federationhas been incorporated in the Constitution and we havevarious Lists prescribed for Union, etc. So long as theessence is there in the Constitution, I do not see anyreason why the word `Federal' should be specificallyinserted here to qualify the word `Union'. I thereforeoppose the amendment of Professor Shah.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (1) of Article 1 after the words `shallbe a' the words `Secular, Federal, Socialist' be inserted."

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: I want to make one thing clear.After the reply has been given by Dr. Ambedkar, I shall notpermit any further discussion. I have made a mistake once. Iam not going to repeat it. (Laughter).

Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur (Madras: Muslim): Mr.Vice-President, Sir, I move:

"That in clause (1) of Article 1 for the word `Union'the word `Federation' be substituted."

You, Sir, will remember that when Dr. Ambedkar movedthe motion for the consideration of this Draft Constitution,when he was dealing with the form of Government, he statedthat..........

Mr. Vice-President: We do not want a discussion of thisnature. I appeal to the Honourable Member to speak only ifhe has something new to say.

Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur: Dr. Ambedkar stated,when dealing with the form of government, that there are twoforms of government, one unitary and the other federal.

Shri K. Hanumanthaiya (Mysore): On a point of order,Sir. We have already voted down the amendment of Prof. K. T.Shah. It contained the word "Federation" and the House hasalready given its decision on that question. If the mover ofthe present amendment moves his amendment, the House wouldbe reconsidering the same question. Therefore, in view ofthe fact that this amendment, was already covered by theprevious amendment and discussion and voting had taken placeon it, I think he is out of order in moving this amendment.I hope the Chair will use its discretion in the matter sothat we may do our work quickly.

Mr. Vice-President: I agree with you in thinking thatthe question has been discussed, but I think he is still inorder if he insists on moving this particular amendment.

Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur: Dr. Ambedkar assertedthat in the Draft Constitution the government that isproposed is federal and not unitary, but subsequently hestated that nothing turns upon the term used, whether youcall it a Union or a Federation. He further went on to

saythat the word `Union' has been used advisedly so that theconstituent parts may not have the freedom to get out. Itake it that I am correct in interpreting the view taken byDr. Ambedkar. Now, Sir, a Constitution is either unitary orfederal, but if the framers of the Draft Constitution had inthe back of their minds a unitary government and yet calledit federal.........

Mr. Vice-President: Since the time at our disposal isshort, please confine yourself strictly to the point.

Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur: If Dr. Ambedkar saysthat the word "Union" was used not with any greatsignificance, there is no reason why we should not use thecorrect word "Federation", but if on the other hand the word"Union" was used with a purpose so that in course of timethis federal form of government may be converted into aunitary form of government, then it is for this House now touse the correct word so that it may be difficult in futurefor any power-seeking party that may come into power easilyto convert this into a unitary form of government. So, it isfor the House to use the correct word "Federation" insteadof the word "Union". This is my justification, Sir, formoving this amendment. If you mean that the government mustbe a federal government and not a unitary government and ifyou want to prevent in future any power-seeking party toconvert it into a unitary form of government and becomeFascist and totalitarian, then it is up to us now to use thecorrect word, which is "Federation". Therefore, Sir, I movethat the word "Federation" may be substituted for the word"Union".

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I do not accept theamendment.

Mr. Vice-President: I now put the amendment to thevote.

The motion was negatived

Mr. Vice-President: Then Amendment No. 100 to be movedby Mr. Lari. I think it is covered by amendment No. 99. DoesMr. Lari insist on moving it? (Mr. Lari was not in theHouse). Then we pass on to amendment No. 101. Mr. Kamath.

Shri H. V. Kamath: I am moving only the second part ofit, Sir. At the outset may I submit to you........

Mr. Vice-President: What do you want to say, Mr.Ayyangar?

Shri Mr. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: So far as thisamendment is concerned, I do not want any postponement. I donot see any serious objection to the latter part of it beingmoved.

An Honourable Member: Amendment No. 104 is on the samesubject, Sir.

Shri H. V. Kamath: At the outset, may I bring to yournotice, Sir, that I originally sent this amendmentseparately as two amendments. Unfortunately the office haslumped them together into one. Had these amendments beenprinted separately, no difficulty would have arisen. Thefirst amendment was to insert the word "Federal" before theword "Union", and the second was to substitute the word"Pradeshas" for the word "States".

May I now proceed to the amendment itself. The secondpart of the amendment only is before the House. I move, Sir:

"That for the word `States' in clause (1) of Article 1,the words `Pradeshas' may be substituted."

Shri C. Subramaniam (Madras: General): On a point oforder, Sir. This is not an amendment. The word "Pradeshas"is only a Hindi translation of the word "States". If weaccept translations of words as amendments, it will createendless complications. The Draft Constitution is in theEnglish language and we should adhere to English terminologyand not accept other words, whether they be from Hindi orHindustani.

Mr. Vice-President: May I point out that it is notreally a point of order, but an argument against the use ofthe word "Pradeshas"? Please allow Mr. Kamath, if he sowishes, to address the House.

Shri H. V. Kamath: I am glad, Sir, that several friendshave already made their observations, because that shows howmuch interest the House is taking in this matter. So I nowproceed fortified by that conviction. My reasons forsubstitution of the word "State" by the word "Pradesha" aremanifold. Firstly, I find that in this Draft Constitution,the word "State" has been used in more senses than one. MayI invite your attention and the attention of the House

toPart III, Article 7, of India and the Government and theLegislature of each of the States and all local or otherauthorities within the territory of India." Here we use theword "State" in quite a different sense. So the first reasonfor my amendment for the substitution of the word "State" bythe word "Pradesha" is to avoid this confusion which islikely to arise by the use of the word "State" in differentplaces in different senses in this Constitution. Secondly,Sir, - I hope my suspicion or my doubt is wrong, - but I feelthat this word "State" smacks of a blind copying orimitation of the word "State" which you find in the Constitution of the United States. We have been told by Dr.Ambedkar in his first speech on the motion for theconsideration of the Draft Constitution that we haveborrowed so many things from various constitutions of theworld. Here it strikes me that word "State" has beenborrowed from the Constitution of the U.S.A. and I amagainst all blind copying or blind imitation. Thirdly, Sir,looking at our own history, at least during the last 150years, the word "State" has come to be associated withsomething which we intensely dislike, if not abhor. TheStates in India have been associated with a particular typeof administration which we are anxious to terminate with theleast possible delay and we have already done so under thesagacious leadership of Sardar Patel. Therefore, thismalodorous association with the Brit ish regime, which,happily, is no more, I seek to get rid of through thisamendment which I have moved before the House. To thosefriends of mine, who are sticklers for the English language,who think that because this Constitution has been drafted inEnglish, we should not bring in words that are our own, Ishould like to make one submission and that is this, thatthe bar to my mind is not against all words that areindigenous, that are Hindi or Indian in their etymologicalstructure. I am reading from the "ConstitutionalPrecedents", regarding the Constitution of the Irish FreeState - it was adopted in 1937 - which was supplied to us ayear and half ago by the Secretariat of the Assembly. If weturn to 114 of this Constitutional Precedents, we find thereis a footnote on that this effect:

"Also in the Irish language."

This means that the Constitution of 1937 was adoptedfirstly in English, because the footnote says it was adoptedalso in the Irish language. That means to say thatoriginally it was adopted in the English language and lateron adopted in the Irish language. If you look at the Constitution of Ireland, we find so many Irish words and notEnglish words, words like - I do not know how they arepronounced in the English language - Oireachtas, DailEireann, Taoiseach (for the Prime Minister) and SeanadEireann. All these words are purely Irish words and theyhave retained these words in the Irish Constitution adoptedin the English language, and they did not bother tosubstitute the equivalent wordsin the English language. Therefore it is for this House todecide what words we can incorporate in our Constitutionthough they are Indian, Hindi or any other language of ourcountry.

So, Sir, for the reasons that I have stated already theword "State" should never be used in our Constitution inthis context. Firstly, because it smacks of blind imitation.Secondly, because of its association with a regime which, byour efforts and by the grace of God, we have put an end to.I will make one other submission, Sir. In the new integratedStates - former States or Indian States which we have beenable to unite into one unit - we have already used the word"Pradesh", and we have called the Himachal Union as theHimachal Pradesh and the Vindhya Union as the VidhyaPradesh, and there is a movement afoot in Assam to call theunion of States there as Purbachal Pradesh.

Another point is that we are going to constituteprovinces on a new basis in the near future. Already theprovinces of Madras, of C. P. and of Bombay have got mergedin themselves some of the former Indian States and so thenew provinces are going to be different

from the oldProvinces and therefore the word "Pradesh" is much betterand much more apt than the word "State".

Sir, the last point that I want to make is this. Myfriend Mr. G. S. Gupta has also tabled an amendment to thisarticle. That would arise only if my amendment is adopted.If this fails, the amendment of my friend will not arise. Ifmy amendment is adopted, then certainly consequentialchanges will have to be made throughout the text of theDraft Constitution.

Therefore, I move this amendment, Sir:

"That in clause (1) of Article 1, for the word `States'the word `Pradeshas' be substituted."

and commend it to the acceptance of the House.

The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta (C. P. &Berar: General): Sir, I would like to submit this withregard to my amendment. Mr. Kamath has given an amendmentwhich only says that in clause (1) of article 1 for the word`States', the word `Pradeshas' be substituted. That wouldmean, that in other clauses, in other articles, the word maynot be substituted. If that contingency arises, it may notbe all right. Therefore, my amendment No. 104 may either betreated as an amendment to Mr. Kamath's amendment or I maybe allowed to move it now, so that no further complicationmay arise. Because, it would be really absurd if the word`States' is changed into `Pradeshas' only in clause (1) ofArticle 1. Sir, I shall read Article 1. Clause (1) ofArticle I say: "India shall be a Union of States." This isthe only place where Mr. Kamath has sought to change. Itmeans instead of `States' we shall have, "India shall be aUnion of Pradeshas." In clauses (2) and (3) and in otherclauses, the word `State' will continue.

Mr. Vice-President: May I interrupt with yourpermission. If this amendment of Mr. Kamath is rejected,then, amendment No. 104 comes in. Even if it is carried,then, your amendment will come in subsequently and you willhave a subsequent chance. I think that would economise thetime of the House.

The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta: Sir, theprocedure that I suggest would really economise the time ofthe House. If I move my amendment as an amendment to Mr.Kamath's amendment, the timeof the House will be saved. Otherwise a contingency mayarise - I do not say it will. Suppose Mr. Kamath's amendmentis carried and mine is rejected.......

Mr. Vice-President: Do you want to move it now?

The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta: Yes.

Mr. Vice-President: All right; you may do so.

The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta: Sir, I move:

"That in Article 1 for the word `State' whenever itoccurs, the word `Pradesh' be substituted and consequentialchanges be made throughout the Draft Constitution."

The reason why I want to make this motion just now iswhat I have already submitted. If Mr. Kamath's amendment iscarried, then it will mean that only clause (1) of Article 1will be amended, and the rest of it will not be amended.But, if my amendment is carried, then, not only in clause(1) of Article 1 we shall have substituted the word`Pradesh' for the word `State', but in the subsequentportions of Article 1 and throughout the Draft Constitution,wherever the word `State' occurs, so that it would be quiteconsistent. Otherwise, there would be some absurdity left.The reason why I want the word `States' in Parts I and IIare really provinces and the States in Part III are what arecalled Indian States at present, none of which are States inthe accepted sense of the term. One reason for using theword `State' may be to synchronise the two, and the otherreason could be to follow the American Constitution. TheAmerican Constitution has no parallel with us, because,originally the American States were all sovereign States.Our provinces are not at all sovereign; they were neversovereign States. Our provinces are not at all sovereign;they were never sovereign of the Centre. The Indian Statesalso are not sovereign. We want that India should not onlybe one nation, but it should really be one State. Therefore,I submit that it should be, "India shall be a union ofPradeshas." I avoid the word

`provinces' because, it willnot fit in with what are now called Indian States, we wantthat both may be synchronised. This word `Pradesha' can suitboth the provinces and what are now called Indian States.Indian States are merging and merging very fast, thanks toour leaders. Moreover they themselves are choosing thatword. For instance, they call the Himachal Pradesh, andVindhya Pradesh. If we use this word for our Provinces asalso for the States, all anomaly would be removed. This isall that I have to say.

Shri K. Hanumanthaiya: Sir, I have regretfully tooppose that amendments moved by friends Mr. Kamath and Mr.Gupta. I have to state that by whatever name the rose iscalled, it smells sweet. Here, the Drafting Committee hasadvisedly called India a Union of States. My friends want tocall the same by the name of a Union of Pradeshas. I do notwant that this occasion should be utilised for any languagecontroversy. I would appeal to the House not to take thisquestion in that light. The word Pradesh, as admitted on allhands, is not an English word. We are considering the Draftin the English language. I would respectfully appeal to myhonourable friends who have moved the amendments to show mein any English Dictionary the word Pradesh. We cannot go onadding to the English language unilaterally all the wordsthat we think suitable. The English language has got its ownwords. We cannotmake the Draft Constitution a hotchpotch of words ofdifferent languages. Besides, the Constitution, Irespectfully submit, is a legal document. Words have got afixed meaning. We cannot incorporate new words with vaguemeanings in this Constitution and take the risk ofmisinterpretation in courts of law. I would therefore begthe mover and the seconder not to press this word to beincorporated in the Draft Constitution. If my friends arevery enthusiastic about the Hindi language, we are not farbehind them; we will support them. But, this is not theplace, this is not the occasion to insert Hindi words in theDraft Constitution. Therefore, Sir, purely as a matter ofconvenience and legal adaptability, the Drafting Committee'sword "State" is quite good. To substitute it by the word"Pradesh" would be to open the flood-gates of controversy,and if there are other amendments to the effect that Kannadawords, Tamil words and Hindi words should be substituted inthe different Articles of the Constitution then, as I said,the whole draft, as placed before the House, would be ahotchpotch of linguism. I would earnestly request themembers not to press these amendments, because it is merelya translation, and not to introduce non-English words intoan English Draft.

Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (West Bengal: General) Mr.Vice-President, I have very carefully listened to the speechjust delivered by my honourable friend Mr. Hanumanthaiyaopposing the amendment of my honourable friend Mr. Kamath. Imust tell at once my honourable friend Mr. Hanumanthaiyathat he need not have unnecessarily scented a sort ofunderhand effort to import Hindi linguism by this amendment.In the course of my speech on the general motion forconsideration of the Draft Constitution I dilated atconsiderable length on the question of States. I pointed outthen and point out even now that the expression 'State' hasgot a peculiar connotation in the Constitutional literatureof the world. (Cheers). 'State' always connotes an idea ofsovereignty, absolute independence and things like that. Inthe United States of America there was a States RightsSchool. It seriously contended that the States hadindependent status and the bitterness which was generated bythe long drawn out controversy culminated in the bloodycivil war. That is the evidence of history. Therefore whenwe want to describe our country as a Union of States, Iapprehend that it is quite possible that the provinces whichare now being given the dignified status of States, thenative States which had hitherto been under the IndianPrinces, but have now either acceded to or merged in, theIndian Union may at a later stage seriously contend thatthey were

absolutely sovereign entities and that the NativeStates acceded to the Indian Union ceding only threesubjects, viz. Communications, Defence and External Affairs.In order to avoid all these likely controversies in thefuture, I suggested to the House that best efforts should bemade to evolve a phraseology in place of 'States'. We musteliminate the chances of this controversy in the future. Iam prepared even now - let my friends ransack and find out asubstitute. This word has an unsavory smell about it. In theabsence of 'State' it has been suggested that the word'Pradesh' should be substituted. Let me tell my friend Mr.Hanumanthaiya and those of his way of thinking that the wordmay be used in Hindi but it is a Sanskrit word. It is not anEnglish word but there will be no difficulty if it is used.Here you describe in article 1 sub-clause (2) that -

('The States shall mean the States for the time beingspecified in Parts I, II and III of the First Schedule."

If you look to Part I of the Schedule, you will findthe States that are enumerated there are the Governors'provinces of Madras, Bombay,West Bengal, United Provinces, Bihar, Central Provinces,Assam and Orissa, if you look to Part II you will findDelhi, Ajmer-Merwara, including Panth Piploda and Coorg. Iseriously ask, are you going to describe the City of Delhias a State? Are you going to describe Coorg as a State? Areyou going to describe Panth Piploda as a State? Are yougoing to describe Ajmer-Merwara as a State? If you do it, itwill be simply ridiculous. Therefore in the absence of anyother suitable expression I do feel that the term 'Pradesh'which is of Sanskrit origin and which means a country of bigarea - would be quite suitable. There will be no harm if, inthe first schedule, in the description, the words 'Pradesh'I know it is an English translation. There is some force inwhat my honourable friend said that in the English draftitself you should not introduce Sanskrit words. But myfriend coming from Mysore should be the last person todescribe his own territory as an Independent State. Does itrequire any argument? Has he not so far pleaded that theseStates should have no sovereign existence and that theyshould be merged with the Union? Therefore there ought to beno sanctity about the word 'State'. I am perfectly preparedif the Draftsmen or any body in this House could find anexpression which would denote and connote what we want. Wehave always pleaded for a strong Centre. In the Draft wehave a federal structure but the Drafting Committee hasrightly imported to it a unitary bias. We appreciate it. Ifwe are to give effect to that view we have got to find outan expression which will thoroughly embody the concept whichwe have in view. From this point of view I am convinced thatnothing would be lost if we describe the States as Pradesh.In that case all categories of States, Governors' provinces,Chief Commissioners' provinces and what have hitherto beencalled Native States could all be included under 'Pradesh'and Pradesh could be enumerated in the First Schedule Isupport the amendment to substitute 'Pradesh' in place ofState'.

Shri Rohini Kumar Choudhari (Assam: General): Sir, infuture I would ask you to allow me to speak from the nearestmike because the long distance which we have to travel fromthe seat to this place sometimes helps us to forget ourideas. (Laughter).

I want to oppose this amendment. First of all I opposeMr. Kamath's amendment and it is very easy to ask the Houseto throw it out. He has asked the word 'Pradeshas' to beused in place of the word 'States'. How does he come to theconclusion that 'Pradeshas' if anything. It cannot be'Pradeshas'. Therefore on that ground as well as on theground that if you change the word 'Pradeshas' in article Iand you do not touch the rest of the article, then itbecomes meaningless. Therefore on these two grounds I opposethe amendment which has been moved by Mr. Kamath. But I mustbe careful when I go to oppose the amendment of a personlike my friend Mr. Gupta who is the Speaker of the C. P.Assembly.

Nevertheless, I cannot

understand the object of thechange he proposes. There may be some sentiment behind itwhich I may understand, but not appreciate. Here, Sir, youhave a Constitution in English and the same Constitution inthe language called the National Language - call it Hindi orHindustani. When you write the Constitution in Hindustani,it is but natural that you should use the word 'Pradesh' inplace of the word 'State' or 'Province'. But when youare writing the Constitution in the English language, it isnot conceivable why you should seek to change the word'State' to 'Pradesh'. What is the object? That is what Iwould like to know. If the object is to acquaint people whoare not acquainted with Hindi, with the word 'Pradesh', thatI can understand. People from South India do not understandHindi, and so first of all, let them begin by learning theword Pradesh in the Hindi Language. You start with the wordPradesh now, and next time you give them some other word tolearn, and bit by bit bring the language on the people ofSouth India. (Laughter). Is that the object?

Then again, it will be most unaesthetic as suffix tothe word 'Pradesh' for the United Provinces or the CentralProvinces. Would you call then United Provinces Pradesh orthe Central Provinces Pradesh? And if you were to translatethe word Province also into Pradesh, then there would be twoPradesh pradesh, and all this is rather odd.

Come to Bengal. What would you call West Bengal? Wouldyou call it West Bengal Pradesh? Paschim Banga Pradesh. Ican understand, but I cannot understand putting in the wordPradesh alone.

All these complications will arise if the word ischanged. It will help nobody. On the other hand, it will notgo against the sentiments of anyone if the word 'State' isused. So I would request Honourable Mr. Gupta to considerthis point again.

If by any mischance, this amendment is carried, you,Sir, will kindly allow us time to make amendments in theFirst Schedule, because it looks very awkward to say U. P.Pradesh, or C. P. Pradesh. I would also like to change fromAssam Pradesh to Kamrup Pradesh, because the word Assam jarson everyone's ears as I find now-a-days.

Mr. Vice-President: You must obey the bell.

Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhari: I am short of hearing bellsounds, Sir.

Seth Govind Das (C. P. & Berar: General): First of all,Sir, I want to assure the honourable members of the non-Hindi speaking provinces, that our object in moving thisamendment is not to force Hindi on any one. The languagecontroversy need not have arisen so far as this amendment isconcerned. We wanted to drop the word 'State', andtherefore, this amendment is being moved.

I was rather surprised to hear the speech of myHonourable friend Mr. Rohini Kumar Chaudhari. He asked us,if Pradesh is accepted, what is going to happen to U.P. andto C. P.? I want to tell him that it would be SamyuktaPradesh or Madhya Pradesh. It will not be the U.P. Pradeshor C. P. Pradesh. Mr. Rohini Kumar, I think, knows Sanskritwell, and he will agree with me that even if we adopt theword Pradesh in our Constitution, it does not mean that theEnglish word Provinces or Province would be used along withthe word Pradesh. If we want to get rid of the word 'State'because it has got different meanings in differentcountries, the only way is to put in the word Pradesh there.

Now, as far as the word Provinces is concerned, anothercontroversy is there. There are newly formed States orUnions of States which may not accept the word Province inthe beginning. Though all the provinces would be treatedalike in the future, in the beginning, to name these StateUnions as Provinces will not be a proper thing. Therefore,in view of these difficulties, we thought that the word'Pradesh' wouldbe the proper word. Even in the English version of the Constitution, I think there should not be any difficulty inputting the word Pradesh. There are many other words whichhave been taken in the English language, for instance wordslike 'bazaar' or 'Rajyas'. For these words, when we form theplural of these words, we add the letter 's', and

say'bazaars' or Rajyas' in English. Similarly to make Hindiword into its plural form in the English language you needadd only 's'. I do not see what difficulty there is toadding 's' to Pradesh also and say Pradeshas when we wantthe plural form.

I hope, Sir, that controversy of language and otherquestions will not be raised here, and if we think the word'State' should be dropped, and under the presentcircumstances, the word 'provinces' cannot be taken up, Ithink the best thing would be to put in the word 'Pradesh'both in the Hindi Constitution and in the EnglishConstitution.

Sir, I support the amendment.

The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru (UnitedProvinces: General): Sir, I do not wish to enter into anylengthy arguments on this question, but only wish to pointout what my own reaction to this proposal is. When we metsome time back in the two committees - the Union ConstitutionCommittee and the Provincial Constitution Committee - we metjointly, and we considered this matter, and also as to whatthe names of the Houses should be. After considerablediscussion, we came to the conclusion that one of the Housesshould be called the House of States. So I say this matterwas discussed then in various forms. Now I feel that at thepresent moment, if any change is made in the name of aprovince, and it is called a Pradesh, personally I think itwould be a very unwise change. (Hear, hear). For the moment,I am not going into the merits of it. It may be, we may haveto change, but if so, there should be some uniformity aboutthese changes all over the place. It is not right to push inone or two words here and there. They do not fit inaesthetically, artistically, linguistically or in any otherway.

Apart from all this, the argument that was advanced,that "State" somehow meant something which we did not wishour units to mean, I think, was not a very strong argument.The example of the United States of America was given. AState is just what you define it to be. You define in thisConstitution the exact powers of your units. It does notbecome something less if you call it a "Pradesh" or"Province". On the other hand "Pradesh" is a word which hasno definition. No one knows what it means. With all respect,no one present in this House can define it because it hasnot been used in this context previously. It has been usedin various other contexts. It is a very good word, andgradually it may begin to get a significance, and then ofcourse it can be used either in the Constitution orotherwise, At the present moment, the normal use of the wordvaries in hundreds of different ways and the word "State" isinfinitely more precise, more definite, not only for theoutside world which it is, but even for us. Therefore, itwill be unfortunate if we used a completely improvised word,which becomes a linguistic anachronism for a Constitution ofthis type. Now, I can understand the position when ourconstitution is fully developed and we have it in our ownlanguage with all the appropriate words. Whether "Pradesh"is the right word or not, I cannot say. That is for theexperts to decide and I will accept their decision. Forthe moment we are not considering that issue. We areconsidering what words should be brought into this presentEnglish draft of the Constitution and bringing in wordswhich will undoubtedly sound as odd and inappropriate tomany ears in India is not good enough. The use of the wordin a particular context is foreign. One has to get used toit, especially in regard to the context, and the moreforeign words we introduce, the more you make it look oddand peculiar to the average man. My own test would be not inputting up linguistic committees and scholars, but taking ahundred odd people from the bazaar and discussing the matterwith them and just seeing what their reactions are. We talkin terms of the people but in fact we function often enoughas a select coterie forgetting what the people think andunderstand. Obviously in technical matters you cannot go tothe people for technical words, but nevertheless, there isan approach that the people

understand. Therefore, I wouldbeg this House to consider it from this point of view andmaintain the normal English word in the English Constitutionand later on consider the matter as a whole as to what otherwords in our language you will be putting in our own draft,which will obviously have an equal status. But putting it inthis would be confusing, and looking at it from a foreignpoint of view, it would be very confusing because no onewould be used to it and it would take a long time even tounderstand the significance of these changes. For myself Iam clear that there should be no difference in thedescription of what is now a province and what is now aState. There should be a uniformity of description in thetwo. The proposal is that the word "State" should apply toboth, and the second House, if approved, should be calledthe House of States.

There is another matter. This touches, whether we wishit or not, several other points of controversy in thisHouse. They may be linguistic or call it by any other word.I think it would be unfortunate if we brought in thoseparticular controversies in this way, as if by a side door.Those have to be faced, understood and decided on theirmerits. There is undoubtedly an impression that changesbrought about in these relatively petty ways affect thegeneral position of those issues. I think in dealing withthe Constitution, we should avoid that. The Constitution isa big enough document containing principles and deciding ourpolitical and economic make-up. As far as possible I shouldlike to avoid those questions which, though important wecould decide in the context of the drafting of the Constitution. Otherwise, what is likely to happen is that weshall spend too much time and energy from the constitutionalpoint of view on irrelevant matters, although important, andthe balance of our time and energy is spent less on reallyconstitutional matters. Therefore, I beg the House not toaccept the two amendments moved and to retain the word"State".

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I oppose theamendment.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in article 1 for the word "State" wherever itoccurs, the word "Pradesh" be substituted and consequentialchanges be made throughout the Draft constitution."

I think the Noes have it.

Shri H. V. Kamath: I ask for a division.

Mr. Vice-President: It seems to me that the "Noes" haveit. It is not necessary for me to call for a division. Ihave the power not to grant this request. I would requesthonourable Members to consider the position. It seems to bequite obvious that the "Noes" have it.

The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta: I accept theposition that the "Noes" have it.

The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru: May I suggestthat instead of making our requests, we could raise ourhands. That would give a fair indication how the matterstands.

Mr. Vice-President: Does the Honourable Shri G. S.Gupta admit that the "Noes" have it?

The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta: I accept theposition that the "Noes" have it.

The motion was negatived.

The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta: On a pointof order, Sir, you kindly put my amendment to the House andit was lost but Mr. Kamath's motion must be put to the Houseformally.

Mr. Vice-President: It seems to me that Mr. Kamath'samendment is covered by yours. He wants deletion inparticular parts but you wanted it everywhere.

The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta: Mr. Kamath'samendment is lesser in scope than mine. If the House has notagreed to cent per cent, they might agree to five per cent.

The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru: It willprobably take less time, Mr. Vice-President, to put theamendment to the vote of the House and it is the properprocedure that it should be put to the vote of the House.

Mr. Vice-President: The question is:

"That in clause (1) of article 1, before the word'Union' the word 'Federal' be inserted and for the word'States' the word 'Pradeshas' be substituted."

The motion was negatived.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Sir, I beg to move:

"That in

clause (1) for the word 'States' the word'provinces' be substituted."

Shri B. Das: (Orissa: General): On a point of order,Sir, in view of the fact that the previous amendment hasbeen rejected by the House this amendment would be out oforder.

Mr. Vice-President: The only thing that has happened isthe rejection of the word "pradesh".

Shri H. V. Kamath: My honourable friend Mr. B. Das roseto a point of order to the effect that this is not in order.The amendment that has been thrown out by the House is tothe effect that the word 'Pradesh' be substituted for theword 'State', which does not rule out this amendment, viz.,the substitution of the word 'State' by any other word, ifthe House so chooses. I have therefore moved my amendmentthat for the word 'State' in the article and wherever itoccurs throughout the Draft in this context the word'Province' be substituted. The formal amendment is that inthis particular clause the word 'State' be replaced by theword 'Province'. When I moved my first amendment with regardto the word 'Pradesh' I made my position clear as to why Iam against the retention of the word 'State'. I do not wishto repeat those arguments which Ithen advanced before the House. I might just recall them bysaying that the word 'State' smacks of imitation as the wordfinds a place in the constitution of the U. S. A. Secondlythe word 'State' has a bad connotation or bad odour aboutit, because of the association of the Indian States with theBrit ish regime which is now dead. I would therefore in allcircumstances plead with this House the word 'State' shouldbe eliminated at all costs and by all means and if the Houseis not in a mood to accept the word 'Pradesh' I wouldcertainly entreat them to accept the word 'Province', as thelesser of the two evils. Our position today is that we havedispensed with or eliminated the old Indian States; and havewe not already adopted the terms Himachal Pradesh andVindhya Pradesh? We want to level them up to the position ofthe Indian Provinces and therefore in the new set up I feelthat the word 'Province' is more happy and would express themeaning of the structure of the component units amendmentand commend it to the acceptance of the House.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I do not acceptthe amendment.

(At this stage Shri Himmat Singh K. Maheshwari rose tospeak.)

Mr. Vice-President: The Honourable Dr. Ambedkar hasalready replied to the debate and I am sorry I cannot allowany further debate on the motion.

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru (United Provinces: General):Sir, if after every motion is moved by a member and you askDr. Ambedkar whether he agrees to it and after allowing himto express his views you debar other members from speakingon the subject, it will be very hard on the House.

Mr. Vice-President: I am afraid Pandit Hirday NathKunzru has not realised exactly my position. I am alwaysprepared to give every possible facility to every memberhere, which I need not demonstrate further than by referenceto what I have done in the last few days. But just now weare pressed for time. After Mr. Kamath moved his amendment Iwaited for some time to see if any body would stand up andnobody stood up and when specially I found that Mr. Kamathhad repeated the arguments which had been formerly stated byhim, I thought that I would not be going against the wishesof the House by asking Dr. Ambedkar the question whether hewished to reply. If I failed to understand the attitude ofthe House I am very sorry.

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru: You are perfectly withinyour right in not allowing discussion of a clause which youregard as trivial and on which you think there has beensufficient discussion. You have the power to stop discussionand ask the Member in charge to reply. If in exercise ofthis power you asked Dr. Ambedkar to reply, there can be noobjection to what you have done.

Mr. Vice-President: Then I will put the amendment tovote. The question is:

"That in clause (1) of Article 1, for the word 'States'the word 'Provinces' be substituted."

The motion was negatived.


Vice-President: Amendment 108, Shri Mahavir Tyagi.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Division, Sir.

Mr. Vice-President: You are a little late.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: Sir, I am not very keen to have allthe words mentioned in my amendment inserted. I do not alsowant to make a speech and waste the time of the House.However, I want to make one point clear and with that end inview, I shall formally move this amendment:

"That in clause (1) of article 1, for the word 'States'the words 'Republican States and the sovereignty of theUnion shall reside in the whole body of the people' besubstituted."

In the Draft Constitution I find that the residence ofsovereignty has not been described. Where sovereignty lieshas not been definitely laid down. I want that this may goon record. I shall be content if the Honourable mover of the Constitution would place before the House either inconnection with the Preamble or some other Article of the Constitution, an amendment which will clearly lay down thatthe sovereignty shall reside in the whole body of thepeople. The word 'State' has one meaning in one place andanother meaning elsewhere. It will therefore not besatisfactory to say that the sovereignty should rest in theStates. What does the Honourable Member suggest? Whether thesovereignty reside in the Union or in the States? From theDraft it is not clear. My amendment therefore seeks to laydown definitely where sovereignty resides or shall reside infuture.

I want also to make one thing clear. If we remain inthe family of the United Kingdom and remain attached tothem, sovereignty will probably technically remain with theKing. I want to save the country from that danger. I want tomake it absolutely clear that the sovereignty virtually,technically and practically resides in the wholepeople..........

Mr. Vice-President: May I point out that the properplace for an amendment of this nature is the Preamble?

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: It is neither defined in thePreamble in so many words. I want that it should be clearlydefined. I am a layman. I would like to know from the expertdraftsmen whether the Preamble forms part of the body of the Constitution. Since the Preamble is not an Article of the Constitution, may I know if it comes in the body of the Constitution proper? Can Preamble always override the law? Idon't think it does. What I want is that sovereignty shouldbe defined in one of the Articles of the Constitution. ThePreamble mentions only casually that we are constitutingIndia into a sovereign union. From this my friends of theDrafting Committee draw the conclusion that the sovereigntyresides of in the "people". That does not satisfy me. Wecannot depend on the implication drawn. I insist thatsovereignty should be defined in the body of the Constitution itself. I want that sovereignty should residein the whole people of the country, and not in State orUnion. State may only mean to be a sort of Governmentalstructure in the Centre, or it may include the people aswell, or it may be only the union or one or more states. TheProvinces will also be known as States hereafter. Let ustherefore define in unambiguous terms the actual residenceof sovereignty for future. I may submit that in the Constitution of China it is stated that the sovereigntyrests in the whole people. We may lay down the same thing inour Constitution also. I therefore beg to move thisamendment.

Shri Gopikrishna Vijayavargiya (United State ofGwalior, Indore, Malwa: Madhya Bharat): Mr. Vice-President,I come from an Indian State and I have a particular interestin this amendment, and I wish the House accepts it. Thereare also Indian States coming in as states inthis Constitution, We do not want the Rajpramukhs and othersto be there permanently. Of course, as the convenants havebeen signed, let them be there for some time. But, in the Constitution, we should lay down that even the common peoplecan become heads of the provinces and States, and this willbe one of the methods by which we will bring the States intoconformity with the provinces. This is an importantquestion.

This issue must have been engaging the attentionof the States Ministry. This is therefore a very urgentaffair. Even before we finish our labours at Constitution-making, we must make all attempts to see that the States docome on par with the provinces. This amendment can achievethat object. Sovereignty is a very important power and, ashas been pointed out, it has been laid down in the Chineseconstitution also. So there is no harm in accepting thisamendment. I request the Honourable Members to vote for it.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena (United Provinces: General):Mr. Vice-President, Sir, the amendment moved by Mr. Tyagi isa very important amendment. I have myself given notice of asimilar amendment (No. 189) which runs as follows:

"That the following new Part be inserted after Part Iand the subsequent Parts and articles be renumberedaccordingly: -

`Part I-A

General Principles

6. The name of the Union shall be BHARAT.

7. Bharat shall be a sovereign, independent,democratic, socialist Republic.

8. All powers of government, legislative, executive andjudicial, shall be derived from the people, and shall beexercisable only by or on the authority of the organs of thegovernment established by this Constitution.

9. The National Flag of Bharat shall be the tricolourof saffron, white and green of pure hand-spun and hand-wovenKhadi cloth, with the Dharmachakra of Asoka inscribed inblue in the centre in the middle stripe, the ratio betweenthe width and breath being 2:1.

10. Hindi written in the Devanagri script shall be theNational language of Bharat:

Provided that each State in the Union shall have theright to choose its own regional language as its Statelanguage in addition to Hindi for use inside that particularState.

11. English shall be the second official language ofBharat during the transition period of the first five yearsof the inauguration of this Constitution.

12. The National Anthem of Bharat shall be the"Vandemataram" which is reproduced in the Second Scheduled.

[Note. - The subsequent Schedules be renumberedaccordingly.]

13. The Arms of Bharat consist of the Three Lions abovethe pedestal and the Dharmachakra, as are depicted on thetop of the Asoka pillar at Sarnath.

14. The capital of Bharat is the City of Delhi'."

I personally think that this amendment should not beincorporated in this clause. There should be a separateClause containing the substance of the amendment I havegiven notice of. In Chapter II they have definedsovereignty. In my amendment I have suggested how thisshould be put in. All powers of Government, legislative,executive and judicial shall be derived from the people andshall be exercisable only by one on the authority of theGovernment established by this Constitution. So, thesovereignty shall reside in the people and all powers of theState, legislative, executive and judicial, shall belong tothe people.

Sir, my friend from the States just now pointed outthat the matter is a very important one because, if we donot say here that the source and the fountain of allauthority is the people, the theory that kings have gotdivine rights will continue. Therefore, it is important thatit should be stated in the Constitution that it is thepeople who have sovereignty. Here in our country where theStates have been a standing sore which we hope to wipe outvery soon, I think this provision should find a place in the Constitution. I would request my learned friend, Dr.Ambedkar to say, when he replies to this amendment, that heaccepts this principle, I hope he will find a suitable placefor its insertion in the Constitution. On the Irish model, Isuggest that the next chapter should contain definiteprovision relating to the name of the Union, its languageand other things. It may be stated therein that all power ofgovernment legislative, executive and judicial, is derivedfrom the people. I think this is an amendment of fundamentalimportance and as such I hope that it will not be rejectedsummarily and that Dr. Ambedkar will insert it in somesuitable place in the


Maulana Hasrat Mohani (United Provinces: General): Sir,I rise to support the amendment moved by Mr. Mahavir Tyagifor the reason that it conforms to the spirit of theObjectives Resolution of this House. Our Prime Minister hasrepeatedly stated that the Constitution should be inconformity with the Objectives Resolution not only recentlybut from the very beginning. He stated - I am reading fromthis printed book -

"We are not changing the Objectives Resolution at all.The Objectives Resolution is history and we stand by all theprinciples laid down in it."

May I remind my friend, Dr. Ambedkar, that when aCommittee was formed to frame the Constitution, it wasexpressly mentioned that they will have to conform to theObjectives Resolution. Now Dr. Ambedkar has gone out of hisway. He has not conformed to the Objectives Resolution and Irequest all of you to see what he has done. Instead ofdrafting the Constitution in conformity with the ObjectivesResolution, he wants to make the Objectives Resolutionconform to what he is proposing now. This Draft Constitutionis a bundle of inconsistencies and is worth throwing onlyinto the wastepaper basket. He has gone his own way andtherefore all his efforts are only waste of time and energy.

Mr. Vice-President: Please confine yourself to theamendment, Maulana Saheb.

Maulana Hasrat Mohani: I support this amendment becauseit is strictly on the lines of the Objectives Resolution.Instead of conforming to the Objectives Resolution, Dr.Ambedkar has changed the word "Republic" into a "State" andthe word "independent" into "Democratic". This shows the wayhis mind is working. The Draft Constitution makesme sure that he wants to establish a unitary Indian Empirewhich will again be subject to the greater Anglo-AmericanEmpire consisting of America and its satellites, the Brit ishCommonwealth and some of the Western Powers of Europe.

Mr. Vice-President: I will ask you again to confineyourself to the amendment.

Maulana Hasrat Mohani: Sir, I support the amendment ofMr. Tyagi and I oppose the whole Constitution. May be Dr.Ambedkar produced this Draft because as Law Minister he wasasked to do it. But what he has produced is a wretched thingand therefore I think that he should make amends for themistakes he has committed. With these words I support theamendment.

Shri Prabhudayal Himatsingka (West Bengal: General):Sir, I beg to oppose the amendment. It is absurd that anattempt should be made to put words here and there. TheDraft Constitution is a complete framework and wheresovereignty lies, what power is given to the executive andthe legislatures, etc. have been defined by the differentsections in it. To make an attempt to put in words here andthere will be dangerous and if we accept such amendments, Ithink the whole Draft Constitution may upset and we do notknow where we will be landed. Of course, if there isanything to be said on principle, that may be allowed, butto make verbal alterations in the Draft which has beenconsidered by the Committee will mean a considerable wasteof time and we should not accept amendments in this fashion.

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: I beg to oppose theamendment. In the preamble it is stated that "We, the peopleof India, having solemnly resolved to constitute, etc." Weare the persons who have met to give a Constitution forourselves. Unless we are sovereign, we cannot give aConstitution for ourselves. Hitherto it was the Parliamentin the United Kingdom that framed Constitutions. The factthat we have been elected by the various legislatures andcome here for framing a Constitution shows that sovereigntyis inherent in the people.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: Of course we are here as asovereign body. But what about the future? This sovereigntyhas been transferred to us by the Brit ish, why do you notvest it back with the people?

Mr. Vice-President: Allow him to proceed.

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: I will answer Mr.Mahavir Tyagi. We have not come here on adult franchise, butwe represent three hundred odd million people and aregathered

here to frame a Constitution for ourselves. If weare in a position to give a constitution on behalf of thepeople, if follows that in future the House elected on adultfranchise representing larger interests, will be even moresovereign. From this it follows that sovereignty rests withthe people. Therefore I cannot find any difficulty inleaving it as it is and no such introduction as iscontemplated in the amendment is necessary. I would onlydraw the attention of the House to the preamble in the Constitution of the United States which says:

"We, the people of the United States, in order to forma more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestictranquillity........"

There are a number of articles in this Constitution. Lateron the constitution was amended. The framers of the Constitution or the people of the United States whosubsequently amended that constitution never saidthat there was a lacuna in the Constitution or that thesovereignty vested in themselves rather than with thepeople. Therefore, it is unnecessary. A doubt is created andto avoid that doubt an amendment is sought to be moved.There is another difficulty also. I want the sleeping dogsto lie. So far as the States are concerned, the Statesrulers in some places have been claiming sovereignty and weare trying to liquidate these rulers. Many of them have beenliquidated, and these rulers have come into these States. Inpart III of the 1st Scheduled the States are there with therulers in some forms or other. The people are alreadybeginning to assert themselves and the whole thing willdisappear even on that ground. I do not want the clause tobe inserted here as the amendment contemplates. It is enoughto leave the Preamble to itself and to work itself. We aresovereign and in that capacity we have gathered here and weshall give unto ourselves a Constitution. It is unnecessaryto create a ghost and then afterwards lay it. I oppose thisamendment, Sir.

Shri Lokanath Misra (Orissa: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, one of the honourable members of this Househas opposed this amendment on the ground that by theacceptance of this amendment, the whole structure and thewhole scheme of the Draft Constitution will be changed. Itseems to me that this is a bold statement and I will notlike to digest a statement like this. This structure of the Constitution will be changed as if we are committed not tochange it or we will abide by anything that will not changeit. It seems to me therefore to be a dangerous statement tosay that we will not accept because the structure of thescheme of the Draft Constitution will be changed. We arehere to change it, if need be. Indirectly, it means alsothat the very basis, the scheme, or the structure of the Constitution is such that it militates against the veryprinciple that underlies this amendment. If that is so, it is still more dangerous because this amendment clearly says--and no more than that - the sovereignty of India rests inthe whole body of the people of India.

Now, one of my friends has just said that it doesreally vest with the people of India and therefore it willnot be necessary. I submit it is a sort of a hypocriticalstatement, because I remember to have heard Dr. Ambedkar,while he was speaking somewhere that this sovereignty restswith the Government of India and I want to make a differencebetween the Government of India and the people of India;they may be identical, they may be different. It might bethat the Government of India will be supposed to be onething and the people of India might be supposed to beanother thing. They were so one day. Therefore, we must makeit clear where, after our freedom, sovereignty vests. In thepeople of India? In the Cabinet? In the Government? In thePresident or somewhere else? I therefore think that to avoidthis snag once and for all, we ought to declare that thesovereignty vests in each one of the citizens of India andfor that purpose at least this amendment is veryappropriate. I do not want to insist that this amendmentshould be passed and put in here, but it must be clear thatthere

need be no reservation in the minds of us thatsovereignty does not lie in each one of the citizens ofIndia. I therefore support the spirit of this amendment andreiterate that really India's sovereignty vests in each oneof her citizens, however high or low, pandit or no pandit,fool or wise; it belongs to the people, each one of them,once and for all.

Mr. Vice-President: I shall now put this amendment tovote.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, in view ofwhat the learned draftsman has said namely that thesovereignty remains vested, in spite of this draft, in thepeople, I do not wish to press my amendment. I hope, Sir,Dr. Ambedkar agrees that his draft means that it vests withthe people, and his explanation may well go down into therecords for future reference.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Beyond doubt itvests with the people. I might also tell my friend that Ishall not have the least objection if this matter was raisedagain when we are discussing the Preamble.

Shri Mahavir Tyagi: Then I beg leave of the House towithdraw my amendment.

The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.

Prof. K. T. Shah: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg tomove:

"That in clause (1) of Article 1, after the word`States' the words `equal inter se' be added."

In commending this amendment to the House, I would like toexpress my gratitude to the Chairman of the DraftingCommittee for giving us a new version of what the Constitution is intended to be. It was somewhat new, to meat least, to hear that a Constitution is a mechanism forregulating the various organs of Government and theirfunctions; and that any desire to include in it anyaspiration of the people might be regarded as somewhat outof place. I am grateful for this view of the matter, as infuture I shall conduct myself in my amendments and in myspeeches accordingly. I must, however, add that whenreference is made to the chapter on the Directives I canassure Dr. Ambedkar that I too have read them, thoughperhaps not with as much frequency and intensity with whichhe may have read it. The 'Directives' are, in my opinion,the vaguest, loosest, thickest smoke-screen that could bedrawn against the eyes of the people, and may be used tomake them believe what the draftsmen never intended or meantperhaps. When those matters are brought before the tribunalsfor adjudication or arbitration, they might not beinterpreted in the sense the people might believe thoseclauses to convey.

In proposing this particular amendment, Sir, I have noillusion about the actual state of affairs. In the Statestoday, including both - what are called the Provinces andwhich have still to be called the States proper - I realisethere is no equality, of population or possibilities, areaor resources.

But I also recognise that even if equality of politicalstatus does not exist today, we have, at any rate, to strivetowards a state of affairs in which they would really andtruly be equal amongst themselves, as members of a CommonFederation. If this Union is to be a true federation, as weare assured it is going to be, if this Union is going to bea democratic federation, as we have also been promised againand again, then, I suggest that it is of the utmostimportance that the constituent parts of the Union should beand must be equal amongst themselves.

This equality, I may assure the House, does not exist,and need not consist in area or population, in revenue orresources, in industrial or educational development.Unfortunately, we are all aware that the various parts ofthis country, politically divided or geographicallydemarcated, are not all equally developed and advanced. Itmust be thefirst task of the Union to see that those who have, for nofault of theirs, lagged behind, shall not continue to remainbackward, and those who have had, for some Adventitiousreasons, some advantage over others and moved forward morethan others, shall also not be so selfish as to insist uponretaining their position and keeping those who are backwardstill lagging behind. The country cannot progress,

theideals we have all in view regarding the future growth andprosperity of this country will not be realised, if anysingle part of it is not able to pull its full weight in theadvance of the country. That is one reason why I suggestthat we must, here and now, insert in the Constitution isproperly framed and working, the units shall be regarded aspolitically equal amongst themselves. I mean equalpolitically, in the sense that if one unit, however large itmay be has the power of taxation of a certain kind, otherunits, however small, shall also have that power; if oneunit has the right to maintain and use its own police force,the others also would have it; if one unit has the right tomaintain its exclusive army, then another unit also shallhave it. This being my conception of equality of Statesinter se, the existing differentiation between those whichhave been called provinces and between those which have beencalled States, those States which have merged and thosewhich have acceded will have to be abolished at the earliestopportunity, even though today it may be an unfortunate factof our position.

This is not the only reason which actuates me inputting forward this suggestion before the House. I lookforward to the day when this Union of India shall consist ofa body of Village Panchayats, knit together amongstthemselves as co-operative republics, which will combinetogether not only for the greater advancement of their owninherent resources, but also for the greater prosperity ofthe country as a whole. In this view of the destiny of thisUnion, in this view of the position and potentiality of eachcomponent part of the Union, I think it would be thegreatest hindrance if any one is politically considered, orsocially regarded as unequal to others. If it is thoughtthat some only should have the leadership while the othershave the destiny of always being followers, it would be, Irepeat, an untold disaster to the country. Just as we areresolved and are all agreed that we shall have amongstourselves, as citizens or individuals, equality before thelaw, just as we have thought that all distinctions of casteand creed shall disappear from the face of this land, soalso, I submit, that this country must consist, as soon aswe can manage it, of equal units, equal parts of thefederation, each anxious, each competent, each equipped withthe utmost possible means for development of the resourcesand the possibilities inherent in it; each also intent uponand each also willing to co-operate in the strengthening anddevelopment of the entire country, to the best of itspossibilities. We have many parts in this country which areadmittedly very backward in all kinds of material or moraldevelopment. It is towards them, it is for them, that I feelit necessary to insist that if they are non-equal inter setoday, they shall be made equal at the earliest opportunity.

For this reason, the motion that was made just before,regarding the republican character of every component partof the Union, meets with my highest and heartiest approval.All these remnants, all these absurdities of economies, andall those anachronisms of history which are embodied in theso-called Ruling Princes, must disappear. It is only when wehave got rid of these autocrats and plutocrats that we shallbeable to design a humane and reasonable Constitution and tryto attain the aims of life, which our great Teacher hasplaced before us.

It is for the same reason also that I have, in anotherpart of this Constitution, tabled an amendment to theeffect. I hope, Sir, that hereafter, at any rate, the Unionof India shall consist of villages or groups of villages,which are each in themselves autonomous units, which areeach in themselves republics, and each, if necessary, withthe right to co-operate with their neighbours, so that as aresult of their combined and collective effort, the Indianpeople just emerging from political bondage and economicslavery, may soon attain their rightful place in the role ofthe nations, and make their effective contribution to theprogress of mankind.


commend my amendment to the House.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Mr. Vice-President Sir, I rise tosupport the amendment moved by my friend Professor Shah. Inview of the fact that the House has not accepted thequalifying word 'federal' for the word Union, I think it isnecessary for us to define the status of the States. As myfriend remarked, the provinces or States or ChiefCommissioners' provinces certainly are not equal amongstthemselves. Therefore, for the sake of clarity, for the sakeof accuracy, for the sake of precision in constitutionalterminology, it is essential for us to define therelationship or status of the States as between themselves.Therefore, the amendment of my friend Professor Shah is veryapposite in my estimation. In a Constitution of this sort,which is essentially, as the footnote on page 2 says,federal in structure, there should not be one State superiorto another, or one State inferior to another. There shouldnot be any one State which may be called primus inter pares,that is first among equals. We should avoid this in thefuture constitutional set up. Obviously, it is necessary forus to define that all the States as amongst themselvesshould be equal. All the States should have only an equalstatus amongst themselves. If at all there is a superiorState or Government or a mechanism, it is the mechanism ofthe Union Government. That is, if I may say so, it may be asuper State or a supra State so far as India is concerned.So far as the States themselves are concerned, they shouldbe absolutely equal amongst themselves. I therefore supportthe amendment of my friend Professor Shah to the effect thatIndia shall be a Union of States which are equal inter se.

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: Sir, I am not able tofollow either the mover or Mr. Kamath who supported him. Ifwe accept the amendment, it means that India shall be aUnion of States equal inter se. What is this equality? Is itin extent or area or population or economic resources? Inwhat are they to be equal?

An Honourable Member: States.

Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: What are the States?So far as representation is concerned, most of the States inPart I of the First Schedule are equal; there is nodifference made between the one and the other. So far as theStates in Part III of the First Schedule are concerned, theyhave come in by certain agreements. We have accepted theagreements and until we are able to revoke the agreements orintroduce different sets of agreements, we cannot make themequal. Even amongst ourselves, in all the Provinces orStates which are included in Part I of the First Schedule,there cannot be an equality of the kind envisaged. This isabsolutely an indefinite amendment. So far as theStates are concerned, according to the population they haverepresentation both in the Lower and Upper Houses. Thereforethis amendment is ununderstandable, vague and impracticaland ought not to be accepted.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I oppose theamendment.

Mr. Vice-President: I put the amendment to vote.

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I beg to move:

"That at the end of clause (1) of Article 1, thefollowing be inserted:

`and shall be known as the United States of India'."

Sir, this is a non-controversial amendment. It gives abigger, a more dignified and a more sonorous name to theUnion. If any precedent is needed we have it in the "UnitedStates of America". I submit that in order to keep thebalance between the Western hemisphere and Easternhemisphere we should adopt this expression in India. Indiais the leading country in the East and we should have a verydignified name. As I have submitted it is a non-controversial amendment, and I ask the House to consider iton the merits.

The other amendment is an alternative to this. I move:

"That at the end of clause (1) of Article 1, thefollowing be inserted:

`and shall be known as the Indian Union'."

Sir, I submit these are three alternatives. I wouldprefer the first but it all depends on the House as to whatit thinks about them.


H. V. Kamath: Sir, I rise to oppose the amendmentNos. 10 and 112. As regards amendment 110 the very argumentthat my friend advanced that we have a precedent in theUnited States, is itself an argument against accepting it,in my judgment. He said something to the effect that thereshould be a meeting of East and West or some words to thateffect. I certainly stand for harmony, a synthesis of theEast and West, but I certainly do not want any hybriddevelopment. The amendment which my Honourable friend hasmoved before the House seeks to bring about such a hybriddevelopment between the East and West and we do not want tobe suspected at this stage when we are pursuing or supposedto be pursuing a neutral foreign policy. We do not want thefaintest indication to be made here in this House that weare going to copy either the U.S.S.R. or U.S.A. As regardsU.S.S.R., there is no effect or influence in thisConstitution and as regards U.S.A., precisely because thiswill smack of copying the U.S.A. Constitution, I oppose thisamendment which seeks to add "shall be known as the UnitedStates of India".

As regards No. 111. I support the amendment and we willthereby be eliminating or removing that hateful word'State'. Just now the Housewas pleased to throw out that amendment and I do not wantthe 'State' to come in by the back-door again in describingthe structure of the Indian Union and therefore I wouldsupport my Honourable friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad inreferring to India as the Union of India.

As regards No. 112, once we accept the words 'Union ofIndia' there is no need to consider the third amendment. Ithink from the point of view of language, sound and itsreaction on the ears, the Union of India is a much moredignified expression than Indian Union. I therefore oppose110 and 112 and support 111.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I oppose allthese amendments. With regard to the first amendment thatIndia should be known as the United States of India, theargument set out by my friend Mr. Kamath is a perfectlyvalid argument and I accept it wholeheartedly. I have givenmy own views as to why I used the word 'Union' and did notuse the word 'Federation'.

With regard to the other amendment that India should beknown as the Union of India, I also say that this isunnecessary, because we have all along meant that thiscountry should be known as India. without giving anyindication as to what are the relations of the componentparts of the Indian Union in the very title of the name ofthe country. India has been known as India throughouthistory and throughout all these past years. As a member ofthe U.N.O. the name of the country is India and allagreements are signed as such and personally I think thename of the country should not in any sense give anyindication as to what are the subordinate divisions it iscomposed of. I therefore oppose the amendments and maintainthat the Draft as it is presented to the House is the bestso far as these amendments are concerned.

Mr. Vice-President: I shall now put the amendments oneby one to vote.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I beg to leave to withdrawthe amendments.

The amendments were, by leave of the Assembly,withdrawn.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 113.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I am not moving 113.

But I am moving 114. Sir, I beg to move.

"That in clause (2) of Article 1, the word 'The'occurring at the beginning be deleted."

Sir, this part really tries to define the words "TheStates". I submit the word 'The' is a definite article andnot a part of the name or nomenclature. Though the word hasbeen used in this context, the word has been used also inother combinations like 'A State' 'Any State' `Every State'and all sorts of States.

The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Sir, I raise a pointof order. My point of order is that this is not an amendment. Unless it changes the substance of the originalproposition, it is not an amendment. I am trying to find outthe reference in May's Parliamentary Practice. But Iwould like to raise this point at this moment. If my friendwill forgive me,

I think he is in the habit of moving allsorts of amendments, asking for a comma here, no commasthere and so on and I think we must put a stop to this sortof thing in the very beginning.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: On the very threshold ofindependence, if I am to be stopped like this, I shall bowdown and submit to the decision of the Chair.

Mr. Vice-President: What is your reply to the point oforder?

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: My reply to the point or orderraised is this. I want to remove the word "The" from thearticle and therefore it is an amendment. This is certainlya drafting amendment. It may be opposed on the ground thatit is insignificant, illogical or purposeless or useless andso forth. But Dr. Ambedkar is not right in asserting that it is not an amendment at all. It cannot be ruled out on thetechnical ground that it is not an amendment.

And with regard to my Honourable friend's remarks as tomy habit of moving amendments like punctuations and otherchanges, I am happy to inform him and the House that I haveceased to follow that habit so far as this amendment isconcerned. (Laughter).

Mr. Vice-President: You say it is a drafting amendment.Can't we leave it to the Drafting Committee and its Chairmanfor seeing to it at the third reading? I am sure they willaccept these amendments if there is any substance in them.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: In that case, it would be leavingthe matter to the Drafting Committee, instead of leaving itto the judgment of the House. The spokesman of the DraftingCommittee has already given out his mind. Therefore, if Iwere to agree to leave it to the Drafting Committee, itwould be as good as withdrawing it. Therefore, I have tosubmit, again, that the word "The" is not part of the name.

Mr. Vice-President: I am waiting to hear Dr. Ambedkaron this point.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I do not knowwhy the Honourable Member objects to the word 'the'. 'The'is a definite article, and it is quite necessary, because weare referring to the States in the Schedule. We are notreferring to States in general, but to certain specificStates which are mentioned in the Schedule. Therefore thedefinite article 'the' is necessary. It refers to thedefinite States included in the Schedule.

Secondly, I would like to submit this, it would bewrong - and I speak about myself - for any Indian to presumesuch precise command over the English language as to insistin a dogmatic manner that a comma is necessary here, a semi-colon is necessary there, or article 'a' is proper here andarticle 'the' would be proper there and so on. But if myfriend chooses to arrogate to himself the authority of aprefect grammarian so far as English is concerned, I wouldlike to draw his attention to the Australian Constitutionfrom which we have borrowed these words and the definitearticle 'the' is used there. So I take shelter or refugeunder the Australian Constitution which, I suppose, we maytake it, was drafted by men who were good draftsmen and whoknew the English language and whom we cannot hold guilty ofhaving committed an error in the language.

Mr. Vice-President: I put the amendment to vote.

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 119, Mr. NaziruddinAhmad.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I beg to move:

"That in sub-clause (c) of clause (3) of Article 1,after words 'as may' the word 'hereafter' be inserted."

Sir, I have moved this amendment after, I believe,taking great risks of having to displease the HonourableChairman of the Drafting Committee. But I have to submitmost respectfully that things which occur to Members shouldbe placed before the House and the opinion of the Houseshould be taken.

Mr. Vice-President: There is no question of offendingany one.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I beg to submit that thecontext indicates the word "hereafter" that is, States whichmay hereafter be acquired. So the word 'hereafter' would beappropriate and I beg the House to consider insertion ofthis word.

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I say it is quitenecessary, and I oppose it.

Mr. Vice-President: I put the amendment to vote.

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. Vice-President: Tomorrow, I understand, is a bankholiday. So we postpone further consideration of this toWednesday 10 O'clock. We start from amendment No. 126.

The House then adjourned till Ten of the Clock, onWednesday, the 17th November, 1948.

Monday, 15th November, 1948