India vs Bharat / India or Bharat first? There was a debate in the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Ambedkar was angry

India vs Bharat: Amidst speculations that the name of the country may be changed to 'India' instead of 'India', the debates held in the Constituent Assembly regarding the nomenclature at the time of acceptance of the Constitution are being reread. Then many members of the Constituent Assembly objected to placing 'India' before 'Bharat'. He did not consider the phrase India ie India will be a union of states appropriate.

He wanted that at that place 'Bharat' in the constitution or 'India shall be a union of states' in the English language should be substituted. However, the member of the assembly, Hari Vishnu Kamath, after a long debate, withdrew his amendment citing Dr. Ambedkar's statement that the schedule would be amended later.

Kamath said the German word is 'Indian'

Speaking in the Constituent Assembly on 18 September 1949, Hari Vishnu Kamath had said that 'the expression India ie Bharat, I think it means, India ie Bharat. It would be better if this expression, this structure were modified in a more constitutionally acceptable and I may say, more aesthetic and certainly more correct form, that would be Bharat or India in the English language. I specifically say the English language. Honorable Members may ask why do you say English language? Isn't it the same with all European languages? No it is not.

The German word is Indian and in many parts of Europe this country is still known as Hindustan and all the original inhabitants of this country are called Hindus. It must have come from the ancient name Hindu derived from the river Indus. Kamath cited the Irish constitution, passed in 1937, which changed its name upon gaining independence. Article four of that constitution is as follows, the name of the state is Ayr or Ireland in English.

The Greeks called Indus as Indus, India was formed from it.

Seth Govinddas had said, 'India means Bharat is not a beautiful word. We should write, "India is also known as India in foreign countries." This would have been more appropriate than the previous expression. But we should at least be satisfied that today we are naming our country as “Bharat”. Das said that some people have published a booklet, in which India has been described as ancient than India. They are not correct. We find mention of 'Bharat' in Vishnu Purana.

In Brahma Purana, this country is mentioned by the name 'Bharat'. The use of the word India started when the Greeks came to India. He named our Indus river as Indus and from this India was formed. If we look at the Vedas, Upanishads, Brahmins and Mahabharata texts, the name Bharat is mentioned in them. By reminding of these ancient things, as our Prime Minister and some members say, I am looking backwards. In fact, I want to look ahead and say that by keeping the name of India, we are not doing anything that will stop the country from moving forward.

Magic in the name india

On this occasion, Pandit Kamlapati Tripathi had told the use of 'Bharat ie India' instead of 'India ie Bharat'. Kamalapati Tripathi had said, it was accepted by the drafting committee, if even now it accepts it, it will be a commendable idea for our sentiments and the prestige of our country. I am fascinated by the historical names of India. Even just by pronouncing it, with the stroke of magic, the picture of cultural life of centuries emerges in front of us. There is no such country in the world, which has preserved its name and talent even after oppression, humiliation and long slavery.

Why not Bharatvarsh?

Har Govind Pant reminded of the amendment presented in the initial meetings of the House, in which he had proposed to name the country as Bharat or Bharatvarsha instead of India. Pant expressed happiness that some changes in the name have finally been accepted. Although he was surprised as to why the name Bharatvarsha was not accepted by the House? He reminded that we use the word Bharatvarsha in our daily duties while reciting the resolutions, “Jambu Dvipay, Bharat Varsha, Bharat Khande, Aryavarte etc!”

In this debate, Brajeshwar Prasad, Dr. P.S. Deshmukh, R.K. Sidhwa, Maulana Hasrat Mohani, Mahavir Tyagi, Lakshmi Narayan Sahu, Ghanshyam Singh Gupta, Kallur Subba Rao, B.M.Gupte, Ram Sahay and S.Nagappa etc. also participated. Dr. Ambedkar had requested to end the debate citing time limit. Ultimately the proposal presented by him was accepted and the following clauses of clauses (1) and (2) of Article 1 of the Constitution were substituted.

• India means India will be a union of states.
• The States and their territories shall for the time being specified in Parts I, II and III of the First Schedule be the States and their territories.

This naming debate clearly shows that the members who took part in the debate were happy with the country getting the name India, but there was no objection as to why 'India' was necessary. There is no such mention even in the amendment proposals presented on this occasion. The reason for this is also possible that in that period of independence after long slavery, it was considered a big thing for the country to get the name 'India'.