How 'Bharat' Secured A Place In The Constitution AFTER 'India'! - What You Didn't Know!
Share this article:
The name ‘Bharat’ wasn’t there in the first draft of India’s Constitution introduced by the chairman of the drafting committee, BR Ambedkar, on November 4, 1948. Although some members flagged the omission of a native name, the debate on this took place almost a year later when the work on finalising the text was coming to an end.
In the initial draft of India's Constitution, which was presented by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, on November 4, 1948, the name 'Bharat' was not included. It was only after nearly a year, as the process of finalizing the text was nearing completion, that some members raised concerns about the absence of an indigenous name for the country. This led to a debate on the matter.
On September 18, 1949, Dr. Ambedkar proposed the following amendment to the draft Article 1, which specifically mentions the country's name: “India, that is, Bharat shall be a Union of States.”
However, Assembly member HV Kamath criticised this formulation as being cumbersome and constituting a constitutional error. He put forth two alternative suggestions: “Bharat, or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States” or “Hind, or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States”. Kamath cited the example of Ireland to support his argument, stating, “The name of the State is Eire, or, in the English language, Ireland.”
He aimed to clarify "in the English language, India" because in numerous other nations, India was still referred to as ‘Hindustan’, “and all natives of this country are referred to as Hindus, whatever their religion may be…”. When asked to select a single name for his proposed amendment, Kamath opted for "Bharat, or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States."
Subsequently, a heated debate ensued during which members Seth Govind Das, Kamalapathi Tripathi, Kallur Subba Rao, Ram Sahai, and Har Govind Pant ardently advocated for the name 'Bharat.'
Das argued passionately, asserting that India was not an ancient word and was not found in the Vedas. It was only used after the Greeks came to India, while Bharat was to be found in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Brahmanas, the Mahabharata and the Puranas, as well as in Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsang’s writing. Das suggested “Bharat known as India also in foreign countries”.
He emphasised that the chosen name should not be backward-looking but should align with India's rich history and culture. He warned, “If we do not arrive at correct decisions in regard to these matters the people of this country will not understand the significance of self-government.”
Kallur Subba Rao contributed to the debate by pointing out that the name 'India' had its origins in 'Sindhu' or 'Indus,' making it more appropriate for Pakistan, which had the Indus River within its borders.
He proposed that 'Hindustan' better suited Pakistan. Furthermore, when advocating for the name 'Bharat' for India, he suggested that Hindi speakers, including Seth Govind Das, should consider renaming the Hindi language as 'Bharati,' in honour of the goddess of learning.
Ram Sahai lent his support to the name 'Bharat,' highlighting that even the union of Gwalior, Indore, and Malwa had identified itself as 'Madhya Bharat.' He further emphasised, "In all our religious scriptures and all Hindi literature this country has been called Bharat, our leaders also refer to this country as Bharat in their speeches”.
Kamalapati Tripathi delivered an impassioned speech, suggesting that “Bharat, that is India” might have been more proper and in accordance with the “sentiments and prestige of the country”. He claimed that during its “slavery for one thousand years”, the country had lost its soul, history, prestige and form and name.
He said Bapu’s revolutionary movement had made the nation recognise its form and lost soul, and that it was due to his penance that it was regaining its name too.
Tripathi said that the mere uttering of the word conjured up a picture of cultured life. He noted that despite enduring centuries of prolonged subjugation, the name had endured, suggesting that “the gods have been remembering the name of this country in the heavens” and have a keen desire to be born in the sacred land of Bharat.
“We are reminded that on the one hand, this culture reached the Mediterranean and on the other it touched the shores of the Pacific,” he claimed.
He remarked that the name 'Bharat' evoked recollections of the Rig Veda and the Upanishads, of the teachings of Krishna and the Buddha, of Shankaracharya, as well as iconic symbols like Rama's bow and Krishna's wheel.
While Tripathi delved into a lyrical reflection on the past, Dr. Ambedkar interjected, asking, “Is all this necessary, sir... There is a lot of work to be done.”
Despite Ambedkar's sense of urgency, Assembly president Rajendra Prasad allowed another intervention from Hargovind Pant, who put forth the suggestion of the name 'Bharat Varsha,' which was “used by us in our daily religious duties while reciting the Sankalpa.
Even during our daily rituals, such as taking a bath, we use Sanskrit phrases like, “Jamboo Dwipay, Bharata Varshe, Bharat Khande, Aryavartay, etc…It means that I so and so, of Aryavart in Bharat Khand, etc.” Pant argued that 'Bharat' held deep cultural significance, as it was used by Kalidasa to refer to the kingdom of the son of Dushyanta and Shakuntala.
In contrast, 'India' was a name imposed by foreign rulers who were attracted by its wealth, and holding onto it "would only show that we are not ashamed of having this insulting word which has been imposed on us by alien rulers."
The Constituent Assembly conducted a vote by a show of hands, with 38 members in favour and 51 against Kamath's amendment. Consequently, the original wording was retained.
In the initial draft of India's Constitution, which was presented by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, on November 4, 1948, the name 'Bharat' was not included. It was only after nearly a year, as the process of finalizing the text was nearing completion, that some members raised concerns about the absence of an indigenous name for the country. This led to a debate on the matter.
On September 18, 1949, Dr. Ambedkar proposed the following amendment to the draft Article 1, which specifically mentions the country's name: “India, that is, Bharat shall be a Union of States.”
However, Assembly member HV Kamath criticised this formulation as being cumbersome and constituting a constitutional error. He put forth two alternative suggestions: “Bharat, or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States” or “Hind, or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States”. Kamath cited the example of Ireland to support his argument, stating, “The name of the State is Eire, or, in the English language, Ireland.”
He aimed to clarify "in the English language, India" because in numerous other nations, India was still referred to as ‘Hindustan’, “and all natives of this country are referred to as Hindus, whatever their religion may be…”. When asked to select a single name for his proposed amendment, Kamath opted for "Bharat, or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States."
Subsequently, a heated debate ensued during which members Seth Govind Das, Kamalapathi Tripathi, Kallur Subba Rao, Ram Sahai, and Har Govind Pant ardently advocated for the name 'Bharat.'
Das argued passionately, asserting that India was not an ancient word and was not found in the Vedas. It was only used after the Greeks came to India, while Bharat was to be found in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Brahmanas, the Mahabharata and the Puranas, as well as in Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsang’s writing. Das suggested “Bharat known as India also in foreign countries”.
He emphasised that the chosen name should not be backward-looking but should align with India's rich history and culture. He warned, “If we do not arrive at correct decisions in regard to these matters the people of this country will not understand the significance of self-government.”
Kallur Subba Rao contributed to the debate by pointing out that the name 'India' had its origins in 'Sindhu' or 'Indus,' making it more appropriate for Pakistan, which had the Indus River within its borders.
He proposed that 'Hindustan' better suited Pakistan. Furthermore, when advocating for the name 'Bharat' for India, he suggested that Hindi speakers, including Seth Govind Das, should consider renaming the Hindi language as 'Bharati,' in honour of the goddess of learning.
Ram Sahai lent his support to the name 'Bharat,' highlighting that even the union of Gwalior, Indore, and Malwa had identified itself as 'Madhya Bharat.' He further emphasised, "In all our religious scriptures and all Hindi literature this country has been called Bharat, our leaders also refer to this country as Bharat in their speeches”.
Kamalapati Tripathi delivered an impassioned speech, suggesting that “Bharat, that is India” might have been more proper and in accordance with the “sentiments and prestige of the country”. He claimed that during its “slavery for one thousand years”, the country had lost its soul, history, prestige and form and name.
He said Bapu’s revolutionary movement had made the nation recognise its form and lost soul, and that it was due to his penance that it was regaining its name too.
Tripathi said that the mere uttering of the word conjured up a picture of cultured life. He noted that despite enduring centuries of prolonged subjugation, the name had endured, suggesting that “the gods have been remembering the name of this country in the heavens” and have a keen desire to be born in the sacred land of Bharat.
“We are reminded that on the one hand, this culture reached the Mediterranean and on the other it touched the shores of the Pacific,” he claimed.
He remarked that the name 'Bharat' evoked recollections of the Rig Veda and the Upanishads, of the teachings of Krishna and the Buddha, of Shankaracharya, as well as iconic symbols like Rama's bow and Krishna's wheel.
While Tripathi delved into a lyrical reflection on the past, Dr. Ambedkar interjected, asking, “Is all this necessary, sir... There is a lot of work to be done.”
Despite Ambedkar's sense of urgency, Assembly president Rajendra Prasad allowed another intervention from Hargovind Pant, who put forth the suggestion of the name 'Bharat Varsha,' which was “used by us in our daily religious duties while reciting the Sankalpa.
Even during our daily rituals, such as taking a bath, we use Sanskrit phrases like, “Jamboo Dwipay, Bharata Varshe, Bharat Khande, Aryavartay, etc…It means that I so and so, of Aryavart in Bharat Khand, etc.” Pant argued that 'Bharat' held deep cultural significance, as it was used by Kalidasa to refer to the kingdom of the son of Dushyanta and Shakuntala.
In contrast, 'India' was a name imposed by foreign rulers who were attracted by its wealth, and holding onto it "would only show that we are not ashamed of having this insulting word which has been imposed on us by alien rulers."
The Constituent Assembly conducted a vote by a show of hands, with 38 members in favour and 51 against Kamath's amendment. Consequently, the original wording was retained.
Next Story