Vol. 13 · pages 361–365

use the correct word so that it may be difficult in future for any power-seeking party that may come into power easily to convert this into a unitary form of government. So, it is for the House to use the correct word “Federation” instead of the word “Union”. This is my justification, Sir, for moving this amendment. If you mean that the government must be a federal government and not a unitary government and if you want to prevent in future any powerseeking party to convert it into a unitary form of government and become fascist and totalitarian, then it is up to us now to use the correct word, which is “Federation”. Therefore, Sir, I move that the word “Federation” may be substituted for the word “Union”. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not accept the amendment. The amendment was negatived. ***** The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta (C.P. & Berar : General) : Sir, I move: “That in Article 1 for the word ‘State’ wherever it occurs, the word ‘Pradesh’ be substituted and consequential changes he made throughout the Draft Constitution.” ***** †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I oppose the amendment. Mr. Vice-President : The question is : “That in article 1 for the word “State” wherever it occurs, the word “Pradesh” he substituted and consequential changes be made throughout the Draft Constitution.” I think the Noes have it. Shri H. V. Kamath : I ask a division. Mr. Vice-President: It seems to me that the “Noes” have it. It is not necessary for me to call for a division. I have the power not to grant this request. I would request Honourable Members to consider the position. It seems to be quite obvious that the “Noes” have it. The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta : I accept the position that the “Noes” have it. The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru : May I suggest that instead of making our requests, we could raise our hands. That would give a fair indication how the matter stands. Mr. Vice-President: Does the Honourable Shri G. S. Gupta admit that the “Noes” have it ? The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta : I accept the position that the “Noes” have it. The amendment was negatived. *CAD, (Official Report). Vol. VII. 15th November 1948, p. 406. †Ibid., p. 412. 328 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Shri H. V. Kamath : Sir, I beg to move : “That in clause (1) of Article 1, for the word ‘Slates’ the word ‘Provinces’ he substituted.” (Discussion follows) ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I do not accept the amendment. (At this stage Shri Himmat Singh K. Maheshwari rose to speak.) Mr. Vice-President : The Honourable Dr. Ambedkar has already replied to the debate and I am sorry I cannot allow any further debate on the motion. Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru (United Provinces : General) : Sir, it after every motion is moved by a member and you ask Dr. Ambedkar whether he agrees to it and after allowing him to express his views you debar other members from speaking on the subject, it will be very hard on the House. Mr. Vice-President : I am afraid Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru has not realised exactly my position. I am always prepared to give every possible facility to every member here, which I need not demonstrate further than by reference to what I have done in the last few days. But just now we are pressed for time. After Mr. Kamath moved his amendment I wailed for some time to see if anybody would stand up and nobody stood up and when specially I found that Mr. Kamath had repeated the arguments which had been formerly staled by him, I thought that I would not be going against the wishes of the House by asking Dr. Ambedkar the question whether he wished to reply. If I failed to understand the attitude of the House I am very sorry. Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru : You are perfectly within your right in not allowing discussion of a clause which you regard as trivial and on which you think there has been sufficient discussion. You have the power to stop discussion and ask the Member in charge to reply. If in exercise of this power you asked Dr. Ambedkar to reply, there can be no objection to what you have done. Mr. Vice-President: Then I will put the amendment to vote. The motion of Mr. Kamath was negatived. ***** †Shri Mahavir Tyagi : Sir, I am not very keen to have all the words mentioned in my amendment inserted. I do not also want to make a *CAD, (Official Report), Vol. VII. 15th November 1948, p. 413. †Ibid., p. 413. 329DRAFT CONSTITUTION

speech and waste the time of the House. However, I want to make one point clear and with that end in view, 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 the Union shall reside in the whole body of the people’ he substituted.” ***** *Mr. Vice-President: I shall now put tills amendment to vote. Shri Mahavir Tyagi : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, in view of what the learned draftsman has said, namely, that the sovereignty remains vested, in spite of this draft, in the people, I do not wish to press my amendment. I hope, Sir, Dr. Ambedkar agrees that this draft means that it vests with the people, and his explanation may well go down into the records for future reference. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Beyond doubt it vests with the people. I might also tell my friend that I shall not have the least objection if this matter was raised again when we are discussing the Preamble. Shri Mahavir Tyagi : Then I beg leave of the House to withdraw my amendment. The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.. Prof. K. T. Shah : Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg to move : “That in clause (1) of Article 1, after the word ‘States’ the words ‘equal inter se’ he added.” (Prof, shah explained the amendment and the discussion followed.) †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I oppose the amendment. 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. the following he inserted : ‘and shall he known as the United States of India’. “ Sir, this is a non-controversial amendment...... ......The other amendment is an alternative to this. I move: “That at the end of clause (1) of Article I. the following he inserted : ‘and shall be known as the Union of India’.” ***** ......My other amendment is this. I move: “That at the end of clause (1) of Article 1. the following he inserted : ‘and shall he known as the Indian Union’.” *CAD. (Official Report), Vol. VII. 15th November 1948. p. 418. †Ibid., p. 421. 330 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Sir, I submit these are three alternatives. I would prefer the first but it all depends on the House as to what it thinks about them. [After Mr. Kamath’s criticism on the Amendment, Dr. Ambedkar rose to reply,] ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I oppose all these amendments. With regard to the first amendment that India should be known as the United States of India, the argument set out by my friend Mr. Kamath is a perfectly valid argument and I accept it wholeheartedly. I have given my own views as to why I used the word ‘Union’ and did not use the word ‘Federation’. With regard to the other amendment that India should be known as the Union of India, I also say that this is unnecessary, because we have all along meant that this country should be known as India, without giving any indication as to what are the relations of the component parts of the Indian Union in the very title of the name of the country. India has been known as India throughout history and throughout all these past years. As a member of the U.N.O. the name of the country is India and all agreements are signed as such and personally I think the name of the country should not in any sense give any indication as to what are the subordinate divisions it is composed of. I therefore oppose the amendments and maintain that the Draft as it is presented to the House is the best so far as these amendments are concerned. Mr. Vice-President: I shall now put the amendments one by one to the vote. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the 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.” ***** †The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I raise a point of order. My point of order is that this is not an amendment. Unless it changes the substance of the original proposition, it is not an amendment. I am trying to find out the reference in May’s Parliamentary Practice. But I would like to raise this point at this moment. If my *CAD, (Official Report). Vol. VII, 15th November 1948. p. 422. † Ibid., pp. 422-24. 331DRAFT CONSTITUTION

friend will forgive me, I think he is in the habit of moving all sorts of amendments, asking for a comma here, no commas there and so on and I think we must put a stop to this sort of thing in the very beginning. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : On the very threshold of independence, if I am to be stopped like this, I shall bow down and submit to the decision of the Chair. Mr. Vice-President: What is your reply to the point of order? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : My reply to the point of order raised is this, I want to remove the word “The” from the article and therefore it is an amendment. This is certainly a drafting amendment. It may be opposed on the ground that it is insignificant, illogical or purposeless or useless and so forth. But Dr. Ambedkar is not right in asserting that it is not an amendment at all. It cannot be ruled out on the technical ground that it is not an amendment. And with regard to my Honourable Friend’s remarks as to my habit of moving amendments like punctuations and other changes, I am happy to inform him and the House that I have ceased to follow that habit so far as this amendment is concerned, ( Laughter). Mr. Vice-President: You say it is a drafting amendment. Can’t we leave it to the Drafting Committee and its Chairman for seeing to it at the third reading ? I am sure they will accept these amendments if there is any substance in them. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: In that case, it would be leaving the matter to the Drafting Committee, instead of leaving it to the judgment of the House. The spokesman of the Drafting Committee has already given out his mind. Therefore, if I were to agree to leave it to the Drafting Committee, it would be as good as withdrawing it. Therefore, I have to submit, again, that the word “The” is not part of the name. Mr. Vice-President : I am waiting to hear Dr. Ambedkar on this point. The Honourable Dr. H. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I do not know why the Honourable Member objects to the word ‘the’. ‘The’ is a definite article, and it is quite necessary, because we are referring to the States in the Schedule. We are not referring to States in general, but to certain specific Stales which are mentioned in the Schedule. Therefore the definite article ‘the’ is necessary. It refers to the definite States included in the Schedule. Secondly. I would like to submit this, that it would be wrong—and I speak about myself—for any Indian to presume such precise command aver the English language as to insist in a dogmatic manner that a 332 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES