“India’s Democratic Identity: Unraveling the Naming Debate and Federal Structure”
Article 1: states that India which is Bharat, shall be a union of states. The states and territories shall be as specified in the first schedule of the constitution.
The Drafting Committee consisting of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer, N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, K.M. Munshi, and others was given the prime responsibility of framing the Indian Constitution.
The first debate on Article 1 of the Constitution of India was to begin on November 17, 1948. However, at the suggestion of Govind Ballabh Pant, the discussion was postponed.
What are the various debates on ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’?
On September 17, 1949, B R Ambedkar presented the final version of the provision to the House, which included both “Bharat” and “India”.
Following this, a majority of the members of the house were against the use of the word “India” over “Bharat”
Lok sabha member Hari Vishnu Kamath said, “If the house takes the trouble of referring to the Irish Constitution of 1937, Ireland changed its name upon gaining independence. He pointed out that in the Constitution of the Irish Free State, the name of the state was Eire in Irish or Ireland in English.”
Hargovind Pant, a Constituent Assembly member representing the hill districts of the United Provinces, firmly stated that the people of Northern India desired the name Bharatvarsha and nothing else.
He said, “The name ‘India’, was imposed by foreign rulers who had exploited our country’s People and resources while robbing us of our freedom. If we, even then emphasize the word ‘India’, it would only show that we are not ashamed of having this insulting word imposed on us by foreigners.
Is India a union of states or a federal structure?
The drafting committee decided in favour of describing India as a union although its constitution is federal in structure. A federation means a group of states having autonomy in internal affairs. The division of power between them is constitutionally ensured.
What was Ambedkar’s stand on the structure of India?
Dr B.R Ambedkar explained the significance of using the expression union instead of federation. He said, “The use of word union is deliberate though the country and people may be divided into different states for convenience of administration, the country is one integral whole and its people are living under a single nation derived from a single source.” He further added that the constitution of India avoids the tight mould of federalism and can be both unitary as well as federal according to the requirements of time.
In S.R. Bommai's case (1994), the Supreme Court of India commented that federalism is the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.
The word federation does not find a place in the whole text of the Indian constitution but its elements are present in our constitution in the form of an Independent judiciary, dual polity, and written and rigid constitution. But in the case of the Indian Federation, the centre is strong compared to states.
How is the centre stronger than the states?
The centre has more financial powers, Governor of a state is appointed by the centre, the centre can reorganise a state. In other words, the centre is indestructible while the states are destructible. In an emergency, the power of the centre grows strong and states become weak.
India as an independent nation was not formed by the union of states or agreement among its federating units as the USA. The Nation is whole and states are its parts. The states were divided on the linguistic terms for ease of administration.
K.C Wheare, an Australian academician described India as Quasi-federal.
