Constituent Assembly debates show ‘India’ signified familiarity, ‘Bharat’ an ancient culture
The Hindu
The Article currently reads ‘India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States’.
Constituent Assembly debates show that both ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’ were retained in the Constitution to align contrasting thoughts voiced by the makers in 1948.
The to-and-fro in the Constituent Assembly happened while discussing the draft Article 1(1) of the Constitution, which had simply read “India shall be a Union of States”.
For some Members of the Constituent Assembly, the name ‘India’ retained a sense of continuity and familiarity, especially among foreign nations.
“India has been known as India throughout history and throughout all these past years,” B.R. Ambedkar said.
He was opposing an amendment to Article 1(1) that India should be known as the ‘Union of India’.
He reasoned that the name of the country was ‘India’ as a member of the UNO. All agreements had been signed under the name.
But there were others who believed that giving the country an ancient name would not queer the march forward.
The Opposition Congress demanded that the government open the Gandhi Vatika Museum, depicting Mahatma Gandhi’s legacy and freedom struggle, built at a cost of ₹85 crore in Jaipur’s Central Park last year, during the Congress-led regime in Rajasthan. The museum has not been opened to the public, reportedly because of the administration’s engagements with the State Assembly and Lok Sabha elections.
Almaya Munnettam (Lay People to the Fore), group in the Ernakulam-Angamaly Archdiocese of the Syro-Malabar Church opposed to the synod-recommended Mass, rejected a circular issued by Major Archbishop Raphael Thattil and apostolic administrator Bosco Puthur on June 9 to implement the unified Mass in the archdiocese from July 3.
Pakistan coach Gary Kirsten stated that “not so great decision making” contributed to his side’s defeat to India in the Group-A T20 World Cup clash here on Sunday. The batting unit came apart in the chase, after being well placed at 72 for two. With 48 runs needed from eight overs, Pakistan found a way to panic and lose. “Maybe not so great decision making,” Kirsten said at the post-match press conference, when asked to explain the loss.