View source for The Constitution of India (issues)

===A union of states===
[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/why-india-became-a-union-of-states/articleshow/89434473.cms  Chandrima Banerjee, February 8, 2022: ''The Times of India'']


It is the first line in the Constitution, right after the Preamble — “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” But when Congress MP Rahul Gandhi referred to it while speaking in the Lok Sabha on February 2, considerable uproar followed. 

“If you read the Constitution of India, you will find — and many of my colleagues who have not read it should look at it — that India is described as a ‘Union of States’. India is not described as a nation, it is described as a ‘Union of States’,” he had said. “Meaning it is a negotiation, a conversation … It is a partnership, it is not a kingdom.” 

BJP’s IT cell head Amit Malviya called it “deeply problematic and dangerous.” And BJP MP Nishikant Dubey moved a privilege notice against Gandhi in the Lok Sabha, saying he wanted to “incite” people with his statements which were in “contempt of the House”. 

Like each phrase, punctuation (and even order of words) that eventually found its way into the Indian Constitution, “Union of States”, too, was debated for all its possible implications by the makers of the country’s legal code after Independence. And they had made a conscious choice to leave it in. 

''' Every word was deliberated on ''' 

In 1948, a committee prepared a draft version of the Constitution and sent it out to all members. Over the next eight months, they sent in suggestions or proposed amendments. The public, public bodies and provincial governments were also asked to chip in. 

Based on these inputs, the Drafting Committee reworked many articles. 

This revised Draft Constitution was placed in the constituent assembly. Each article was then taken up, one by one, for debate over every possible nuance. If someone wanted an amendment to an article being debated at the time, they could “give notice” and then that would be discussed and put to vote.

''' So, why ‘union of states’? '''   When BR Ambedkar tabled the Draft Constitution on November 4, 1948, he made it clear that it was a “Federal Constitution” — “this dual polity under the proposed Constitution will consist of the Union at the Centre and the states at the periphery.” 

 And that the Indian Constitution would not be for a “league of states nor are the states administrative units or agencies of the Union government.” 

 The debate that followed then was similar to the one now.  Ambedkar said, “Some critics have taken objection to the description of India in Article 1 of the Draft Constitution as a Union of States. It is said that the correct phraseology should be a federation of states.” 

 He cited two examples: South Africa was a unitary state (governed by a central government) and Canada was a federation (group of partially self-governing states), but both called themselves “unions”. 

 “Thus the description of India as a Union, though its Constitution is federal, does no violence to usage. But what is important is that the use of the word Union is deliberate,” he added.

Then, he went on to explain why the phrase was chosen. 

 “I can tell you why the Drafting Committee has used it. The Drafting Committee wanted to make it clear that though India was to be a federation, the federation was not the result of an agreement by the states to join in a federation and that the federation not being the result of an agreement no state has the right to secede from it.” 
 In simple words, India was not a country that states “joined” (though the princely states did exactly that but that’s a separate debate) but a larger unit they were part of already. 

 “The federation is a Union because it is indestructible,” Ambedkar continued. “Though the country and the people may be divided into different states for convenience of administration the country is one integral whole, its people a single people living under a single imperium derived from a single source … The Drafting Committee thought that it was better to make it clear at the outset rather than to leave it to speculation or to dispute.” 
 So, the phrase “Union of States” was meant to uphold territorial integrity, not incite secession.

''' ‘Too much’ autonomy or ‘too little’? '''   

The following day, on November 5, the debate came up again — how much power should the Centre have?  Damodar Swarup Seth, the socialist freedom fighter from UP, said, “Our Indian Republic should have been a Union — a Union of small autonomous republics.” 

 Why did Seth say so? “Had there been such autonomous republics, neither the question of linguistic provinces nor of communal majorities or minorities or of backward classes would have arisen … The natural consequence of centralising power by law will be that our country which has all along opposed fascism — even today we claim to strongly oppose it — will gradually move towards fascism.” 

 Not everyone agreed.

Bengal politician Lakshmi Kanta Maitra said that retaining the phrase could lay the ground for secession later because many states had indeed “acceded to the Indian Union”, a voluntary act.  “If this description of India, as is given in Articles 1 and 2, is retained, these states may contend, at some later stage, that they were sovereign states and were united to the Indian Union by purely voluntary arrangement,” he added. “We want to make it perfectly clear in the Constitution that this Union is an indissoluble Union of indestructible states, states in the sense of constituent units.” 

 The constituent assembly went back to the question about a year on. 

 On September 17, 1949, Urdu poet and freedom fighter from UP Hasrat Mohani objected to the phrase. “I am opposed to this union of states. I do not want a Union of that kind. Because, originally we had republics. We have given up that idea of republics and we have brought in the states. This is a very serious matter. It cannot be disposed of in a simple manner.” 
 But the amendment could not be debated.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in Lok Sabha, "The House has been insulted by saying that word 'nation' is not in the Constitution"

The following day, on September 18, Mohani was given time to explain. Unlike other opponents of the phrase, who thought it created space for secession, he thought it did not give states enough autonomy. 

“I say that I have got a right to propose that instead of 'union of states' it should be 'Union of Republics of India or Union of Socialist Republic of India',” he said. “The word republic is taboo for some people. If they do not have the courage to use it, and find difficulty in accepting that word, I have an alternative proposal to call them sovereign states of India. That is to say the provinces will be autonomous.” 

Supporting the idea but for an entirely different reason, BM Gupta from Bombay said, “The states might consider that they are independent and their estimate of their status might be higher than what it really is. I therefore submit that at least as far as the right of secession is concerned, it is not too late yet expressly to negative it, if it is found necessary.” 

Eventually, four proposals came up. 

“India shall be a Union of Indian Socialist republics to be called UISR on the lines of USSR.” It was rejected. 

“India or Bharat shall be a Union of Sovereign States of India or Bharat to be called USSI or USSB on the lines of USSR.” Also dismissed. 

“Bharat, or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States.” Rejected again. 

Finally, the constituent assembly settled on what is now Article 1 of the Constitution: “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.”