The preamble of the draft Constitution read thus: We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign democratic republic, and to secure to all its citizen Justice, social economic and political; Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all; Fraternity. assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the nation; in our Constituent Assembly do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution.’
Hari Vishnu Kamath moved an amendment in which he suggested to begin the preamble ‘in the name of God’ and to substitute ‘its’ with ‘her’. Let us consecrate this Constitution by a Solemn dedication to God in the spirit of the Geeta, he added.
While he was moving the amendment, Purnima Banerji (United Provinces), said that the matter of God should not made the subject of discussion between a majority and a minority. I appeal to Mr. Kamath not to put us to the embarrassment of having to vote upon God, she said. But Kamath went ahead with his amendment and said: “My amendment means, in the name of God we do this and that. No long speech is needed to commend this motion.”
Thanu Pillai (Travancore and Cochin State), who claimed himself to be a staunch believer in God, opposed this amendment saying that it affects the fundamental right of freedom of faith. A man has a right to believe in God or not, he said.
Rohini Kumar Chaudhury (Assam) suggested that instead of ‘In the name of God’, it shall be ‘In the name of Goddess’. At this remark, there was a laughter in the assembly. Later, Chaudhury said: “Sir, it is not a matter of laughter with me. I believe in a Goddess. I belong to Kamrup where the Goddess Kamakhya is worshipped.” If we bring in the name of God at all, we should bring in the name of the Goddess also, he added.
V. I. Muniswamy Pillay (Madras) said he strongly supports the motion. M. Thirumala Rao urged Kamath to withdraw this amendment and not to subject God to the vote of the House. If it comes to the vote, it will not be fair to ourselves and to the nation, he said.
According to Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru, invoking God in the preamble would be contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. Responding to B. R. Ambedkar’s suggestion to withdraw the amendment, Kamath said: : I am not withdrawing it. Thus the amendment was put to vote and was negatived with 68 Noes against 41 Ayes.
“This, Sir, is a black day in our annals. God save India.”, HV Kamath remarked in response.
Selected Speeches
Not to put us to the embarrassment of having to vote upon God.
Purnima Banerji (United Provinces: General). Mr. President, I would beg of you to see that the matter of God is not made the subject of discussion between a majority and a minority. It is most embarrassing. To most of us, believers and nonbelievers, it will be difficult to affirm or deny God. Let us not try to invoke His name in vain. It should not be brought up in this form and the Members compelled to vote one way or the other. The flame of God is invoked by every nation upon earth and God is an Impartial Entity and He should be allowed to remain so. With these words, I appeal to Mr. Kamath not to put us to the embarrassment of having to vote upon God.
Do not subject God to the vote of the House
M. Thirumala Rao : It is unfortunate that Mr. Kamath has not seen his way not to press his amendment to a vote. This is a thing of such vital importance and affects the life of the whole nation, that it should not be subjected to the vote of a House of three hundred people whether India wants God or not. We have accepted that God should be there in the Oath, but for those who do not believe in God, there is an alternative there, but there is no possibility of a compromise which can provide for both the things in the Preamble. Therefore, I think it would be better that Mr. Kamath withdraws his amendment and does not subject God about whom he spoke in such reverent terms to the vote of the House, and if it comes to the vote, it will not be fair to ourselves and to the nation.
We should say ‘her’ and not ‘its’ citizens in the Preamble
H. V. Kamath: Mr. President, all that we have done in this House has been done on behalf of and for the people of India, and all decisions have been taken here by the vote of the House. Weather this becomes a matter for the vote of the House or not, I am sure in their heart of hearts the people of India for whom we have been working and toiling here for the last three years would endorse this amendment in toto. That is so far as the point raised by Mr. Pillai is concerned. I have taken only a slight liberty with the text of the Preamble. As I have pointed out, I am sticking to the wording of the Objectives Resolution moved by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in December 1946. In the first part of it, the future with reference to the governance of the country the words used are “her future governance”, her being apt for the motherland. That being so, we should say ‘her’ and not ‘its’ citizens in the Preamble. I would leave this however to the Drafting Committee.
Let us consecrate this Constitution by a Solemn dedication to God in the spirit of the Geeta
H. V. Kamath: As regards the substance of the motion I do not propose to make a long speech. In this august House, the first Constituent Assembly of India, of our Bharata Varsha, in this land, ancient but ever young, which has through the ages renewed itself at the Divine Fountain, let us consecrate this Constitution by a Solemn dedication to God in the spirit of the Geeta. Yatkaroshi yadashnasi Yajjuhoshi dadasi yat Yattapasyasi Kaunteya Tatkurushwa madarpanam. Whatever our shortcomings, whatever the defects and errors of this Constitution let us pray that God will give us strength, courage and wisdom to transmute our baser metal into gold, through hard work, suffering and sacrifice for India and for her people. This has been the voice of our ancient civilisation, has been the voice through all these centuries, a voice distinctive. vital and creative, and if we, the people of India, heed that voice, all will be well with us.
Showing a narrow, sectarian spirit, which is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution
Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru: It is a matter of the deepest regret that a matter that concerns our innermost and most sacred feelings should have been brought into the arena of discussion. it would have been far more consistent with our belief in the highest truths and our determination to adhere firmly to them that we should not seek to impose our own belief on others. I recognise the sincerity of Mr. Kamath and of those who agree with him, but I do not see why in a matter that vitally concerns every man individually, the collective view should be forced on anybody. Such a course of action is inconsistent with the Preamble which promises liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship to everyone. How can we deal with this question in it narrow spirit? We invoke the name of God, but I make bold to say that while we do so, we are showing a narrow, sectarian spirit, which is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and which we should try to forget at this time when we have reached the end of a very important stage of our labours.
If we bring in the name of God at all, we should bring in the name of the Goddess also
Rohini Kumar Chaudhury: Sir, I am at once with my Friend, Pandit Kunzru, in objecting to the amendment which has been moved by my Friend. Mr. Kamath. Sir, I have great admiration for my Friend, Mr. Kamath. I am one who has unbounded confidence in him so far as political affairs are concerned. I must confess that I am very sadly disappointed in him this evening. By this amendment, he shocked the feelings of many when he stoutly refused to accept the amendment which I proposed. Sir, it is not a matter of laughter with me. I believe in a Goddess. I belong to Kamrup where the Goddess Kamakhya is worshipped.
We should remember that when we started our political movement, we started it with the singing of Bande Mataram. What does Bande Mataram mean? It means an invocation to a Goddess. It means belief in a Goddess. Sir, we who belong to the Sakthi cult, protest against invoking the name of God alone, completely ignoring the Goddess. That is my submission. If we bring in the name of God at all, we should bring in the name of the Goddess also. As I said, this amendment should not have been brought. But as it has been brought, this is my point of view.
