On 15th November 1948 at the Constituent Assembly Mr. Nazeeruddin Ahmed [Bengal Muslim] spoke as follows;
“Sir, I beg to move:”
“That in [2] of Article 1, the word “the” occurring at the beginning be deleted”
“Sir, this part really tries to define the words “the state.” I submit that the word “the” is a definite article and not a part of the name of nomenclature. Though the word has been used in this context, the word has been used also in other combinations like “a State,” “any State” and “every State” and “all sorts of State.”
Honourable Dr. Ambedkar: 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 try to find out the reference in MAY’s Parliamentary practice. That I would like to raise this point and at this moment, if my Friend will forgive me, I think he is in the habit moving all sorts of Amendments, asking for a comma here, no comma is there and so on and I think he must put a stop to these sorts of things in the very beginning.
Mr. Nazeeruddin Ahmed: On the very threshold of the independent, if I am to be stopped like this, I shall bow down and submit to the decision of the Chair.
Honourable Vice President: What is your reply to the point of order?
Mr. Nazeeruddin Ahmed: My reply to the point of order raise 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.
Honourable Dr. Ambedkar: Is not right in assisting 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 remark as my habit of moving like punctuations or other changes, I am happy to inform him that the House that I have ceased follow that habit so far as this Amendment is concerned [laughter].
Honourable Vice President: To 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 it.
Mr. Nazeeruddin Ahmed: 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 leave it to Drafting Committee, it would be as good as withdrawing it. Therefore I have to submit again the word ‘the’ is not part of the name.
Honourable Vice President: I am waiting to hear Dr. Ambedkar on this point.
Honourable Dr. Ambedkar: I do not know why the Honourable Member objects to the word ‘the.’ The is the definite article and it is quite necessary, because we are referring to the State in the Schedule, we are not State in general but to certain specific States which are mentioned with a schedule, therefore the definite article ‘the’ is necessary. It refers to definite States included in the Schedule “Mr. President…. Secondly, I would like to submit, it would be wrong – and I speak about myself – for any Indian to presume such precise, over the English has to insist in the dogmatic manner that the comma is necessary here, a semicolon is necessary there or article a is proper here and article b to be proper and so on. But if my Friend chooses to arrogant himself the authority of a perfect grammarian so far as English is concerned, I would like to draw his attention to the Australian, from which we have borrowed this word and the definite article b is used there. So I take refuge under the Australian Constitution which, I suppose it may take it, was Drafted by men who were good Draftsmen and who knew the English and who we cannot hold history of having an error in the Language.
Honourable Vice President: I put the Amendment to vote. The Amendment was negative.
Comment: A glorious defeat of a noble endeavour.