b.r. ambedkar is regarded as the principle of the constitution of india.
b.r. ambedkar is regarded as the principle of the constitution of india.
who is regarded as the principle of the constitution of india?
b.r. ambedkar
says that india, that is bharat, shall be a union of states and the territory of india is composed of territories of states, the union territories and any acquired territories as listed in schedule 1 per . there was widespread disagreement in the constituent assembly on whether to use india or bharat as the official name of the country. as a compromise, 'india, that is bharat' was used. though india is defined as a 'federation with strong centralising tendency', the word federation has not been used even once in the constitution. instead, the term union is used. this is done on purpose as dr. b.r. ambedkar preferred the use of word union in place of federation to emphasise that india is not a result of an agreement between different states and hence no state has right to secede from it. the details of union, states, union territories are further given in parts v, vi and viii of the constitution respectively. article 1 mandates a federal structure in which all the citizens of states which are collectively called india (bharat) shall have at least two tier governance with second tier as locally elected state government. when a union territory is listed in schedule 1 of the constitution it is part of 'territory of india' but not union of states (i.e. india/ bharat) and will be governed by the president as per of part viii. when the word india or bharat or union of india is used in the constitution, it is applicable to the territories of states only. when the word 'territory of india' is used in the constitution, it is applicable to all the territories including the union territories and any acquired territories. presently, there is no other area forming territory of india excluding its states and union territories.
part i of the constitution of india
we the undersigned citizens of the province of brittany, believe giving the reasons for our present association, first, declare unanimously that the dearest wish of our heart is to live free or die, as expressed by its organization, our former government and breton prescribed moreover, article 6, section 5 chapter i of the constitution of 3 september 1791, and our intention is only propagated to any principles or we allow any acts that can be taken for an indirect violation of the oath. we declare more it must be clearly understood that he does from us obedience and fidelity that we owe it to the king, our legitimate sovereign, and we look on the contrary, as our enemies all those who reported abuse and its benefits his tender solicitude for his people, seeking to weaken its authority guardianship, reduce its powers and destroy his throne by the insinuation of criminal republican ideas, the spread of which it is our duty, as good and loyal subjects, to oppose with all our strength. we declare that we finally adopt the unrestricted basic principle of the current constitution, which is embodied in article 6 of the declaration on the rights of man and citizen that the law is an expression of general will, and that all citizens have the right to contribute personally to their training. and in this regard, we observe that the principle of the misfortunes that afflict public at this time, the kingdom, and particularly the province of brittany, that comes from that, in practice, it was too disregarded this theory legislation, without which there is no more true public liberty, that there were born successively these dangerous factions that divide the kingdom and known under the names of republican factions, royalists, monarchiennes and others, thereby yet respect for the law has naturally weakened, as soon as one hand, the birth of all these factions, and the whispers of other people only too clear that she did not it for this expression of the general will, which only form the most imposing character. we note, moreover, that it is mainly the province of brittany, which can more than anything else to complain that violated to it the principle of the bill of rights that no law can be regarded as such if it is an expression of general will, it has been convened or represented regularly at the general meeting in 1789, and it has nonetheless lost its ancient constitution and its rights, franchises and liberties, against the wishes of its three formal orders, and even the specific provisions of the vast majority of books of the assemblies of sénéchaussées, trained to avoid and then replace the constitution of the third convocation as political and indivisible ...
charles armand tuffin, marquis de la rouërie