the idea of constitution of india was first given by constituent assembly.
the idea of constitution of india was first given by constituent assembly.
the idea of constitution of india was first given by?
constituent assembly
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
james chase (2002) argues that the second argument is correct because it does correspond to the way to align two situations (one in which we gain, the other in which we lose), which is preferably indicated by the problem description. also bernard katz and doris olin (2007) argue this point of view. in the second argument, we consider the amounts of money in the two envelopes as being fixed; what varies is which one is first given to the player. because that was an arbitrary and physical choice, the "counterfactual world" in which the player, counterfactually, got the other envelope to the one he was actually (factually) given is a highly meaningful counterfactual world and hence the comparison between gains and losses in the two worlds is meaningful. this comparison is uniquely indicated by the problem description, in which two amounts of money are put in the two envelopes first, and only after that is one chosen arbitrarily and given to the player. in the first argument, however, we consider the amount of money in the envelope first given to the player as fixed and consider the situations where the second envelope contains either half or twice that amount. this would only be a reasonable counterfactual world if in reality the envelopes had been filled as follows: first, some amount of money is placed in the specific envelope that will be given to the player; and secondly, by some arbitrary process, the other envelope is filled (arbitrarily or randomly) either with double or with half of that amount of money.
two envelopes problem