LawPutra ®

Committed To Your Success

INDIA vs BHARAT:Which one instills a sense of pride?

The Supreme Court of India on 3 rd June, 2020 rejected the plea for renaming India to ‘Bharat’ or ‘Hindustan’ on the grounds that India is already called ‘Bharat’ in the Constitution itself. The plea was filed before the SC by Namah, a Delhi-based businessman according to whom the rationale behind getting the name ‘India’ excluded from country name and renamed to ‘Bharat’ would serve the purpose of ensuring the citizens of our country to get over the past colonial rule and life because calling India symbolizes ‘colonial hangover’ and ‘slave mentality’ of olden times.

His PIL claimed that even though the name appears to be symbolic one, the removal of this English name ‘India’ would in still a sense of pride in our own nationality especially concerning to the future generations that are to come. Moreover, it claimed that the alteration of name would justify the hard fought freedom by our ancestors and even the cry has always been “Bharat Mata ki Jai” and the history is riddled with such examples. The draft of PIL also cited the reference of the Constituent Assembly debate dated 15 th November, 1948 on Article 1 of the draft constitution being prepared then that advocated for favoring the country name as ‘Bharat’ or ‘Hindustan’ as there was a fervent wave for this resolution in those days and also Shri M Ananthasayanam Ayyangar in the Constituent Assembly had batted against Seth for naming it as ‘Bharat’, ‘Bharat Varsha’, or ‘Hindustan’. Besides this, it added that the word ‘India’ has originated from a Greek word ‘Indica’.

Namah pleaded that the ripe time has come now to reconsider this matter and recognize our country by its original and authentic name Bharat as it is evident from some of the case in which the Indian cities has been renamed to get identified with its Indian ethos and native values. But it is to be noted down that British India was known as Hindustan but this practice was opposed by some of the eminent Constituent Assembly members.

In fact, the eminent legal luminary, BR Ambedkar, who had drafted the Constitution, had professed that our country was already known worldwide as India and it should be retained. And as a result, carving a solution out of these arguments and following a middle path between these it was decided that Article1(1) of the Constitution of India will state, “India that is Bharat shall be a Union of the States.”

The Chief Justice, Sharad Arvind Bobde, heading the virtual court denied for any interference into this matter and disposing the plea said that, “We can’t do that. India is already called Bharat in the Constitution. However, the Chief Justice directed for this petition to be treated as representation by the apt ministries and concerned authorities or before the Centre especially to the Ministry of Home Affairs.

by Vikash Kumar