General

________________________________________________________________________________

This Blog is written by Ashutosh Agarwal from National Law University, Delhi. Edited by Uroosa Naireen.

________________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

A recent Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in the Supreme Court of India has once again sparked the controversy revolving around the name of our country. This issue has been debated for ages, whether the name “India” is justified for our country, which has deep cultural roots along with a rich history. India primarily has three names: India, Bharat, and Hindustan. However, a constant debate to change the name of the country from India to Bharat or Hindustan has been prevalent considering the country’s rich history as well as the long freedom struggle.

HISTORY

The present-day Indian-subcontinent comprises of the land in the vicinity of the Indian Ocean and makes up the countries including India and its neighbours. However, this was not the case always. The whole landmass of the current subcontinent comprised of India, as is evident from the historical kingdoms which ruled over the country. Indus Valley, known as “Meluha” is one of the earliest known civilizations evidenced by the ancient historical Mesopotamian texts. As many human civilizations progressed, the relevance of Meluha is somewhere lost. The first references of India being mentioned as “Bharat” can be traced back to the ancient text of Hinduism, Mahabharata. Bharata was a ruler of the Bharata dynasty who had conquered and united much of India, which came to be known as “Bharatvarsha”. As the then India saw the invasion of the Aryans from Central Asia, the name “Aryavarta” came up with time. Aryavarta, which means the Land of the Aryans has been mentioned in the Manusmriti.

Moreover, India has been given other names like “Jambudvipa” in Buddhist mythology, which means “the island of the Jambu tree.” In the Jain literature, the country was known as “Nabhivarsa”. The first occurrence of the name “Hindustan” was seen when the Persians occupied the Indus Valley during the seventh century. The word was made up by joining the word Hindu and adding the Persian suffix ‘stan,’ thereby calling the land Hindustan, which meant the land lying beyond the Indus River [1]. The name “India” derives its origins by the Greeks, who translated Hind from the Persians to “Indus.” By the time Alexander the Great came towards our country, India was the name given to the region lying beyond the Indus river.

SIGNIFICANCE

The writ petition, Namah vs. Union of India [2], has sought the Court’s intervention to amend Article 1 of the Constitution of India. Article 1, which defines the name and territory of India as “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” The Petitioner prays for a change in this Article to name India as “Bharat” only. The arguments presented before the Court stated that India is a name that originates from a foreign land, and the word Bharat has a close association with our freedom struggle, evident from the cry “Bharat Mata ki Jai.” The Petitioner also referred to the Constituent Assembly Debates and the strong support which the word “Bharat” had at the time of drafting. The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments by the counsel, rejected the petition, however, allowed the plea to be treated as a representation by the concerned central ministries, particularly the Ministry of Home Affairs. [3]

As the petition takes the help of the Constituent Assembly Debates, there is a need to look at them to understand the issue from the beginning. After India finally got its long due independence, a Constituent Assembly was set up in order to draft a constitution for a free and independent India on 29^th August 1947 under the leadership of Mr. B.R. Ambedkar. It was only on 17^th September 1949, more than two years after the formulation of Assembly that the section ‘Name and territory of the Union’ was taken up, probably because of its touchy and sensitive nature. A division between the two sides of the delegates, one who wanted it to be adopted within few minutes that were left for the conclusion of the day and the other, who wanted to discuss the issue at great length. Mr. H.V. Kamath, who was a member of the Central Province and Berar, objected to the two-name formula of Mr. Ambedkar. He proposed a single name formula, naming the country “Bharat” and pronouncing the country “India” only in the English language, adopting the method used the Constitution of the Irish Free State [4]. Mr. Kamath emphasized the point that the process of naming the country should be taken up more seriously and the same was interrupted by Mr. Ambedkar. One more proposal arising from Mr. Seth Govind Das demanded the naming of the country should be done as, “Bharat known as India also in foreign countries”. Many more objections to the naming of the country were put forth by Constituent Assembly members like Mr. KV Rao from Andhra Pradesh, Mr. BM Gupta, Mr. Sriram Sahai, Mr. Kamalapati Tripathi, and Mr. Har Govind Pant.

After a long-heated debate, the amendments were voted in order to find out the final wording for the Article and gave a name to the country. The final result remained the same, and Article 1 was finally formulated as, “India, that is Bharat”. However, even after the final decision by the Constituent Assembly had been taken, the debate regarding the name of the country has continued to date, with the recent petition being the latest move.

PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE THE NAME

In the year 2015, a similar petition was filed by social activist Mr. Niranjan Bhatwal, seeking clarification on Article 1 of the Constitution of India and renaming the country as “Bharata”. The then Chief Justice of India Mr. H.L. Dattu issued a notice to the Central as well as State Governments on the same. In the Affidavit reply filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, it said that such issues had been dealt with by the Constituent Assembly while drafting the Constitution, rejecting any need for a review. Another PIL of similar nature was filed before the Supreme Court and Justice T.H. Thakur and Justice U.U. Lalit refused to entertain it on the basis of the previous PIL filed in the year 2015.

Other than filing PIL’s, there have been other attempts to modify the name of the country. In 2004, an attempt was made by the Samajwadi Party to adopt the name “Bharat” in the Constitution. In October 2012, the then Chief Minister of Karnataka, Mr. B.S. Yeddyurappa, proposed a similar change [5]. During the same year, Mr. Shantaram Naik, a member of the Indian National Congress, proposed a bill in Rajya Sabha to change the name, as “India” denoting a territorial concept while “Bharat” signifying a feeling, much more than just pure territory. He used the example of the “Bharat Mata ki Jai” and compared the same by substituting India in it. In 2014, the current Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Mr. Yogi Adityanath had moved a Private Member’s Bill in the Lok Sabha proposing “Bharat” as the primary name for the country.

ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court took a neutral stance in the PIL filed before it by Namah. Chief Justice of India Mr. Sharad Bobde said that both the names have already been provided in Article 1 of the Constitution. Hence, there arises no need for such a petition to be entertained. The issue with modifying the names of a country can be quite tricky. In a country like India, which follows the principles of freedom and secularism but has had strong religious ties with a particular religion engraved in its history, many can see such modification as an anti-secular activity by the State even when the name is already defined in a document like the Constitution. Moreover, certain doubts will undoubtedly be raised as to why there is a need to change the nomenclature after more than 70 years of independence. By naming the country as India, the drafters of the Constitution have taken a neutral stance, and hence fortifying India’s position as a free and secular republic, where everyone is treated equally, and no discrimination exists within the boundaries of the country. India cannot afford a cultural controversy concerning the name of the country even when there has been a name-changing spree in the country recently, with people connecting it with “Hinduisation” of the country, hence damaging its secular and inclusive values.

CONCLUSION

With the recent PIL filed in the Supreme Court, it can be inferred that the Apex Court has no intention to initiate an action that would lead to a modification in the name of the country. Its old decisions also confirm the same along with the Central Government’s stand, as seen in the reply given to the court in one of the PIL’s filed. There goes much politics behind naming a country, and one has to investigate the issue by looking at it from every possible angle. India has always been a culturally rich yet a sensitive one, and one wrong move could spark controversy within itself. With a plethora of names relating to India, there is a high probability that each one of them will continue as the country progresses and gets interpreted regularly as they are now an integral part of the country.

References

(1) http://journals.openedition.org/samaj/3717

(2) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 422/2020 in the Supreme Court of India

(3)https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2020-06/1133ddc1-6030-4a02-9e3f-d7d6dce8f046/Namah_vs_UOI___SC_Order.pdf

(4) http://journals.openedition.org/samaj/3717

(5) http://journals.openedition.org/samaj/3717