India to be Renamed ‘Bharat’? Govt May bring resolution in Parliament’s Special Session :- There is a proposal to rename India as Bharat, but it is not yet clear if the government will go ahead with it. The proposal has been made by some members of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), who argue that the name “India” is a colonial legacy and that “Bharat” is the more ancient and authentic name of the country.

The name “India” comes from the Indus River, which flows through the northwestern part of the country. The name was first used by the Greeks and Romans, and it became more widely used during the British colonial period. The name “Bharat” is derived from the Sanskrit word “Bharata“, which refers to a legendary king of ancient India.

The Constitution of India recognizes both “India” and “Bharat” as official names for the country. However, the name “India” is more commonly used in international contexts.

If the government does decide to rename India as Bharat, it would require a constitutional amendment. This would be a complex and time-consuming process, and it is not clear if the government has the political will to do it.

There are a number of arguments for and against renaming India as Bharat. Those who support the change argue that it would be a way to reclaim the country’s ancient heritage and to distance itself from its colonial past. They also argue that the name “Bharat” is more inclusive of all the different cultures and languages of India.

Those who oppose the change argue that it would be a costly and unnecessary exercise. They also argue that the name “India” is already well-known and respected around the world, and that changing it would cause confusion and disruption.

Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to rename India as Bharat is a political one. The government will need to weigh the arguments for and against the change before making a decision.

What The Supreme Court Said On Changing India Name To Bharat In 2016 And 2020

The Supreme Court of India has twice refused to entertain petitions seeking a name change from India to Bharat. In 2016, a bench of then Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice UU Lalit dismissed a PIL (public interest litigation) on the grounds that it was not maintainable. The court said that it was not for the judiciary to decide on the name of the country, and that such a decision was a matter for the government.

In 2020, the Supreme Court again refused to entertain a similar petition. The court, this time led by Chief Justice SA Bobde, said that the name “Bharat” is already mentioned in the Constitution, and that there was no need to change it. The court also said that the government was free to make a decision on the matter, if it so desired.

The Supreme Court’s decision is based on the principle of separation of powers. The judiciary is not supposed to interfere in matters that are within the domain of the executive or the legislature. The decision of whether or not to change the name of the country is a political one, and it is up to the government to make that decision.

However, the Supreme Court’s decision has not stopped some people from advocating for a name change. There are a number of organizations and individuals who believe that the name “India” is a colonial legacy and that it should be changed to “Bharat”. They argue that the name “Bharat” is more inclusive of all the different cultures and languages of India, and that it would help to promote national unity.

It remains to be seen whether the government will decide to rename India as Bharat. The decision is a complex one, and there are strong arguments on both sides. The government will need to weigh the pros and cons carefully before making a decision.

What Had The Supreme Court Said On Renaming ‘India’?

The Supreme Court of India has twice refused to entertain petitions seeking a name change from India to Bharat. In 2016, a bench of then Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice UU Lalit dismissed a PIL (public interest litigation) on the grounds that it was not maintainable. The court said that it was not for the judiciary to decide on the name of the country, and that such a decision was a matter for the government.

In 2020, the Supreme Court again refused to entertain a similar petition. The court, this time led by Chief Justice SA Bobde, said that the name “Bharat” is already mentioned in the Constitution, and that there was no need to change it. The court also said that the government was free to make a decision on the matter, if it so desired.

The Supreme Court’s decision is based on the principle of separation of powers. The judiciary is not supposed to interfere in matters that are within the domain of the executive or the legislature. The decision of whether or not to change the name of the country is a political one, and it is up to the government to make that decision.

However, the Supreme Court’s decision has not stopped some people from advocating for a name change. There are a number of organizations and individuals who believe that the name “India” is a colonial legacy and that it should be changed to “Bharat”. They argue that the name “Bharat” is more inclusive of all the different cultures and languages of India, and that it would help to promote national unity.

It remains to be seen whether the government will decide to rename India as Bharat. The decision is a complex one, and there are strong arguments on both sides. The government will need to weigh the pros and cons carefully before making a decision.

How Did Article 1 of Constitution Come Into Being ?

Article 1 of the Constitution of India, which declares that “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States”, came into being through a series of debates and amendments in the Constituent Assembly.

The Draft Article 1, which was presented to the Assembly on 15 November 1948, declared that “India shall be a Union of States”. However, there was some debate about whether the word “India” should be used, as some members felt that it was a colonial legacy. One member, K.M. Munshi, suggested that the word “Bharat” should be used instead, as it was the more ancient and authentic name of the country.

The Draft Article was amended on 17 September 1949 to include the words “that is Bharat”. This amendment was proposed by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, B.R. Ambedkar, who argued that it would make it clear that the name “India” was not being used in a colonial sense.

The amended Draft Article was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 18 September 1949, and it became Article 1 of the Constitution of India.

The inclusion of the words “that is Bharat” in Article 1 is significant because it recognizes both the ancient and modern names of the country. It also reflects the desire of the Constituent Assembly to create a new nation that was free from its colonial past.

The use of the word “Union” in Article 1 is also significant. It suggests that India is a federation of states, rather than a unitary state. This means that the states have a certain degree of autonomy, but they are also subject to the authority of the central government.

Article 1 is one of the most important articles in the Constitution of India. It sets out the basic structure of the Indian state and defines its relationship with the states. The article has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in a number of cases, and it has played a major role in shaping the development of Indian law and politics.