The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Centre and the state governments, including union territories, on a PIL seeking that country should be named as ‘Bharat’.
The PIL petition has sought direction to the Centre and the state governments including union territories to use to Bharat for all official and unofficial purposes of the government.
The apex court bench of Chief Justice HL Dattu and Justice Arun Mishra issued notice on the PIL by one Niranjan Bhatwal from Maharashtra that has sought a clarification for an unambiguous understanding of the Article 1 of the Constitution on the name of the country.
The PIL sought to restrain the Centre, States and UTs from using ‘India’ in government communications and other official work.
The PIL has also sought direction to all the government organizations, NGOs and corporate sector to use “prospectively the name ‘Bharat’ for all official and unofficial purposes.
Referring to the proceedings of the drafting committee that prepared the draft constitution that was deliberated upon by the Constituent Assembly, the PIL said that “it is crystal clear that the a Constituent Assembly intended to name the country as ‘Bharat’ and ‘India’ as is evident from the motion passed on September 18, 1949.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
A country makes progress when it makes things better and easier for people. When a country is driven by "ego" rather than "logic", the country goes backward.
Sometimes renaming places makes sense because we can choose significantly easier and simpler names so that people find the new names easier to pronounce and write.
A country is not an isolated entity and we need to do business with the world. So, when we rename places, we need to think about foreigners along with our own people. We need to ask ourselves - will foreigner be able to pronounce and write the name easily? If the new name is not going to make anything easier or simpler for most people in the country as well as foreigners, we should avoid such renaming.
"Paschimbanga" from "West Bengal" was a bad change. "Vadodara" from "Baroda" was another bad change. "Bengaluru" from "Bangalore" was bad change as well.
When we say "India was named by British people. So, we should use Bharat", we are clearly talking from our "ego" rather than "logic". We should rather ask "Will Bharat be easier and simpler than India for people of our country as well as foreigners?" If the answer is "no", then we should not rename the country.
Also, we should ask ourselves "Can we afford to spend crores of rupees on a name change when we have so many poor people to be taken care of?"
The ego driven approach "we will rename because it was named by foreigners" is harmful for the country and it's economy. If we think that way, then we should stop using anything that came from a foreign country. If we think that way, then we should stop using English because it is not a language of our country. If we think that way, then we should stop wearing jeans and start wearing dhoti. If we think that way, then we should abandon railway system because it was introduced in the country by British people. If we think that way, then we should stop using computers because the father of modern computer Charles Babbage was a British man.
Do you know why many Islamic countries lag behind many other countries? Because they are driven by "ego" called Quoran instead of being driven by logic. If we start to behave like those Islamic countries, we will take our country backward.
I read somewhere, they have a painting of Tipu Sultan at a NASA office. People of US could think "we will not have a painting of Tipu in our office because Tipu was not an american" but they didn't think that way and they gave respect to a man for the work of the man rather than thinking of which country he belonged to. And this type of thinking made US the most prosperous country of the world. US has prospered more than any other country of the world because they use "logic" not "ego".
So, my fellow countrymen and countrywomen, I request you take the country forward by using "logic" and not to take the country backward by using "ego".
Don't think who named something or who invented something, just think "if we use it, will it take our country forward?" If the answer is "yes", take it. If the change is likely to take things backward, then don't do it.
And don't forget to give respect to people for their achievements irrespective of whether they were born in this country or outside this country.
Now what next? PIL to change the name of "ThePhantom" to "TheShaktiman"?? :(
ThePhantom awaits the SC notice....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--TheSadPhantom
Changing the name of the country s not a constitutional issue for the Court to interpret. It is in the realm of policy.
Its clear that the Constitution was not intended to rename India Bharat. Rather both were used interchangeably in Article 1. Article 1 is clear on this. Also throughout the Constitution, the country is referred to as India. Bharat is the Hindu name for the country India with India being its English language name.
Bharat is the "Hindi" language name for the country India with India being its English language name.
Well, policy matters are extremely important but that does not mean that the SC makes or even claims to make policy.
The cases you cite were all corruption cases with criminality infecting policy making and its implementation and thus involved legal and constitutional issues which issues the SC dealt with.
I am also glad that the SC exists but that does not mean that the SC is above criticism.
And why do you want me to grow up?
And once again, the SC cannot rename the country or even ask the executive or parliament to consider renaming the country.
The SC can only interpret the Constitution as it was framed. Even if the constituent assembly debates show that "some" persons wanted to name the country Bharat instead of India, that proposal was not carried through and was not incorporated in the Constitution as adopted. The SC cannot concern itself with such unsuccessful proposals. It can only go by the Constitution as it exists.
And while I cannot say if you need to grow up or not, you do need to first understand some basic concepts and principles of our legal system.
Bharat is only mentioned once in the Constitution in Article 1 while all other references are to the name India.
The preamble reads, We the people of India. The Constitution refers to the President of India, the Prime Minister of India, the territory of India etc.
The Court cannot rename India, neither can the executive branches of the Central or State governments.
A move to rename the country lies in the political domain and would probably require a political movement followed by an amendment to the Constitution. In many countries something like this would require a referendum.
The SC has issued notice to the Centre, all States and UTs. They will now all reply on this and considerable court time will get wasted on this petition which could be put to much better use dealing with fundamental rights abuses. .
The issue of notice shows no application of mind by the judges.
Is it not shameful for all "Bharatiya" that our politician, bureaucratizes, media persons do not know what is the constitutional name of our country.
As PM has taken lot of initiatives in various field. He should start from himself to use name of the country as BHARAT and not any other name. Then others will follow.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first