As we know that India is a place where no matter if you starve but the disputes against one’s ego should always be prevailing than the basic necessities of the country. The stated notion can be brought about with a plea (seeking exclusion of ‘India’ as country name) which once was raised in the year 2016 and got rejected and once again came forth for argumentation in the Supreme Court of India on June, 2020.
The plea claimed that an amendment in the constitution under Article-1 will ensure the citizen of this country to get over the colonial past. Now, here the question ascends ‘Is this the reality?’ Does a name, matters so much? A name with which ‘The Independent India’ is living since past 10 years proudly shall be demand to be changed? These are the few questions come to light when such pleas are filed.
Highlighting the historical aspect, a similar PIL was filed in the year 2016 asking for the change of name of our country from ‘India’ to ‘Bharat’. The PIL was rejected by the Supreme Court & the then Chief Justice of India, T.S. Thakur had said that “every Indian has the right to choose between calling his country Bharat or India”. He had said that the apex court cannot divide what a citizen should call his country.
Coming to the current period, the current Chief Justice of India Sharad Arvind Bobde said that ‘Bharat and India are both names given in the Constitution and ‘India’ is already called ‘Bharat in the Constitution’. With what name a citizen wants to refer his country by should completely depend upon him as it is his freedom which is also protected by our own Constitution under Article 19. Nobody can snatch away his freedom. Also, the feeling of patriotism and true nationalism does not lie in the name.
If the arguments like, the name ‘India’ should be struck off from Article because it symbolized ‘Slave mentality’ then we need to shift our focus to certain other facets and zones also. India is a country which has borrowed several features of different countries’ constitution in order to frame its own. To name a few: Directive Principles of State Policy was adopted from Irish Constitution, the concept of Fundamental Rights was being taken from the Constitution of U.S.A. Also, to mention there are several laws which were famed by Britishers but are still prevalent. As like: Indian Penal Code 1860, drafted by: Lord McCauley
If these does not remind people of ‘slave mentality’ then hopefully the name of the country should not. While excluding, it is noteworthy that change is the ultimate requirement of the society but what aspect is required to be changed should always be considered and thought twice. The laws which should be at par and up to date with the society, and required to be changed, the perspectives of people towards the environment should be considered as an aspect of change, and to be considered for the country’s development should be undertaken, but not country’s name.