By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, Sep 6: The Rashtrapati Bhavan recently sending out an invite for a G20 dinner in the name of “President of Bharat” instead of President of India has set tongues wagging across the country.
People in Meghalaya have started wondering if “India” will soon be replaced with “Bharat”.
The Shillong Times spoke to people from varied backgrounds to seek their opinion. While some shared their thoughts, a majority of them chose to remain silent.
TMC state president Charles Pyngrope questioned the necessity of changing the country’s name to Bharat and said the implications and repercussion which will follow will only add to the problems to the country.
“There is no need for a change since India is Bharat and Bharat is India. Let the government of the day concentrate on issues which are more pressing like alleviation of poverty, improving education and health care and so on,” Pyngrope said.
BJP’s AL Hek said that the nation has been named as India ever since the country got its independence in 1947.
“But now it depends on the Parliament whether they would like to change the name of the country or not. We will need to deliberate if the change of the name of the country will bring any benefit. If it is for the good we will accept it and if not then we will have to deliberate properly,” Hek said.
NEHU faculty, Prof Prasenjit Biswash that the proposal to change the name of the country is a political move without much of legal standing.
“Though, there is no objection to the term Bharat. But as the Constitution says it should be retained as India and that is Bharat. There cannot be any change in this,” Prof Biswash said.
According to him, the BJP is strategizing its political move of changing the name of the nation looking at the 2024 Lok Sabha election.
Nongrim Hills Rangbah Shnong, Bantylli L Narry said he failed to understand why the Centre has taken this move at this juncture to change the name of the nation.
Narry said that there will be repercussions since the names of so many things where the word India is mentioned will need to be change.
“We have seen how the demonetisation of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 note affected the economy. Now the name of the currency will also have to be changed to Bharat,” he said.
FKJGP president Dundee C. Khongsit said the BJP’s objective behind changing the name of the nation is purely political.
“It is an open secret that the hidden agenda of the BJP and RSS is to transform India into a Hindu State. This decision to change the name of the nation is a move to please the Hindu population so that it can translate to votes in next year’s election,” Khongsit said.
“This move of the BJP will affect the sentiments of the religious minorities. The word India is acceptable to everyone rather than the word Bharat,” Khongsit said.
HYC president, Robertjune Kharjahrin said status quo should be maintained by continuing to use the word India.
“There is no need to change Article 1 of the Constitution of India and it should be retained. The moment there is an attempt to change the name of the country then the name of the currency will have to be changed and it will have an impact on the state’s economy,” Kharjahrin said.
A student from NEHU, Mandor Swer Diengdoh said this proposal of the BJP government also stated that it was a political decision connected with the 2024 Lok Sabha polls.
“It is an attempt to brainwash the majority of the population. As per the Constitution, the word Bharat is just a constituent name. We need to remember that the Preamble of the Constitution did not the use the word Bharat. It is also an attempt of the BJP-led NDA Government to dilute pressing issues in the country,” Diengdoh said.
Diengdoh, a Law student, said this move needs to be opposed since there is no deliberation or consultations with the stakeholders.
“A joint session of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha is a must if there is any move to amend the Constitution. The State Legislative assemblies will also need to deliberate on such a major move,” Diengdoh added.
Congress leader, Manuel Badwar said the move to change the name of the nation is an attempt to please a section of the population.
“It is purely a political move to pacify the Hindu population. We need to strongly oppose this move. But I am not sure if we would be able to stop it,” Badwar observed.
NPP spokesperson, Bajop Pyngrope said India is a very diverse country and renaming it might affect other tribes and cultures in the country. “From my personal point of view the move to rename the country will backfire on the BJP.”
UDP vice president, Allantry F Dkhar said, “The move to rename India as Bharat, when the Constitution already says that Bharat is India, reflects the bankruptcy of the leadership at the Centre, who to my mind is engaging in attention diverting tactics to sway the electorate mainly in the Hindi speaking belt. Such moves will further alienate the non-Hindi speaking population. Unity in diversity which is the hallmark of the Federal structure of the country will diminish.”
UDP general secretary Jemino Mawthoh questioned the logic behind the move. “Earlier the Supreme Court had also rejected petitions to change the name of the country from India to Bharat. This will stoke a huge controversy in the entire country. One party which is at the helm of affairs cannot dictate matters to the 1.4 billion people of the country. A change in name will not bring progress and development in the country but instead create more rift, division and fragmentation.”
VPP spokesperson Batskhem Myrboh said the name India has been in existence since ancient times and it an inclusive name. “All parts of the country are emotionally attached with the name India. Therefore, to do away with the name India is uncalled for and will benefit no one. Let the name India remain as consciously decided by the framers of the Indian Constitution.”
Former bureaucrat Toki Blah said, “In India in the name of the country the prestige of the country has been sacrificed for politics. Someone goes and refers to the name India and the other party has to call Bharat; that’s all.”
Former MLA and senior politician, PT Sawkmie said the issue has attracted a lot of criticism in the entire country.
“Article 1 of the Constitution says India is Bharat and hence, if we change the name to Bharat, the whole correspondence has to change. It involves a lot of expenditures of the taxpayers’ money,” he said.
He said as he and every Indian loves the country, it should be continued to be called India.
“The word India is Bharat and Bharat means India. Moreover, we say the Indian Constitution in English and ‘Bharat ka Samvidhan’ in Hindi,” Sawkmie said.
He felt the BJP-led Central government will not benefit by changing the name and instead, lose people’s support. At the same time, he said the opposition parties should not have named their alliance INDIA at it will create a lot confusion in the minds of people in the country.
Mominul Haque, a senior lawyer of Shillong, said Bharat is not a new name.
Article 1 of the Constitution itself provides for “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States”. The Constitution recognizes both India and Bharat as official names of the country, he said.
“If they want to efface India from the Constitution, they will have to go through the process of a constitutional amendment. But nationally, India is a popular synonym for how we know our country as. As per diplomatic norms, however, the recognised address is India. This is certainly a departure,” Haque said.
He said there will be resultant changes in all other Articles and this will be a massive legislative exercise, similar to the IPC/CRPC/Evidence Act, which they dubbed as Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Bill.
“What will you call the Indian Administrative Service – Bharat Administrative Service? BAS? Will you call Indian Police Service as Bharat Police Service and Indian Air Force as Bharat Air Force?” he asked.
Babukular Khongjirem, a prominent teacher, said renaming the country in a hurry will lead to nothing.
“All communities generally accepted the name India rather than Bharat. They should take into confidence the other stakeholders too before arriving at the final decision,” he stressed.
Activist and president of CSWO, Agnes Kharshiing questioned the move. She asked if the Centre is trying to appease someone.
“First of all, why this change? Public servants cannot just decide what they want and make such decisions which will hamper the whole country,” Kharshiing said.
She added that a poor country like India, which relies on loans from international agencies, cannot afford such a move.