The Many Names of One Country: Must We Consider Changing India’s Name to Bharat?

Must Read

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Explained: Constitutional Provisions and Legislations With Regards to a Person with Disabilities

The world celebrates December 3 as International Day of Persons with Disabilities (IDPD). This day is also called World...

“Pro-Enforcement Bias” Towards Foreign Arbitral Awards Domestically, in light of Vijay Karia and Ors. V. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L and Ors.

International Arbitration faces challenges domestically due to unharmonized local laws for enforcement. Often it may occur that an award...

Follow us

Centuries ago, Shakespeare used the phrase “What’s in a name?” in his famous play Romeo and Juliet. This adage implies that the name of a thing doesn’t matter as much as the qualities possessed by it. Further, ever since Shakespeare penned it, the phrase gained global recognition and stood the test of time. But, a few days back it failed to hold good in India when the very name of the country was challenged. This happened when a petition was filed before the Supreme Court of India, to amend the name of the country. The proposed name change is from India to Bharat or Hindustan.

The Issue

The Supreme Court bench headed by the CJI dealt with the petition filed from Delhi. The petition revolved around seeking directions by the Hon’ble SC for the central government to amend Article 1 of the constitution. Further, it aimed to change the official name of the country from India to Bharat or Hindustan.

The Court Proceeding

Advocate Ashwin Vaish, on behalf of the petitioner, stated that the public direly needs such an amendment. This is especially due to the history of this country. He further contended that the English name fails to represent the culture and tradition of the nation. This is because it has a Greek origin and reminds people of the years of slavery faced by the country. Hence, it is imperative to change its name to Bharat.

Changing the name would help instil a sense of patriotism and pride among the citizens. The counsel relied on the recent amendments in the names of certain states as per Indian ethos. He argued the need to recognize the country by its original and authentic name ‘Bharat’.

Replying to the contention, the bench stated “Why have you come here? India is already called Bharat in the Constitution under Article 1.” The court highlighted that the Constituent assembly has already debated on this issue. As it was after heated debates that “India that is Bharat” found its place in the Constitution.

Further dismissing the petition, the court held that the plea could be treated as a representation to the government. There is nothing else that the Court could do in this case.

What are the Different Names of India?

India is among the few countries that the world knows for its glorious past. Article 1 of the Constitution of India states, “India, that is Bharat, will be a union of states.” Jawaharlal Nehru in his work ‘Discovery of India’ penned down the different names of the nation. These included India, Bharata, Hindustan, etc.

Four years after he published the book, the Constitution came into force. Apart from these three names, there are several other nomenclatures used across the point of time to describe this South Asian Subcontinent. These nomenclatures changed with time and include names like as below:


This is the oldest name of the nation per the ancient Mesopotamian literature. It owes its origin to the Indus Valley Civilization.


The Manu Smriti used this word to name the nation. It was dominant during the Indo-Aryan Civilization.


This name is among the two names the constitution recognises. It found popularity during India’s struggle for independence by way of phrases like ‘BHARAT MATA KI JAI.’


Darius, the Persian ruler, described the land across the Sindhu River as ‘Sindh’. The Persians later changed this to Hind, as Persians pronounce letter ‘s’ as ‘h’. Darius called this subcontinent as the land of Hind or Hindustan. The two words ‘Hind’ and ‘Sthan’ thus gave rise to Hindustan.


Alexander added a Greek touch to the word ‘Hind’. Greeks often take ‘h’ to be silent in their vocabulary and thus everything that had a prefix ‘hind’ changed to ‘Ind’. This gave us the present name of India.

Apart from these names, some other prominent nomenclatures used for present India included, Jambudvipa, Dravida, Nabhivarsa, etc.

The Debate Behind the Name of Independent India?

Owing to the myriad names held by the nation, the debate while finalizing the name of independent India was sure to take place. Post-independence, Dr B.R. Ambedkar chaired the Constituent Assembly. The committee went for elongated discussions on each article before finalizing the constitution. When the matter of article 1, dealing with the ‘name and territory of the union’ took place before the house, the views stood divided.

How is Article 1 Interpreted? 

Article 1 of the Constitution states – “India, that is Bharat will be a union of states.” Many members of the assembly opposed the proposed wordings. They provided the following alternatives:

Shri H.V. KAMATH suggested amending the first article. It should state, ‘Bharat, or in the English language, India will be and such’. For this, he placed reliance on the Irish Free State, which changed its name to represent its authenticity.

HARI GOVIND PANT represented the hill districts and expressed on their behalf the desire to call India “Bharatvarsha and nothing else”.

SETH GOVIND DAS proposed changing the article to “Bharat known as India also in foreign countries”. He further stated that-

“Naming has always been and is even today of great significance in our country. India, that is, Bharat are not beautiful words for, the name of a country. We should have put the words Bharat known as India also in foreign countries. That would have been much more appropriate than the former expression. We should, however, at least have the satisfaction that we are today giving to our country the name of Bharat.”

But, the committee accepted none of the suggestions given by the members. During a vote on the question of amendment in Article 1, the House stood at 38 Ayes and 51 Noes. Thus the amendment was negatived.

Author’s Note

After more than 73 years of independence, the debate over the name of the nation still stands strong. On the international front, many countries got rid of their past. They changed their names to represent their traditional identity. These include Ceylon to Sri Lanka; Burma to Myanmar; Spanish East Indies to the Philippines; New Spain to Mexico; etc. Indeed, India is not the original name of this country and has a foreign past. Further, the name Bharat finds acceptance in our National Anthem, Freedom Slogans, etc.

Thus, it is now for the Central Government to decide the fate of the representation. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

Latest News

Writ Petition for Compensation Accepted by Calcutta High Court 

Introduction The Petitioner Purna Ch. Biswas filed a Writ Petition with the complaint that their claims for a higher quantum of compensation have not yet...

No Members Could Be Disqualified Without Authorisation by Political Party: Gujarat High Court

Excerpt The dispute application no.7 of 2020 filed by respondent no.2 before designated authority. Thereafter the designated authority order dated 28.10.2020 disqualified the petitioner and...

Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Jal Board To Make Supply of Potable Drinking Water

The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Delhi Sainik Cooperation Housing Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors held that right to...

Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Security To BJP Leader Alleged for Not Supporting Farmers Protest

The Order had come in the form of a Writ Petition filed by Tikshan Sood under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition before...

Lahore High Court Outlaws Two-Finger Virginity Test

The Lahore High Court in Pakistan has outlawed the use and conduct of virginity tests, namely, the use of the “two-finger” virginity test and...

London Court Rejects Assange’s Extradition – What Happens Now? 

Earlier last week, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, sitting in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court denied the Government of the U.S.A.'s request to the U.K. to...

Calcutta High Court Decides in Favor of Contractor as He Accidentally Pays an Excessively High Amount

Introduction The present writ petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to revoke the Petitioner’s offer as...

Petition Filed in Delhi High Court Challenging the New Privacy Policy of WhatsApp

A petition has been raised before the Delhi High Court challenging the updated privacy policy of the instant messaging app, WhatsApp. It is accused of looking into the virtual activities of the users,

Bombay High Court Says Pleas Against the Rejection of Nomination Before the Polls Is Not Maintainable

Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that a candidate cannot challenge his nomination by filing a writ petition before a court prior to the polls after his nominations have already been rejected by the Returning Officer (RO) for the Panchayat elections of January 15.

Bombay HC: It Will Be Difficult if Civic Bodies Don’t Take Action on Illegal Constructions

The Bombay High Court said on Wednesday that if the Municipal Corporations do not take action on the illegal constructions, things will become very difficult. This observation was made by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Girish Kulkarni while hearing a PIL after the Bhiwandi building collapse on September 21st, 2020 which led to the death of 39 lives. Mumbai Thane, Ulhasnagar, Kalyan-Dombivli, Vasai-Virar, Navi Mumbai, and Bhiwandi-Nizampur corporations were filed as respondents.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -