What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
Expert says Article 1 will need amendment to officially name the country as Bharat
NEW DELHI: There is no conflict between terms ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’, says constitutional expert and Supreme Court lawyer Gyanant Singh, amid the raging controversy over renaming the country.
Speaking to The New Indian, “Article 1 of our Constitution names our state as India, which is Bharat. Bharat here has been identified as India, not the other way around. This is how our constitution was crafted.” Singh also said that the mention of ‘India i.e. Bharat’ in the Indian Constitution suggests that ‘Bharat’ has been identified as ‘India’.
READ MORE: India likely to be named as Bharat: Rajeev Chandrasekhar slams Congress
“In constituent assembly, an amendment was moved by HV Kamat proposed that Bharat, which in English translation, shall be India. But it was rejected,” the expert informed.
He further said: “The term ‘India i.e. Bharat’ mentioned in Article 1 of the Constitution actually means Bharat has been identified as India.”
“This is primarily a matter of nomenclature and how these terms are used. When it comes to executive memos and letters, there is no legal conflict with the constitution. However, it’s worth noting that the Preamble doesn’t mention ‘Bharat,’ so if one wishes to align it with the Preamble, an amendment to Article 1 would be necessary,” he stated.
READ MORE: Explainer: Why political parties oppose one nation, one election
A controversy erupted after an invitation for a dinner to be hosted at the Rashtrapati Bhavan on September 9 on the occasion of G20 Summit referred to ‘President of India’ as ‘President of Bharat’.
Notably, 28 opposition parties recently formed a joint political forum, naming themselves ‘INDIA’ with the tagline ‘Jeetega Bharat, Badhega India.’ Constituents of the INDIA alliance said that the government’s decision to rename the country was influenced by their move to name their alliance as INDIA.
