Lucknow, 07 Sept (HS): The union government’s decision to use President of Bharat rather than President of India in official G20 invites has sparked opposition parties to band together under the banner of the INDIA coalition to fight Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the run-up to the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. However, one of the INDIA (Indian National Inclusive Developmental Alliance)’s main allies, the Samajwadi Party, suggested a similar concept in the Uttar Pradesh legislative assembly 19 years ago when the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) was in power at the Centre. Mulayam Singh Yadav, the then-chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, submitted a motion in the state legislative assembly to change the term India that is Bharat with Bharat that is India via a quick constitutional amendment.
Yadav has proposed a motion to alter Article 1 of Part 1 (Name and Territory of the Union) of the Indian Constitution. On August 3, 2004, the state legislative assembly overwhelmingly approved this proposition. I recommend that the terms ‘India that is Bharat’ be replaced with ‘Bharat that is India.’ However, it appears that they are hesitant to consider this suggestion. I request that the minister of parliamentary affairs (at the time, Mohammad Azam Khan) propose a resolution to that effect. This resolution should be passed by the state legislative assembly and then sent to the Parliament, Yadav added. What is the impediment to doing so? Honourable Deputy Speaker, I now propose that ‘Bharat that is India’ be included in the Indian Constitution by a constitutional amendment. I ask for your permission to endorse this proposal, and I hope for unanimous support, Yadav said in his speech to the state legislature on August 3, 2004.
Yadav’s resolution sought to discourage the use of English language. Even though the late Lalji Tandon, the then-opposition leader and senior BJP member, asked Yadav to deliver the resolution following to established norms, he praised the proposal, saying, The name should indeed be ‘Bharat.’ Why do you keep using the word ‘India’? Why keep the term ‘India’? Tandon stated. Following that, legislative affairs minister Mohammad Azam Khan stated that the resolution was submitted with an open mind, motivated by a deep love for the nation that transcended all political concerns.
It is regrettable that, after 56 years of independence, we still use the same nomenclature (imported from abroad). We can’t completely avoid this since it’s a linguistic issue, Khan explained. Yadav’s 2004 resolution appears to have put the Samajwadi Party in a tough position, as political discussion rages over altering the country’s name, and SP officials have kept mute on the issue. When asked, SP spokesperson Rajendra Chaudhary said he had no knowledge of the 2004 resolution. We are steadfastly defending the Constitution and preparing for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections as part of the INDIA alliance, Chaudhary stated. Regarding claims that the Samajwadi Party’s programme for the 2004 Lok Sabha elections guaranteed the replacement of India with Bharat in the Constitution if the party won power, Chaudhary did not respond categorically.
Hindusthan Samachar/Abhishek Awasthi
