The Union authorities’s choice to use “President of Bharat” as a substitute of “President of India” in official G20 invites has stirred up opposition events, coalescing below the banner of the INDIA alliance, to problem Prime Minister Narendra Modi in run up of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
One of many principal companions of the INDIA (Indian Nationwide Inclusive Developmental Alliance), the Samajwadi Get together, nonetheless, had proposed an identical thought 19 years in the past in the Uttar Pradesh legislative meeting when the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) was in energy on the Centre.
The then Uttar Pradesh chief minister, Mulayam Singh Yadav, proposed a decision in the state legislative meeting, urging the phrase “India that’s Bharat” to get replaced with “Bharat that’s India” by way of a constitutional modification.
Yadav had tabled the decision, soliciting an modification to Article 1 inside Half 1 (Title and Territory of the Union) of the Indian Structure. The state legislative meeting unanimously endorsed this proposal on August 3, 2004.
“I suggest the substitution of the phrases ‘India that’s Bharat’ with ‘Bharat that’s India.’ Nonetheless, it seems they’re reluctant to entertain this proposal. I name upon the minister for parliamentary affairs (then Mohammad Azam Khan) to introduce a decision to this impact. The state legislative meeting ought to cross this decision and subsequently ahead it to the parliament,” Yadav stated.
“The place lies the obstacle in doing so? Honourable Deputy Speaker, I hereby suggest the inclusion of ‘Bharat that’s India’ by way of a constitutional modification to the Indian Structure. I request your permission to endorse this proposal, and I hope for unanimous help,” Yadav added in his speech in the state legislative meeting on August 3, 2004.
Additionally Learn: Any transfer to rename nation in opposition to the structure, says Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan
Yadav’s decision primarily aimed to discourage the utilization of English terminology. Regardless that the then chief of the opposition and senior BJP determine, the late Lalji Tandon, urged Yadav to current the decision in accordance to established guidelines, he recommended the initiative, stating, “The identify ought to certainly be ‘Bharat.’ Why persist with ‘India’? Why retain the time period ‘India’?” Tandon stated.
Subsequently, parliamentary affairs minister Mohammad Azam Khan stated that the decision had been tabled with an open thoughts, pushed by a profound love for the nation, transcending all political concerns.
“It’s regrettable that, even after 56 years of independence, we proceed to make use of the identical nomenclature (imported from overseas). We can’t totally dispense with this, as it pertains to a language situation,” Khan stated.
Yadav’s 2004 decision has seemingly positioned the Samajwadi Get together in a troublesome scenario as a political debate rages over altering the nation’s identify, and SP leaders have remained silent on it.
When contacted, SP spokesperson Rajendra Chaudhary said that he was unaware of the 2004 decision.
“We’re steadfastly defending the Structure and making ready for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections as a part of the INDIA alliance,” Chaudhary stated.
Relating to reviews suggesting that the Samajwadi Get together’s manifesto for the 2004 Lok Sabha elections promised the alternative of “India” with “Bharat” in the Structure if the get together got here to energy, Chaudhary didn’t give a categorical response.