The article by P.D.T. Achary, former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha, discusses the recent controversy triggered by an official invitation from Rashtrapati Bhavan which referred to the President of India as 'President of Bharat.' The article analyzes the issue from a constitutional perspective and suggests that such a change would require a constitutional amendment. Achary also notes the potential for confusion in international agreements and treaties if the country's name is changed without a proper constitutional framework. He emphasizes that the change of a country's name, especially in a diverse nation like India, demands a national consensus rather than being the agenda of a particular political party.
Constitutional Standpoint on the Issue
Article 52
The article first brings to light the constitutional incongruence of the term 'President of Bharat.' According to Article 52 of the Indian Constitution, the official nomenclature is 'President of India,' and any deviation from this would require an amendment to the Constitution.
Example:
If the President is referred to as the 'President of Bharat' in an international treaty, it could result in legal and diplomatic complexities as Article 52 specifies the title as 'President of India.'
Article 1 and Article 368
The article also highlights the constraints of Article 1, which states "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States." Despite this, the terms 'India' and 'Bharat' are not interchangeable, and any change would require the exercise of Article 368, which allows the Parliament to amend the Constitution.
Example:
An amendment to replace the term 'India' with 'Bharat' in the Constitution would require a rigorous parliamentary process, including a twothirds majority vote.
Potential Confusion in International Communication
Diplomatic Implications
The article argues that using 'Bharat' and 'India' interchangeably could lead to confusion in diplomatic circles. All international treaties and agreements are signed in the name of the 'Republic of India.'
Example:
An international trade agreement could become null and void if there is inconsistency in the name of the country.
Need for National Consensus
Emphasizing Diversity
Achary emphasizes that given the diversity of India, any decision on changing the country's name should be based on a broad national consensus, to avoid alienating any section of society.
Example:
The public sentiment in regions like the NorthEast or South India might differ on the name change, requiring extensive consultations to reach a consensus.
Historical Context and the Constituent Assembly
Role of Constituent Assembly
The article ends by highlighting that the term 'Bharat' was included in Article 1 as a compromise during the debates in the Constituent Assembly and not as an alternative to 'India.'
Example:
B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Constitution, never intended for the terms 'India' and 'Bharat' to be used interchangeably.
