India, the names of - Revision history

Pdewan: /* Jinnah, Pakistan deny Bharat the names ‘India,’ ‘Hindustan’ */

2025-12-03T14:29:50Z

‎Jinnah, Pakistan deny Bharat the names ‘India,’ ‘Hindustan’

Pdewan: /* Bharat In the constitution */

2025-02-17T18:31:02Z

‎Bharat In the constitution

Pdewan: /* India, in the official languages of India */

2025-02-17T18:19:39Z

‎India, in the official languages of India

Jyoti: /* Name: India, not Hindustan */

2023-10-04T21:02:00Z

‎Name: India, not Hindustan

Jyoti: /* Bharat In the constitution */

2023-10-04T21:01:45Z

‎Bharat In the constitution

Jyoti: /* Name: India, not Hindustan */

2023-10-04T21:01:14Z

‎Name: India, not Hindustan

Jyoti: /* Name: India, not Hindustan */

2023-10-04T21:00:17Z

‎Name: India, not Hindustan

Jyoti: /* THE LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION IN INDIA */

2023-10-04T20:55:05Z

‎THE LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION IN INDIA

Pdewan: /* THE LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION IN INDIA */

2023-09-06T18:41:23Z

‎THE LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION IN INDIA

Pdewan: /* B: The legal constitutional position in India */

2023-09-06T18:40:52Z

‎B: The legal constitutional position in India

@@ Line 494: / Line 494: @@
 Two years later, in September 1949, when the Constituent Assembly of India began to discuss the draft Constitution of India, the name “Hindustan” was also on the table, but was quickly rejected. Article 1 of the Constitution uses “India” and “Bharat” interchangeably in its English version, and “Bharat” is used in the Hindi version.
 [[Category:History|IINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OF
 INDIA, THE NAMES OF]]
 [[Category:Pages with broken file links|INDIA, THE NAMES OF]]

@@ Line 371: / Line 371: @@
 On September 18, 1949, Ambedkar moved the following amendment to draft Article 1, which mentions the country’s name: “India, that is, Bharat shall be a Union of States.” But Assembly member HV Kamath said this was a clumsy construction and a constitutional slip. He suggested two alternatives: “Bharat, or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States” or “Hind, or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States”.
- Kamath cited the example of Ireland: “The name of the State is Eire, or, in the English language, Ireland.” He wanted to specify “in the English language, India” because in many other countries India was still known as ‘Hindustan’, “and all natives of this country are referred to as Hindus, whatever their religion may be…”
+Kamath cited the example of Ireland: “The name of the State is Eire, or, in the English language, Ireland.” He wanted to specify “in the English language, India” because in many other countries India was still known as ‘Hindustan’, “and all natives of this country are referred to as Hindus, whatever their religion may be…”
 Asked to pick one name for his amendment, Kamath chose “Bharat, or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States.”
- Then followed an intense debate in which members Seth Govind Das, Kamalapathi Tripathi, Kallur Subba Rao, Ram Sahai and Har Govind Pant passionately argued for Bharat.  Das said India was not an ancient word and was not found in the Vedas. It was only used after the Greeks came to India, while Bharat was to be found in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Brahmanas, the Mahabharata and the Puranas, as well as in Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsang’s writing.
+Then followed an intense debate in which members Seth Govind Das, Kamalapathi Tripathi, Kallur Subba Rao, Ram Sahai and Har Govind Pant passionately argued for Bharat.  Das said India was not an ancient word and was not found in the Vedas. It was only used after the Greeks came to India, while Bharat was to be found in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Brahmanas, the Mahabharata and the Puranas, as well as in Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsang’s writing.
-  Das suggested “Bharat known as India also in foreign countries”. He said the name was not backward-looking but befitted India’s history and culture. “If we do not arrive at correct decisions in regard to these matters the people of this country will not understand the significance of self-government.”
+Das suggested “Bharat known as India also in foreign countries”. He said the name was not backward-looking but befitted India’s history and culture. “If we do not arrive at correct decisions in regard to these matters the people of this country will not understand the significance of self-government.”
- Kallur Subba Rao said the name India came from Sindhu or Indus, and the name Hindustan suited Pakistan more as it had the Indus river. While referring to India as Bharat, he asked Seth Govind Das and other Hindi speakers to rename the Hindi language ‘Bharati’, for the goddess of learning.
+Kallur Subba Rao said the name India came from Sindhu or Indus, and the name Hindustan suited Pakistan more as it had the Indus river. While referring to India as Bharat, he asked Seth Govind Das and other Hindi speakers to rename the Hindi language ‘Bharati’, for the goddess of learning.
- Ram Sahai supported the name Bharat, saying the union of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa called itself Madhya Bharat and “in all our religious scriptures and all Hindi literature this country has been called Bharat, our leaders also refer to this country as Bharat in their speeches”.
+Ram Sahai supported the name Bharat, saying the union of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa called itself Madhya Bharat and “in all our religious scriptures and all Hindi literature this country has been called Bharat, our leaders also refer to this country as Bharat in their speeches”.
- Then Kamalapati Tripathi gave a rousing speech saying that “Bharat, that is India” might have been more proper and in accordance with the “sentiments and prestige of the country”. He claimed that during its “slavery for one thousand years”, the country had lost its soul, history, prestige and form and name. He said Bapu’s revolutionary movement had made the nation recognise its form and lost soul, and that it was due to his penance that it was regaining its name too.
+Then Kamalapati Tripathi gave a rousing speech saying that “Bharat, that is India” might have been more proper and in accordance with the “sentiments and prestige of the country”. He claimed that during its “slavery for one thousand years”, the country had lost its soul, history, prestige and form and name. He said Bapu’s revolutionary movement had made the nation recognise its form and lost soul, and that it was due to his penance that it was regaining its name too.
- Tripathi said that the mere uttering of the word conjured up a picture of cultured life. That despite centuries of prolonged slavery, the name persisted, that “the gods have been remembering the name of this country in the heavens” and have a keen desire to be born in the sacred land of Bharat.
+Tripathi said that the mere uttering of the word conjured up a picture of cultured life. That despite centuries of prolonged slavery, the name persisted, that “the gods have been remembering the name of this country in the heavens” and have a keen desire to be born in the sacred land of Bharat.
- “We are reminded that on the one hand, this culture reached the Mediterranean and on the other it touched the shores of the Pacific,” he claimed. It reminded one of the Rig Veda and the Upanishads, of the teachings of Krishna and the Buddha, of Shankaracharya, or Rama’s bow and Krishna’s wheel, he said. As Tripathi rhapsodised over the past, Ambedkar asked, “Is all this necessary, sir... There is a lot of work to be done.” While Ambedkar was in a hurry, Assembly president Rajendra Prasad allowed another intervention from Hargovind Pant, who said he had suggested the name Bharat Varsha, which was “used by us in our daily religious duties while reciting the Sankalpa. Even at the time of taking our bath we say in Sanskrit, “Jamboo Dwipay, Bharata Varshe, Bharat Khande, Aryavartay, etc…It means that I so and so, of Aryavart in Bharat Khand, etc.”
+“We are reminded that on the one hand, this culture reached the Mediterranean and on the other it touched the shores of the Pacific,” he claimed. It reminded one of the Rig Veda and the Upanishads, of the teachings of Krishna and the Buddha, of Shankaracharya, or Rama’s bow and Krishna’s wheel, he said. As Tripathi rhapsodised over the past, Ambedkar asked, “Is all this necessary, sir... There is a lot of work to be done.” While Ambedkar was in a hurry, Assembly president Rajendra Prasad allowed another intervention from Hargovind Pant, who said he had suggested the name Bharat Varsha, which was “used by us in our daily religious duties while reciting the Sankalpa. Even at the time of taking our bath we say in Sanskrit, “Jamboo Dwipay, Bharata Varshe, Bharat Khande, Aryavartay, etc…It means that I so and so, of Aryavart in Bharat Khand, etc.”
  Pant said Bharat was used by Kalidasa to refer to the kingdom of the son of Dushyanta and Shakuntala, whereas India was a name given by foreigners who were tempted by its wealth, and that clinging to it “would only show that we are not ashamed of having this insulting word which has been imposed on us by alien rulers.”
@@ Line 408: / Line 409: @@
  Senior advocate Nidhesh Gupta said ‘India’ was synonymous with ‘Bharat’ and, therefore, could be used interchangeably. If ‘India’ has to be altogether deleted from the Constitution, then an amendment of the Constitution would be required, he said. In 2016, the Supreme Court had dismissed a PIL that sought renaming ‘India’ as ‘Bharat’. “Bharat or India? You want to call it Bharat, go right ahead. Someone wants to call it India, let him call it India,” the bench comprising then Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice U U Lalit had said.
 [[Category:History|IINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OF

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 Sindhi	भारत	Bhārat/ 	ڀارت
-Tamil	இந்தியா (official), பாரதம்[F][8]	Intiyā, Pāratam
+Tamil	இந்தியா (official), பாரதம்  Intiyā, Pāratam
 Telugu	భారతదేశం	Bhārata
@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 [[Category:History|IINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OF
 INDIA, THE NAMES OF]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:02, 4 October 2023
Line 355:		Line 355:

	Milan , a film starring Dilip Kumar and Ranjana that opened during the week, was an adaptation of Rabindranath Tagore's story Noukadubi ( The Wreck ). It was Dilip Kumar's first film for Devika Rani’s Bombay Talkies studio.		Milan , a film starring Dilip Kumar and Ranjana that opened during the week, was an adaptation of Rabindranath Tagore's story Noukadubi ( The Wreck ). It was Dilip Kumar's first film for Devika Rani’s Bombay Talkies studio.
		+
		+	==Bharat In the constitution==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/article-share?article=06_09_2023_030_013_cap_TOI Sep 6, 2023: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	[[File: Bharat and India, debates in the Constituent Assembly.jpg\|Bharat and India, debates in the Constituent Assembly <br/> From: [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/article-share?article=06_09_2023_030_013_cap_TOI Sep 6, 2023: ''The Times of India'']\|frame\|500px]]
		+
		+
		+	The name ‘Bharat’ wasn’t there in the first draft of India’s Constitution introduced by the chairman of the drafting committee, BR Ambedkar, on November 4, 1948. Although some members flagged the omission of a native name, the debate on this took place almost a year later when the work on finalising the text was coming to an end.
		+
		+	On September 18, 1949, Ambedkar moved the following amendment to draft Article 1, which mentions the country’s name: “India, that is, Bharat shall be a Union of States.” But Assembly member HV Kamath said this was a clumsy construction and a constitutional slip. He suggested two alternatives: “Bharat, or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States” or “Hind, or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States”.
		+
		+	Kamath cited the example of Ireland: “The name of the State is Eire, or, in the English language, Ireland.” He wanted to specify “in the English language, India” because in many other countries India was still known as ‘Hindustan’, “and all natives of this country are referred to as Hindus, whatever their religion may be…”
		+	Asked to pick one name for his amendment, Kamath chose “Bharat, or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States.”
		+
		+	Then followed an intense debate in which members Seth Govind Das, Kamalapathi Tripathi, Kallur Subba Rao, Ram Sahai and Har Govind Pant passionately argued for Bharat.  Das said India was not an ancient word and was not found in the Vedas. It was only used after the Greeks came to India, while Bharat was to be found in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Brahmanas, the Mahabharata and the Puranas, as well as in Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsang’s writing.
		+
		+	Das suggested “Bharat known as India also in foreign countries”. He said the name was not backward-looking but befitted India’s history and culture. “If we do not arrive at correct decisions in regard to these matters the people of this country will not understand the significance of self-government.”
		+
		+	Kallur Subba Rao said the name India came from Sindhu or Indus, and the name Hindustan suited Pakistan more as it had the Indus river. While referring to India as Bharat, he asked Seth Govind Das and other Hindi speakers to rename the Hindi language ‘Bharati’, for the goddess of learning.
		+
		+	Ram Sahai supported the name Bharat, saying the union of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa called itself Madhya Bharat and “in all our religious scriptures and all Hindi literature this country has been called Bharat, our leaders also refer to this country as Bharat in their speeches”.
		+
		+	Then Kamalapati Tripathi gave a rousing speech saying that “Bharat, that is India” might have been more proper and in accordance with the “sentiments and prestige of the country”. He claimed that during its “slavery for one thousand years”, the country had lost its soul, history, prestige and form and name. He said Bapu’s revolutionary movement had made the nation recognise its form and lost soul, and that it was due to his penance that it was regaining its name too.
		+
		+	Tripathi said that the mere uttering of the word conjured up a picture of cultured life. That despite centuries of prolonged slavery, the name persisted, that “the gods have been remembering the name of this country in the heavens” and have a keen desire to be born in the sacred land of Bharat.
		+
		+	“We are reminded that on the one hand, this culture reached the Mediterranean and on the other it touched the shores of the Pacific,” he claimed. It reminded one of the Rig Veda and the Upanishads, of the teachings of Krishna and the Buddha, of Shankaracharya, or Rama’s bow and Krishna’s wheel, he said. As Tripathi rhapsodised over the past, Ambedkar asked, “Is all this necessary, sir... There is a lot of work to be done.” While Ambedkar was in a hurry, Assembly president Rajendra Prasad allowed another intervention from Hargovind Pant, who said he had suggested the name Bharat Varsha, which was “used by us in our daily religious duties while reciting the Sankalpa. Even at the time of taking our bath we say in Sanskrit, “Jamboo Dwipay, Bharata Varshe, Bharat Khande, Aryavartay, etc…It means that I so and so, of Aryavart in Bharat Khand, etc.”
		+
		+	Pant said Bharat was used by Kalidasa to refer to the kingdom of the son of Dushyanta and Shakuntala, whereas India was a name given by foreigners who were tempted by its wealth, and that clinging to it “would only show that we are not ashamed of having this insulting word which has been imposed on us by alien rulers.”
		+
		+	The Constituent Assembly voted by show of hands with 38 ayes and 51 noes, so Kamath’s amendment was rejected and the original wording stayed.
		+
		+	===Bharat and India can be interchangeably used===
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/article-share?article=06_09_2023_030_008_cap_TOI Pradeep Thakur & Amit Anand Choudhary, TNN, Sep 6, 2023: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	New Delhi : Legal and constitutional experts said there was no illegality in the use of ‘Bharat’ in place of ‘India’ in any official communication as it was part of the Constitution that reads ‘India, that is Bharat’.
		+
		+	However, they were also unanimous that a change in the Preamble to replace ‘India’ with ‘Bharat’ would require a constitutional amendment to be passed by two-thirds majority in the two Houses of Parliament and ratified by at least half of the states.
		+	At present, governments favour ‘India’ as the country’s name but it can be substituted by ‘Bharat’ by a government order that will require no ratification by Parliament.
		+
		+	Delving into the constitutional history and situation prevalent at the time of Independence that led to the continuing use of ‘India’, senior lawyer Rakesh Dwivedi said the intent of the Constitution framers was also to use ‘Bharat’ and, therefore, there was nothing wrong in privileging Bharat over India. However, if India was to be dropped, a constitutional amendment would be needed under Article 368, he clarified.
		+
		+	Former law secretary P K Malhotra concurred. “Unnecessary controversy is being raised over the use of ‘Bharat’ instead of ‘India’ in the invite by the President. Article 1 of the Constitution, which prescribes the name and territory of the Union, specifically says, ‘India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States’. In practise, we might be using ‘India’ but there is nothing which stops us from using ‘Bharat’ while describing our country,” he said.
		+
		+	Malhotra said there was no conflict between the two descriptions. “It is a matter of choice, and it should be our choice to use ‘Bharat’. Nothing needs to be done for using ‘Bharat’,” he said, adding that the government would be well within its rights even in issuing an order or resolution making it mandatory to use ‘Bharat’ in all official documents.
		+
		+	Senior advocate Nidhesh Gupta said ‘India’ was synonymous with ‘Bharat’ and, therefore, could be used interchangeably. If ‘India’ has to be altogether deleted from the Constitution, then an amendment of the Constitution would be required, he said. In 2016, the Supreme Court had dismissed a PIL that sought renaming ‘India’ as ‘Bharat’. “Bharat or India? You want to call it Bharat, go right ahead. Someone wants to call it India, let him call it India,” the bench comprising then Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice U U Lalit had said.

	[[Category:History\|IINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OF		[[Category:History\|IINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OF

@@ Line 290: / Line 290: @@
 =B=
 = THE LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION IN INDIA=
+[[Category:History|IINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OF
-The name ‘Bharat’ wasn’t there in the first draft of India’s Constitution introduced by the chairman of the drafting committee, BR Ambedkar, on November 4, 1948. Although some members flagged the omission of a native name, the debate on this took place almost a year later when the work on finalising the text was coming to an end.
+INDIA, THE NAMES OF]]
+[[Category:Pages with broken file links|INDIA, THE NAMES OF
-On September 18, 1949, Ambedkar moved the following amendment to draft Article 1, which mentions the country’s name: “India, that is, Bharat shall be a Union of States.” But Assembly member HV Kamath said this was a clumsy construction and a constitutional slip. He suggested two alternatives: “Bharat, or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States” or “Hind, or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States”.
-−
- Kamath cited the example of Ireland: “The name of the State is Eire, or, in the English language, Ireland.” He wanted to specify “in the English language, India” because in many other countries India was still known as ‘Hindustan’, “and all natives of this country are referred to as Hindus, whatever their religion may be…”
-Asked to pick one name for his amendment, Kamath chose “Bharat, or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States.”
-−
- Then followed an intense debate in which members Seth Govind Das, Kamalapathi Tripathi, Kallur Subba Rao, Ram Sahai and Har Govind Pant passionately argued for Bharat.  Das said India was not an ancient word and was not found in the Vedas. It was only used after the Greeks came to India, while Bharat was to be found in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Brahmanas, the Mahabharata and the Puranas, as well as in Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsang’s writing.
-−
-  Das suggested “Bharat known as India also in foreign countries”. He said the name was not backward-looking but befitted India’s history and culture. “If we do not arrive at correct decisions in regard to these matters the people of this country will not understand the significance of self-government.”
-−
- Kallur Subba Rao said the name India came from Sindhu or Indus, and the name Hindustan suited Pakistan more as it had the Indus river. While referring to India as Bharat, he asked Seth Govind Das and other Hindi speakers to rename the Hindi language ‘Bharati’, for the goddess of learning.
-−
- Ram Sahai supported the name Bharat, saying the union of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa called itself Madhya Bharat and “in all our religious scriptures and all Hindi literature this country has been called Bharat, our leaders also refer to this country as Bharat in their speeches”.
-−
- Then Kamalapati Tripathi gave a rousing speech saying that “Bharat, that is India” might have been more proper and in accordance with the “sentiments and prestige of the country”. He claimed that during its “slavery for one thousand years”, the country had lost its soul, history, prestige and form and name. He said Bapu’s revolutionary movement had made the nation recognise its form and lost soul, and that it was due to his penance that it was regaining its name too.
-−
- Tripathi said that the mere uttering of the word conjured up a picture of cultured life. That despite centuries of prolonged slavery, the name persisted, that “the gods have been remembering the name of this country in the heavens” and have a keen desire to be born in the sacred land of Bharat.
-−
- “We are reminded that on the one hand, this culture reached the Mediterranean and on the other it touched the shores of the Pacific,” he claimed. It reminded one of the Rig Veda and the Upanishads, of the teachings of Krishna and the Buddha, of Shankaracharya, or Rama’s bow and Krishna’s wheel, he said. As Tripathi rhapsodised over the past, Ambedkar asked, “Is all this necessary, sir... There is a lot of work to be done.” While Ambedkar was in a hurry, Assembly president Rajendra Prasad allowed another intervention from Hargovind Pant, who said he had suggested the name Bharat Varsha, which was “used by us in our daily religious duties while reciting the Sankalpa. Even at the time of taking our bath we say in Sanskrit, “Jamboo Dwipay, Bharata Varshe, Bharat Khande, Aryavartay, etc…It means that I so and so, of Aryavart in Bharat Khand, etc.”
-−
- Pant said Bharat was used by Kalidasa to refer to the kingdom of the son of Dushyanta and Shakuntala, whereas India was a name given by foreigners who were tempted by its wealth, and that clinging to it “would only show that we are not ashamed of having this insulting word which has been imposed on us by alien rulers.”
-−
- The Constituent Assembly voted by show of hands with 38 ayes and 51 noes, so Kamath’s amendment was rejected and the original wording stayed.
-−
-===Bharat and India can be interchangeably used===
-[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/article-share?article=06_09_2023_030_008_cap_TOI  Pradeep Thakur & Amit Anand Choudhary, TNN, Sep 6, 2023: ''The Times of India'']
-−
-−
-New Delhi : Legal and constitutional experts said there was no illegality in the use of ‘Bharat’ in place of ‘India’ in any official communication as it was part of the Constitution that reads ‘India, that is Bharat’.
-−
-However, they were also unanimous that a change in the Preamble to replace ‘India’ with ‘Bharat’ would require a constitutional amendment to be passed by two-thirds majority in the two Houses of Parliament and ratified by at least half of the states.
-At present, governments favour ‘India’ as the country’s name but it can be substituted by ‘Bharat’ by a government order that will require no ratification by Parliament.
-−
- Delving into the constitutional history and situation prevalent at the time of Independence that led to the continuing use of ‘India’, senior lawyer Rakesh Dwivedi said the intent of the Constitution framers was also to use ‘Bharat’ and, therefore, there was nothing wrong in privileging Bharat over India. However, if India was to be dropped, a constitutional amendment would be needed under Article 368, he clarified.
-−
- Former law secretary P K Malhotra concurred. “Unnecessary controversy is being raised over the use of ‘Bharat’ instead of ‘India’ in the invite by the President. Article 1 of the Constitution, which prescribes the name and territory of the Union, specifically says, ‘India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States’. In practise, we might be using ‘India’ but there is nothing which stops us from using ‘Bharat’ while describing our country,” he said.
-−
-Malhotra said there was no conflict between the two descriptions. “It is a matter of choice, and it should be our choice to use ‘Bharat’. Nothing needs to be done for using ‘Bharat’,” he said, adding that the government would be well within its rights even in issuing an order or resolution making it mandatory to use ‘Bharat’ in all official documents.
-−
- Senior advocate Nidhesh Gupta said ‘India’ was synonymous with ‘Bharat’ and, therefore, could be used interchangeably. If ‘India’ has to be altogether deleted from the Constitution, then an amendment of the Constitution would be required, he said. In 2016, the Supreme Court had dismissed a PIL that sought renaming ‘India’ as ‘Bharat’. “Bharat or India? You want to call it Bharat, go right ahead. Someone wants to call it India, let him call it India,” the bench comprising then Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice U U Lalit had said.
-−
 [[Category:History|IINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OFINDIA, THE NAMES OF
 INDIA, THE NAMES OF]]
 ==Name: India, not Hindustan==

@@ Line 342: / Line 342: @@
-=Name: India, not Hindustan=
+==Name: India, not Hindustan==
-==1947, June ==
+===1947, June===
 [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-75-why-india-chose-not-to-be-called-hindustan/articleshow/92303031.cms  June 18, 2022: ''The Times of India'']
 [[File: TOI June 13, 1947 edition- Gandhi tells his prayer meeting that all religions and lower classes should have a place in the new country, and so it was better to call it India, not Hindustan.jpg|TOI June 13, 1947 edition: Gandhi tells his prayer meeting that all religions and lower classes should have a place in the new country, and so it was better to call it India, not Hindustan <br/> From: [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-75-why-india-chose-not-to-be-called-hindustan/articleshow/92303031.cms  June 18, 2022: ''The Times of India'']|frame|500px]]
@@ Line 400: / Line 401: @@
 Milan , a film starring Dilip Kumar and Ranjana that opened during the week, was an adaptation of Rabindranath Tagore's story Noukadubi ( The Wreck ). It was Dilip Kumar's first film for Devika Rani’s Bombay Talkies studio.
 =Attempts to rename the country=