Introduction
The discourse surrounding the potential renaming of India as “Republic of Bharat” has captured significant political and constitutional attention, particularly following the G20 summit invitation controversy where the President was referred to as the “President of Bharat” [1]. This constitutional proposition presents a multifaceted legal challenge that necessitates a thorough examination of India’s constitutional amendment framework, established precedents, and the intricate balance between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional limitations.
The Constitution of India, adopted on 26 January 1950, explicitly recognizes both nomenclatures in Article 1, which states “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States” [2]. While both names enjoy constitutional legitimacy, any attempt to exclusively adopt “Republic of Bharat” as the sole official designation would require a fundamental constitutional amendment, triggering one of the most complex legal processes enshrined in Indian constitutional law.
This comprehensive analysis examines the constitutional amendment process under Article 368, the doctrine of basic structure as established in landmark judicial precedents, international examples of name changes, and the practical implications of such a monumental constitutional modification. The examination reveals that while technically feasible, the process represents a Herculean constitutional task fraught with legal, political, and administrative complexities.
The Constitutional Framework for Amendment: Article 368 and Its Provisions
Historical Development of Article 368
Article 368 of the Constitution of India, contained in Part XX, represents the culmination of extensive deliberations by the Constituent Assembly regarding the balance between constitutional rigidity and flexibility [3]. The framers deliberately crafted an amendment procedure that was neither too rigid like the United States Constitution nor too flexible like the British parliamentary system. This hybrid approach ensures constitutional stability while permitting necessary adaptations to changing circumstances.
The Article emerged from intense debates within the Constituent Assembly, where members wrestled with fundamental questions about democratic governance and constitutional supremacy. The Drafting Committee, under the chairmanship of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, faced the challenge of creating an amendment mechanism that would protect the Constitution’s fundamental principles while allowing for evolutionary change [4].
Procedural Requirements Under Article 368
The constitutional amendment process under Article 368(2) establishes specific procedural requirements that must be meticulously followed for any amendment to achieve constitutional validity [5]. The process mandates that an amendment of the Constitution may be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill in either House of Parliament, specifically the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha. Significantly, state legislatures lack the constitutional authority to initiate constitutional amendments, reflecting the centralized nature of the amendment process.
The Bill must secure passage in each House by a special majority, defined as a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting [6]. This dual threshold ensures both broad-based support and intensive scrutiny of proposed amendments. Unlike ordinary legislation, there exists no provision for joint sittings in case of disagreement between the two Houses, necessitating independent approval from both chambers.
For amendments affecting specific constitutional provisions enumerated in the proviso to Article 368(2), additional ratification by not less than one-half of the state legislatures becomes mandatory [7]. These provisions include the election of the President (Articles 54, 55), the extent of Union executive power (Article 73), state executive power (Article 162), Union Territory administration (Article 241), and crucially, any changes affecting the federal structure outlined in Chapter IV of Part V, Chapter V of Part VI, or Chapter I of Part XI.
Application to Name Change Amendment
The proposed amendment to change “India” to “Republic of Bharat” would primarily involve modification of Article 1 of the Constitution. Legal analysis suggests that such an amendment would likely require the enhanced procedure under Article 368(2) with state ratification, given its potential impact on the federal structure and the Union’s fundamental identity [8]. Article 1 defines the very nature and territorial composition of the Union, making it integral to the constitutional framework’s basic architecture.
The amendment would necessitate not only textual changes to Article 1 but also consequential amendments to numerous other constitutional provisions that reference “India,” including Articles 52 (President of India), 124 (Supreme Court of India), and various other provisions throughout the constitutional text. This cascading effect amplifies the complexity and scope of the required constitutional modifications.
The Doctrine of Basic Structure: Constitutional Limitations on Amendment Power
Genesis and Evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine
The doctrine of basic structure represents one of the most significant contributions of Indian constitutional jurisprudence to global constitutional theory. This doctrine emerged from the landmark judgment in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), where a 13-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, by a narrow 7:6 majority, established that while Parliament possesses extensive powers to amend the Constitution, these powers are not unlimited [9].
The case arose from a challenge to the Kerala Land Reforms Act and several constitutional amendments, including the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments. The petitioner, represented by the eminent jurist Nani Palkhivala, argued that certain amendments violated fundamental rights and altered the Constitution’s essential character [10]. The Supreme Court’s decision fundamentally transformed the relationship between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional supremacy in India.
Core Principles of the Basic Structure Doctrine
The basic structure doctrine establishes that certain fundamental features of the Constitution are so integral to its identity and functioning that they cannot be amended, regardless of the parliamentary majority supporting such changes [11]. While the Supreme Court deliberately refrained from providing an exhaustive definition of basic structure, subsequent judicial pronouncements have identified several core elements:
The supremacy of the Constitution stands as the foundational principle, ensuring that all governmental actions remain subject to constitutional limitations. The democratic and republican nature of the Indian polity constitutes another inviolable feature, guaranteeing that India remains a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The secular character of the Constitution, emphasizing religious neutrality and equality, represents a fundamental commitment that cannot be compromised through amendments.
The federal character of the Constitution, embodying the distribution of powers between the Union and states, forms an essential structural element [12]. The separation of powers among the legislature, executive, and judiciary ensures checks and balances within the governmental system. The independence of the judiciary guarantees the rule of law and protection of individual rights. Additionally, the welfare state concept, reflecting socio-economic justice principles, and the dignity and unity of the nation constitute integral aspects of the basic structure.
Application to Name Change: Basic Structure Analysis
The proposed name change from “India” to “Republic of Bharat” raises complex questions regarding its compatibility with the basic structure doctrine. Proponents argue that the change represents a purely symbolic modification that preserves all fundamental constitutional principles while better reflecting the nation’s cultural heritage and indigenous identity [13]. The argument emphasizes that “Bharat” already enjoys constitutional recognition in Article 1, making the change merely a matter of emphasis rather than substantive alteration.
However, constitutional scholars have raised concerns about potential implications for the basic structure. The unity and integrity of the nation, recognized as a basic feature, could be affected if the name change creates divisions among different linguistic and cultural communities within India. The secular character might face challenges if the change is perceived as favoring particular cultural or religious traditions over others.
The federal character could be impacted if states with populations preferring the name “India” feel marginalized by the exclusive adoption of “Republic of Bharat.” This concern becomes particularly relevant given India’s linguistic diversity and the varying cultural associations different communities have with each name. The amendment’s compatibility with the basic structure would ultimately depend on its implementation, public acceptance, and long-term impact on national unity and constitutional values.
International Precedents: Comparative Analysis of Name Changes
Historical Examples of Constitutional Name Changes
International experience provides valuable insights into the constitutional and practical aspects of country name changes. Several nations have successfully navigated this process, offering lessons for potential implementation in India [14]. These precedents demonstrate that while name changes are constitutionally possible, they require careful planning, broad consensus, and comprehensive legal frameworks.
Ceylon’s transformation to Sri Lanka in 1972 represents one of the most relevant precedents for India. The change coincided with the adoption of a new republican constitution, symbolizing the complete break from colonial heritage and the assertion of indigenous cultural identity [15]. The new name “Sri Lanka” means “beautiful land” in Sanskrit and Sinhala, reflecting the nation’s cultural roots while maintaining international recognition and legitimacy.
Burma’s controversial change to Myanmar in 1989 by the military junta illustrates the political complexities involved in name changes [16]. The military government justified the change by arguing that “Burma” referred only to the dominant ethnic group, while “Myanmar” encompassed all indigenous communities. However, the change remains disputed internationally, with many countries and organizations continuing to use “Burma,” particularly when criticizing the military regime.
Swaziland’s recent change to Eswatini in 2018 demonstrates a peaceful, monarch-initiated transformation aimed at eliminating confusion with Switzerland and asserting cultural authenticity [17]. King Mswati III announced the change during independence celebrations, emphasizing that “Eswatini” simply meant “land of the Swazis” in the local language. The change was widely accepted domestically and internationally, partly due to its cultural authenticity and the absence of significant political controversy.
Constitutional Mechanisms in Comparative Perspective
Different countries employ varying constitutional mechanisms for implementing name changes. In parliamentary systems like the United Kingdom, name changes can be achieved through ordinary legislation, as demonstrated by various territorial designation modifications. However, countries with written constitutions typically require formal amendment procedures.
The United States Constitution, known for its rigidity, would require the extremely difficult amendment process outlined in Article V for any name change [18]. This process demands either a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress or a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the states. The practical impossibility of achieving such consensus illustrates the challenges inherent in rigid constitutional systems.
European Union member states have demonstrated various approaches, from simple administrative changes to comprehensive constitutional amendments. The flexibility of these systems often depends on their federal structure, democratic traditions, and the political consensus surrounding proposed changes.
Lessons for India’s Potential Name Change
International precedents suggest several critical factors for successful name changes. First, broad political and social consensus significantly enhances the likelihood of smooth implementation and international acceptance. Second, clear constitutional procedures and transparent processes build public confidence and legitimacy. Third, comprehensive planning for administrative, legal, and international implications reduces implementation challenges.
The timing of name changes also appears crucial, with successful examples often coinciding with significant political transitions, independence celebrations, or constitutional reforms [19]. Cultural authenticity and historical legitimacy of the new name contribute to domestic and international acceptance. Finally, careful consideration of minority communities’ perspectives and potential concerns helps maintain national unity and social harmony.
Legal Challenges and Constitutional Hurdles in Renaming India to the Republic of Bharat
Procedural Complexities in Amendment Process
The constitutional amendment process for changing India’s name to Republic of Bharat involves numerous procedural complexities that extend far beyond the basic requirements of Article 368. The interconnected nature of constitutional provisions means that a name change would necessitate amendments to dozens of articles, schedules, and constitutional references [20]. Each amendment must undergo the complete constitutional process, potentially requiring separate Bills or a comprehensive omnibus amendment addressing all relevant provisions simultaneously.
The requirement for state legislature ratification adds another layer of complexity, as it necessitates coordination with 28 state governments and 8 Union Territory administrations. Each state legislature must pass a resolution supporting the amendment, and the political dynamics within different states could significantly influence the process’s success. States with diverse linguistic populations or those where “India” holds particular cultural significance might face internal political pressures regarding their position on the amendment.
The timing and sequencing of the amendment process also present practical challenges. Parliamentary sessions, state legislative calendars, and political priorities must be coordinated to ensure timely consideration across all required forums. The absence of a deadline for state ratification, as established in Article 368, means the process could potentially extend indefinitely if some states delay their decisions.
Judicial Review and Constitutional Validity
The proposed name change amendment would inevitably face judicial scrutiny under the basic structure doctrine, requiring careful legal crafting to withstand constitutional challenges [21]. Potential petitioners might argue that the change violates various aspects of the basic structure, including national unity, secular character, or the democratic principle of representation for diverse communities.
The Supreme Court’s role as the final interpreter of the Constitution means that any amendment’s constitutional validity remains subject to judicial review, even after parliamentary passage and state ratification. The Court’s power to strike down constitutional amendments that violate the basic structure, as established in Kesavananda Bharati and reaffirmed in subsequent cases like I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), creates an additional hurdle for the proposed amendment.
Constitutional challenges might also arise regarding the amendment’s compliance with procedural requirements under Article 368. Questions about whether the amendment requires state ratification, the adequacy of legislative deliberation, or the constitutional propriety of the change could all form grounds for judicial intervention. The Supreme Court’s careful scrutiny of constitutional amendments, particularly those affecting fundamental aspects of the constitutional framework, suggests that extensive legal argumentation and constitutional analysis would be required.
Political and Administrative Challenges
Beyond constitutional requirements, the proposal to rename the country as the Republic of Bharat faces significant political and administrative challenges that could impede its implementation. Building political consensus across party lines, regional interests, and diverse cultural communities requires extensive negotiation and compromise. Opposition parties might use the issue for political advantage, potentially complicating the amendment process and creating partisan divisions.
The administrative implications of changing the country’s name extend to virtually every aspect of governmental and legal operations [22]. Official documents, legal instruments, international treaties, and administrative procedures would require systematic updating. The cost and logistical complexity of these changes could create implementation delays and administrative confusion.
International implications also present challenges, as foreign governments, international organizations, and multinational institutions would need to recognize and implement the name change. While most international precedents suggest eventual acceptance, the transition period could create confusion in diplomatic relations, trade agreements, and international legal instruments.
International and Domestic Implications of Renaming India to Republic of Bharat
Diplomatic and Treaty Considerations
The international dimensions of changing India’s name to Republic of Bharat extend far beyond symbolic significance, encompassing complex diplomatic and legal considerations that require careful navigation [23]. India’s extensive network of bilateral and multilateral treaties, agreements, and international commitments all reference “Republic of India” as the contracting party, necessitating comprehensive review and potential renegotiation of these instruments.
Major international organizations, including the United Nations, World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, and World Bank, would need to update their records, voting procedures, and administrative systems to reflect the name change. While such updates are typically routine administrative matters, they require formal notification processes and could involve temporary confusion in international forums during the transition period.
Trade agreements and commercial treaties present particular complexities, as private parties and commercial entities worldwide have structured their relationships and legal instruments around the current constitutional name. The legal continuity of these arrangements would require careful consideration and potentially formal clarification to avoid commercial disputes or contract interpretation issues.
Diplomatic relations with neighboring countries and major global powers also require strategic management during any name change process. Historical sensitivities, particularly with Pakistan and China, could be affected by the change, requiring diplomatic engagement to ensure the modification does not create unintended geopolitical complications.
Economic and Commercial Ramifications
The economic implications of changing India’s name to Republic of Bharat extend across multiple sectors and could involve substantial costs and operational adjustments [24]. Brand recognition and marketing investments built around “India” as a national brand would require significant revision, affecting tourism promotion, export marketing, and international business development initiatives.
Private sector entities, particularly those operating internationally, would face costs associated with rebranding, legal documentation updates, and marketing material revisions. Companies with “India” in their names or those heavily invested in India-branded marketing strategies might need to make substantial adjustments to their business operations and brand positioning.
The financial services sector would encounter particular challenges, as banking systems, payment networks, and financial institutions worldwide would need to update their systems and procedures. International credit ratings, country risk assessments, and economic data series would require systematic revision to reflect the name change while maintaining historical continuity.
Tourism and cultural promotion efforts, which have invested heavily in “Incredible India” and similar branding initiatives, would need comprehensive revision. While “Republic of Bharat” could offer opportunities for culturally authentic marketing, the transition costs and potential short-term confusion could affect tourism revenues and international cultural programs.
Domestic Administrative Implementation
The domestic implementation of a name change from India to Republic of Bharat would require one of the most comprehensive administrative undertakings in the nation’s history [25]. Every level of government, from the Union administration to local bodies, would need to systematically update their legal frameworks, administrative procedures, and public documents to reflect the constitutional change.
Legal systems across the country would face the massive task of updating statutes, regulations, and legal instruments that reference India. Court systems would need to revise their procedures, case law references, and administrative protocols. The legal profession would require guidance on handling pending cases, contractual interpretation, and the transition between old and new legal references.
Educational institutions would need to update curricula, textbooks, and administrative materials to reflect the name change. The process would involve coordination among central and state education boards, universities, and private educational institutions. Historical and social science education would require particular attention to ensure accurate presentation of the change’s context and significance.
Identity documentation systems, including passports, citizenship certificates, and various government-issued credentials, would need systematic revision. The logistical challenge of updating millions of documents while maintaining security and accuracy standards would require extensive planning and resource allocation.
Procedural Roadmap: Step-by-Step Amendment Process
Initial Parliamentary Procedures
The constitutional amendment process for changing India’s name to Republic of Bharat would commence with the introduction of a Constitution Amendment Bill in either the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha [26]. The Bill could be introduced by any Member of Parliament, whether a government minister or private member, without requiring prior presidential permission. However, given the significance and complexity of such an amendment, government sponsorship would likely be essential for successful passage.
The drafting of the amendment Bill would require meticulous attention to identify all constitutional provisions requiring modification. Beyond the obvious change to Article 1, the amendment would need to address references throughout the Constitution, including the Preamble if deemed necessary, various articles mentioning “India,” and potentially related provisions in the Schedules.
Parliamentary debate on the amendment would likely be extensive, involving detailed discussion in both Houses about the rationale, implications, and implementation aspects of the change. The absence of a time limit for parliamentary consideration means the debate could extend across multiple sessions, allowing for thorough examination of all relevant issues.
Committee referral might be appropriate for such a significant amendment, with parliamentary committees providing detailed analysis and recommendations. The committee process could facilitate broader consultation with constitutional experts, legal scholars, and stakeholders, enhancing the amendment’s constitutional foundation and public legitimacy.
State Ratification Process
Following parliamentary passage, the amendment would require ratification by not less than half of the state legislatures, meaning at least 14 out of 28 states would need to pass supporting resolutions [27]. This process involves transmitting the amendment to all state governments with requests for legislative consideration and resolution passage.
State legislative processes vary significantly across different states, with some having regular sessions while others meet less frequently. The coordination of state legislative calendars to ensure timely consideration could present logistical challenges, particularly if states need to convene special sessions to address the amendment.
The political dynamics within individual states could significantly influence the ratification process. States with coalition governments, where different parties hold varying positions on the amendment, might face internal political negotiations before reaching decisions. Regional parties might use the issue to assert their political positions or negotiate broader political agreements.
Constitutional precedent suggests that once a state legislature passes a resolution supporting an amendment, it cannot subsequently withdraw that support, providing finality to positive ratification decisions. However, states that initially reject the amendment could reconsider their positions if political circumstances change.
Presidential Assent and Promulgation
Upon securing the required parliamentary and state approvals, the amendment Bill would be presented to the President for assent [28]. The 24th Constitutional Amendment (1971) clarified that the President’s assent to constitutional amendments is mandatory, eliminating any discretionary power to withhold approval or return the Bill for reconsideration.
The President’s constitutional role in the amendment process is largely ceremonial, reflecting the democratic principle that constitutional changes should be determined by elected representatives rather than appointed officials. However, the presidential office’s symbolic importance means that the assent ceremony could be designed to highlight the amendment’s significance and national importance.
Following presidential assent, the amendment would be published in the Official Gazette, marking its formal integration into the Constitution. The publication date would establish the effective date of the change, triggering the need for comprehensive administrative implementation across all levels of government.
The constitutional amendment would then require systematic implementation through subordinate legislation, administrative orders, and institutional updates to ensure the name change is effectively reflected throughout the legal and administrative system.
Contemporary Relevance and Political Dynamics
Current Political Landscape
The contemporary political environment surrounding the potential name change from India to Republic of Bharat reflects broader debates about cultural identity, historical legacy, and national representation [29]. The Bharatiya Janata Party’s ideological commitment to cultural nationalism and indigenous traditions creates political momentum for such constitutional changes, while opposition parties express varying degrees of skepticism about the necessity and implications of the modification.
The formation of the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) by opposition parties has added a political dimension to the name debate, with some interpreting the constitutional name change proposal as a political response to the opposition alliance’s acronym. This political context could influence public perception and parliamentary dynamics surrounding any formal amendment proposal.
Regional political parties play crucial roles in the amendment process, as their support would be essential for both parliamentary passage and state ratification. The diverse perspectives of regional parties, reflecting their constituents’ linguistic and cultural preferences, could significantly influence the amendment’s political feasibility and ultimate success.
Public opinion research suggests complex and nuanced attitudes toward the name change, with variations based on linguistic preferences, educational backgrounds, and regional identities. Building broad public consensus would likely require extensive public engagement and education efforts to explain the change’s rationale and address concerns about cultural representation and national unity.
Cultural and Historical Considerations
The cultural significance of both names “India” and “Bharat” reflects the nation’s complex historical trajectory and diverse cultural heritage [30]. “Bharat” carries deep historical and mythological associations, tracing its origins to ancient Sanskrit texts and Puranic literature, particularly the Mahabharata’s references to “Bharatvarsha” as the land of Bharata’s descendants.
“India,” derived from the Sanskrit “Sindhu” through Greek and Persian linguistic evolution, represents the name by which the subcontinent has been known to the outside world for millennia. The name’s international recognition and historical usage in trade, diplomacy, and cultural exchange provide practical advantages for global engagement and recognition.
The constitutional recognition of both names in Article 1 reflects the Constituent Assembly’s wisdom in acknowledging this dual heritage. The phrase “India, that is Bharat” was carefully crafted to encompass both the international identity and indigenous cultural roots, providing constitutional legitimacy for either nomenclature.
Contemporary cultural movements emphasizing indigenous identity and decolonization have renewed interest in promoting “Bharat” as the preferred designation. However, balancing these cultural aspirations with practical considerations of international recognition, administrative efficiency, and national unity requires careful constitutional and political navigation.
Future Implications and Recommendations
Long-term Constitutional Impact
The successful implementation of a name change from India to Republic of Bharat would establish important precedents for future constitutional amendments and the evolution of Indian constitutional law [31]. The process would demonstrate the practical application of Article 368’s amendment procedures for fundamental constitutional changes, potentially influencing approaches to other significant constitutional modifications.
The basic structure doctrine’s application to name changes would likely be clarified through judicial review, providing important guidance for future amendments affecting national identity, federal structure, or fundamental constitutional principles. This judicial clarification could influence constitutional interpretation and amendment practices for decades to come.
The precedent would also affect how cultural and historical considerations are weighted against practical and administrative concerns in constitutional decision-making. The balance between cultural authenticity and functional efficiency established through this process could guide future debates about constitutional reforms reflecting India’s evolving identity and values.
International recognition of the name change would affect India’s global constitutional reputation and influence other nations considering similar modifications to their fundamental legal instruments. The success or challenges encountered during implementation could serve as a case study for comparative constitutional law and international legal practice.
Strategic Recommendations
Based on comprehensive legal analysis and international precedents, several strategic recommendations emerge for managing a potential constitutional amendment process [32]. First, extensive consultation with constitutional experts, legal scholars, and civil society organizations should precede any formal amendment proposal to ensure comprehensive analysis of all legal and practical implications.
Second, broad-based political consensus-building across party lines and regional interests should be prioritized to enhance the amendment’s legitimacy and implementation success. This process should include systematic engagement with state governments, regional parties, and diverse cultural communities to address concerns and build support.
Third, detailed implementation planning should begin well before the amendment process, including coordination with international partners, administrative agencies, and private sector stakeholders to minimize disruption and ensure smooth transition. This planning should address diplomatic notification processes, commercial impacts, and administrative logistics.
Fourth, public education and engagement campaigns should explain the constitutional process, historical significance, and practical implications of the change to build informed public support and address concerns about cultural representation or national unity. These efforts should emphasize the continuity of constitutional values and democratic principles regardless of nomenclature.
Finally, the amendment should be designed with careful attention to constitutional principles, basic structure limitations, and long-term implications for Indian democracy and federal structure. The process should strengthen rather than weaken constitutional institutions and democratic practices.
Conclusion
The constitutional amendment process for changing India’s name to “Republic of Bharat” represents one of the most complex and significant constitutional undertakings in the nation’s independent history. While the legal framework provided by Article 368 makes such an amendment theoretically possible, the practical challenges involve intricate legal procedures, political consensus-building, and comprehensive administrative implementation.
The analysis reveals that the amendment would require not merely a simple textual change but a fundamental constitutional modification affecting dozens of constitutional provisions and requiring both parliamentary supermajorities and state legislative ratification. The basic structure doctrine adds another layer of constitutional scrutiny, ensuring that any amendment must preserve the Constitution’s fundamental features and democratic character.
International precedents provide both encouraging examples and cautionary tales about country name changes, emphasizing the importance of broad consensus, careful planning, and systematic implementation. The success of such changes often depends more on political and social factors than on legal technicalities, highlighting the need for comprehensive public engagement and cultural sensitivity.
The contemporary political dynamics surrounding the issue reflect broader debates about national identity, cultural heritage, and democratic representation. While the Constituent Assembly’s recognition of both names provides constitutional legitimacy for either designation, the practical implications of exclusively adopting “Republic of Bharat” would require careful navigation of linguistic diversity, regional sensitivities, and international relations.
Ultimately, the constitutional amendment for renaming India as Republic of Bharat, while legally feasible under Article 368, represents a Herculean task that would test the resilience and adaptability of Indian constitutional institutions. The process would require unprecedented coordination between the Union and state governments, comprehensive administrative planning, and sustained political commitment across multiple electoral cycles.
The success of such an amendment would depend not merely on following constitutional procedures but on building genuine consensus around the change’s necessity, desirability, and implementation. The process offers an opportunity to reaffirm India’s cultural heritage while demonstrating the Constitution’s capacity for evolutionary change within democratic and federal frameworks.
Whether this constitutional transformation ultimately occurs will depend on the complex interplay of political will, public opinion, and practical considerations that define democratic governance in a diverse and complex nation. The debate itself reflects the vitality of Indian democracy and the ongoing evolution of national identity within constitutional parameters.
References
[1] Rau’s IAS Study Material. (2023). “India i.e Bharat: In diverse India, name change demands consensus.” Retrieved from https://compass.rauias.com/current-affairs/diverse-india-name-change-demands/
[2] Constitution of India. (1950). Article 1: Name and Territory of the Union. Retrieved from https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-1-name-and-territory-of-the-union/
[3] Blog iPleaders. (2022). “The Amendment of the Constitution: Article 368 under Indian constitution.” Retrieved from https://blog.ipleaders.in/the-amendment-of-the-constitution-article-368/
[4] Constitution of India. (2023). “Article 368: Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefor.” Retrieved from https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-368-power-of-parliament-to-amend-the-constitution-and-procedure-therefor/
[5] Unacademy. (2022). “Amendment of the Indian Constitution under Article 368.” Retrieved from https://unacademy.com/content/railway-exam/study-material/ancient-history-of-india/indian-constitution-under-article-368/
[6] Wikipedia. (2025). “Amendment of the Constitution of India.” Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_India
[7] Drishti IAS. (2024). “Procedure of Amendment.” Retrieved from https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/Paper2/procedure-of-amendment
[8] PWOnlyIAS. (2024). “Article 368’s Role And The Constitutional Amendment Procedure.” Retrieved from https://pwonlyias.com/udaan/article-368/
[9] E-Courts Judgments. (2023). “The Basic Structure Judgment – Kesavananda Bharati Judgment.” Retrieved from https://judgments.ecourts.gov.in/KBJ/?p=home/intro
[10] Wikipedia. (2025). “Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala.” Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesavananda_Bharati_v._State_of_Kerala
[11] BYJU’S. (2023). “Kesavananda Bharati Case vs State of Kerala.” Retrieved from https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/kesavananda-bharati-case-1973-sc-judgements/
[12] Testbook. (2024). “Kesavananda Bharati Case Judgment – The Basic Structure Doctrine.” Retrieved from https://testbook.com/ias-preparation/kesavananda-bharati-case-1973-sc-judgements
[13] Business Today. (2023). “‘India’ or ‘Bharat’?: Procedure to change name of the country according to Constitution.” Retrieved from https://www.businesstoday.in/visualstories/news/india-or-bharat-procedure-to-change-name-of-the-country-according-to-constitution-60827-05-09-2023
[14] Government of UK. (2023). “Timeline of country name changes in HMG use: 1919 to present.” Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/country-names/timeline-of-country-name-changes-in-hmg-use-1919-to-present
[15] South China Morning Post. (2020). “From Czechia to Sri Lanka: 7 countries that changed their names, when and why.” Retrieved from https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/travel/article/3049290/czechia-sri-lanka-7-countries-changed-their-names
[16] Wikipedia. (2025). “Geographical renaming.” Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_renaming
