Pakistan may lay claim on name "India" if India derecongnises it officially at UN level: Report
New Delhi: Local reports in Pakistan say the country may lay claim to the name 'India'. This comes after the opposition party claimed that the central government is planning to change the country’s name to Bharat, reports The Week.
On Tuesday a political row erupted over the name of the country after the government sent out a G20 Summit dinner invitation that refers to President Droupadi Murmu as the “President of Bharat”, and not the President of India.
A tweet from the X handle of South Asia Index stated if India derecognises its name at UN level officially, Pakistan may claim on the name ‘India’.
"Pakistan may lay claim on name "India" if India derecongnises it officially at UN level. - local media.Nationalists in Pakistan have long argued that Pakistan has rights on the name as it refers to Indus region in," the tweet said.
The tweet handle also claimed that the government in India is set to change the name of the country from India to Bharat in an attempt to "decolonise" India pointing out that the name Bharat has roots in Sanskrit language & is also the name of a famous medieval era King of this region.
The Indian government has not yet made any official statement on changing the name of the country.
“India refers to Indus region, basin of mighty Indus River, spanning much of modern day Pakistan,” the handle tweeted, adding that “Jinnah had objected to British India adopting "India" as its name for newly independent country & had suggested Hindustan or Bharat instead.”
A month after India's Independence in 1947, Former Governor-General of Pakistan, Muhammed Ali Jinnah refused to accept an invitation that used India instead of Hindustan to refer to the country. The invitation was from Louis Mountbatten, who invited him to be the honorary president of an art exhibition.
“It is a pity that for some mysterious reason Hindustan have adopted the word ‘India’ which is certainly misleading and is intended to create confusion,” Jinnah had then written to Mountbatten.
The tweet further claimed that Indian right wing has detested name ‘India’
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
P&H High Court denies anticipatory bail to man accused of replacing national flag with saffron flag
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to Vikas Tomar, who is accused of removing the national flag from a mosque in Gurugram’s Uton village and replacing it with a saffron flag.
Justice Manisha Batra, presiding over the case Vikas Tomar @ Vikash Tomar v. State of Haryana, observed that the allegations against the petitioner were not vague but specific, and supported by conversations between him and other co-accused.
“The gravity of the offence and its potential impact on public order and communal peace cannot be overlooked at this stage,” the Court noted. It further stated that no exceptional circumstances had been presented that would justify granting pre-arrest bail, especially given the “serious communal and constitutional implications” of the alleged conduct.
According to the prosecution, a complaint was filed on July 7 in Bilaspur, Gurugram, reporting that anti-social elements had replaced the national flag atop a mosque with a saffron flag. Audio and video evidence were submitted along with the complaint. Two other accused were initially arrested under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act, 1971, but were granted bail the same day.
The Sessions Court had earlier denied anticipatory bail to Tomar on July 15, with Additional Sessions Judge Sandeep Chauhan observing that such acts threaten the social fabric in a diverse country like India. He remarked, “Any person of ordinary prudence and slightest of patriotism in his heart would not have dared to commit such a crime.”
Tomar's counsel argued before the High Court that he was not named in the FIR and had no role in the alleged incident. However, opposing counsel representing the State and the complainant contended that Tomar aimed to provoke communal unrest in the region.
Justice Batra, after considering the arguments, concluded that custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary. “No ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out,” the Court held.
Advocate Abhimanyu Singh appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Apoorv Garg represented the State of Haryana. Advocate Rosi appeared for the complainant.
The bail plea was dismissed.
