Why was Muhammed Ali Jinnah opposed to the name India?

The speculation about whether the Centre will change India’s name to Bharat continues –  as so does the debate. The Centre has called for a special session of Parliament from 18 to 22 September – just days after the conclusion of the G20 Summit in the National Capital with several heads of state from across the world, including US President Joe Biden set to attend – with no word on the agenda. On Tuesday, Congress leader Shashi Tharoor pointed out that Pakistan’s founder Muhammed Ali Jinnah had objected to the name ‘India’. Tharoor said he did so as it implied that “our country was the successor state to the British Raj and Pakistan a seceding state”. “While the subject is live, let’s recall that it was Jinnah who objected to the name ‘India’ since it implied that our country was the successor state to the British Raj and Pakistan a seceding state. As with CAA, the BJP govt keeps supporting Jinnah’s view!” Tharoor said. But why was Jinnah opposed to the name India? Let’s take a closer look: As per Indian Express, Jinnah in a letter to Lord Mountbatten, claimed that the name ‘India’ was ‘misleading and intended to create confusion’. Indian Express quoted Martin Lau, professor of South Asian law at SOAS, as writing so in his paper Islam and the Constitutional Foundations of Pakistan. “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 wrote, as per Scroll.

Jinnah feared that Pakistan would be seen as lesser than India and his position on the term derived from such fears.

“The use of the word implied a subcontinental primacy which Pakistan would never accept,” historian John Keay was quoted as writing by the outlet. Keay also wrote that Jinnah wanted India to be named ‘Hindustan’ to add heft to the argument that Partition was done on religious lines. However, Lau wrote, “The provisions of the Indian Independence Act did not make Pakistan an Islamic state … nor did the Indian Independence Act of 1947 make India a Hindu Raj”. Keay wrote that what convinced Jinnah neither side would use the name India emmed from its historical currency amongst outsiders, especially outsiders who had designs on the place.” Jinnah further felt the name India had attached to it the historical legacy of being an ‘object of conquest.’ This, he felt, would deter Nehru from using the name India. [caption id=“attachment_12609382” align=“alignnone” width=“640”] A life size cut-out photo of Muhammae Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan. Reuters[/caption] “He [Jinnah] was under the impression that neither state (India or Pakistan) would want to adopt the British title of ‘India’. He only discovered his mistake after Lord Mountbatten, the last British viceroy, had already acceded to Nehru’s demand that his state remain ‘India. Jinnah, according to Mountbatten, was absolutely furious when he found out,” Keay further wrote, as per Indian Express. As per Scroll, some experts even say Jinnah’s protest demonstrates that he wanted a loose confederacy rather than a full-fledged Partition of states. The outlet quoted historian Ayesha Jalal as writing that this was a “commentary perhaps that Jinnah never quite abandoned his strategy of bringing about an eventual union of India on the basis of Pakistan and Hindustan”. ‘Incalculable brand value’ Tharoor, reacting to G20 dinner invites being sent out in the name of ‘President of Bharat’, earlier said that while there can be no constitutional objection to calling India ‘Bharat’, he hopes the government will not be so “foolish” to completely dispense with ‘India’, which has “incalculable brand value”. “We should continue to use both words rather than relinquish our claim to a name redolent of history, a name that is recognised around the world,” he said. Tharoor on Wednesday took a swipe at the government over the India-Bharat naming row, saying the opposition bloc could call itself the “Alliance for Betterment, Harmony And Responsible Advancement for Tomorrow (BHARAT)” and then perhaps the ruling party might stop the “fatuous game of changing names”. His remarks came after invitations for a G20 dinner sent out by President Droupadi Murmu, describing her position as ‘President of Bharat’ instead of the customary ‘President of India’, triggered a massive furore on Tuesday with the opposition alleging that the Modi government is planning to drop India and stay with just Bharat as the country’s name. In a post on X, Tharoor said, “We could of course call ourselves the Alliance for Betterment, Harmony And Responsible Advancement for Tomorrow (BHARAT). Then perhaps the ruling party might stop this fatuous game of changing names.” The Congress is a constituent of the Opposition Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA).The G20 Summit will be held in the national capital from September 9 to 10 under India’s presidency and several heads of state from across the world, including US President Joe Biden, are set to attend the event. With inputs from agencies