Editorial | Name, Identity and Politics: Kerala Moves Toward ‘Keralam’ While Bengal Waits
India’s map is not just a collection of territories; it is a reflection of language, history, and identity. The Union Cabinet’s approval to rename Kerala as Keralam marks an important symbolic step that goes beyond administrative change. The decision follows two unanimous resolutions by the state Assembly and arrives months before Assembly elections, inevitably inviting political interpretation. At the same time, West Bengal continues to wait for its long-pending proposal to rename itself Bangla, highlighting the uneven pace of such identity-driven reforms.
The contrast raises larger questions about federal decision-making, political timing, and how India negotiates linguistic identity within constitutional frameworks.
Supporters of the Keralam move argue that the change corrects a colonial-era linguistic distortion. Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has repeatedly emphasised that “Keralam” is the authentic Malayalam name, rooted in history dating back to ancient references such as “Keralaputra.” The push aligns with India’s broader cultural reclamation trend, where states and cities revisit names to reflect indigenous identity rather than anglicised versions.
The Union government’s approval, endorsed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, was framed as recognition of the people’s will and a step toward strengthening cultural connect. Constitutionally, the process remains procedural rather than political: the President must refer the proposal to the state Assembly, Parliament must pass a simple majority amendment to the First Schedule, and only then will the change take effect through official notification.
This pathway illustrates that name changes are not symbolic gestures alone but structured constitutional exercises. Kerala’s case shows what happens when there is unanimity within the state and no major institutional objections from central ministries.
The situation in West Bengal reveals the other side. Since the late 1990s, successive governments — from the Left Front to the administration led by Mamata Banerjee — have pushed variations such as Paschim Banga, Bengal, and Bangla. Despite multiple Assembly resolutions, the proposal remains pending due to concerns ranging from administrative clarity to diplomatic confusion with neighbouring Bangladesh. The Ministry of External Affairs has reportedly flagged that “Bangla” could create complications in international forums.
This demonstrates that state identity initiatives must navigate not only domestic politics but also geopolitical perception.
Critics see the Cabinet’s approval as politically timed. With Kerala heading toward elections, opposition voices argue that symbolic cultural decisions can influence political narratives even when they are constitutionally legitimate. Banerjee’s claim that Kerala’s proposal succeeded due to political understanding between parties reflects this scepticism.
Another counterpoint concerns prioritisation. India faces pressing governance challenges — employment, infrastructure, healthcare — and some argue that administrative energy spent on name changes offers limited tangible benefit to citizens. While cultural identity matters, critics question whether such exercises should dominate policy attention.
However, dismissing name changes entirely overlooks their psychological and historical significance. Names shape collective memory and representation. Cities like Mumbai, Chennai and Bengaluru illustrate how renaming can gradually become normalised without major disruption.
The deeper issue is consistency. If identity-based renaming is acceptable in principle, delays in some states create perceptions of political selectivity, even when bureaucratic or diplomatic concerns are genuine.
Kerala’s journey toward becoming Keralam underscores how linguistic identity, constitutional procedure and political timing intersect in India’s federal structure. The contrast with West Bengal’s stalled proposal highlights that name changes are rarely just about names; they involve administrative clarity, diplomatic considerations and political consensus.
The Centre’s role as final decision-maker under Article 3 ensures national coherence but also concentrates authority, making transparency crucial. For such decisions to carry credibility, the process must appear consistent across states, regardless of political alignment.
Ultimately, whether Keralam becomes official soon or Bengal’s wait continues, the debate reflects a broader national conversation about how India balances cultural authenticity with administrative pragmatism. Identity matters, but so does fairness in how identity claims are evaluated.
Our Final Thoughts
The Keralam decision highlights India’s evolving approach to cultural identity within governance. While the constitutional pathway remains clear, the differing outcomes for Kerala and West Bengal risk reinforcing perceptions that political context shapes administrative speed. A transparent, uniform framework for evaluating such proposals could reduce speculation and strengthen cooperative federalism. Name changes should neither be trivialised nor politicised excessively. They are symbolic markers of history and language, but their credibility depends on consistency. As India continues to revisit identity through policy, the real test will be whether every state receives equal procedural clarity and timely decisions, ensuring that cultural recognition does not become a selective privilege.
