Evolution of Identity: Examining the Renaming of Kerala to Keralam

After Reading This Article You Can Solve This UPSC Mains Model Questions: 

Identity-driven changes like state renaming can test the stability of India’s federal structure by encouraging similar demands. Critically examine. 15 Marks (GS-2, Polity)

Introduction

The Union Government’s recent approval of the proposal to rename Kerala as Keralam has prompted a significant re-examination of the term’s historicity. This development touches upon foundational myths, the legacy of the United Kerala Movement, and the contemporary drive for linguistic purity.

Evolution of Identity: From ‘Kerala’ to ‘Keralam’

 The transition from Kerala to Keralam reflects a historical continuum shaped by mythology,         linguistic evolution, and political processes, rather than a mere change in nomenclature. It represents how identity has been constructed and reinterpreted over time.

I. Ancient Foundations: Mythology & Early Evidence

    1. Mythological Origins

• As per Keralolpatti, Parasurama is believed to have created the land by reclaiming it from the sea.
• The region was mythically described as stretching from Gokarnam to Kanyakumari.
• Importantly, both ‘Kerala’ and ‘Keralam’ appear interchangeably in these texts, indicating that neither term had exclusive historical primacy.

    2. Linguistic & Historical Roots

• The name is derived from ‘Keram’ (coconut tree), symbolising the region as the “land of coconut trees.”
• Hermann Gundert’s Malayalam dictionary (1872) treats both Kerala and Keralam as equally valid forms.
• The Ashokan Edicts refer to Keralaputra, confirming the ancient usage and historical legitimacy of the term “Kerala”.

II. Pre-1956 Phase: Fragmented Political Identity

    1. Political Structure

           Before independence, the region was not unified but divided into:

• Travancore
  • Cochin
  • Malabar (under British rule)

Thus, Kerala as a single political entity did not exist.

    2. Linguistic & Social Complexity

• Travancore had a significant Tamil-speaking population, especially in southern regions.
• The rise of Malayali identity politics was driven by the need to assert linguistic and cultural dominance in administration and society.
• Social hierarchies (e.g., Pattars vs Namboodiris) further influenced identity formation and group distinctions.

     3. Uncertain Post-Independence Future

• Under C. P. Ramaswamy Aiyar, Travancore even considered remaining an independent state in 1947.
• This claim was justified on the basis of its historical autonomy from Mughal and European conquest, reflecting a fragmented and uncertain political future.

III. Aikya Kerala Movement: Linguistic Nationhood

     1. Language as the Basis

• The Aikya Kerala Movement emphasized Malayalam linguistic unity as the foundation of statehood, rather than mythological or historical geography.
• Identity thus became people-centric and language-driven.

     2. Flexible Terminology

• Both ‘Aikya Kerala’ and ‘Aikya Keralam’ were used interchangeably in discourse, indicating that the naming issue was not politically contentious at the time.

     3. Pragmatic Territorial Decisions

• Despite mythological claims, Kanyakumari was excluded due to its predominantly Tamil-speaking population.
• This highlights a pragmatic and modern approach to identity formation, prioritising linguistic homogeneity over tradition.

     4. Constitutional Outcome

• The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 formally created the state.
• The Constitution adopted the name “Kerala”, which continues to be central to present debates on renaming.

IV. Modern Integration: Shared Political Consciousness

     1. Cross-Regional Unity

• Anti-colonial struggles, resistance to external dominance, and the rise of nationalism and communism helped bridge divisions between Travancore, Cochin, and Malabar.
• These forces fostered a shared regional consciousness.

     2. Political Mobilisation

• Political movements and grassroots mobilisation in different regions gradually overcame earlier fragmentation.
• This led to the consolidation of a broader Malayali identity cutting across historical boundaries.

Constitutional Procedure: How a State is Renamed in India

The renaming of a state in India is a structured constitutional exercise governed by Article 3 of the Indian Constitution, which empowers Parliament to alter the name, area, or boundaries of any state.

• Initiation by the state legislature: A formal resolution proposing the name change is passed by the State Legislative Assembly and forwarded to the Union Government.
• Scrutiny by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA): The MHA examines the proposal and seeks ‘No Objection Certificates’ from relevant central agencies, including the Intelligence Bureau, Department of Posts and the Survey of India.
• Presidential referral to the state legislature: The President of India refers the bill to the concerned state legislature for its views. These views are advisory and not binding on Parliament.
• Parliamentary approval by simple majority: A bill is introduced in Parliament and passed by a simple majority in both houses. No special majority or ratification by other states is required making state renaming a relatively straightforward legislative exercise.
• Presidential assent and constitutional amendment: Presidential assent is obtained, and the First Schedule of the Constitution is formally amended to reflect the new name.
• Administrative updation by the state: The state machinery undertakes consequential updates to official seals, gazetteers, digital databases, legal documents, educational materials, and public signage.

Implications of Renaming Kerala to Keralam

The proposal to transition from the Anglicized ‘Kerala’ to the phonetically native ‘Keralam’ carries profound consequences.

1. Positive Implications: Cultural and Linguistic Reassertion

• Linguistic Purity and Authenticity: The primary driver is to align the official English name with the native Malayalam pronunciation. It honors the Dravidian linguistic identity by utilizing the suffix ‘-am’, which is intrinsic to the language’s phonetic structure.
• Decolonization of Nomenclature: Rebranding the state as Keralam is seen as an act of cultural decolonization. It moves away from Anglicized versions imposed or popularized during the colonial era, asserting indigenous sovereignty over the state’s naming conventions.
• Strengthening Regional Pride: By adopting the name used by the people in their mother tongue, the government fosters a deeper sense of regional belonging and Malayali identity. It reinforces the spirit of the 1956 linguistic reorganization of states.
• Symbolic Unity: It bridges the gap between the Official Language (Malayalam) and the Constitutional Identity of the state. This creates a uniform identity across local, national, and international platforms.

2. Negative Implications: Administrative and Fiscal Constraints

• Massive Fiscal Burden: Renaming a state is an expensive undertaking. Estimates suggest the cost could run into hundreds of crores of rupees. This includes updating land records, identity cards (Aadhaar, Voter IDs, Passports), government stationery and departmental seals.
• Logistical and Bureaucratic Disruption: A comprehensive update is required across digital databases and national registries. Coordination with central ministries (Railways, Posts, Civil Aviation) is mandatory to rename railway stations, postal codes and airport codes, which can lead to temporary procedural confusion.
• Brand Equity and Global Recognition: ‘Kerala’ is a high-value global brand, particularly in the Tourism (God’s Own Country) and Ayurveda sectors. Transitioning to ‘Keralam’ internationally risks brand dilution. A significant marketing budget would be required to ensure the global audience recognizes ‘Keralam’ as the same entity.
• Historical Ambiguity: Critics point out that since both ‘Kerala’ and ‘Keralam’ appear interchangeably in ancient texts like the Keralolpatti and the Ashokan Edicts, the claim of one being “more authentic” than the other is subject to academic debate.
• Socio-Political Integration of Minorities: A critical socio-political implication involves the integration of linguistic minorities. While the change celebrates Malayalam purity, the state faces the challenge of ensuring it does not inadvertently signal linguistic majoritarianism.

Global Lessons: How Other Nations Have Managed Renaming

The transition of a state’s name is often a part of a larger global trend where nations seek to reclaim cultural identity and move away from colonial or external labels.

• Turkey to Türkiye (2022): The change was pursued to better reflect national cultural identity in global forums and to remove unflattering English-language connotations. It required a dedicated United Nations referral and a sustained international communication campaign to normalise the new name globally.
• Swaziland to Eswatini (2018): The pre-colonial indigenous name was restored as a sovereign act of post-colonial cultural reclamation. The change was broadly regarded as a successful assertion of national identity and was smoothly absorbed into international usage.
• India’s Renaming Precedents: The renaming of Orissa to Odisha (2011), Uttaranchal to Uttarakhand (2006), and Pondicherry to Puducherry (2006) exemplifies India’s successful constitutional transitions driven by cultural and linguistic authenticity.
  • Similarly, the urban rebranding of Bombay to Mumbai (1995), Madras to Chennai (1996) and Calcutta to Kolkata (2001) demonstrates that while administrative adjustment requires sustained effort, indigenous names can be effectively normalized both nationally and internationally.
• Key Lesson from Global Practice: Successful renaming requires broad social consensus, a clear and defensible cultural rationale, and a well-planned administrative and communications transition not simply the political majority to pass legislation.

Way Forward: A Strategic and Responsible Roadmap

• Anchor Renaming in Broad Consensus: Any proposal to rename a state must be preceded by meaningful consultation with political parties, linguistic minorities, civil society, and local bodies, ensuring that the move reflects widespread social acceptance rather than narrow partisan interest, while still respecting the final authority of Parliament under Article 3.
• Strengthen Institutional Implementation: A central–state joint mechanism should oversee a phased, cost‑efficient update of legal records, databases, transport and postal codes, so that administrative disruption is minimised and the process remains fiscally sustainable.
• Frame Renaming as Inclusive Federalism: Renaming should be positioned as part of linguistic federalism and cultural decolonisation, but must explicitly reassure linguistic minorities that their identity and rights will not be compromised by the shift towards a dominant regional language.
• Protect Brand Equity and Global Image: A pre‑renaming impact assessment must be conducted on tourism, investment, and international perception, followed by a coordinated branding and communication strategy to retain the existing positive image of the old name while gradually establishing the new official form abroad.
• Embed in Education and Public Awareness: State‑level identity and naming changes should be integrated into school and higher‑education curricula, using history, linguistics, and federalism to explain evolving regional identities and avoid treating the new name as a myth‑based absolute truth.
• Establish Transparent Norms for Future Renaming: The Centre should develop clear, non‑partisan criteria for renaming states covering linguistic‑historical legitimacy, minority impact, and administrative feasibility and institutionalise advisory review mechanisms so that future changes are rights‑based and not driven purely by short‑term political symbolism.

Conclusion

The renaming of Kerala to Keralam reflects a living democracy’s capacity to renegotiate its identity, yet the historical record confirms that both terms carry equal legitimacy across ancient myths, edicts, and the political movements that founded the state. Ultimately, this transition must be guided by genuine cultural grounding and inclusive implementation rather than a selective reading of history, ensuring the renaming of a people’s home upholds the quality of democratic consensus.