Editorial

The recent approval by the Union Cabinet to rename the state of Kerala to Keralam represents a profound affirmation of linguistic pride, cultural authenticity, and historical justice. On February 24, 2026, the Cabinet, chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, cleared the long-pending proposal, aligning the official English designation with the traditional Malayalam form “Keralam”—the name by which Malayalis have always referred to their homeland.

This milestone traces back to the Kerala Legislative Assembly’s unanimous resolution on June 24, 2024, moved by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. The resolution highlighted a core inconsistency: while states reorganized on linguistic lines in 1956 (celebrated as Kerala Piravi Day on November 1) adopted names consistent across languages, Kerala’s Constitution-listed name remained the anglicized “Kerala,” even as Malayalam speakers used “Keralam.” Etymologically, “Keralam” derives from “kera” (coconut) and signifies “the land of coconuts,” evoking the state’s lush landscapes, swaying palms, and agrarian heritage. The demand, rooted in the pre-independence Aikya Kerala movement for a unified Malayalam-speaking state, underscores how language shapes identity.

The Cabinet’s nod is more than administrative—it is a symbolic reclamation. In an era of globalization, where English often dominates official nomenclature, restoring “Keralam” asserts that indigenous tongues deserve primacy in national discourse. It echoes similar efforts elsewhere, like Mumbai (formerly Bombay) or Chennai (Madras), where decolonizing names reinforced cultural sovereignty. Prime Minister Modi aptly described the decision as reflecting “the will of the people of the state,” a bipartisan consensus given the unanimous Assembly support.

The process now advances constitutionally under Article 3: the President will refer the Kerala (Alteration of Name) Bill, 2026, to the state Assembly for its views, followed by parliamentary approval and presidential assent. Once enacted, “Keralam” will appear in the Constitution’s First Schedule and all official contexts, including documents, maps, and international references.

Critics may question the necessity of such a subtle shift or raise light-hearted queries—like Congress MP Shashi Tharoor’s witty musing on whether residents become “Keralamites” instead of “Keralites.” Yet these overlook the deeper value: affirming linguistic dignity fosters inclusivity and pride. For Malayalis worldwide, this change validates their cultural narrative.

In essence, Keralam’s renaming is a historic cultural milestone, celebrating diversity within India’s unity. It reminds us that names are not mere labels but carriers of history, emotion, and self-respect. As “God’s Own Country” embraces its authentic name, it inspires other regions to honor their linguistic roots, enriching the nation’s pluralistic tapestry.

The imagery is striking: Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs), each holding up to 2 million barrels, setting sail from Venezuela to India . On the surface, this surge in exports—facilitated by trading houses like Vitol and Trafigura—appears to be a simple triumph of market economics, offering Indian refiners like BPCL and Reliance access to heavy crude at a reported discount . However, beneath the surface of this energy trade lies a current of hard-nosed geopolitics that New Delhi must navigate with extreme caution. This is not just about buying oil; it is about the United States successfully weaning India off Russian supplies.

The timing of these "super-sized" shipments is anything but coincidental. Following the capture of President Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces, Washington greenlit a $2 billion oil deal with Caracas . This general license has effectively re-routed Venezuelan barrels from shadow markets back into the legitimate global stream. Crucially, the U.S. is using this newfound leverage to pull India into its orbit. Reports indicate that a key motivation for India diversifying towards Venezuela is to appease the U.S., helping New Delhi clinch a trade deal and avoid tariffs. India finds itself in a position where its energy security is being dictated by the U.S. State Department.

While the immediate need to secure affordable crude is understandable, this pivot reveals a fragility in India’s much-touted "strategic autonomy." If Indian refiners are reducing Russian purchases primarily due to American pressure—and filling the gap with Venezuelan oil that flows only at the pleasure of the U.S. Treasury—then New Delhi is trading one dependency for another . The discounts on Merey crude, reportedly around $15 below Brent, may seem attractive, but they come with political strings attached . Moreover, relying on Venezuela, a nation with a history of production instability and opaque dealings, is a risky bet for long-term supply assurance.

Furthermore, this influx of heavy crude arrives just as the global energy market is bracing for a supply glut and weakening prices in 2026 . Indian refiners must be wary of locking themselves into medium-term dependencies based on short-term geopolitical maneuvers rather than pure market economics.

Ultimately, while the arrival of these VLCCs might fill India’s strategic petroleum reserves, it also underscores a hard truth: in the new world order, every barrel of oil carries the weight of foreign policy. India must ensure that in its haste to secure energy, it does not mortgage its geopolitical independence. The discounted price of Venezuelan crude should not blind us to the potential long-term costs to our sovereignty.

• SAS Kirmani