Rajya Sabha MP Sujeet Kumar Calls for Removing ‘Lord’ Prefix from Names of Former British Officials

The Prime Minister’s recent remark questioning the reverence shown to Macaulay has revived several conversations about how India chooses to remember its past. Into this moment stepped Rajya Sabha MP Sujeet Kumar, who suggested that India should drop the “Lord” prefix from the names of former British Governors and Viceroys in official usage. It was a modest point, yet it stood out because it came from a parliamentarian known for engaging more with policy detail than political soundbites.

Those who follow parliamentary work closely often describe MP Sujeet Kumar as a legislator whose interventions are measured, prepared and focused on the substance of lawmaking. His recent comment fits that mould.

He raised the issue as a matter of outdated official terminology, asking whether prefixes associated with a past administrative structure need to continue in present-day usage. The point was made without flourish, consistent with his habit of looking at whether India’s laws, processes and vocabulary reflect the country’s current institutional direction.

A closer look at his legislative work explains why even a small suggestion from him usually attracts interest.

MP Sujeet Kumar has, over the past several sessions, emerged as one of the more active private members in the Rajya Sabha. His Machine Created Intellectual Asset Bill, 2025 is among the earliest attempts in India to define how AI generated content should be treated in law, including questions of ownership, attribution and fair use. His Classified Information and Espionage Control Bill, 2025 goes beyond the broad and often ambiguous secrecy provisions inherited from older statutes by proposing a clearer system for classification, access and penalties.

His Ecocide (Prevention and Accountability) Bill, 2025 seeks to place large-scale environmental destruction within a definite legal framework, outlining what constitutes ecocide and how responsibility should be assigned.

These are not isolated efforts. He has repeatedly engaged with evolving areas of law, whether in discussions on the new criminal codes or in parliamentary questions that touch upon data governance, policing standards, environmental regulation and procedural safeguards. In committee work, particularly as part of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs, he has been involved in examining the shift from the old IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act to the new criminal law structure, which required members to assess how well the updated statutes align with contemporary needs.

His own life experience strengthens the pragmatism underlying his public positions.

Coming from Kalahandi in Odisha, a region historically associated with deprivation, and studying later at institutions abroad, MP Sujeet Kumar represents a generation of public leaders who bridge markedly different worlds.

He often speaks about development, rural concerns and tribal issues, yet he is equally at ease debating AI regulation or the need for environmental accountability. That duality gives his interventions a grounded quality.

They are neither technocratic detours nor emotional diversions; they emerge from a sense of wanting the country’s laws and public language to be aligned with contemporary expectations.

This is the context in which his comment about dropping “Lord” from historical names needs to be understood. It is not an isolated cultural suggestion but part of a broader inclination he has demonstrated repeatedly: to ask whether India’s official vocabulary, legal frameworks and institutional practices reflect the country it is today.

For a legislator who has quietly shaped several conversations around new-age laws and accountability structures, the suggestion is typical: brief, polite, but unmistakably pointed.