India vs Bharat: The Conundrum of Re-Nomenclature

Invitations to the G-20 Summit in New Delhi, India, have started a noteworthy conversation. Previously titled “President of India”, these invites now proudly feature the title “President of Bharat”. The controversy over the proper usage of “India” vs “Bharat” in official communications and documentation has been rekindled by this modification, prompting inquiries about the constitutional, historical and cultural importance of these two names. Even if both these terms are used interchangeably, it is used to refer to the same country, this choice has far-reaching consequences. The author in this extensive piece will explore in depth the political context, the historical perspective and the issue’s ongoing complexity and sensitivity.

1. JOINING THE CHRONOLOGICAL DOTS

18^th September, 1949, marked the beginning of 75 years of intense argument among some of the nation’s most brilliant minds about whether the name of the country should be “India” or “Bharat” or something else. Still, there is controversy about this issue more than 70 years later.

17^th September, 1949, marks the beginning of our tale (a day before Article 1 in its current form was approved). The members intended to voice their complaints publicly, but Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the then Minister of Law and Justice, wanted Article 1 to be adopted on the same day and recommended commencing Article 1 with “India that is Bharat”. The members won their request, and they were informed that they would have adequate time on 18^th September, 1949, the next day, before the amendments were put to vote.

H.V. Kamath from the Central Province was the first to speak. Berar provided two alternatives to Ambedkar’s problematic wording: “Bharat, or, in the English language, India shall be a Union of States”, or “Hind, or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States”. He emphasised that India will still refer to as “Hindustan” in many other nations, and all Indians, regardless of their religion, were called Hindus.

The word “Bharat” was supported by Seth Govind Das, Kamalapathi Tripathi, Kallur Subba Rao, Ram Sahai, and Har Govind Pant.

Seth Govind Das from Indian National Congress in his turn reminded the House that Mahatma Gandhi was the inspiration for the creation of the slogan “Bharat Mata Ki Jai”. It was stressed by him that “Bharat” had profound historical and cultural roots in ancient works such as the

Vedas, Upanishads, Brahmanas, Mahabharata, and Puranas, while “India” was a comparatively new name adopted after the Greeks arrived in the region. He felt “Bharat” did a better job of capturing the history and culture of the country.

Kallur Sabba Rao from Indian National Congress representative from the Madras Constituency, suggested renaming “Hindi” or “Bharat”.

Ram Sahai supported “Bharat”, citing instances from different parts of India where it was widely used, such as politicians who addressed the nation as “Bharat” in public speeches.

Kamalapati Tripathi from Indian National Congress who represented the United Provinces, proposed that ‘Bharat, that is India’ would be a more fitting term to reflect the nation’s pride and sentiments. K. Tripathi emphasised the philosophical and cultural diversity of “Bharat”, citing the Rig Veda, Upanishads, Krishna, and Buddha’s teachings, Shankaracharya, and famous images such as Krishna’s wheel and Rama’s bow. He maintained that the country needs to embrace the name “Bharat”, which stood for a great history.

The House was asked to vote on the modifications and the suggestions that “India” or “Bharat” be dubbed as “U.S.S.I” or “U.S.S.B” were turned down. When Kamath’s third amendment which read, “Bharat, or in English language, India, shall be a Union of States” – was submitted to a vote, 38 people voted in favour and 51 against. Kamath’s amendment was not incorporated into the Constitution because it lacked a majority. At that point, Dr. Ambedkar proposed an amendment aiming to begin Article 1 with ‘India, that is Bharat…’ was finally adopted.

While the discussion over whether or not to add “Bharat” in the Constitution concluded in 1949 with most proponents of the idea being satisfied with its inclusion, matter appears to have returned to square one in 2023, just before the G-20 conference in India.

II. A CLICK BAIT OF NATIONALISM?

“Bharat is the official name of the country” according to a government built mobile application for media and G-20 delegates attending the summit. This is the first time such a declaration has been made in public at a global event.

Court cases have been tried in the past to change the country’s name, but judges have refrained from taking on the matter, citing “The fact that India is already called Bharat” in the Constitution itself”.

In an attempt to depose Modi and destroy his party before the national elections in 2024, the opposition parties in India announced the formation of a new coalition in July 2023 under the name “I.N.D.I.A.” that stands as Indian National Development Inclusive Alliance. Since then, few Modi party officials have insisted that the nation should be referred to as “Bharat” rather than “India”.

Following the alliance’s formation, Indian political scientist and academician Zoya Hasan stated “This rattled the ruling establishment, and they want to regain their monopoly over nationalism by invoking Bharat and it is a political debate which is aimed at embarrassing the opposition who have re-appropriated the nationalism platform with their new name”.

She added that considering a specific recent incident, the timing of the abrupt use of “Bharat” is puzzling.

Meanwhile, Modi’s party officials have hailed what they see as a desperately needed reform. The politician for the BJP, Himanta Biswa Sarama, posted on X “Republic of Bharat-happy and proud that our civilisation is marching ahead boldly towards Amrit Kaal”.

Modi’s detractors have not been as hospitable, with many arguing that the administration should be focusing on more urgent issues like rising unemployment, escalating religious conflict, and democratic regression. Additionally, they claim that his administration is alarmed by the India grouping and have been jokingly suggested that they could rename the alliance in retaliation.

One example was posted on X by opposition congressman Shashi Tharoor, who said, “We could of course call ourselves the Alliance for Betterment, Harmony and Responsible Advancement for Tomorrow (Bharat) and then perhaps the ruling party might stop this fatuous game of changing names”.

III. RE-NOMENCLATURE: A SENSITIVE ISSUE

India is Bharat. Bharat is India. The nation goes by two names. You can use any one interchangeably. However, the fact that the nation has generally utilised more of India and less of Bharat in the past makes a difference. In that sense, the name of the nation where we reside, India, is more often used.

Let’s understand this through examples of both public and private sectors. To start with the public sector, we always have the “Government of India” not the “Government of Bharat”. The “Reserve Bank of India” is our central bank not the “Reserve Bank of Bharat”; and if we look at private and quasi-private sectors, we have “Hindustan Unilever Limited” and not “Bharat Unilever Limited”. Similarly, we have “Indian School of Business”, or “Indian Institute of Technology” and not “Bharat School of Business” or “Bharat Institute of Technology” The government has ensured that the proud nation of India will always go on. We are proud of this name and feeling, and the citizens of India wear them on their sleeves. Abruptly, a sudden change cannot happen.

The Lok Sabha elections are on the corner and both of the main coalitions – the opposition’s INDIA and the ruling NDA – want to be ahead of the pack. It’s an image-establishing race.

Renaming a brand is a challenging task. It requires a significant amount of time, money and positive energy that could be used for other worthwhile and constructive tasks. Renaming a nation is a chore that gets harder and harder and even painful at times.

There is a great deal of love, emotion, experience, and patriotism connected to a country name.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, the words “India” and “Bharat” refer to the same country, each having a unique historical and cultural connotation. It is crucial to realise that accepting both of them as essential components of our common history rather than favouring one over the other is the key to their coexistence. Any attempts to utilise these names as political pawns runs the risk of weakening our varied nation’s cohesion. The vast cultural diversity and history that “India” and “Bharat” represent must be preserved symbolising the diversity and enduring unity of our wonderful nation.