Recently, invitations sent by President Droupadi Murmu to the heads of countries and the chief ministers of Indian states for an official banquet at the G-20 Summit in New Delhi created a flutter as the word ‘India’ was replaced with ‘Bharat’. Instead of the usual ‘President of India’, the invitation cards said, ‘President of Bharat’. Government sources told The Hindu, dated September 05, 2023, that the word ‘Bharat’ will be used more and more in the coming months for official communication.
Niraj Rajawat, in his column in ThePrint (September 08, 2023) traces India’s roots at least 2,000 years ago, with a connection to Greek history during the Alexander era. Bharat, on the other hand, is a Sanskrit word rooted in ancient history, while India is a given name not originally used by natives. The young nation of India, like Bharat, with an average age of 28, has a great future. On Diwali, both Goddess Lakshmi (wisdom) and Goddess Sarasvati (knowledge) are worshipped, making it a Mahaan Bharat. However, young citizens may choose to bring the old name back or give it a new name, like the UK’s Brexit decision. In a developed, transparent democracy, a referendum could be a good point for a young nation to decide their future, as it can be done in just one day in the smartphone era.
The Indian Express in its ‘Explained’ part (September 09, 2023) traces the term ‘Bharata’, ‘Bharat’, or ‘Bharatvarsha’ and its roots in Puranic literature and the epic Mahabharata. The Puranas describe Bharata as the land between the sea in the south and the abode of snow in the north. Catherine Clementin-Ojha explains Bharata as a religious and socio-cultural entity, rather than a political or geographical one. It refers to the supra-regional and subcontinental territory where the Brahmanical system of society prevails. Bharata is also the name of the ancient king of legend who was the ancestor of the Rig Vedic tribe of the Bharatas and the progenitor of all peoples of the subcontinent. Jawaharlal Nehru referred to India as Bharata, the holy land of the Hindus, and noted the great places of Hindu pilgrimage situated in the four corners of India. The term ‘Hindustan’, derived from the Persian cognate form of the Sanskrit ‘Sindhu’ (Indus), is believed to have originated from the Achaemenid Persian conquest of the Indus valley in the 6th century BCE. The term was used to identify the lower Indus basin, and the suffix ‘stan’ was added to the name to create ‘Hindustan’. The Greeks, who had acquired knowledge of ‘Hind’ from the Achaemenids, transliterated the name as ‘Indus’. By the time Macedonian king Alexander invaded India in the 3rd century CE, ‘India’ had come to be identified with the region beyond the Indus.
The Indian Express (September 08, 2023) explained, that Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan, wished for the new Muslim homeland to be called Pakistan, the ‘land of the pure’. He believed neither India nor Pakistan would want to adopt the British title of ‘India’. Jinnah was unhappy with the Partition process, as Pakistan received less land than expected and was concerned about becoming subordinate to India. He also wanted India to take the name ‘Hindustan’ to clarify the religious bases for the partition and new nation-states. However, the provisions of the Indian Independence Act did not make Pakistan an Islamic state or India a Hindu Raj. Jinnah believed that the term ‘India’ carried the baggage of being an ‘object of conquest,’ dissuading Nehru from claiming it.
Vivek Katju in his editorial (September 07, 2023) in The Hindu discusses the historical, ideological, constitutional, and international implications of the words Bharat and India. He cites the 1947 controversy over the name India, where Pakistani leaders argued that India should be named Hindustan or Bharat. India retained its international personality, including UN membership, while Pakistan had to establish its international status. India retained the name ‘India’ in all international and multilateral forums. The 58th Amendment of the 1987 Constitution in India allows the President to publish the authoritative text in Hindi, which can be used in the legal process. The Constitution was adopted in English by the Constituent Assembly, and a Hindi translation was published in 1950 under the President’s authority. Thus, the Hindi text published by the government following the amendment is considered authoritative.
With respect to the debate on India vs Bharat, Krishnadas Rajagopal in his editorial (September 06, 2023) in The Hindu argued on the debates in the constituent assembly during independence. The Constituent Assembly debates revealed that both ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’ were retained in the Constitution to align contrasting 1948 thoughts. B.R. Ambedkar opposed an amendment to Article 1(1) of the Constitution that would change India’s name to the ‘Union of India’. He argued that name was appropriate as India was a member of the UN and all agreements had been signed under that name. Member Seth Govind Das argued that naming the country as Bharat would not hinder progress and promote scientific inventions. Members Shibban Lal Saxena and Seth Govind Das also proposed amendments to change the name of the Union to ‘Bharat’ and to make Hindi written in the Devanagari script, the national language of Bharat. The debates ended with the addition of ‘Bharat’ to Article 1(1), which currently reads “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.”
In the context of the international arena, Howard G. Chua-Eoan, in his column (September 07, 2023) in The Economic Times expressed that other former British colonies have changed their names, but it takes time for new names to be widely adopted. There have been relatively recent precedents for change among other former British colonies. Burma, Rhodesia, and Ceylon are now officially Myanmar (1989), Zimbabwe (1980) and Sri Lanka (1972), respectively. Rebranding comes late in India’s rise to global prominence, and it takes some work to make things stick. Zimbabwe was helped by the association of its former name with white minority rule. Last year, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared Turkey as Turkiye.
With respect to the legality of the term Bharat, reported in The Times of India, (September 06, 2023) legal and constitutional experts have ruled that the use of ‘Bharat’ instead of ‘India’ in official communication is not illegal, as it is part of the Constitution. However, a change in the Preamble to replace ‘India’ with ‘Bharat’ would require a constitutional amendment passed by two-thirds majority in both the Houses of Parliament and ratified by at least half of the states. Currently, governments prefer ‘India’ as the country’s name, but ‘Bharat’ can be substituted by a government order without requiring ratification by Parliament. Senior lawyer Rakesh Dwivedi clarified that if India were to be dropped, a constitutional amendment would be needed under Article 368.
In an interview to India Today (September 06, 2023) on the question of whether the term Bharat comes from Brahminical traditions, Devdutt Pattanaik explained that ‘India’ originates from the Sanskrit word ‘Sindhu,’ meaning ‘river,’ referring to the significant river flowing across India and entering Pakistan. It is a Sanskrit term from the Rig Veda, with variations like Sindh, Hind, Ind, Hindu, Indu, and Indus. He pointed out that ‘Bharat’ is a name that traces its roots to Brahminical traditions. “The word ‘Bharat’ comes from Bharata, which first comes from Rig Veda. You have the king of the Bharata clan winning the battle of 10 kings. The Rig Veda happened in the Kurukshetra region. Then, you have the Mahabharata epic talking about the Bharata clan, which again happens only in the northern part of India…The word ‘Bharat’ refers to certain parts of North India. It’s a name given by Brahmins.” Sanjeev Sanyal also traced the connection between ‘Bharat’ and India back to the Vedic age. The Rig Veda mentions the Bharatas, a tribe in what is now Haryana, who called their home ‘Saptasindhu,’ the land of seven rivers.
Rajiv Tuli in his editorial in India Today (September 07, 2023), related the debate in the context of nationalism and pseudo-nationalism. The concept of nationalism is marked by conflicting viewpoints that shape its interpretation and influence its role in various societies. Nationalism is rooted in an emotional attachment to a nation, often defined by a shared culture, history, or struggles. However, within the context of Bhartiya nationalism, several parallel streams of nationalism have emerged, each presenting their distinct ideologies and interpretations of the concept including Nehruvian nationalism, Communist nationalism, Anarchist nationalism, and Cultural nationalism. These strands contribute to the ongoing discourse on the role and significance of national identity in different contexts and societies. Nehruvian nationalism, which emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, asserts that Bhartiya nationalism coincided with the rise of modern states. Communist-nationalism stands in stark opposition to traditional nationalism. Communists view nationalism as a temporary phenomenon, driven by capitalist interests that will diminish with the rise of communism. Anarchist nationalism, a more recent development, lacks a cohesive ideology and often exhibits conflicting stances. While the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) claims to uphold nationalism, its expressions of this concept vary widely and can sometimes conflict with each other. Bhartiya rashtra or cultural nationalism, on the other hand, asserts that India has always been a nation with a rich cultural heritage dating back thousands of years. This perspective draws from the idea that India’s ancient culture, linguistic heritage, and territory create a common bond among its citizens.
The mint (September 06, 2023) reported Congress leader Shashi Tharoor’s take on the debate. He argued that there is no constitutional objection to calling India ‘Bharat’, and hopes the government will not be so foolish as to completely dispense with ‘India’ which has incalculable brand value.
The mint in its reporting (September 07, 2023) also cites PM’s Independence Day address, in which he reminded the need to break free from a mindset of subjugation, indicating the importance of shedding the colonial mentality. “In no part of our existence, not even in the deepest corners of our mind or habits should there be any ounce of slavery. It should be nipped there itself … This slavery of hundreds of years has kept us bound, has forced us to keep our emotions tied up … (it) developed distorted thinking in us. We must liberate ourselves from the slavery mindset which is visible in innumerable things within and around us”.
The Hindu in its column (September 07, 2023) takes a balanced view that India and Bharat, two names that have evoked similar emotions among patriots, have been weaponised for political purposes. The current hype around Bharat is a campaign to discard India as if both cannot exist in harmony. India is seen as a foreign imposition and unsuitable for national dignity, while Bharat, linked to ancient sources, goes beyond India’s geographical and cultural landscape. Both names are an outcome of India’s nation-building journey, and the needless juxtaposition of the two names should not affect the bonding of the inhabitants in the pursuit of misplaced cultural combat. Let India and Bharat coexist as they have always been.
© Spectrum Books Pvt. Ltd.