The famous saying “Naam mai kya rakha hain!” may be a well-known proverb, but it doesn’t hold true when it comes to symbolizing a nation. In early September, a controversy arose regarding the official name for our nation i.e. India vs. Bharat.
Members of the ruling party advocated for ‘Bharat’ as the preferred choice, arguing that ‘India’ is a derogatory term bestowed upon us by the British. The veracity of this assertion prompts questions: To what extent is this claim valid? Is India genuinely contemplating a name change?
How do diverse sections of society perceive this issue? Additionally, why is there a spirited debate just before the highly anticipated G20 summit in India? This article endeavours to unravel the intricacies of this controversy.
How did the controversy erupt?
In the early weeks of September, the RSS chief advocated for the use of the term ‘Bharat’ over ‘India,’ citing its deeper cultural significance. This wasn’t a novel stance, considering the RSS has long endorsed the use of ‘Bharat’ since its inception in the early 1900s. However, the situation took an interesting turn when a BJP spokesperson shared an invitation letter to foreign officials from the President of India, referring to it as the “President of Bharat.”
This trend continued as Prime Minister Narendra Modi prominently displayed ‘Bharat‘ on his card at the G20 summit, a departure from the usual norm. Even for his trip to Indonesia, the Prime Minister of ‘Bharat’ was officially mentioned.
This development triggered varied responses across different sectors, prompting journalists to conduct polls on the preferred name for the country. Several BJP politicians expressed pride in the revival of the ‘Bharat’ name, going so far as to criticize ‘India’ as a label imposed by the British to demean the nation as “slavers.”
On the contrary, voices opposing this move argued that the Indian Constitution already recognizes both ‘India’ and ‘Bharat,’ rendering the debate unnecessary. They deemed the discussion futile, questioning its relevance, a perspective that will be explored further in the subsequent part of this blog.
Does the debate hold any significance?
Let’s start by clarifying a fundamental point: What is the name of our country? While this might be common knowledge for many, it’s worth addressing for those who may have uncertainties.
The first line of the initial article of the Indian Constitution, Article 1, declares, “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” This dual nomenclature is evident in both the English and Hindi versions of the constitution. In English, it is referred to as the Constitution of India, while in Hindi, it is known as “Bharatiya Samvidhan”.
This practice of using two names for the country, India and Bharat, was not sporadic but rather a recurring theme throughout the constitution. For instance, Article 52 mentions the “President of India,” Article 63 discusses the “Vice President of India,” and Article 124 outlines the “Supreme Court of India” and the “Chief Justice of India.”
Furthermore, various core institutions and organizations in the country incorporate these names, such as the Election Commission of India, Indian Penal Code, Indian Army, Indian Navy, Indian Airforce, Indian Railways, Reserve Bank of India, Indian Administrative Services, Indian Institute of Technology, Coal India Limited, Steel India Authority Limited, and even the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).
Turning attention to official documents like the Indian passport, the front page is labeled “Republic of India” in English and “Bharat Ganrajya” in Hindi, reinforcing the consistent usage of both names in different contexts.
This naming convention is not unique to India, as many countries follow a similar practice. For example, China is referred to as ‘China’ in English, but in Chinese, it is ‘Zhongguo.’ Similarly, Japan is ‘Japan’ in English, but in Japanese, it is ‘Nippon.’ These linguistic differences arise due to the challenge of accurately representing non-English words with English alphabets.
In the case of ‘Bharat,’ the pronunciation nuances may be lost, leading to potential mispronunciations. This underscores why the drafters of the constitution opted to use the word ‘Bharat’ exclusively in Hindi.
In summary, the use of two names, India and Bharat, in different languages is a common practice internationally, reflecting the linguistic complexities of accurately transcribing names across diverse languages and scripts.
For seven decades, the utilization of names did not spark any controversy, but it suddenly became a focal point of debate. The Chief Minister of Delhi offers an explanation, suggesting that the contentious issue arose when 26 political parties united earlier this year to form an alliance called the Indian National Development Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) to collectively contest the 2024 elections against the BJP.
According to this viewpoint, Prime Minister Modi perceived a threat in the “INDIA vs. BJP” narrative for the upcoming elections. However, this perspective seems incomplete, as the government has consistently used the term “India” in flagship schemes such as “Digital India,” “Make in India,” and “Start-up India.”
Moreover, in 2016, when a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court to change the country’s name to Bharat from India, the government argued that both names hold significant value and are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. The Supreme Court rejected a similar plea in 2020, emphasizing that citizens cannot be pressured to use a specific name, as both “India” and “Bharat” have immense value.
The debate over the country’s name dates back to the drafting of the Constitution by eminent Indian scholars and thinkers. Various names, including “Hindustan,” “Hinduvarsh,” and “Bharat,” were proposed by members.
Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar presented a draft stating, “India, that is Bharat,” and despite some arguments for an alternative order like “Bharat, that is India,” the members unanimously voted for the proposed draft, making it an integral part of the Indian Constitution. Since then, the convention has been to use “Bharat” when referring to the country in Hindi and “India” in English.
Let’s now look into the historical aspect of the names “Bharat” and “India”.
History behind “Bharat” and “India”
Some attempt to distort history was made by claiming that the name “India” was a slur imposed by the British. However, historical evidence indicates that both names, “India” and “Bharat,” have ancient origins and have been in use for centuries.
One authentic account points to the existence of a region near present-day Punjab and Haryana known as Sapth-Sindhu, denoting the area between seven rivers (Sindhu, Jhelam, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, Sutlej, and Saraswati). This region was the ancestral land of the Bharata tribe, led by King Raja Sudas, and was referred to as Sapta Sindu.
From this point, both the terms “India” and “Bharat” originated. This significant transition occurred after the Battle of Ten Kings around the 14th century, where the Bharata tribe faced an attack from ten other tribes. Notably, this event is well-known as the Battle of Ten Kings, documented in the seventh Mandal of Rigveda.
The conflict took place near the Ravi River, and the Bharatas of Sapta Sindhu emerged victorious, extending their dominion further by defeating Ajas, Sigrus, and Lakshus of the east. This triumph led to the establishment of the first Indian empire, renowned geographically as Sapta Sindhu, and the people of the tribe became known as Bharatas.
Also Read: Why Assam Floods Every Year?
During this period, a ritual was observed wherein the victorious king, in this case, the king of the Bharata tribe, performed the Ashvamedha Yagya. The outcome was a rapid expansion of the Sapta Sindhu kingdom. Remarkably, unlike other conquering kings, Raja Sudas did not impose his traditions or beliefs on the defeated tribes. Instead, he assimilated the knowledge of the educated individuals from various tribes to create the Vedas.
This inclusive approach resulted in many tribes joining the Bharata empire, leading to the collective identity of the people as Bharatiya, while the land retained the name Sapta Sindhu. The term “Hapta Hindu” originated from the Persian pronunciation of Sapta Sindhu, and subsequently, the Greeks adapted it as “Indos,” which eventually became “India.”
It is essential to note that the idea of India did not originate from outsiders, including the Britishers, who used the term “India” instead of “Bharat.” The connection between India and Bharat dates back to the legendary king Bharat, a successful ruler from the Kshatriya dynasty, who unified a vast territory including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and Iran, collectively known as Bharatvarsa.
The story continues with Alexander’s invasion in the 3rd century BCE, during which the name “Indus” gained prominence for the people of Bharat. Through British rule and subsequent partition, the name “British India” became globally recognized.
However, a critical moment occurred during the partition when Jinnah assumed that Nehru would name his country Bharat, leading to a misunderstanding and a subsequent dispute over the names India and Pakistan. Nehru’s decision to choose the name India caused friction, as Jinnah had anticipated that Bharat and Pakistan would coexist.
The historical significance and global recognition associated with the name India were crucial factors in this decision. Jinnah’s objection stemmed from his desire to separate Pakistan from India without any shared historical legacy.
In conclusion, the naming of India was not imposed by outsiders but rather evolved over time, shaped by historical events, mispronunciations, and geopolitical considerations. But in contrast to all these discussions, many still justify these moves. Now let’s understand why so.
Why ‘Bharat’ over ‘India’?
Opposition leaders dismiss name-change as a mere political ploy, but according to many nationalist thinkers, the initiative is viewed as a step towards de-colonization. They argue that decolonization involves not only freeing a nation from foreign rule but also liberating the collective mindset from the shackles of colonial history.
Historical instances reveal that during the establishment of colonies, cultural, religious, and traditional impositions were common practices, achieved through alterations in textbooks and local regulations. These changes aimed to create a narrative that detached the colonized people from their true cultural heritage, fostering a prolonged rule without resistance.
Prime Minister Modi, in his Independence Day address, articulated his commitment to de-colonize the nation, marking a tangible shift in that direction. The BJP government, since assuming power, has undertaken renaming initiatives, replacing Mughal names with indigenous ones—transforming Rajpath into Kartvya Path and Allahabad into Prayagraj.
It is noteworthy that previous administrations also engaged in name changes, such as Kolkata from Calcutta, Mumbai from Bombay, and Chennai from Madras. This phenomenon is not confined to India, as other nations, including Iran (formerly Persia), Myanmar (formerly Burma), and Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon), have undergone name changes to distance themselves from their colonial past. Therefore, the act of renaming places to reshape perceptions and disentangle from colonial legacies is not an uncommon occurrence.
However, is a name change a feasible and legally permissible undertaking, or is it merely a distant reality? Let’s explore this in the following section.
Is name-change really possible?
When questioned about the feasibility of a name change, the United Nations responded that if a nation formally requests it, the name change can be officially recognized globally. In the context of the Indian Constitution, Article 368 empowers the government to change the name by amending Article 1. This necessitates the introduction of a bill for a name change in both houses of Parliament, requiring passage by a special majority of over two-thirds in each house.
Additionally, the change must be ratified by at least half of the states, a potentially challenging task for the current government. But such an amendment can be challenged in Supreme Court and can be struck down citing the reason that Article 1 is part of Basic Structure Doctrine.
Many scholars point that a name change is plausible for a country seeking to recover from a tarnished reputation or a significant tragedy. However, for a vast economy like India, altering its name could lead to adverse consequences.
The initial challenge would involve renaming institutions containing the word “India,” such as ISRO, IIT, SBI, and CBI. Currency notes, the exclusive “.in” domain, maps and navigation system and the Swift Code for international transactions would also require modification.
Estimates suggest that India would need to allocate almost 14,000 crore rupees for such changes, based on a formula proposed by a South African scholar used by newspaper agencies to approximate the market value of a nation. The brand value of a country, like that of a company, is intrinsically tied to its name.
The name “India” enjoys global recognition, and altering it may jeopardize future economic opportunities. Just as a product labeled “Made in Germany” holds more appeal than “Made in Pakistan,” the renown associated with the name “India” plays a crucial role in shaping perceptions worldwide.
Conclusion on India vs. Bharat
The controversy of name-change in the country is fueled by various factors, primarily politics. However, another plausible reason, in my perspective, could be diversion. When this controversy surfaced, a report in The Guardian and Financial Times brought attention to the Adani Group.
Allegations were made regarding the questionable connections of Gautam Adani’s brother, Vinod Adani, with Taiwanese national Chang Chung-Ling and UAE national Nasser Ali Shaban Ahli. These alleged links date back to 2007 and 2014 when Vinod Adani was under scrutiny by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.
The report suggested that funds from the Adanis were illicitly invested in Adani’s stocks through a covert network of shell companies and intermediary funds. Additionally, the regulatory agency SEBI faced criticism in the same report for failing to exercise adequate oversight. Concerns were raised about a conflict of interest, as Gautam Adani’s son’s father-in-law served on SEBI’s corporate governance committee and as a legal advisor to the Adani Group.
Furthermore, the report highlighted the appointment of former SEBI chairman UK Sinha as the non-executive chairman of NDTV and questions raised by opposition leader Rahul Gandhi in parliament about potential benefits to Adani from the Prime Minister’s foreign visits and undisclosed payments to the BJP through electoral bonds, implying a questionable model of exchanging ‘donations’ for business gains.
Putting everything aside, for the majority of us, whether we refer to our nation as India, Bharat, or Hindustan, all these names hold a special place in our hearts. None is deemed superior to the others, which is why we often exclaim, ‘Hindustan Zindabad.’
We proudly sing, proclaiming that ‘Saare Jahan se Accha Hindustan Hamara.’ We express our sentiments with phrases like ‘Bharat Maata Ki Jai’ and ‘Jai Hind, Jai Bharat.’ Affectionately, we declare, ‘I love my India.’ Genuine Indians refrain from internal disputes over these names, and they certainly do not demean any of these appellations.
Thank you for taking the time to read this! Please share this article if you enjoyed it. Also, you can follow us on Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Pinterest to get more interesting articles.
Authored by Himadri Adhikari, a 1st year Law Student at National Law University Odisha.