A plaque with “Bharat” written on it in front of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s seat during the G20 Summit on Saturday has shown the government’s determination in popularizing the name, preferring it over India as the country has been known internationally so far.
The Constitution does mention “India that is Bharat” and after the Head of the State, Draupadi Murmu issued dinner invites to the delegates as President of Bharat, it was more or less evident that something was happening. The President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers, and therefore this invitation was obviously cleared by the government.
The Opposition parties have been quick to react to this “name change” and for reasons that could have been avoided, a controversy cropped up on the eve of the crucial summit. A Special Parliament session has been convened from 18 September, a day after the Prime Minister’s birthday, and it is to be seen how this matter is explained by the Treasury benches to the anxious Opposition.
Yes, globally, the country has been always referred to as India, and even the passports have citizens of India prominently written on the cover. Undoubtedly, Bharat has also been the name, which has always existed, and therefore to have a divided opinion on the subject is something that would not be easy to both explain and digest.
There is apprehension that the southern states may not easily accept this nomenclature, given their aversion to attempts to foist Hindi or North Indian culture on them. If that unfortunately happens, for no rhyme or reason, we would project a divided country, internationally. This is something we cannot afford to do now or ever.
Examples have been given that many countries have changed their names. Burma is now Myanmar, Ceylon became Sri Lanka and Tanganika is the present day Tanzania. There have been countries which are known by two names. Egypt for instance is described as Mishar and Greece as Unan by many in our own land. China is Cheen and England is Valiat for multiple citizens.
From all indications, the government may not go for any name change, but would start referring to the country as Bharat instead of the more popular India, without violating the Constitution. The issue that arises is that India has been known by many names, and the one which is extremely popular both in usage and otherwise too, is Hindustan. If the National Anthem has the word Bharat, the Nationally popular patriotic song speaks about Hindustan.
So far as India is concerned, it is for historians to prove its origin and whether it is linked to river Indus or was called so because of some other reason. Even Bharat has many versions. Bharat was the name of Dushyant and Shakuntala’s son, it was also the name of Lord Rama’s brother and there is reference to it even in the Vedas and ancient scriptures.
In any case, a new debate could open up which would say that by adopting the name of a King, a democratic country was looking up to Monarchy. All this is pointless but then instead of talking about real issues that concern us on a daily basis, emotive matters would gain an upper hand. Was this necessary, is what is the question.
Are our countrymen settled abroad happy with this change of preference which would entail that they shall have to look for a new identity in times to come? It shall take a long time for Indians to be referred to as “Bharatiya”. In many countries, we are described as heathens, which is fine since we are proud to be Hindus. However, for the ignorant, there are too many of them in the western countries, people having roots in this land may become targets of racial hate or crimes.
Even the bureaucracy would find it hard to accept this change. It is said that after the North and South Block, the maximum number of civil servants were in the American universities, pursuing some course or the other. If they were not there themselves, their children have joined some of these institutions. The question is that would these universities be sending these invitations to a new entity (for them) known as Bharat.
There is already much talk about what would happen to ISRO, IAS, IFS, IIMs IITs etc. The government therefore must clarify that since the Constitution stipules India which is also Bharat, there shall be no change in the nomenclature of these institutions and many more.
Internationally, some countries may want to know as to what were the geographical boundaries of Bharat since those of India were recorded well in the various maps. Thus, some effort would have to be put to explain that the geography has not changed with the preferred nomenclature and things would remain the same.
There are some politicians who wish to even move the Supreme Court to get clarity and redressal. It is doubtful that the President can be dragged in such a controversy, and if any petition is entertained by the Apex Court, it shall be against the Union of India or the Government of India and not against the august office of the President.
There is wide speculation that the government could initiate some steps to ratify Bharat as the official name in all its correspondence, thus slowly distancing itself from India. The world may take its own time to accept Bharat that was India. Between us.