Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, the nation was referred to as Bharat, India, and Hindustan. The task of choosing between these two names fell upon the Constituent Assembly, culminating in the declaration “India, that is, Bharat…”
WHAT’S IN a Name? A lot, undoubtedly, when it comes to India’s national identity. The persistent effort to replace the traditional name “India” with “Bharat,” even though both are considered equal under Article 1 of the constitution, can be seen as a misguided endeavour that jeopardises the country’s historical and global standing. This ill-conceived debate, which reached its peak in September 2023 when “Bharat” appeared on G20 New Delhi Summit invitations, represents a risky flirtation with historical revisionism and cultural erasure.
Supporters of the name change argue that “Bharat” better reflects the nation’s rich historical legacy and is a more indigenous appellation. “Bharat” has its roots in the Sanskrit term “Bharata,” meaning “the cherished” or “the beloved.” In Hindu mythology, Bharata was a legendary monarch who ruled a vast territory that encompasses much of what is now India. The name “Bharat” also appears prominently in ancient texts like the Puranas and the Mahabharata, depicting the religious and cultural traditions of the land.
Opponents of the name change point out that before Article 1 of the Constitution was adopted on September 18, 1949, there were debates among the framers of the Constitution about the country’s name. Various members argued against using “India,” which they saw as a reminder of the colonial past. Seth Govind Das preferred “Bharat” over “India,” Hari Vishnu Kamath used the example of the Irish Constitution to argue that “India” was merely a translation of “Bharat,” and Hargovind Pant emphasised that people in Northern India “wanted Bharatvarsha and nothing else.” However, the drafting committee, under the chairmanship of BR Ambedkar, rejected these proposals. Additionally, the name “India” has been established and recognized worldwide for centuries, deriving from the Greek word “Indos,” which refers to the Indus River that flows through the northwestern part of the subcontinent. The name “India” was popularised by Europeans during their colonial rule and has been adopted by international organizations, including the United Nations.
The debate on the name change goes beyond semantics and involves substantial legal, administrative, and political complexities. Changing the official name of the nation would require amending Article 1 of the Constitution, which states: “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” This amendment would necessitate a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament, the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, along with ratification by at least half of the states. Such a constitutional change is likely to face resistance from various political parties and interest groups with differing views on the matter.
Moreover, renaming the country would entail significant administrative costs and complications. It would involve updating all official documents, government websites, vehicle license plates, military uniforms, national sports teams, and even the official currency. It would also require informing and educating the international community about the new name and its significance, posing logistical and financial challenges for the government and the public.
The name change debate also touches on deeper issues of identity and belonging. Changing the country’s name could have profound psychological and emotional effects on its people, influencing how they perceive themselves and how they relate to others. It could also impact how they are perceived globally, representing either a sign of pride and self-respect or a sign of insecurity and inferiority. It can be viewed as a way to reclaim cultural roots or reject a colonial legacy.
The issue of changing India’s name is not new and has reached the Supreme Court on several occasions in recent years. In 2016, the government opposed a PIL seeking to change India’s name from “India” to “Bharat,” citing Article 1 of the Constitution. Interestingly, the same government has sparked the name change controversy now.
This controversy transcends a mere name change; it encompasses the redefinition of a nation’s self-identity. The debate over changing India’s name is not unique to India, as many countries worldwide have changed their names for various reasons. However, changing a name does not necessarily alter a country’s reality, as a name is a symbol representing a complex and dynamic entity.
The ongoing debate reflects deeper socio-political undercurrents, highlighting the struggle between preserving cultural heritage and addressing practical needs. It prompts us to balance the importance of historical significance with the potential consequences of such a transition.
As this conversation continues to evolve, it will be interesting to see how it shapes India’s identity in the coming years. Will the nation formally adopt “Bharat” as its name, navigating the challenges that come with the change, or will it maintain the historical name “India”? Regardless of the outcome, this name change controversy goes beyond history and culture; it delves into the essence of national identity. The debate on changing India’s name is ongoing and mirrors the diversity and dynamism of its people. It challenges us to think critically about our past, present, and future, and invites us to explore our identity and our place in the world, ultimately asking, “What’s in a name?”
We strive to make a lasting impact on India’s policy and planning landscape through fair, unbiased, and incisive research based journalism.
But we can’t do it alone.
Together, we can create a better India, where policies are fair, planning is unbiased, and the truth prevails. Your contribution matters, and we shall be immensely grateful for your support.