India vs Bharat: A Historical, Constitutional, and Societal Debate

The ‘Bharat’ Name Change and Curriculum Revisions

• Context of the Name Change: The controversy regarding the name change arose after certain official events and invitations started using “Bharat” instead of “India.” 
  • Context of Change: G20 Summit and official invitations extended to the Prime Minister.
• Proposal: The NCERT panel has proposed changing the name “India” to “Bharat” in all textbooks.
• Historical Rationale: According to the committee, the name “Bharat” has historical significance and finds mention in ancient texts such as Vishnu Purana, predating the common usage of the term “India,” which became prevalent during the colonial period.
• Constitutional Reference: Article 1(1) of the Indian Constitution already mentions both the names, stating “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” 
  • This constitutional provision supports the use of both names.
• Curriculum Changes: The proposed changes go beyond the name and include revisions to the school curriculum. 
  • The committee suggests toning down the emphasis on “Hindu defeats” in historical contexts and highlighting victories over Mughals and Sultans. 
  • Additionally, the committee recommends replacing “ancient history” with “classical history” to present a more comprehensive view of India’s historical contributions, such as Aryabhatta’s work on the solar system.
• Alignment with National Education Policy (NEP) 2020: The proposed changes are in line with the National Education Policy of 2020, which emphasizes a holistic and multidisciplinary approach to education, encouraging a more nuanced understanding of India’s history and heritage.

India vs. Bharat: Unveiling the Historical Significance of Names

Origins of the Names:

• India: The term “India” is derived from the River Indus, and it was used by Greeks, Persians, and Arabs to refer to the region beyond the Indus River.

• Bharat: The name finds its roots in ancient Indian texts, including the Vishnu Purana, describing it as the land between the southern sea and the northern snowy Himalayan mountain. It signifies a socio-cultural and religious entity.
  • Bharata is also the name of a legendary ancient king, considered the ancestor of the Rig Vedic tribes of Bharatas, symbolizing the progenitor of all subcontinent’s people.

Historical Debate During Independence:

• Muslim League’s Advocacy: During India’s independence in 1947, the Muslim League in Pakistan advocated for naming India as “Hindustan” or “Bharat,” arguing for two successor states: Pakistan and either Hindustan or Bharat.
• India’s Position: India maintained that it was the direct successor state to British India under international law and retained the name “India.” 
  • Pakistan had to establish its international status, including UN membership, separately.

The Constitutional Assembly’s Dilemma Between ‘India’ and ‘Bharat

• When the Constituent Assembly was framing the Constitution in 1949, there was a division of opinions regarding the name.
• Some members felt that “India” was a reminder of colonial oppression and sought to prioritize “Bharat” in official documents.
• Prominent Views: 
  • Seth Govind Das from Jabalpur advocated for placing “Bharat” above “India,” emphasizing that the latter was merely a translation of the former in English.
  • Hari Vishnu Kamath cited the example of the Irish Constitution, which changed the name of the country upon achieving independence, as a precedent for using “Bharat.”
  • Hargovind Pant argued that the people wanted “Bharatvarsha” and rejected the term “India” imposed by foreign rulers.

India and Bharat: Evolving National Identity and Constitutional Implications

• Article 1 of the Indian Constitution: Article 1 states, “India, that is, Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” 
  • The formulation recognizes both names, emphasizing “India” in the English version and giving primacy to “Bharat” in the Hindi version.
  • The Hindi version is titled “Bharat ka Samvidhan,” and Article 1(1) reads, “Bharat artharth India, rajyon ka sangh hoga,” giving primacy to the word “Bharat” in the Hindi version
• 58th Amendment: 58th Amendment of the Indian Constitution was enacted in 1987.
  • This amendment empowered the President to publish the authoritative text of the Constitution in the Hindi language where “Bharat” is emphasized.
  • This authoritative Hindi version of the Constitution could be used in legal proceedings.
• Development of National Consciousness:
  • Indian Renaissance: The idea of a single nation encompassing diverse populations emerged during the Indian Renaissance. 
    • Advocates sought ancient Indian roots for nationalism, preferring the term “Bharat.”
  • Syncretic Terms: Prominent Figures like Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose proposed syncretic terms like “Hind” to unify people of different faiths.
  • Emotive Expressions: Phrases like “Jai Hind” and “Jai Bharat” are used interchangeably, reflecting the coexistence of both terms in the emotional and nationalistic discourse.
• International Recognition: In international, multilateral, and bilateral contexts where English is used, “India” is consistently employed. For instance, joint statements with other countries use “India.”
• Post-Independence Developments: Recent political developments, such as the formation of alliances like “INDIA,” add new layers of meaning and significance to the terms “Bharat” and “India.”
  • Official Usage: Some official events have used “Bharat” in place of “India,” leading to debates about the government’s intentions and potential political implications.
• Supreme Court’s Rulings: The Supreme Court has rejected pleas to rename ‘India’ to ‘Bharat,’ reaffirming that both names find mention in the Constitution and have legal validity.

Analyzing the Potential Effects of Changing India’s Name to Bharat

• International Confusion and Diplomatic Relations: Foreign governments and organizations might find it challenging to adjust to the dual nomenclature. Ambiguity in official communication could lead to misunderstandings.
  • Example: In international forums, varying references could cause confusion during negotiations, affecting diplomatic relationships and trade agreements.
• Legal Implications and Revisions: Existing laws, treaties, and international agreements referring to India would need to be revised, leading to legal complexities and potential disputes.
  • Example: Trade agreements where India is a party might need renegotiation, causing delays and uncertainties for businesses.
• Administrative Challenges and Costs: Renaming would require extensive changes in official documents, websites, passports, and currency, leading to administrative challenges and significant costs.
  • Example: Updating government websites and documents can be time-consuming and resource-intensive.
• Cultural and Historical Impact: India has deep cultural and historical significance. Changing the name might disrupt these connections, leading to a sense of alienation among certain communities.
  • Example: Historical monuments, books, and cultural artifacts referencing ‘India’ might need reinterpretation or revision, impacting heritage preservation efforts.
• Unity and Social Inclusivity: Renaming should consider diverse cultural and linguistic communities within the country. 
  • A unilateral decision could create divisions and sentiments of exclusion among certain groups.
  • Example: States with strong regional identities might feel alienated if the decision does not address their concerns adequately.
• Global Reputation and Perception: A country’s global reputation is closely linked to its name. Changing it might lead to confusion and uncertainty among the international community, impacting interactions and partnerships.
  • Example: Investors might hesitate due to the uncertainty associated with a country undergoing a name change.
• Economic Consequences: Businesses associated with ‘India’ might face rebranding costs and potential confusion among customers. Established brands might need to reconsider their strategies.
  • Example: Companies using ‘Made in India’ branding might need to re-evaluate their marketing materials, impacting their market presence and recognition.

Arguments Against the Rename:

• Confusion in Official Communication: The potential for confusion arises if Bharat is used interchangeably with ‘India’ in official communication. 
  • Maintaining a single, consistent name is essential for clear diplomatic relations and international agreements.
• Official Name: Republic of India: The official name of the country is the Republic of India in official communication with foreign countries and international bodies. 
  • Using Bharat alongside India could lead to inconsistency and misunderstanding in international dealings.
• Foreign Government Confusion: Foreign governments might be perplexed if India is referred to differently in various agreements, sometimes as the Republic of India and sometimes as the Republic of Bharat.

Way Forward: Considerations for Resolving the India-Bharat Naming Question

• Constitutional Clarity: Any name change should adhere to the formal constitutional amendment process. 
  • This necessitates a modification to Article 1, which currently defines the country as “India, that is, Bharat.”
• Respecting Historical Significance: Acknowledge the historical context and significance of the name “India” in the nation’s identity. 
  • Recognize its historical continuity and international recognition.
• Linguistic Consistency: Respect India’s linguistic diversity while ensuring consistency across different languages and scripts used within the country. 
  • It should be noted that “Bharat” is primarily used in the Hindi version of the Constitution.
• International Relations: Consider potential implications for India’s international relations and reputation. 
• Maintain a single, consistent name in official communication with foreign countries and international bodies to prevent confusion and ensure diplomatic clarity.
• Public Engagement: Engage with the public actively, seeking input and feedback on this significant decision. 
  • Public sentiment and consensus should be central to any decision regarding the official name.
• Symbolic Implications: Acknowledge that renaming carries broader symbolism beyond linguistic change. 
  • Address issues related to colonial symbols and administrative structures as part of a comprehensive approach.

Conclusion:

• In line with the spirit of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, emphasizing the world as one family, it is crucial to ensure that any changes reflect the unity and inclusivity that India embodies. 
• By respecting constitutional processes, historical significance, linguistic diversity, public sentiment, and international relations, India can navigate this controversy with clarity, understanding, and unity.