A recent change in protocol has sparked fresh discussions about India’s dual nomenclature. The upcoming G-20 Summit in New Delhi has made a significant shift, with invitations naming the host as “President of Bharat” instead of “President of India”. The change has cast a spotlight on the historical significance of the country’s two names and their constitutional validity.
The History and Interchangeability of “India” and “Bharat”
Article 1 of the Indian Constitution already legitimizes the interchangeable usage of the terms “India” and “Bharat.” The law defines our nation as “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” Interestingly, while the Preamble commences with “We the People of India,” the Hindi rendition employs ‘Bharat’. This interchangeability is also evident in government institutions like Indian Railways which uses “Bharatiya” in its Hindi version.
Tracing the Origins: Bharat
The term “Bharat” holds deep-seated cultural and historical significance for India. Rooted in Puranic literature and the epic Mahabharata, Vishnu Purana describes “Bharata” as the land located between the southern sea and the Himalayan mountain range to the north. The term signifies socio-cultural aspects of life rather than political or geographical identities. An ancient king named Bharata, considered the ancestor of Rig Vedic tribes called Bharatas, further amplifies the historical importance of the name “Bharat.”
Tracing the Origins: India
The westernized name “India” emanates from the word “Indus,” which is a river flowing through the northwestern part of the subcontinent. Ancient Greeks referred to people living beyond the Indus river as ‘Indoi,’ a term denoting “the people of Indus.” Subsequently, Arabs and Persians began to use the terms “Hind” or “Hindustan” to refer to this region. Europeans adopted India from these sources, and it became the widely used name following the British colonial rule.
Constitutional Assembly Debate on Names: India vs Bharat
India’s dual nomenclature has been a source of debate since the framing of the Constitution in 1949. Some Assembly members felt that “India” was a remnant of colonial subjugation, proposing “Bharat” as a better alternative for official documentation. For instance, Seth Govind Das advocated for “Bharat,” stating it as the English translation of India. Similarly, Hari Vishnu Kamath suggested using “Bharat,” citing Ireland as an example of a country that altered its name post-independence.
Recent Developments
In recent years, attempts to rename India to Bharat have surfaced but were rejected. The Supreme Court has twice dismissed such pleas, once in 2016 and again in 2020, affirming that both “India” and “Bharat” find mention in the Constitution.
The Historical Significance of “Hindustan”
“Hindustan” is another name that holds historical relevance. It was popular in Punjab, where Sikh founder Guru Nanak Dev mentioned it in Gurbani. Guru Teg Bahadur is often hailed as the protector of “Hind” and religion. The Ghadar Party and other freedom activists used “Hindustan” in their struggle, thereby making it a significant part of Punjab’s history.
Legal Perspectives on Renaming
When it comes to legally renaming India to Bharat, it’s important to consider past decisions and actions. In 2015, the Centre opposed a name change, arguing that the issue had already been thoroughly discussed during the drafting of the Indian Constitution.
