Volume XXX Number 124

NEW DELHI | FRIDAY, 8 SEPTEMBER 2023

Bharat’s tryst with destiny

Changing the name needs wide consultation

T
he use of “Bharat” in an English-language invitation from President
Droupadi Murmu to heads of State and governments, as well as chief
ministers, for an official banquet ahead of the G20 summit has sparked
unnecessary controversy over the name of the country. The Opposition
believes that the government’s choice of the Hindi word for the country, rather
than following convention, is a way of undermining the 26-party alliance that
goes by the name INDIA (the acronym stands for Indian National Developmental
Inclusive Alliance). Whatever the motive, the abrupt departure from standard
practice calls for an explanation from the government, especially because there
has been no official announcement or notification to this effect. The timing also
raises several questions. So far, there has been no issue over the country’s “inter-
national” and “indigenous” names, which are derived from constitutional provi-
sions. The first sub-clause of the first article of the English (and original) version
of the Constitution states, “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States”.
In 1987, the 58th amendment to the Constitution empowered the President
to have the Hindi version of the Constitution published. The concomitant first
article gives primacy to the word Bharat — “Bharat that is India…”. The Hindi
version did not create controversy simply because Indians accepted that India
would be the term used internationally and in government publications in English,
which remains a language of official communication in India, while Bharat would
be used in Hindi publications. Most ordinary Indians have had no difficulty
absorbing this interchangeable usage, singing praises to “Bharat” in the national
anthem and rooting for “India” at international sporting events.
In over seven decades since Independence, there is no doubt that the term
“India” has shaped the country’s global identity, which must count for something
for a government that is keen to project power on the global stage. Indeed, the
G20 presidency is widely regarded as a platform to fulfil this ambition. It is possible
that the current government is keen to give the country a more indigenous identity
than the name India, which is a variation of a collective term used, first by the
Greeks, and later by West Asian traders, to refer to the sub-continental landmass
east of the Indus river. This is not a novel aspiration; several countries have
changed names to slough off colonial pasts — Sri Lanka (Ceylon), Zimbabwe
(Rhodesia), Malawi (Nyasaland), Burkina Faso (Upper Volta) and so on. Equally,
several countries have local names that differ from their international names —
Deutschland (Germany), Eire (Ireland), Misr (Egypt) and Zhongguo (China).
Similarly, variations of the term Bharat are used in several local languages
across the country. At the same time, there are also hundreds of communities
and minorities for whom the term Bharat may not have the same cultural reso-
nance. On the contrary, it may have exclusionary connotations. Retaining the
India-Bharat duality conveys a pleasing sense of ambiguity. Officially excluding
one of the names of the country, therefore, calls for wide consultation in an
intensely multicultural country such as Bharat/India. Finally, there is the question
of necessity. A name change is just that. Calling India only Bharat will not address
the many critical issues that the country faces and surely demand more govern-
mental concern and attention than the wording of a presidential invitation.