An image of the invitation by the 'President of Bharat' sent to leaders for the G20 summit in New Delhi.
Credit: X/@dpradhanbjp
There is no constitutional, political or semantic line that divides India and Bharat, and so the Narendra Modi government’s move to privilege Bharat over India is a meaningless exercise. The government has used the word Bharat in official invitations related to the G-20 summit and may go in for its more extensive use, and some fear even for erasing the word India from political and official discourse. The Constitution names the country as India, that is Bharat, and so banishment of India would need an amendment. It is not known why there is a sudden nomenclatural offensive, though it is true that the RSS and the BJP have always favoured Bharat over India. If it is a reaction to the Opposition alliance naming itself INDIA, it is being silly and petulant. If it is part of a package of measures to occupy the nationalist ground more firmly, it is unwise and ill thought-out.
Both India and Bharat have been used interchangeably, though the use has sometimes depended on context. Bharat has greater cultural significance, but India has been used more widely, particularly in the political domain, and is more popular. There has even been a suggestion that Bharat would better denote rural India while India would represent the country’s urban face. The objection to India is on the ground that it is a name given by foreigners and so would not express the national identity and ethos as much as Bharat. But both names have evolved and acquired their meanings and connotations through history. The existence of the two names and the Constitution’s recognition of both is an acknowledgement of the diverse streams and varied roots of that history. The experiences and perceptions of people of different races, languages and faiths and their ideas through times have created the country’s national identity. It is wrong to reject one part of it and accept another.
The elimination of India and the sole use of Bharat would demand not just a constitutional amendment but wider consultations and consensus. The name of a country cannot be changed to suit the taste and ideological predilections of one party, even if it is the ruling party. There is also the danger that even Bharat may not be considered as fully representative of the country as it may be seen as associated with only an ancient ruling clan in the North. Even words like Hindu and Hindi have their roots in Persia. In a politically vitiated environment, the foregrounding of Bharat and the exclusion of India may be considered as imposition of an ideological construct and may be resented. The country has enough room to accommodate both India and Bharat.