By Narasimhan Vijayaraghavan
The official dinner invite to the G20 delegation from Rashtrapati Bhawan mentions the President as ‘President of Bharat’ rather than ‘President of India’, had set the car among pigeons. Add the recent post by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Buswa Sarma on X (formerly Twitter) who said “REPUBLIC OF BHARAT – happy and proud that our civilization is marching ahead boldly towards AMRIT KAAL.”
And these developments in the wake of the five-day special session of Parliament set to begin on 18 September have triggered much anticipation, not just speculation, around the possibility of such a decision from the government. Article 1 of the Indian constitution mentions our country as ‘India, that is Bharat’ is a ‘Union of States’. And Parliament may have to amend it via the Art.368 route.
Naturally, the opposition Congress has reacted to the changes in the dinner invite and said that the news of name change seems to be true.And it is most unwelcome and it is solely meant to undercut the I.N.D.I.A alliance, as the ruling dispensation is rattled by the unity. Thus runs the refrain from the multiple parties which have vowed to jointly take on NDA in the 2024 general elections.
Be that as it way where did ‘India’ come from? The name “India” is derived from the Old Persian word “Hindus”, which was the name for the Indus River. The Indus River is the longest river in Pakistan and the second-longest river in India. The Old Persian word “Hindus” is thought to be derived from the Sanskrit word “Sindhu”, which also means “Indus River”.
The name “India” first appeared in Greek writings in the 5th century BC. The Greek historian Herodotus used the name “India” to refer to the region around the Indus River. The name “India” was then adopted by the Romans and other European cultures.In the 17th century, the English began to use the name “India” to refer to the entire Indian subcontinent. This usage of the name “India” has continued to this day.
In addition to the name “India”, there are other names for the Indian subcontinent.
One of the most ancient names for India is “Bharat”. The name “Bharat” is thought to be derived from the name of the legendary king Bharata. The name “Bharat” as in ‘Bharatavarsha’, is still used in India today, and it is considered to be a more indigenous name for the country.
Another name for India is “Hindustan”. The name “Hindustan” is derived from the Persian words “Hindu” and “stan”, which mean “land of the Hindus”. The name “Hindustan” is often used to refer to northern India, but it can also be used to refer to the entire Indian subcontinent.
The phrase “India, that is Bharat” was inserted in Article 1 of the Constitution of India during the debates in the Constituent Assembly. The debate on this issue was held on November 15 and 17, 1948.
The main arguments in favor of using the phrase “India, that is Bharat” were that it was a more ancient and indigenous name for the country, and that it would help to unite the people of India. The main arguments against using the phrase were that it was not as well-known as the name “India”, and that it would be confusing to use two names for the same country.
In the end, the Constituent Assembly decided to use the phrase “India, that is Bharat”. This was a compromise between those who wanted to use only the name “India” and those who wanted to use only the name “Bharat”.
The phrase “India, that is Bharat” was inserted in Article 1 of the Constitution of India during the debates in the Constituent Assembly. The debate on this issue was held on November 15 and 17, 1948.The main arguments in favor of using the phrase “India, that is Bharat” were that it was a more ancient and indigenous name for the country, and that it would help to unite the people of India. The main arguments against using the phrase were that it was not as well-known as the name “India”, and that it would be confusing to use two names for the same country.
In the end, the Constituent Assembly decided to use the phrase “India, that is Bharat”. This was a compromise between those who wanted to use only the name “India” and those who wanted to use only the name “Bharat”. Our forefathers held strong and divergent views. But, ultimately had the sense and sagacity to compromise. Now?
To allude to some who debated on the name in the Constituent Assembly: Seth Govind Das, “ The name ‘Bharat’ is more ancient and more indigenous. It is a name that has been used by our people for centuries. It is a name that is not associated with any particular religion or sect. I, therefore, suggest that we should adopt the name ‘Bharat’ for our country.”
Kamalapati Tripathi: “The name ‘Bharat’ is a symbol of our national unity. It is a name that is dear to all our people, irrespective of their religion or caste. I, therefore, urge the House to adopt the name ‘Bharat’ for our country.”
Hargovind Pant: “The name ‘India’ is a foreign name. It was given to our country by the British. The name ‘Bharat’ is our own name. It is a name that is rooted in our history and culture. I, therefore, suggest that we should adopt the name ‘Bharat’ for our country.”
H.V. Kamath: “The name ‘India’ is more well-known and understood than the name ‘Bharat’. This would make it difficult for people outside of India to understand the name of the country. I, therefore, suggest that we should use the name ‘India’ in the Constitution, but we can also use the name ‘Bharat’ in our national anthem and other official documents.” Most were congressmen.
The last word was of course that of Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, as chairman of the drafting committee of our Constitution,” The name ‘India’ is a good name. It is a name that is well-known and understood all over the world. I do not think that we should change the name of our country. However, I do agree that we should also use the name ‘Bharat’ in our national anthem and other official documents.”
Would a simple name change make India into Bharat?
Why not the lastest word NOW, lie with us We the People.
(Writer is practicing advocate in the Madras High Court)