Controversy Brews Over ‘India’ vs. ‘Bharat’: Will the Nation’s Name Change in Upcoming Parliament Session?
“G20 Summit Dinner Invites Spark Speculation on Renaming India to Bharat”
Introduction:
The age-old debate of whether to refer to the nation as ‘India’ or ‘Bharat’ is reignited, with the Congress party raising eyebrows over ‘President of Bharat’ on G20 Summit dinner invites. This has stirred speculation that the government might introduce a resolution to rename India as Bharat during the upcoming special Parliament session. However, this debate isn’t new, as it traces its roots back to the Constituent Assembly debates.
The Dual-Name Policy:
The Constituent Assembly, responsible for drafting the Constitution, grappled with the decision of what to officially call the nation. This led to the adoption of a dual-name policy, officially recognizing ‘India, that is Bharat’ as the nation’s identity. But why this dual nomenclature?
India vs. Bharat Debate:
In the English language, we commonly refer to our country as ‘India,’ while various Indian languages use ‘Bharat.’ Hindi, for instance, calls the Constitution ‘Bharat ka Samvidhan,’ and Article 1 reads, ‘Bharata arthat India, rajyon ka sangha hoga.’ Experts explain that ‘India’ represents the geographical and administrative aspect, while ‘Bharat’ embodies a socially organized territory united by socio-cultural practices.
Historical Significance of ‘Bharat’:
‘Bharat’ has ancient roots and appears in Hindu texts like the Mahabharata and Manusmriti, related to Emperor Bharata. This word symbolizes India’s rich cultural and historical legacy.
‘India’ – A Colonial Name:
On the other hand, ‘India’ is not a native name but comes from the Indus River, popularized by Greek historians and later adopted during British colonial rule.
Constituent Assembly Debates:
On September 18, 1949, the Constituent Assembly engaged in intense deliberations over whether to use ‘Bharat’ or ‘India’ exclusively in the Constitution. Several members, including Hari Vishnu Kamath and Hargovind Pant, advocated for ‘Bharat,’ citing its historical and traditional significance.
Why Both ‘Bharat’ and ‘India’?
The decision to include both names in the Constitution was born out of the challenging post-Partition period, marked by communal strife and uncertainty. This dual identity aimed to reassure minorities that they would not be dominated by a ‘Hindu’ name, making it a necessary compromise.
Special Parliament Session Sparks Controversy Over Nation’s Name:
During the recent monsoon session of Parliament, BJP Rajya Sabha MP Naresh Bansal voiced his demand for the removal of ‘India’ from the Constitution, asserting that it symbolizes colonial subjugation. This call found resonance with fellow BJP MP Harnath Singh Yadav, who advocated for a constitutional amendment replacing “India” with “Bharat.”
With the special session of Parliament set to commence on September 18, there is widespread speculation that a bill proposing this constitutional amendment may be introduced.
While the session’s official agenda remains undisclosed, the prospect of such a bill being presented is a topic of discussion. Proponents of this name change argue that adopting a single indigenous name for the country will foster a stronger sense of national pride and underscore the nation’s profound cultural heritage.
Conclusion:
The debate between ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’ is not merely about renaming; it’s a reflection of India’s diverse identity and history. Whether the nation will be officially renamed ‘Bharat’ remains to be seen, but the dual nomenclature continues to honor the country’s multifaceted heritage.
