INDIA
AND BHARAT DEBATE - POLITY
News: ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’
interchangeable, can be used in official invitation, say legal experts
What's
in the news?
●
An official invitation from President
Droupadi Murmu to G-20 guests in which she is described as the “President of
Bharat” has triggered speculation that the Narendra Modi government could
officially change the name of “India” to “Bharat” during the five-day-long
Special Session of Parliament that starts on September 18.
Key
takeaways:
●
The controversy arises from the use of the
term President of Bharat in the official invitation sent out by Rashtrapati
Bhavan. Constitutionally, there is no provision for a president of Bharat.
●
This seemingly innocuous change has
triggered a larger conversation about the nation’s identity, politics, and
historical context.
Historical
Context:
1.
Constituent Assembly Debates:
●
During the Constituent Assembly’s deliberations
for the Indian Constitution, the question of the country’s official name arose.
●
Diverse opinions were expressed regarding
whether to adopt Bharat or India as the preferred name.
2.
Preference for Bharat:
●
Some constituent assembly members favoured
Bharat as the official name.
●
They cited its deep-rooted historical and
cultural significance, drawing from ancient Indian texts and traditions.
3.
Preference for India:
●
Conversely, other assembly members leaned
toward retaining ‘India’ as the official name.
●
They argued that India was a name already
recognized internationally, particularly during the colonial era.
4.
B.R. Ambedkar’s Compromise:
●
To reconcile these differing views, B.R.
Ambedkar, the chairperson of the drafting committee, introduced a compromise.
●
He proposed the inclusion of Bharat in
Article 1 of the Constitution to accommodate both names.
5.
Intent of the Compromise:
●
The compromise aimed to respect the
historical and cultural significance of ‘Bharat’ while preserving the international
recognition of India.
●
It sought to acknowledge linguistic
diversity and cultural heritage within the constitutional framework.
Constitutional
Perspective:
1.
Official Nomenclature - President of India:
●
Article 52 of the Indian Constitution
clearly states that there shall be a President of India. This is the official
nomenclature of the head of state as established by the Constitution.
2.
Article 1 of the Constitution:
●
Article 1 of the Constitution reads,
India, that is, Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
3.
Hindi Translation Clarification:
●
The word Bharat is used in the Hindi
translation of the Constitution, but it does not appear as an independent word
in the original Constitution in languages other than Hindi.
4.
Clarificatory Phrase That is:
●
The phrase that is in Article 1 is
considered clarificatory, explaining or further clarifying the preceding word,
India.
●
Therefore, the interpretation is that
Article 1 signifies that India, known as Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
5.
Translation as a Clarification:
●
Article 394A (2) emphasizes that the
translation of the Constitution is meant to have the same meaning as the
original.
●
This reinforces the point that Bharat is a
translation of ‘India’ in the Hindi version, and India is the authentic name of
the country unless changed through a legal process. The potential ramifications
of renaming India Bharat
Implications
of Renaming:
1.
International Confusion:
●
The use of Bharat alongside India in
official communications may cause confusion in international diplomacy, trade
agreements, and diplomatic relations as foreign governments and entities may
encounter varying references.
2.
Legal Implications:
●
Changing the country’s name could require
the revision of existing laws, treaties, and agreements to accommodate the new
name, potentially leading to complex legal challenges.
3.
Administrative Challenges:
●
Renaming entails substantial
administrative efforts, including updating official documents, government
websites, passports, currency, and various bureaucratic aspects. This can
result in logistical challenges and significant costs.
4.
Cultural and Historical Significance:
●
India has deep cultural and historical
significance, and changing it may disrupt these connections and create a sense
of alienation among certain sections of the population.
5.
Unity and Inclusivity:
●
Renaming should consider the sentiments of
diverse communities within the country to maintain national unity and
inclusivity.
●
A hasty or unilateral decision could
create divisions.
6.
Global Reputation:
●
A country’s global reputation is closely
linked to its name.
●
Changing it can impact how the world
perceives and interacts with the nation, potentially requiring time to
establish a new global identity.
7.
Economic Impact:
●
The renaming process can have economic
consequences, including rebranding costs for businesses, potential disruptions
in trade, and impacts on tourism and foreign investments.
Issues
in Renaming:
1.
Confusion in Official Communication:
●
The potential for confusion arises if
Bharat is used interchangeably with ‘India’ in official communication.
●
Maintaining a single, consistent name is
essential for clear diplomatic relations and international agreements.
2.
Official Name - Republic of India:
●
The official name of the country is the
Republic of India in official communication with foreign countries and
international bodies.
●
Using Bharat alongside India could lead to
inconsistency and misunderstanding in international dealings.
3.
Foreign Government Confusion:
●
Foreign governments might be perplexed if
India is referred to differently in various agreements, sometimes as the
Republic of India and sometimes as the Republic of Bharat.
WAY
FORWARD:
1.
Constitutional Clarity:
●
Ensure any change in the official name of
the country follows a formal constitutional amendment process.
●
This requires an amendment to Article 1,
which currently defines the country as India, that is, Bharat, which shall be a
Union of States.
2.
Historical Context:
●
Take into account the historical context
and significance of the name India in the country’s identity. Recognize that
India has historical continuity and international recognition.
3.
Linguistic Consistency:
●
Recognize linguistic diversity within
India while maintaining consistency across different languages and scripts used
within the country. Bharat is primarily used in the Hindi version of the
Constitution.
4.
International Relations:
●
Consider the potential implications for
India’s international relations and reputation.
●
Maintain a single, consistent name in
official communication with foreign countries and international bodies to avoid
confusion and maintain diplomatic clarity.
5.
Public Sentiment:
●
Engage with the public and seek their
input and feedback on this significant decision.
●
Public sentiment and consensus should be
considered in any decision to change the official name.
6.
Historical Symbolism:
●
Acknowledge that renaming may carry
broader symbolism beyond a linguistic change. Addressing issues related to
colonial symbols and administrative structures should be part of a
comprehensive approach.
7.
Legislative Process:
●
Follow the legislative process outlined in
the Indian Constitution for any changes to the country’s name, ensuring
transparency and adherence to constitutional principles
The controversy
surrounding the use of Bharat in official communication requires constitutional
clarity and consensus-building. In the spirit of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, it is
essential to ensure that any changes reflect the unity and inclusivity that
India stands for.