C.S. Krishnamurthy
The nomenclature of a nation holds significant cultural, historical, and political importance. In the case of India, or, as it is officially known, the Republic of India, it has been the subject of endless debate. Should it be referred to as “India” or “Bharat”?
The deliberations have been a recurring issue in India’s political and social landscape. This dialogue reflects the rich tapestry of India’s history, its linguistic diversity, and its on-going quest for identity.
Historical origins
The dual classification of “India” and “Bharat”, finds its roots in the country’s history. The name “India” has its origins in the Greek word “Indika”, which referred to the region known as the Indus Valley in ancient times. Over centuries, this term became widely accepted and was later adopted by colonial powers during their rule in the subcontinent.
On the other hand, “Bharat” holds deeper insights. It is derived from the Sanskrit word “Bharata”, which appears in ancient Indian texts such as the Mahabharatha and the Vishnu Purana. Bharata was a legendary king in Hindu mythology and is considered the forefather of the people of India. The name “Bharat” has been used in Indian scriptures for millennia and has strong cultural and religious connotations.
Constitutional stance
India’s Constitution, adopted in 1950, officially recognises the country as both “India” and “Bharat”. Article 1 states: “India, that is, Bharat, shall be a Union of States”. This constitutional provision acknowledges the historical and linguistic diversity of the country and gives legal recognition to both names.
The Constitution, while not explicitly addressing the “India vs. Bharat” debate, lays down some essential principles that help us understand the matter. The term “Bharat” in Article 1 is used in conjunction with “India” rather than as an alternative. The Preamble to the Constitution declares that India is a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic, making no mention of “Bharat” as an official name.
The framers of the Constitution wisely left this matter open-ended, allowing people to continue using both names based on their cultural and linguistic preferences.
Identity and nationalism
The choice between “India” and “Bharat” also has implications for national identity and nationalism. Proponents of the term “Bharat” argue that it reflects a more authentic and indigenous identity. They believe using “Bharat” emphasises India’s ancient heritage and connects it to its crux in Hindu mythology and history.
On the other hand, “India” supporters argue that it is a name that is recognised globally and does not favour any particular linguistic or religious group. They view it as a unifying name that represents the diversity of the nation and promotes inclusivity.
The use of “India” in universal contexts is practical and facilitates communication with the global community. It is the name under which India is recognised worldwide and is commonly used in diplomacy, trade, and international relations.
Not only India…
The debate over national identity is not limited to India alone. Many countries grapple with similar questions of identity and nomenclature, especially in diverse and pluralistic societies.
Post-apartheid, South Africa embarked on a process of renaming cities and landmarks to reflect the country’s diverse cultural heritage and break away from colonial-era names. Pretoria, for instance, was officially changed to Tshwane,a name with historical and cultural significance to the local population.
The Israel-Palestine conflict is intertwined with questions of national identity and naming. Jerusalem, for example, is referred to as Al-Quds in Arabic and Yerushalayim in Hebrew, reflecting the contrasting narratives and identities associated with the city.
Striking a balance
The question of whether to refer to the country as “India” or “Bharat” is a complex and multifaceted issue. Both names claim valid significance, and the choice often depends on context and individual preferences.
Ultimately, what matters most is the unity and integrity of the nation, regardless of the name used. Perhaps the most appropriate approach is to respect the dual categorization established in the Constitution and use both “India” and “Bharat” as the situation demands. This acknowledges the complexity of India’s identity and allows for a nuanced understanding of the country’s rich history and culture.
As India continues to evolve and shape its place in the global community, the debate over its name will likely persist. However, what remains constant is the vibrant mix of cultures, languages, and traditions that make up the nation, regardless of whether it is called “India” or “Bharat”. The intersection of the two names is a testament to the fact that India is a land where age-old traditions coexist harmoniously with contemporary global dynamics.
Depoliticizing the debate
Instead of pitting these names against each other, celebrate the fact that our country has a dual identity. There’s no need for an either-or choice; both names can coexist and represent different facets of the nation. Remember, the heart of this debate lies in our shared love for our nation, regardless of the name we choose to give it.
Politicising the debate over names only foments needless divisions and distractions in society, diverting from more pressing issues that the nation faces, such as poverty, education, healthcare, and infrastructure development. It’s vital to prioritise the development and welfare of our country above symbolic debates.