"Bharat" is a historical and ideological name for India, while "India" is a constitutional and international name. The use of these names has become political due to the formation of an opposition alliance called INDIA (Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance).

Recently, the current government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has used the term "President of Bharat" instead of "President of India" on an invitation card for the recent G-20 Summit. This shift in terminology has raised eyebrows and suggests a political dimension to the use of these names.

 “Bharat” & “India”

• Origins of the Names:The words "India" and its variants, such as "Hind" in Arabic, have foreign origins. These names were historically used by outsiders to refer to the land south and east of the Indus or Sindhu River.
• Historical Usage:During Afghan and Mughal rule, the term "Hindustan" was often used to refer to the northern regions of the Indian subcontinent.
  • Later, European colonial powers, particularly the British, used "India"to describe not only the northern region but also the entire subcontinent. For them, it was primarily a geographical designation.
• Indian Renaissance and Nationalism: The Indian Renaissance played a crucial role in shaping the consciousness that all the people in the Indian subcontinent constituted a single nation. Some promoters of this movement sought to find ancient roots for Indian nationalism and believed that using a name given by foreigners was unacceptable.
  • They preferred the term "Bharat" and its variations in different languages.
• Name Controversy:The Muslim League, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, raised concerns over the use of the name "India" for the newly independent nation. They argued that "India" should be associated with the Hindu-majority regions, while the Muslim-majority areas should be recognized as a separate nation, Pakistan.
  • This name disputereflected the deep-seated religious and political divisions during the partition.
• Syncretic Word - "Hind":Figures like Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose advocated for a syncretic word, "Hind," which could be acceptable to a wide range of people, including those from different faiths.
  • "Hind" is still in use today, and expressions like "Jai Hind" reflect its enduring significance in Indian culture.

How “Bharat” and “India” are Balanced?

• Adoption of the Constitution: The Indian Constitutionwas originally adopted by the Constituent Assembly in English. This underscores the historical and legal importance of the English version as the foundational text of the Constitution.
• Publication of a Hindi Translation:In addition to the English version, a Hindi translation of the Constitution was published in 1950. This translation was signed by the members of the Constituent Assembly, and it was done in accordance with a resolution passed by the Constituent Assembly.
• Official Status of Both Versions:The presence of both English and Hindi versions of the Constitution underscores their official status within the Indian legal framework.
  • It highlights the importance of providing access to the Constitution in both of India''s official languages, English and Hindi.
• Constitutional Amendments:The 58^th Amendment to the Constitution in 1987 likely addressed issues related to the use of Hindi and English in official documents, legal proceedings, and government communications.
  • The 58^thAmendment gave the President the power to publish the official text of the Constitution in Hindi, which could also be used in legal proceedings.
• Article 1(1): Article 1(1)of the Constitution defines the name and character of the country. In the English version, it states "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States," emphasizing "India" as the primary name.
  • In the Hindi version,it reads "Bharat artharth India, rajyon ka sangh hoga," with "Bharat" given prominence.
• Examples of Names:Examples such as the "Gazette of India" in English and "Bharat ka Rajpatra" in Hindi are given to illustrate how this naming convention is applied to various official publications.
  • Thechoice of names reflects the dual-language nature of India''s official documents and publications.

Current Scenario

• Use of "India" Internationally:India has consistently used the name "India" in all international and multilateral fora. This signifies that the country''s international identity and recognition are associated with the name "India”.
  • Thishighlights the practicality and standardisation of using the English name "India" in global diplomacy and communication.
• Recent Example with Greece:The reference to the Joint Statement issued during the Prime Minister''s visit to Greece serves as a contemporary example. The document is titled "India-Greece Joint Statement," emphasising the use of "India" in official bilateral relations.
• Dual-Language Approach:It is noted that India follows a dual-language approach in official documents and diplomatic contexts. Under the National emblem in letters of credence given by the President of India to Ambassadors-designate, the words "Rashtrapati" and "Bharat Gantantra" are written in Hindi, while the English equivalents, "President" and "Republic of India," are used underneath.
  • Thisapproach reflects India''s commitment to multilingualism and its diverse linguistic heritage.
• Modern Usage:The use of both "Jai Hind" and "Jai Bharat" is noted in contemporary India, reflecting the coexistence of different cultural and linguistic traditions. For instance, in most of the major speeches, such as the Independence Day speech both expressions are used, signifying a recognition of the diverse historical and cultural threads that make up the fabric of the nation.

Such a change could alienate parts of the country that prefer the name "India" to "Bharat." Public sentiment and regional preferences regarding the country''s name are diverse and should be considered in any decision. Any departure from this tradition could have cultural and identity implications. The tradition of using "India" in English and "Bharat" in Hindi, reflecting India''s linguistic diversity, is considered both wise and constitutionally correct. The question raised is whether changing this tradition to prioritise one term over the other should be a priority at this time when the country is facing other challenges (Unemployment, Environmental Degradation, Poverty, Helathcare, Inequality, Gender Discrimination, etc.).