India or Bharat? As the history books show, this is a question that goes back centuries.
As India prepares to host the G20 summit this weekend, state-issued invitations sent to world leaders using the word “Bharat” have ignited rumours that Narendra Modi’s nationalist government might plan to phase out the English name.
Some have declared it a triumphant move to finally throw off colonial chains, others have called it a disastrous vanity project by the prime minister.
In 1947, when British rule was finally overthrown, India ostensibly had three coexisting names, each with its own history, connotation and legitimacy.
There was India, a name thought to have its origins in Sanskrit, referring to the Indus River that runs through the north of the country. It was first used in different iterations by the Persians, the ancient Greeks and Romans more than 2,000 years ago and was widely adopted by British maps in the 18th century to refer to the territory in the subcontinent under British rule.
There was Hindustan, the name used by the Persians, the Greeks, Delhi sultans and the Mughals for hundreds of years to refer to a large stretch of the north and centre of the subcontinent.
Finally there was Bharat, a name that is traced back to an ancient Sanskrit text, the Rig Veda – written around 1500BC – which mentions the Bharata clan as one of the principal tribes occupying an area now known as north India. It is also the name of a legendary king that appears in the Sanskrit epic the Mahabharata, who Hindus claim was the father of the Indian race.
For Jawaharlal Nehru, the anti-colonial leader who would go on to be India’s first prime minister, his country was all three. In his seminal book, The Discovery of India, written in 1944 after being jailed by the British, he stated: “Often, as I wandered from meeting to meeting, I spoke to my audiences of this India of ours, of Hindustan and of Bharata, the old Sanskrit name derived from the mythical founders of the race.”
It wasn’t until 1949, when India’s constitution was drafted, that a decision was made about what the country’s formal name should be. With the committee torn over whether it should be “India” or “Bharat”, the decision was finally made that it should be both, while Hindustan was dropped entirely.
As it stands today, the opening line of India’s constitution, which was written in English, states: “India, that is Bharat, shall be a union of states.”
Even then, the decision caused anger in parliament. “We must know that this name was given to our country by foreigners who, having heard of the riches of this land, were tempted towards it and had robbed us of our freedom in order to acquire the wealth of our country,” said Hargovind Pant, an MP, after the constitution draft was read aloud.
Yet both names continue to be used widely domestically. India is used in English communication, while it is Bharat in almost all Indian languages. Bharat is referred to in the national anthem, and Bharat and India are written on Indian passports.
While various legal and parliamentary petitions have been raised requesting that Bharat be the only legitimate name, citing the name India as a colonial hangover, they have been duly dismissed.
However, the argument raised its head again this week when an invitation sent to heads of state for a dinner being hosted for the G20 leaders’ summit, being held in Delhi this weekend, referred to the “President of Bharat” in English. It also appeared in an English G20 booklet for foreign delegates, titled Bharat, the Mother of Democracy, which stated that “Bharat is the official name of the country” and Indian officials at the G20 summit will now bear tags saying: “Bharat – official.”
While the ruling Bharatiya Janata party (BJP), led by Modi, has denied rumours an official name change is on its agenda, officials have confirmed that Bharat will increasingly be used in official communication.
Many have seen this move by the BJP as part of its wider Hindu nationalist agenda, which has sought to distance India from its British colonial past, with the renaming of roads and monuments as one such measure. At the renaming last year in Delhi of the Raj Path, meaning King’s Way, to Kartavya Path, Modi congratulated India on its “freedom from yet another symbol of slavery of the British Raj”. Names relating to the Muslim Mughal rulers, which the BJP also describes as colonisers, have also been erased.
The push for Bharat to be India’s official name has strong support in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the hardline rightwing religious nationalist group from which the BJP originated. “At times we use India so those who speak English will understand. But we must stop using this. The name of the country will remain Bharat wherever you go in the world,” said RSS’s chief Mohan Bhagwat, speaking last week.
The move to use Bharat in the G20 invitations provoked strong support from within the BJP. One minister, Dharmendra Pradhan, said it was a step towards overcoming a “colonial mentality”. “This should have happened earlier. It gives great satisfaction to the mind. Our introduction to ‘Bharat’. We are proud of it.”
Himanta Biswa Sarma, the BJP’s chief minister of Assam, said: “Republic of Bharat – happy and proud that our civilisation is marching ahead boldly.”
Yet those in the opposition condemned the move and speculated it was an attempt by the BJP to undermine the opposition parties, which recently came together in a coalition under the acronym INDIA.
Mamata Banerjee, chief minister of West Bengal, called it “a blatant attempt to distort the history of the country”.
Shashi Tharoor, a politician with the main opposition Congress party, said both names carried value. “While there is no constitutional objection to calling India ‘Bharat’, which is one of the country’s two official names, I hope the government will not be so foolish as to completely dispense with ‘India’, which has incalculable brand value built up over centuries.
“We should continue to use both words rather than relinquish our claim to a name redolent of history, a name that is recognised around the world.”
