While there is no legal objection to calling India ‘Bharat,’ which is one of the country’s two official names, I hope the government is not foolish enough to completely get rid of ‘India,’ whose brand value is immeasurable,” wrote Shashi Tharoor, a former statesman and prominent opposition leader of the Congress Party, on social media earlier this week.
In July, leaders of 26 Indian opposition parties formed an alliance to oust Modi in the next general election, known as Bharat (or the Indian National Development Alliance). Some opposition politicians said the government’s use of Bharat was a reaction to the alliance.
How can the BJP abolish ‘Bharat’?
The country does not belong to any political party; it belongs to all Indians,” said Raghav Chadha, a lawmaker from the alliance’s member, the Aam Aadmi Party, on social media. “The BJP cannot simply alter our national identity as if it were their exclusive possession to manipulate as they please.”
But in an interview with the ANI news agency, India’s foreign minister, S Jaishankar, said, “India is Bharat. It’s in the Constitution. I invite everyone to read it. When you say ‘Bharat,’ it conveys a sense, a meaning, and an identity.”
Political analysts also point to cultural reasons –
Bharat is the name typically used to refer to the country in Hindi and other regional languages. The ideological parents of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or RSS, have long advocated the use of “Bharat” over “India.”
Mohan Bhagwat, the head of RSS, stated earlier this month, “For centuries, our nation has been known as Bharat.” Whatever the language, the name will remain the same.”
The Congress Party’s senior leader Shashi Tharoor posted on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, “We can certainly call ourselves the Alliance for Betterment, Harmony and Responsible Advancement for Tomorrow (Bharat). Maybe then, it can stop this destructive game of changing names by the ruling party.”
During its nine-year rule, the BJP renamed cities and roads that were named during the Mughal or British eras, saying it was time to shed the burden of foreign rule. Allahabad, a northern city named by Mughal rulers, is now called Prayagraj, a Sanskrit word. The road near the prime minister’s residence, formerly known as Race Course Road, is now called Lok Kalyan Marg.
Some people are skeptical about such moves. “If we call it Bharat, it won’t improve India’s GDP [Gross Domestic Product]. I won’t get better-paying jobs, and my standard of living won’t improve whether we call it Bharat or India,” said Akash Kohli, who works for a corporation. “This is all a drama.”
Such moves have gained momentum amid speculation that the BJP is planning to change India’s name to Bharat as the Modi government has called a five-day special session of Parliament from September 18 without specifying any agenda. Opposition politicians have questioned whether one of the issues raised during the session could be the name change.
The ruling BJP has made no comment. But Modi’s supporters argue that many countries, from Asia to Africa, have changed their names in the past – from Ceylon to Sri Lanka, Rhodesia to Zimbabwe, Burma to Myanmar, and Turkey to Turkije.
However, officially removing the name India and fully adopting Bharat may not be straightforward, as it would require a constitutional amendment that would need the support of two-thirds of both houses of Parliament. While the BJP can easily gather numbers in the lower house, securing support in the upper house would be challenging.
For More: News
Shastri commented, “This seems like a lot of showmanship, something we often witness during election campaigns, only to watch it fade away afterward.” Of course, it depends on how it pans out, and if it benefits electorally, we may see changes after 2024.”
For many, the issue seems largely irrelevant. “Honestly, I don’t care. What difference will it make if we change the name? But I really hope we don’t change everything from India to Bharat because it will be a colossal waste of money,” said a 40-year-old man on the condition of anonymity.”