Notebook: Why ‘Bharat’?

        “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States”, Article 1(1) of our Constitution reads. Have you ever thought why ‘Article 1’ had not been phrased as ‘Bharat, that is India, shall be a Union of States’?

          Its answer is traced back to Constituent Assembly debates when members agreed to the name ‘India’, arguing that it retained a sense of continuity and familiarity, especially among foreign nations. (The Hindu, Sept. 6, 2023.)

          When our constitution was written, India was just a young bride wedding to her destiny i.e. freedom after centuries of slavery. A constituent assembly was busy to jot down a rule of book that should be living and dynamic. 

          But, those groups, whose representations were not sufficient in the assembly, still claim that many of the members were not free from the imposition of British supremacy; Bentinck Macaulay minutes were in work, and during debate over naming our country many of them termed ‘Bharat’ as ‘looking backward’ and India as ‘looking forward’. 

          Also, a particular set of facts propagated by some historians was accepted that ‘India’ is derived from the name of the River Indus for those who live on its banks and to the east of the river. But, some other facts are also not deniable that the Britishers used the name ‘India’ as a backward state like the West Indies and Red Indians in the USA. 

          Although ‘India’ is the most branded name for our nation in the world, but it also senses erstwhile ‘backwardness’, whereas, ‘Bharat’, displays ‘forwardness’, meaning, ‘shining’, always attempting to attain enlightenment. 

          Debating over ‘What’s in the name?’, RSS ideologue VD Savarkar wrote in his book ‘Hindutva’, “Ah! call Ayodhya, Honolulu, or nickname her immortal Prince, a Pooh Bah, or ask the Americans to change Washington into a Chengizkhan, or persuade a Mohammedan to call himself a Jew, and you would soon find that the 'open sesame' was not the only word of its type.”

         It indicates that naming our country ‘Bharat’ is an old debate, but, at present, it gained mileage when the opposition alliance named ‘INDIA’ and the BJP-led central government started using ‘Bharat’ against it. 

        No doubt, naming the alliance ‘INDIA’ was a master stroke by opposition parties. There was no counter-argument for the ruling parties except promoting ‘Bharat’ against the alliance as ‘INDIA’ vs ‘Bharat’. But, it also did not work so the ruling parties start saying the alliance ‘INDI’, not INDIA. 

       Note: Don’t connect it to politics, think ideally why our country’s name should not be ‘Bharat’.