NEW DELHI: A political row erupted after a G20 dinner invite was sent out in the name of the ‘President of Bharat’ instead of the usual ‘President of India’. It triggered a controversy over a rumour of a name change for India. The government has not yet scorched it. Members of the Opposition INDIA bloc accused the Narendra Modi government of “distorting history and dividing India”. Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge has called a meeting of senior leaders of the alliance to discuss the matter. BJP leaders, however, welcomed the “Bharat” nomenclature and accused the Opposition of being anti-national and anti-constitutional. They said the term Bharat is in Article 1 of the Constitution, which says: “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.”
During the Constituent Assembly debates, the “Name and Territory of the Union” was taken up for discussion on September 17, 1949. Given India’s linguistic and cultural diversity, the Constituent Assembly decided to use both “Bharat” and “India” in the Constitution. This compromise acknowledged the historical and cultural significance of both names.
Many Indian institutions and public sector undertakings are named after Bharat. The Indian passport carries both names, that is, the Republic of India and Bharatiya Ganarajya. The highest and most prestigious award that can be given to any Indian citizen is the Bharat Ratna.
Indians refer to Bharat as Bharat Mata. The first Bharat Mata temple was inaugurated by Mahatma Gandhi in Benares (now Varanasi) in 1936. Nine years earlier, in January 1927, Jawaharlal Nehru referred to the Bharat-India linkage. He alluded to the fundamental unity of India that endured from the remote past: “A unity of a common faith and culture. India was Bharata, the holy land of the Hindus, and it is not without significance that the great places of Hindu pilgrimage are situated in the four corners of India — the extreme South overlooking Ceylon, the extreme West washed by the Arabian Sea, the East facing the Bay of Bengal and the North in the Himalayas.” (Selected Works Vol.2).
Many names
Back in time, India was known by various names at diverse points of history. They include Jambudweepa (the land of the Jambu – rose apple – tree), Bharatakhanda, Himavarsha, Ajnabhavarsha, Bharatavarsha, Aryavarta (land of the Aryans), and later, Hind, Hindustan and India. One of the oldest names by which the country was known was Meluha, apparently mentioned in ancient Mesopotamian texts in the third millennium BC. Of course, Meluha referred to the Indus Valley Civilisation.
Mythologically, the origin of Bharata or Bharatavarsha dates back to the epic, Mahabharata. Locating the history of the name in a sociological context, social scientist Catherine Clementin-Ojha writes in an article titled “India, that is Bharat…: One Country, Two Names”, “‘Bharata’ refers to the “supraregional and subcontinental territory where the Brahmanical system of society prevails”. In the Puranas, Bharata is said to be situated between the ‘sea in the south and the abode of snow in the north’. Ojha concludes, therefore, that Bharata, was more of a religious and socio-cultural entity, rather than a political or a geographical one.
But none of these names struck a political chord in India like the word, Hindustan. The Persians coined the word when occupying the Indus Valley in the 7th century BCE. What was Sindhu (Indus river) in Sanskrit became Hindu in Persian. The Greeks borrowed the Persian word and transliterated it as Indus. According to a media report, by the time Macedonian King Alexander invaded India in the 3rd century BCE, India was considered the region “beyond the Indus”.
Hindustan in Babarnama
As we enter the Mughal times, Babur is said to have described the soldiers of Ibrahim Lodhi as Hindustanis in his Baburnama. To quote, “When we had left Rupar and dismounted at Karal opposite Sirhind, a Hindustani coming said, ‘I am Sultan Ibrahim’s (Lodhi) envoy’.” By the time of Akbar’s reign, most South Asians were comfortable calling their homeland Hindustan. Incidentally, these people happened to call the region under Mughal rule/occupation as Hindustan. The word lost its significance only in the 18th century when the Britons started using the term India to refer to this region.
There are reams of pages related to the Constituent Assembly’s discussions on naming our country. Let us stick to the interesting parts. Just to remember, Part I of the Constitution of India states: “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.”
Interesting Constituent Assembly debates
On November 15, 1948, M Ananthasayanam Ayyangar (Madras: General) submitted some amendments. He said: “They relate to the alternative names, or rather the substitution of names—Bharat, Bharat Varsha, Hindustan—for the word India, in Article 1, clause (1).” His submission: “That in clause (1) of Article 1, for the word ‘India’ the word ‘Bharat (India)’ and for the word ‘States’ the word ‘Provinces’ be substituted.”
By this time, Lokanath Mishra had moved amendment No. 85, “to change the name of India into ‘Bharatavarsha’” Most of the members subsequently got drawn into a discussion not on what to name India but what to call the States – Provinces or Pradeshas or States. Just when the amendment on naming the States was being put to vote, Prof Shibban Lal Saksena said he had given notice of an amendment: “That the following new Part be inserted after Part I and the subsequent Parts and articles be renumbered accordingly:
General principles
Naziruddin Ahmad moved another amendment saying, “That at the end of clause
(1) of Article 1, the following be inserted: ‘and shall be known as the United States of India’.” He said the US were a safe “precedent” for naming India so.
The discussions were endless. It was 1949. One day in September, the Constituent Assembly met as usual at 9 AM. H V Kamath moved an amendment: “I move that in amendment No. 130 of List IV (Eighth Week), for the proposed clause (1) of Article 1, the following be substituted:-- ‘(1) Bharat or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States.’” Or, alternatively, “That in amendment No. 130 of List IV (Eighth Week), for the proposed clause (1) of Article 1, the following be substituted: ‘(1) Hind, or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States.’”
H V Kamath then drove into a monologue, explaining why he proposed the amendment: “… It is customary among most peoples of the world to have what is called a Namakaran or a naming ceremony for the newborn. India as a Republic is going to be born very shortly and naturally, there has been a movement in the country among many sections—almost all sections of the people that this birth of the new Republic should be accompanied by a Namakaran ceremony as well.”
Kamath went on, and referred to some of the suggestions: “The prominent suggestions have been Bharat, Hindustan, Hind and Bharatbhumi or Bharatvarsh and names of that kind.”
He would not yield to any other member and his speech took on a rhetorical tone: “Some say, why name the baby at all? India will suffice. Well and good. If there was no need for a Namakaran ceremony we could have continued India, but if we grant this point that there must be a new name to this baby, then of course the question arises as to what name should be given.”
Kamath then explored the roots of Bharat. He said those who argue for “Bharat or Bharatvarsh or Bharatbhumi, take their stand on the fact that this is the most ancient name of this land.” But he pointed out that historians and philologists who delved deep into the origin of Bharat “are not agreed as to the genesis of this name”. He, in short, summarised the nature of the division over the name Bharat.
Kamath was on the verge of going to the Vedic period when Dr B R Ambedkar interrupted him: “Is it necessary to trace all this? I do not understand the purpose of it. It may be interesting in some other place. My friend accepts the word “Bharat”. The only thing is that he has got an alternative. I am very sorry but there ought to be some sense of proportion, in view of the limited time before the House.”
Kamath would not yield: “I hope it is not for Dr Ambedkar to regulate the business of the House.” The proceedings continued for some time in that tenor.
Then, Seth Govind Das stood up to say, “I was the first man to raise two questions in the Constituent Assembly; the first was with regard to the national language and the second with regard to the name of the country. We have solved the question of the national language and we are naming our country today.”
“Some people are under the delusion that India is the most ancient name of this country. Our most ancient books are the Vedas and now it is being recognised that they are the most ancient books of the world. No mention of India is to be found in the Vedas. The words “Idyam” and “Idanyah” can be found in the Rig Veda and the words “Ida” in Yajur Veda. These words have no connection with India.”