Daily Current Affairs : 6-September-2023
In recent news, an official invitation to a G20 dinner sparked discussions as it referred to the host as “The President of Bharat,” deviating from the conventional “President of India.” This shift in terminology has brought to the forefront the debate surrounding the use of ‘Bharat’ in place of ‘India.’ This essay delves into the historical roots, constitutional implications, and the ongoing discourse regarding this issue.
The Dual Identity: ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’
Article 1 of the Indian Constitution introduces the nation as “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States,” highlighting the dual identity of the country. This dual nomenclature is not a recent development and has historical and cultural significance.
Historical Origins
The roots of ‘Bharat’ or ‘Bharatvarsha’ can be traced back to ancient Puranic literature and the epic Mahabharata. Described as the land between the southern sea and the abode of snow in the north, ‘Bharat’ also holds historical relevance as the name of an ancient king who was the ancestor of the Rig Vedic tribe of the Bharatas.
Religious and Socio-Cultural Entity
Social scientists have interpreted ‘Bharat’ as a religious and socio-cultural entity rather than merely a political or geographical designation. It is associated with the Brahmanical system of society, signifying a supraregional and subcontinental territory.
The Shift to ‘India’
During British colonial rule, the name ‘India’ gained prominence on maps, replacing ‘Hindustan’ for the entire South Asian region. This shift was influenced by its associations with Graeco-Roman cultures, its European history of use, and adoption by scientific and bureaucratic organizations like the Survey of India.
Constitutional Deliberation
When framing the Indian Constitution, Jawaharlal Nehru’s ‘Discovery of India’ mentioned ‘India,’ ‘Bharat,’ and ‘Hindustan.’ However, ‘Hindustan’ was dropped from the Constitution, and both ‘Bharat’ and ‘India’ were retained.
Arguments for and Against ‘Bharat’
- Constituent Assembly: Several members of the constituent assembly opposed using ‘India,’ viewing it as a reminder of colonialism. Some members argued that ‘India’ was merely a translation of ‘Bharat.’
- Historical Perspective: Historians and philologists have debated the origins of the name ‘Bharat,’ suggesting its derivation from scriptures.
- Recent Change: Some argue that using ‘Bharat’ in official documents is a matter of semantics and does not signify a broader change.
Supreme Court’s Perspective
In 2020, the Supreme Court dismissed a PIL seeking to remove ‘India’ from the Constitution and retain only ‘Bharat.’ The court upheld the right of individuals to choose between the two names and emphasized that ‘India’ is already referred to as ‘Bharat’ in the Constitution itself.
The Way Forward
While there is a possibility that the government may officially adopt ‘Bharat’ as the country’s name, this would require a constitutional amendment through parliamentary legislation. However, completely discarding ‘India,’ which holds significant brand value, may not be a practical or necessary step.
Important Points:
- Recent official invitation to a G20 dinner used “The President of Bharat” instead of “President of India,” sparking a debate.
- Article 1 of the Indian Constitution introduces the nation as “India, that is Bharat,” highlighting the dual identity.
- Historical origins of ‘Bharat’ trace back to Puranic literature and the Mahabharata.
- ‘Bharat’ was also the name of an ancient king and represents a religious and socio-cultural entity.
- During British rule, ‘India’ replaced ‘Hindustan’ on maps due to its European associations and bureaucratic use.
- The Indian Constitution retains both ‘Bharat’ and ‘India,’ with ‘Hindustan’ being dropped.
- Arguments for ‘Bharat’ include opposition to ‘India’ due to colonial connotations and the view that it is a mere translation.
- Historians suggest that ‘Bharat’ may derive from scriptures.
- The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL seeking to remove ‘India’ from the Constitution in 2020, upholding individual choice.
- The government may officially adopt ‘Bharat,’ but a constitutional amendment would be required.
- Completely discarding ‘India’ may not be practical due to its brand value.
Why In News
In a surprising turn of events, a formal G20 dinner invitation recently bore the unexpected title “Hosted by the President of Bharat,” diverging from the customary “President of India.” This subtle yet notable shift sparked curiosity and speculation among global diplomatic circles.
MCQs about Dual Identity: ‘Bharat’ and ‘India’ in Focus
-
What is the primary reason for the recent debate surrounding the use of “Bharat” instead of “India” in official documents?
A. Linguistic confusion
B. Historical origins
C. Political disagreement
D. Cultural diversity
-
Which of the following is NOT a historical origin of the name “Bharat”?
A. Mahabharata
B. Ancient king
C. British colonial rule
D. Puranic literature
-
Why did some members of the constituent assembly oppose using “India” in the Constitution?
A. They believed “India” was a reminder of colonialism.
B. They thought “India” was a translation of “Bharat.”
C. They wanted to emphasize cultural diversity.
D. They preferred “Hindustan” as the official name.
-
What was the Supreme Court’s stance on the use of “Bharat” and “India” in the Constitution?
A. The Supreme Court recommended removing “India” from the Constitution.
B. The Supreme Court upheld the right of individuals to choose between the two names.
C. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of using only “Bharat.”
D. The Supreme Court declared both “Bharat” and “India” unconstitutional.
Boost up your confidence by appearing our Weekly Current Affairs Multiple Choice Questions
