'India that is Bharat' — A Mere Name Dispute or 5000 Years of Civilizational Pride?

In September 2023, when ‘President of Bharat’ was inscribed in place of ‘President of India’ on the official invitation cards for the G20 Summit, a fierce storm erupted across the nation’s political corridors and social media.

The ruling party hailed this as liberation from the mindset of colonial servitude and the reinstatement of a 5,000-year-old cultural identity; the opposition parties, meanwhile, alleged that the government, terrified by the opposition alliance’s name ‘I.N.D.I.A.’, was tampering with the country’s constitutional name.

Yet, is this dispute merely the byproduct of today’s electoral politics?

Delving into the roots of this historical conflict in Chapter 7 (‘Reorganisation of the Nation’) of his seminal book ‘Anokha Bharat’, N. Singh explains that this dispute is not of today, but began in that historic session of the Constituent Assembly on 18 September 1949, when voting on Article 1 of the Constitution was underway!

---

The Forgotten Historic Debate of the Constituent Assembly: 18 September 1949

When Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution, presented the draft, it read: “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.”

Several senior freedom fighters in the Constituent Assembly raised strong objections to this:

1. Seth Govind Das’s argument: He said—“The constitution of no self-respecting country in the world says ‘such-and-such country, that is such-and-such country’. Does the Constitution of Ireland say ‘Ireland, that is Éire’? We are the inheritors of the Rigveda, the Mahabharata, and the Vishnu Purana, where it is explicitly written: ‘Uttaraṁ yatsamudrasya himādreścaiva dakṣiṇam | Varṣaṁ tadbhārataṁ nāma bhāratī yatra saṁtatiḥ’ [The country that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bharat; there dwell the descendants of Bharat]. Our sole name ought to be only ‘Bharat’!”
2. The argument of Kamlapati Tripathi and Hargovind Pant: They pointed out that the name ‘India’ bestowed by the British was a corruption of the Greek and Latin pronunciation of the Sindhu (Indus) river. This name serves as a reminder of slavery and foreign rule.
3. Dr Ambedkar’s pragmatic perspective: Babasaheb put an end to the debate at the time by stating that India was already registered under the name ‘India’ in the United Nations and international treaties; therefore, for practical reasons, both names ought to be accepted.

---

‘India’ vs ‘Bharat’: Not Merely Names, but Two Opposing Worldviews

Author N. Singh clarifies that this battle is not merely over letters; it is a battle between two conflicting contradictions of India:

---

The Bitter Truth from the Book: N. Singh’s Candid Critique

Author N. Singh writes in Chapter 7 of his book ‘Anokha Bharat’:

“These days, Indian politics is heated over ‘India that is Bharat’. One party is trying to belittle the other. In present-day India, electoral gain is sought on every single issue—be it name, language, or history. But the bitter truth is that merely erasing ‘India’ and writing ‘Bharat’ everywhere will not transform the nation! If a poor child sits hungry on a tat-patti (jute mat) in your government schools, if the farmer’s crop is being looted, if there are no medicines in hospitals, then whether you say ‘India’ or ‘Bharat’—the reality of the people’s misery will not change! The name Bharat will become meaningful only when Bharat’s civilisational soul descends into the conduct of governance, not merely by changing nameplates!”
— N. Singh (Anokha Bharat, pages 62–63)

The author further questions the priorities of governance:

“Politicians have turned renaming into the cheapest form of nationalism. Billions of rupees are squandered on renaming railway stations, roads, and cities, yet there is no budget to repair the leaking roof of a government school in that very same city. Changing a name is easy; transforming character is difficult!”
— (Anokha Bharat, page 67)

---

The Real Roadmap for Civilisational Pride: Four Principles

1. An end to mental slavery, not just changing names: The mandatory requirement of English in courts, higher education, and administrative examinations must be ended, and Indian languages should be made the languages of knowledge and technology.
2. A genuine renaissance of civilisational history: India’s syllabus should not merely teach the history of the Delhi Sultans and the Mughals; instead, the contributions of the Cholas, Ahoms, the Vijayanagara Empire, Buddhist philosophers, and Indian scientists must be accorded pride of place.
3. Making the village and the farmer the epicentre of development: As long as ‘Bharat’ (the villages) remains impoverished while ‘India’ (the metropolises) continues to glitter, this chasm will never be bridged. The development budget must be redirected towards the villages.
4. Constitutional propriety and national unity: The nation’s name must be kept above the tug-of-war of political party alliances and prevented from becoming an instrument of partisan hatred.

---

A Question for Reflection (The Book’s Message)

Will the greatness of a nation be determined merely by altering the spelling of its name, or by bringing a smile of self-respect and prosperity to the face of its last citizen?

To understand the historical background of Article 1 of the Constitution and the profound meaning of civilisational pride, every conscious citizen must read this seventh chapter of N. Singh’s acclaimed book ‘Anokha Bharat’.