BHARAT V. INDIA: IS IT NECESSARY?

The controversy of Bharat v. India began on September 5, 2023, when our Hon’ble President

Draupadi Murmu sent a dinner invitation letter to G20 leaders by referring to herself as

President of Bharat instead of President of India. Later, our Hon’ble Prime Minister Narendra

Modi circulated a message about the Prime Minister's trip to Indonesia for the 20th ASEAN-

INDIA Summit 2023 by referring to himself as the Prime Minister of Bharat instead of India.

The question arises: whether the Government is trying to replace the word India with

Bharat? If yes then on what ground? The reason behind this change highlighted was, ‘‘the

name ‘INDIA’ was given by the Britishers during the colonial era so it is the sign of slavery

and the British monarchy.’’

Who coined the term ‘Bharat’? And from where does this word come into existence? The

name ‘Bharat’ formed its existence during the Vedic period. The Rigveda, one of the four Vedas

mentioned the Vedic tribe Bharatas as one of the original tribes of Aryavarta who participated

in the Battle of the Ten Kings. Afterwards, if we consider the period of Mahabharata, the word

Bharat is related to the King Bharata who was the Chakravati Samrat; the son of Dushyant and

Shakuntala and the ancestor of Kauravas, Pandavas, Brihadhratha, and Jarasandha. If we

consider the Vishnu Purana also, it shows or states the geographical indication of Bharat. Apart

from this, recently, Sadhguru released an e-book in which he explained the word ‘BHARAT’

with the help of science as it has come from Bha – meaning sensation, Ra – tune, Ta – rhythm.

Even at present we use slogan like ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’, ‘Bharat Bhagya vidhata’, ‘Bharat

humko Jaan se pyara hai’.

If we see the aspect of the word ‘INDIA’, who coined it and from where did this word

come into existence? This word gets its existence from the Sindhu River. During the period of

440 B.C., the Greeks and Persians uttered ‘s’ of Sindhu as ‘h’ so it became Hindhu and the

Greek Herodotus coined the term ‘INDIA’ with the essence of Indus and during the period of

Indus valley civilization, the word ‘INDIA’ become so prominent. And if we talk about the sign

of British monarchy, the word coined by the Greeks; due to Latin existence, it becomes

prominent & part and parcel of usage. Even our Prime Minister take out initiative with the

name of INDIA itself such as Make in India.

So, the controversy of Bharat v. India is not new. The same controversy or debate used to take

place in the constituent assembly when B.R Ambedkar moved an amendment to the draft of

Article 1 of the Indian Constitution as, ‘‘India, that is Bharat shall be a Union of States’’. The

heated debate happened on the two alternatives put forward by Mr Ambedkar on the grounds

of gauche and inept. But the result of the debate was that India is the sign of Indus or Sindhu

and Bharat is the sign of heritage and culture as evoked in the Rig Veda, Upanishads, Gita etc

Therefore, the phrase ‘India, that is Bharat’ is appropriate.

Therefore, in my opinion, the words ‘INDIA’, ‘BHARAT’, & ‘HINDUSTAN’ are

interchangeably used for our country and all these three words show the cultural, historical,

heritage and sentimental essence of the country. Thus, the removal of one and the usage of the

other is not appropriate in itself and for the country. One is free to use any of these three words

such as ‘president of India’ or ‘president of Bharat’ or ‘president of Hindustan’ but the

replacement of ‘INDIA’ with ‘BHARAT’ is not acceptable in nature.