India or Bharat

 The government may bring a resolution to rename India as Bharat during Parliament's upcoming special session scheduled from September 18-22. Presently, the Constitution of India refers to the country as "India, that is Bharat..."; however, there is a growing call to amend this reference to simply "Bharat." This demand has gained significant momentum, with sources indicating that the Centre might introduce a resolution for renaming India.

Statement of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat

Prominent figures, including Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat, strongly support this change. Bhagwat has consistently urged people to use the term "Bharat" instead of "India," underscoring that the country has been historically known as Bharat for centuries.

Statement of PM

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also echoed similar sentiments. On August 15, 2022, he called upon citizens from the historic Red Fort to take five pledges, one of which was "freedom from every trace of slavery." This pledge was a symbolic step toward embracing the country's indigenous identity.

Statement of a BJP MP in Parliament 

During the recently concluded monsoon session of Parliament, BJP Rajya Sabha MP Naresh Bansal had strongly advocated for the removal of 'India' from the Constitution, arguing that it symbolizes a legacy of colonial subjugation. His sentiment found resonance with fellow BJP MP Harnath Singh Yadav, who called for a constitutional amendment to replace "India" with "Bharat."

Invitation Letter from the President of India

With the commencement of the special session of Parliament on September 18, there is increasing speculation that a constitutional amendment bill may be introduced to effect this change. While the official agenda for the session has yet to be released, the possibility of such a bill cannot be dismissed. Advocates for the name change argue that adopting a single, indigenous name for the country will instil a deep sense of national pride and reaffirm the nation's rich cultural heritage.

Furthermore, an official dinner invitation extended to G20 delegates from the Rashtrapati Bhawan recently surfaced, bearing the title 'President of Bharat' instead of the usual 'President of India.' Congress leader Jairam Ramesh was among the first to notice this change. Ramesh observed, "So the news is indeed true. Rashtrapati Bhawan sent out an invite for a G20 dinner on September 9 in the name of 'President of Bharat' instead of the usual 'President of India.' Article 1 in the Constitution can read: 'Bharat, that was India, shall be a Union of States.' But now even this 'Union of States' is under assault."

In 2015, the BJP-led Union government responded to a plea in the Supreme Court, stating that it was unnecessary to replace the name "India" with "Bharat." This response was made about a public interest litigation (PIL) requesting the country to be officially referred to as "Bharat" for formal and informal purposes by the Union and state governments. The Narendra Modi government asserted that "there is no change in circumstances that would warrant a modification of Article 1 of the Constitution of India." Article 1.1, the sole provision in the Constitution regarding the country's official and unofficial name, reads as follows: "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States."

The Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) informed the court that discussions regarding the country's name underwent thorough deliberation within the Constituent Assembly during the drafting of the Constitution. The clauses in Article 1 were unanimously adopted after extensive consideration. The MHA also highlighted that "Bharat" was not originally part of the Constitution's initial draft. Instead, it emerged during the debates within the Constituent Assembly, which considered various names and formulations such as "Bharat," "Bharatbhumi," "Bharatvarsh," "India that is Bharat," and "Bharat that is India." The MHA emphasized that there have been no significant changes in circumstances since the Constituent Assembly's deliberations, warranting a revaluation of this matter.

The MHA responded to a representation by Ajay G Majithia, the lawyer representing social activist Niranjan Bhatwal, who had filed the PIL. The MHA examined the expression and recommended its dismissal. Majithia argued that Article 1.1 should be interpreted in alignment with the Constituent Assembly's original intention to name the country "Bharat." The plea contended that the term "India" had originated during the colonial era, whereas historically and in ancient scriptures, the government has been referred to as "Bharat." The petitioner reasoned that including "India" in Article 1 was primarily for reference and to repeal the Government of India Act of 1935 and the Indian Independence Act of 1947.

Facts in Support of Bharat Not India

The preference for the term "Bharat" over "India" is a matter of cultural and historical significance for many people. It's important to note that the superiority of one term over the other is subjective and may vary depending on individual perspectives. Here are some reasons why some people may consider the term "Bharat" superior:

1. Cultural Identity: "Bharat" is an ancient Sanskrit name that has been used for the Indian subcontinent for thousands of years. It is deeply rooted in India's cultural and historical heritage. Some people believe that using "Bharat" reinforces a connection to the country's rich and diverse cultural identity.
2. Historical Roots: "Bharat" has historical significance in Indian mythology and scriptures. It is associated with ancient texts like the Mahabharata and Ramayana. Advocates for "Bharat" argue that it reflects the continuity of India's historical identity.
3. Linguistic Roots: "Bharat" is derived from the Sanskrit word "Bharata," which has connotations of "to shine" or "to be splendid." Some people find this meaning more aspirational and positive compared to "India."
4. Resistance to Colonial Legacy: Some view the use of "India" as a legacy of British colonial rule. They believe that adopting "Bharat" is a way to distance the country from its colonial past and assert its independent identity.
5. Promotion of Indigenous Languages: Advocates for "Bharat" often argue that it encourages the use of indigenous languages, including Sanskrit, and promotes linguistic diversity within the country.
6. Sense of National Pride: For many, using "Bharat" evokes a sense of national pride and a connection to the country's ancient heritage. It is seen as a way to emphasize India's unique cultural and historical contributions to the world.
7. It is worth noting that the aircraft used to transport the President, Vice President, and Prime Minister of the country bears the name "Bharat" inscribed.

Conclusion 

It is essential to recognize that the choice between "Bharat" and "India" is a matter of personal preference and cultural significance. Both terms are officially recognized and widely used within the country, and they coexist as part of India's linguistic and cultural diversity. Ultimately, whether one term is considered superior to the other is a matter of individual perspective and the cultural context in which it is used.