Is Using ‘Bharat’ Over ‘India’ Unconstitutional? Exploring the Debate

The recent usage of ‘President of Bharat’ instead of ‘President of India’ on invitation cards for a G20 dinner hosted by the President has triggered a debate on whether this is unconstitutional. Here we analyze the legal and historical aspects behind the two names for the country.

Contents hide

1. Historical Origins of the Two Names

2. Constitutional Provisions

3. Political Motivations Behind the Debate

4. In Conclusion

Historical Origins of the Two Names

‘Bharat’ has ancient origins in Hindu scriptures and texts like the Vedas, Puranas and Mahabharata. ‘India’ emerged later, with the Greeks calling the land beyond the Indus river ‘India’ in the 5th century BCE. Both names continued to be used interchangeably over centuries.

Constitutional Provisions

Article 1(1) of the Constitution states, “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” This provides for the country to be legally known as both ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’. Hence, the use of either name individually cannot be deemed unconstitutional.

Also Read: President’s G20 Invite Refers to ‘Bharat’ Instead of ‘India’, Sparks Debate

Political Motivations Behind the Debate

The recent prominence given to ‘Bharat’ by the BJP-led central government is being seen by opposition parties like the Congress as an attempt to politicize the issue. Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal commented, “After the INDIA alliance was formed, they are changing the country’s name. If tomorrow the India Alliance holds a meeting and changes its name to Bharat, will they also change the name of India?”

However, experts point out that legally, both names have equal constitutional validity, and the debate appears motivated by political posturing. Historically too, attempts to replace ‘India’ with ‘Bharat’ or ‘Hindustan’ have been made sporadically by various political figures and groups.

Also Read: 22-Year-Old Google Engineer Pursues $5 Million Net Worth for Early Retirement

In Conclusion

While the government is within its rights to use either name, the long-standing political symbolism attached to ‘India’ means any attempts to promote ‘Bharat’ over it are likely to be controversial. But unless ‘India’ is legally replaced with ‘Bharat’ through a Constitutional amendment, both names remain equally valid.

Also Read: The Freelancer: A Thrilling Yet Flawed Extraction Mission