Editorial: The Controversy Surrounding the Name Change from India to Bharat

 

In recent weeks, India has found itself at the center of a heated debate regarding a proposed change in its official name to "Bharat." While the country's name may seem like a trivial matter to some, it has sparked significant controversy and stirred political tensions.

The catalyst for this debate was the unusual reference to the "President of Bharat" in invitations sent out from the Rashtrapati Bhawan for the upcoming G20 summit. This departure from the traditional "President of India" terminology raised suspicions that the government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, was considering a constitutional amendment to officially change the country's name.

The demand for this change gained momentum during the monsoon session of Parliament when BJP MPs Naresh Bansal and Harnath Singh Yadav advocated for removing "India" from the Constitution. They argued that the term symbolizes colonial slavery, and it is time to replace it with "Bharat."

This controversial proposal was met with swift opposition, notably from senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh. He expressed his concern over the assault on the very idea of a "Union of States" as enshrined in Article 1 of the Indian Constitution, which currently reads: "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States."

The debate further intensified when Assam Chief Minister Himanta Sarma referred to India as the "Republic of Bharat" in a social media post. This move followed a call from RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat to adopt the name "Bharat" for the country.

The political rift over this issue has been stark. BJP's national president, J P Nadda, accused the Congress party of obstructing any efforts aimed at enhancing the country's honor and glory. He questioned the Congress party's intentions, suggesting they prioritize praising the Gandhi family over the nation's well-being.

BJP's national general secretary, Tarun Chug, dismissed the controversy, questioning why there is such resistance to using the term "Bharat." He argued that the country's identity should transcend political affiliations.

Meanwhile, AAP Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha voiced concerns over the BJP's move, emphasizing that the country's name should not be subject to the whims of any political party. He asserted that the national identity belongs to all citizens, not just one political group.

In light of this ongoing debate, it is essential to recognize that a change in the country's name is not a trivial matter. It carries historical, cultural, and political significance, and any decision in this regard should be approached with caution and thorough consideration. Moreover, it highlights the importance of preserving the principles and values enshrined in the Indian Constitution while addressing contemporary concerns and aspirations. As the nation watches this unfolding controversy, it is evident that the discussion over India's identity as "Bharat" or "India" is far from settled, and the coming days may bring more clarity on this issue.