Invitations for a G20 dinner sent out by President Droupadi Murmu mentioning her position as "President of Bharat" instead of the customary "President of India" has triggered a fierce debate and speculations over moves to replace "India" with "Bharat" in the Constitution.
While the discourse on name-change continues, the newly formed opposition alliance ” INDIA bloc seems to draw unnecessary mileage in this development, having assumed that the naming of the opposition group as INDIA bloc has forced the government into contemplating this move.
Aam Aadmi Party convenor and Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal mocked the government by asking whether it will change the country's name to "BJP" if the alliance calls itself "BHARAT". Legal experts opine that the government will have to move a constitutional amendment to Article 1 to replace the word 'India' with 'Bharat' and all subsequent references. Some believe that both terms can be used interchangeably and that the government cannot stipulate that everyone use only 'Bharat', while another school of thought argues against the use of dual names.
The moot question at this point, however, is whether the change is intentional and whether it was needed. There are several facets to this discourse, the first being whether the government is putting the Opposition's unity to the test here. The general expectation is that there could be some within the 26-member INDIA bloc having reservations and supporting the name change mainly because it is seen as an attempt to shed the colonial roots.
Proponents of 'Bharat' argue that this name dates back to Puranic literature. Also, India is not the only nation that would change its name. If we recall, other countries like Turkey, the Czech Republic, Holland, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Iran, and others have undergone a name change.
The RSS chief, Mohan Bhagwat, has spoken the same language for quite some time. Yesterday, Bhagwat said, "Our country has been known as 'Bharat' for ages, whatever the language," while making a clear case for the switch.
While speculations are rife, government sources have rubbished talk of name-change and rumours of issue surfacing in the 5-day special session of parliament scheduled from September 19. The development has provided food for thought and stoked a political slugfest. The government, even if it intends to go for a name change, would face significant challenges, political and legal, and all of this cannot happen overnight. The interesting part is that India, which holds the G20 presidency, has chosen to give 'India' a miss in the invites. We are intrigued by the message we send to the group and the world. Are we telling the world that we, the largest democracy in the world, are now at crossroads over a name? Or are we exposing our politics here?
While the talk is about 'one nation, one election', and the Uniform Civil Code (now on the backburner), every effort should be made to unite the 140 crore people of the country. India is not just a name, it is an emotion that has patriotism, love, resilience and a heartbeat of every citizen.
