Why both India and Bharat found a place in the Constitution

A futile debate concerning "India vs Bharat" has been circulating alongside discussions about the G20 in various media outlets. The dispute arose due to an official invitation to a G20 summit dinner at the Rashtrapati Bhawan, which mentioned 'President of Bharat' instead of the usual 'President of India.'

Amidst speculations of an official name change for the country, the opposition vehemently opposed this move.

However, this debate seems unfounded, as the mention of "India, that is Bharat," in Article 1 of the Indian Constitution clearly implies that both names are valid. Apart from these two names, the framers of the Constitution grappled with the challenge of choosing a name for the newly independent country, which included options such as Hindustan, Bharatvarsha, Bharatbhumi, United States of India, and Jambudweep.

Facing this question, the framers eventually decided to embrace both names, leading to the unique dual identity of "India, that is Bharat."

This decision was not taken lightly but emerged from a complex historical and cultural backdrop. It was the result of two days of intense discussions and debates, ultimately culminating in a vote on September 17, 1949.

ALSO READ: The long journey of Bharat, from Rig Veda to the Constitution of India

Bharat

• One of the primary arguments in favor of the name "Bharat" was its profound historical and cultural significance.

• Proponents like Seth Govind Das and Hari Vishnu Kamath argued for the supremacy of 'Bharat,' suggesting that 'India' was simply its anglicized version.

• The debate took a non-binary turn when Hargovind Pant (from Kumaon) proposed the use of 'Bharatvarsha' as the name. He stated, “Bharat or Bharat Varsha is and has been the name of our country for ages according to our ancient history and tradition, and in fact, this word inspires enthusiasm and courage.”

• Seth Govind Das and Kamalapati Tripathi (from Varanasi) also advocated for using ‘Bharat known as India,' instead of 'India, that is Bharat.' Some even referenced the seventh-century Chinese traveler Hiuen Tsang, who referred to the land as 'Bharat' during his explorations.

• They argued that "India" served as a reminder of the colonial past when foreign rulers imposed their name on the nation, perpetuating the memory of foreign domination and the loss of cultural identity.

Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar, chairman of the drafting committee, responded to these arguments by asking, “Is it essential to trace all this?" He reminded the members arguing against 'India' to focus on the primary issue at hand.

Then, India?

• The framers believed that the dual nomenclature would promote unity and stability by accommodating the diverse linguistic, religious, and cultural backgrounds within the nation.

• The Constitution was drafted in the aftermath of partition, widespread violence, and communal conflicts, which influenced the decision to adopt a dual identity for the country: 'India, that is Bharat.'

• Scholar Catherine Clementin-Ojha, in her paper titled 'India, that is Bharat...: One Country, Two Names,' discussed the challenging circumstances surrounding this decision, taking place just two years after the horrific chaos and bloodshed that marred the nation. She reflected on the uncertainties that prevailed during that period when the unity and stability of the nascent nation were in doubt.

• According to V Sundaram, a retired bureaucrat and journalist, the inclusion of 'India' alongside 'Bharat' can be attributed to concerns that 'Bharat' might be perceived as too closely associated with Hinduism. Therefore, 'India' was retained to assure minorities that they would not be marginalised.

• The vote that determined the resolution's passage saw 51 votes in favor of 'India' and 38 for 'Bharat.'

The decision to incorporate both names in the Constitution was deemed imperative at that time. It served to acknowledge the historical and cultural significance inherent in both terms, ensuring that the nation's identity would be all-encompassing.

Taking a cue from Ambedkar's question, “Is it essential to trace all this?" perhaps today's debating politicians will move forward, recognizing that both names are equal, and the government has not indicated any intention to replace 'India' entirely.