This debate highlights the complex relationship between history, politics, and constitutional principles in the world's largest democracy. 

A recent invitation letter sent by the Rashtrapati Bhavan has ignited a nationwide controversy, revolving around the usage of the term “President of Bharat” instead of “President of India.” Many opposition parties have raised their concern over changing the name of the nation from India to Bharat (a speculation so far) in the next parliament session. 

Constitutional Grounds 

At the core of this dispute is the interpretation of Article 1 of the Indian Constitution, which clearly states, “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” According to the Constitution, both “India” and “Bharat” are recognized as the official names of the nation and can be used interchangeably. 

It is important to recall the historical context of this constitutional provision. On November 18, 1949, during the drafting of the Indian Constitution, there were intense deliberations and debates, chaired by the eminent Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, head of the Drafting Committee. These deliberations considered India”s history, its colonial past, and the need for a name that reflects the nation”s diverse identity.  

On the one hand, some argued that the name “Bharat” was more historically and culturally accurate and that it should be used to reflect the country”s rich heritage. They also argued that the name “India” was associated with colonialism and imperialism and that changing it would be a way to assert India”s independence and sovereignty. 

All India Forward Block leader HV Kamath moved the first amendment proposing to replace the relevant portion of the first sub-clause with ‘Bharat, or in the English language, India’, drawing inspiration from the Irish Constitution. During the parliamentary debate, he said 

“The Irish Free State was one of the few countries in the modern world which changed its name on achieving freedom; and the fourth article of its Constitution refers to the change in the name of the land. That article of the Constitution of the Irish Free State reads as follows: ‘The name of the State is Eire, or, in the English language, Ireland.’ I think that this is a much happier expression that “Bharat, or, in the English language, India, shall, be and such”. I say specifically the English language. Why? Because Members might ask me, why do you say “the English language”? Is it not the same in all European languages? No, it is not. The German word is ‘Indian’ and in many parts of Europe, the country is still referred to as in the olden days as “Hindustan” and all natives of this country are referred to as Hindus, whatever their religion may be. It is quite common in many parts of Europe. It must have come from the ancient name Hindu, derived from the river Sindhu.” 

After this, Seth Govind Das, a Congress leader said: 

“The word India does not occur in our ancient books. it began to be used when the Greeks came to India. They named our Sindhu river as Indus and India was derived from Indus. There is a mention of this in Encyclopaedia Britannica. On the contrary, if we look up the Vedas, the Upanishads the Brahmanas and our great and ancient book the Mahabharat, we find a mention of the name Bharat.” 

Another member of the Indian National Congress, Kamalapati Tripathi added: 

“If the words, ‘that is’ are necessary, it would have been more proper to use the words ‘Bharat, that is, India’ in the resolution that has been presented to us…I am enamoured of the historic name of “Bharat”. Even the mere uttering of this word conjures before us by a stroke of magic the picture of cultured life of the centuries that have gone by…Even after thousands of years, our country is still known as ‘Bharat’. Since Vedic times, this name has been appearing in our literature. Our Puranas have all through eulogised the name of Bharat. The gods have been remembering the name of this country in the heavens…” 

While these arguments were happening Dr B.R Ambekar intervened and said: 

“Is it necessary to trace all this? I do not understand the purpose of it. It may be well interesting in some other place. My Friend accepts the word ‘Bharat’. The only thing is that he has got an alternative. I am very sorry but there ought to be some sense of proportion, in view of the limited time before the House.” 

Counter to this, others argued that the name “India” was more widely known and recognized internationally and that changing it would be confusing and disruptive. They also argued that the name “India” had been used for centuries to refer to the subcontinent and that it was not appropriate to change it simply because it was not originally a Sanskrit word. 

Eventually, all these arguments were rejected and the proposed amendment by the drafting committee was accepted, and the phrase “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States” was adopted as Article 1 of the Constitution. 

Throughout the Constitution, the term “India” is used except for Article 1, which explicitly recognizes “Bharat” as an alternate name. Furthermore, Article 52 of the Constitution explicitly states, “There shall be a president of India.” 

Political Implications 

The current controversy emerged as opposition parties began prominently using the acronym I.N.D.I.A., drawing attention to the term “India.” Given the forthcoming general elections next year, the ruling party has increasingly employed the term “Bharat” in both official and unofficial communications. The opposition bloc, however, has raised concerns that the government might seek to amend and officially rename the nation from “India” to “Bharat” in a special parliament session scheduled for this month. 

Constitutional Amendments and Legal Hurdles 

As per Article 368 of the Indian Constitution, any change in the name from “India” to “Bharat” would require a constitutional amendment. A bill to amend the constitution can be introduced in either house of parliament, i.e., Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha. The bill must be passed by a special majority in each house. That means, a majority (that is, more than 50 per cent) of the total membership of the House and a majority of two-thirds of the members of the House present and voting. After duly passed by both Houses of Parliament, the bill is presented to the president for assent. After the president’s assent, the bill becomes an Act (i.e., a constitutional amendment act) and the Constitution stands amended in accordance with the terms of the Act. 

Furthermore, the act of renaming would necessitate alterations to not only the Constitution but also other important legal documents and laws. 

As this controversial topic continues to unfold, it remains to be seen whether the government will move forward with a formal renaming of the nation and how this decision will be received by the diverse population of India, who have been known by both names for many years. This debate highlights the complex relationship between history, politics, and constitutional principles in the world”s largest democracy.