While some of the Indians were still debating the futility of or the need for renaming Twitter as X, on Tuesday they were dealt with a far more significant and existential question of the name of their nation itself. By that means, their identity too. Is it India or should it be Bharat?
Soon after the invites for dinner on the occasion of G20 Summit were sent out, different opinions took over social media platforms. The invite reads out, "The President of Bharat requests the pleasure of the company of..."
What the Constitution of India says?
It is not just Article 1 of the Constitution that begins with, "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States." All the supporters of the changed and new name have found themselves beginning the debate with the same.
Since when and how did India become Bharat, pondered those opposed to the idea, while trying to comprehend the bigger issues underneath the change and its permanent implications. However, it must be noted that after defining India, the Constitution only mentions, specifies all the institutions and institutional heads in the name of India.
Can India really be replaced with Bharat for all practical purposes?
Not really, never actually, say several social and political commentators, given the true change of name would involve changing the documents of a nation with over a billion people. "Will we queue in the line for new passports like new currency notes during demonetisation?" opined a social media user, opposed to the idea. He adds, "The passport says Republic of India, so will all the Aadhaar cards and passports be invalid, changed, phased out and why? For what?"
Do we not have other pressing matters to address first?
For a nation where significant numbers are unemployed, below poverty line and without access to quality education, sanitation and medical facilities, there are far more pressing issues in need of resources and attention of both leaders and masses.
Talk of attention and resources, meanwhile, celebrities like Amitabh Bachchan allegedly came out in support of a changed name in a cryptic tweet, worded as, "Bharat Mata ki Jai." However cricketer Virender Sehwag, alleged mouthpiece of the government, came out in full support of the change. "I have always believed a name should be one which instills pride in us. We are Bhartiyas, India is a name given by the British and it has been long overdue to get our original name Bharat back. I urge the BCCI to ensure that in this World Cup our players have Bharat on our chest."
What about the brand identity?
An era where name holds significant goodwill and brand identity, a change in name does not make complete sense. Congress leader Shashi Tharoor said that India has incalculable brand value.Taking to X, he said, "While there is no constitutional objection to calling India, "Bharat", which is one of the country's two official names, I hope the government will not be so foolish as to completely dispense with "India", which has incalculable brand value built up over centuries."
The term President of Bharat, has for the first time, been mentioned in an official invite for a dinner hosted by the President of India. The Opposition leaders of INDIA alliance accused the government of being so insecure of their bloc as to contemplate a name change.
Strong rumours of a special session of Parliament being held for this specific name change made the rounds, till The Hindu quoted government sources as confirming no such thing was on the cards and all the talk of a formal action in the upcoming session of Parliament to change the name of India was, "rubbish."
