A PIL in the Supreme Court asking for the renaming of India to Bharat raises questions about the idea of India

The Telegraph, April 26, 2015

Editorial Name of the nation

In the first line of Article 1 of the Constitution of India - "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States" - India and Bharat are made synonymous. They are made to stand for the same geographical space and political entity. The two terms have also been used as synonyms, but not always interchangeably, since India is used when the language is English, and Bharat when it is one of the Indian languages. There is also a difference in the antiquity of the two terms. The origins of Bharat or Bharatvarsha go back to India's mythical past - the land of the sage Bharat, or the land over which the king Bharata ruled. India is of a more recent origin, harking back to the anglicization of al Hind. In spite of the synonymity signalled by the Constitution, it has to be admitted that the two terms often carry different resonances and connotations. 'India' is often used to denote the westernized parts of India and the Indian population, while 'Bharat' and 'Bharatbashi' are used to describe those parts and people relatively untouched (untainted?!) by western influences.

There are other differences worth pondering over. One of these is important and therefore cannot be neglected. Bharat carries with it Hindu overtones while India has no such baggage. India is a religion neutral and, therefore, perhaps a more inclusive term. The idea of India in historical and imaginative terms is a capacious one. It holds within it many groups and creeds; to many of these the name, Bharat, evokes no historical memories; it stirs no identity and sense of belonging imbued with myths. Keeping this in mind, India is perhaps a preferable term. The founding fathers of the Constitution did not want to make such a radical statement, especially as the Indian national movement, out of which the Constitution had emerged, had always situated itself on the antiquity and continuity of Indian civilization and tradition. The Constitution could not abandon this legacy. The founding fathers chose a perfectly acceptable compromise that invoked both the ancient and the modern names of the hallowed land.

The terms used in Article 1 of the Constitution have been queried by a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court. The petitioner's plea is that India should be renamed Bharat on the ground that the name was originally conceived of and adopted by the constituent assembly. The petitioner supports his plea by citing Article 1. Such a reading of the article appears to be somewhat one-sided since the declaration invokes both India and Bharat. Renaming the nation will mean amending the first article of the Constitution. Can such a thing be done through a judicial process alone? Procedures aside, such a renaming has significant implications for the idea of India.