In a critical moment when the destiny of India's democracy, secularism, cohesion, and unity hangs in the balance, the central government appears to be employing diversionary tactics to shift focus away from the pressing concerns of the people, all while the nation's core values and unity stand at a pivotal crossroads.The events surrounding the Gujarat genocide and the Babri Masjid demolition serve as poignant reminders of the lengths to which the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been willing to go in its pursuit of electoral victory and the retention of political power. As we approach the 2024 elections, a new controversy has emerged, one that revolves around the very identity of our nation. The move is to remove India itself from the name of the country as ``India, i.e. Bharat'' as stated in Article 1 of the Constitution, reflects a significant and potentially divisive shift in the nation's narrative. This development underscores the ongoing complexities and debates surrounding the BJP's political strategies and their implications for the country's unity and identity. It is imperative that we engage in thoughtful and inclusive discussions to address these issues and ensure that our democratic values and pluralistic society are preserved.
The commencement of the G-20 Summit was marked by the President's invitation card bearing the title 'President of Bharat.' Subsequently, within the handbook distributed to international delegates attending the summit, 'Bharat' was described as the 'Mother of Democracy.' It became evident that this choice of nomenclature was intentionally provocative when a press release concerning the Prime Minister's participation in the ASEAN conference referred to him as the 'Prime Minister of Bharat.' These deliberate choices in official documents and communications underscore a calculated effort to generate controversy surrounding the nation's nomenclature and signal a significant departure from the established norm. Such developments necessitate careful consideration and thoughtful analysis to understand their potential implications for our nation's global image and diplomatic engagements.
A notable controversy emerged with the introduction of the opposition group in India, designated as the 'India' alliance, denoting the 'Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance.' This development has sparked deliberations concerning the potential for this 'India' alliance to overshadow the overarching cultural and historical identity represented by the term 'Bharat.' This shift in nomenclature follows a directive from Mohan Bhagwat, the chief of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), advocating the replacement of the word 'India' with the ancient term 'Bharat' in various contexts, a directive that has drawn considerable consternation among proponents of democratic values. The ensuing debate underscores the complex interplay between cultural heritage, political discourse, and the preservation of democratic principles within the Indian context.
The evident double standard exhibited by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) becomes readily apparent in this context. Until very recently, 'India' served as a central theme for the party, permeating slogans like 'Make in India,' 'Stand Up India,' and government initiatives such as 'Startup India,' 'Accessible India,' and 'Digital India.' Even the erstwhile Planning Commission underwent transformation into 'Niti' (National Institution for Transforming India) to align with this nomenclatural emphasis.
However, a notable shift occurred in 2015 when the Modi government submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court in response to a petition seeking to change the country's name to 'Bharat.' In this affidavit, the government firmly upheld the status quo, contending that the country's name should not be altered. The government's stance cited the exhaustive deliberations on this matter within the Constituent Assembly of India, culminating in unanimous approval. As a result, the affidavit firmly asserted that no amendments should be contemplated concerning Article 1 of the Constitution of India. These contrasting positions underscore the complexities and changing perspectives within the BJP's approach to issues of national nomenclature and identity.
In the year 2004, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) took a significant step by opting to boycott the assembly in a protest against a resolution proposed by Mulayam Singh, which called for a change in the nation's name to 'Bharat.' This resolution subsequently found approval within the Uttar Pradesh Assembly. This historical episode illuminates the context within which the BJP's current actions may be perceived. It appears that the present maneuver by the BJP to alter the country's name is, at least in part, motivated by concerns related to the growing influence and unity of the opposition alliance.
In the initial draft presented to the Constituent Assembly in 1948, the key declaration was that 'India shall be a Union of States'. This basic idea has been widely debated and there are those who have insisted that we name Hindustan as our neighbor is named Pakistan. Or there are those who said that it should be called Akhand Bharat, Bharat Kanda, Bharat Varsh, etc.
On the 17th of September 1949, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, the esteemed chair of the Drafting Committee responsible for the Constitution, made a crucial announcement. He specified that the introductory clause of Article 1 should read as follows: ''India, i.e. Bharat shall be a Union of States.'' It is imperative to recognize that the recent initiative by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to modify this nomenclature appears to be, in essence, an affront to the legacy of Dr. Ambedkar and the principles he enshrined within the Constitution.
It is noteworthy that during the tumultuous period of partition, marked by heightened tensions between Hindus and Muslims, our Constituent Assembly demonstrated exceptional sagacity in determining the official name of our nation to be India, as outlined in Article 1: 'India that is Bharat shall be a Union of States'.
An additional contention raised by the Sangh Parivar is the assertion that the name 'India' carries vestiges of colonialism. It is important to acknowledge that India's historic resistance to colonial rule, which spanned centuries and ultimately led to its independence from British colonialism, was a monumental struggle. Notably, the Sangh Parivar and its affiliated organizations were conspicuously absent from active participation in this pivotal anti-colonial movement. The recent endeavors by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to alter the country's nomenclature appear to be an attempt to divert attention from the uncomfortable reality that some within the BJP ranks revere a leader who, during the freedom struggle, chose to write a clemency plea in exchange for release from incarceration, a decision widely regarded as a betrayal of the overarching independence movement.
The etymology of the name "India" can be traced back to the river Sindhu, which is rooted in the Sanskrit language, a member of the Indo-European language family, alongside Sanskrit, Old Persian, and various European languages. The appellation "Hindustan" and "Hindu" were initially employed by the Persians to refer to the region and its inhabitants residing in the vast plains surrounding the Indus River and its eastern territories. This nomenclature shift occurred due to the Persians' linguistic challenge in pronouncing 'sa,' which transformed "Sindhu" into "Hindu." Additionally, terms such as 'Saptasindhu,' 'Haptahindu,' 'Soma,' and 'Homa' were similarly adapted by Persian speakers. In Arabic, the region became known as 'Al-Hind,' eventually leading to the name 'India.' The Greeks began referring to the land and its people as "Indians" as early as the 5th century BC, a tradition that continued when the English adopted the term "India" for this culturally rich and diverse nation.
In accordance with Hindutva perspectives, it is contended that the nomenclature "India" has been bestowed upon the nation by external entities and is not of indigenous origin. It is posited that the designations "Hindu," "Hindustan," "Indus," and "India" have all emanated from the term "Sindhu," which has been historically attributed to foreign sources. This assertion underscores the perception that these appellations have been introduced by outsiders, thus raising questions about their indigenous authenticity and cultural relevance within the context of the Indian subcontinent.
Two intriguing paradoxes warrant consideration in this context. Firstly, it is essential to trace the origins of the Indo-Aryan linguistic group, which gave birth to the Sanskrit language, including the term "Sindhu," within the expansive Indus region. This linguistic migration likely emanated from the Eurasian grasslands, thereby posing a noteworthy question.
Secondly, we must inquire whether Sanskrit can be exclusively characterized as a 'Unique Indian' language. A comprehensive examination of ancient Persian scriptures, such as the 'Send Avasta,' alongside the venerable Rigveda, serves to challenge the prevailing "Hindutva" paradigm, fostering a nuanced understanding that transcends conventional demarcations between external and indigenous linguistic and cultural influences.
Another noteworthy irony lies in the fact that V.D. Savarkar played a pivotal role in popularizing the term "Hindustan" and championed the slogan encapsulating the interconnected notions of religion, language, and territory, represented by 'Hindu--Hindi--Hindustan'. He achieved this by drawing upon historical context and localizing the Persian counterparts of these three words through what he referred to as 'Indrajala'. In his work titled 'Essentials of Hindutva', Savarkar expounds on the idea that the terms "Hindu" and "Hindustan" aptly describe the region and its inhabitants situated between the Indus River to the north and the Indus Sea to the south. This perspective, according to Savarkar, underlines the indigenous and historical significance of these terms in characterizing the Indian subcontinent and its people.
Although the nomenclature "Sindhu" is believed to have been introduced by the Aryans, the local tribal communities preceding them, who maintained amicable relations with the Aryans, may have referred to the river as "Hindu." This intriguing historical hypothesis presented by Savarkar posits that terms such as "Hindu" and "Hindustan" are inherently indigenous to the region. Notably, "Bharatvarsha" and "Aryavarta" emerged as designations at a later juncture and do not adequately encapsulate the complex interplay between the Arya and Anarya populations that unfolded across the vast expanse of the Indian subcontinent. Under Savarkar's interpretation, one could speculate that the inhabitants of Mohenjodaro, who resided along the Indus River prior to the arrival of Aryan speakers, might have denominated the river as "Hindu."
The pivotal point to underscore is that Article 1(1) of the Indian Constitution explicitly declares that India, also known as Bharat, shall constitute a Union of States. This constitutional provision was adopted with unanimous consent following extensive deliberations within the Constituent Assembly. During these deliberations, there were proponents advocating for the use of terms like Bharatham or Bharatvarsha exclusively, but none of these propositions found acceptance. Moreover, Article 52 elucidates the role and position of the President of India, unequivocally designating the country as "India." It is worth noting that in 2016, a public interest petition aimed at altering the official name of India to Bharat was presented to the Supreme Court. However, the court dismissed this petition with strong and definitive remarks, reaffirming the constitutional nomenclature of India.
The nine-year tenure of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in governance has witnessed significant challenges that have brought the nation to the precipice of economic instability. India's performance across various developmental indicators has regrettably lagged behind expectations during this period. Recent instances such as the situations in Manipur, Nuh, and Gurugram underscore notable governance shortcomings under Prime Minister Modi's leadership on the domestic front. In response to these challenges, the BJP appears to be actively seeking new slogans and strategies to divert public attention from these issues and reengage with the electorate. The proposal for a unified 'one country, one election' approach should be examined within the broader context of this political maneuvering, which seeks to address pressing concerns and reshape the party's narrative.
The recent initiative by the central government to alter the name of India represents a persistent trend of endeavors aimed at eroding the foundational principles of pluralism that underpin our nation. Any political action undertaken should inherently uphold the unity and integrity of the nation, as veering from this path not only contravenes democratic norms but also raises constitutional concerns. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the central government to exercise restraint and desist from pursuing measures that seek to amend the country's nomenclature. In response to this concerning development, it is imperative for all citizens to unite in collective protest against such narrow and divisive political maneuvering, reaffirming our commitment to the principles of unity, diversity, and democracy that form the bedrock of our nation.
