‘India’ or ‘Bharat’? G20 Dinner Invite Reignites Debate on Official Country Name
A recent G20 dinner invitation, which referred to Droupadi Murmu as ‘The President of Bharat‘ instead of ‘The President of India‘, has reignited the longstanding debate over the official naming of the country. The invitation, issued by the President of India, has sparked a political controversy, with leaders from opposition parties across the nation raising questions.
Article 1 of the Indian Constitution clearly states,
“India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.”
This article recognizes both ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’ as the official names for the country. The burning question now is whether the Central government intends to amend the Constitution to make ‘Bharat‘ the sole official name, thereby removing ‘India‘.
Supreme Court’s Stance on the Matter
In March 2016, the Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought a name change from ‘India‘ to ‘Bharat‘. The bench, which included then Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice UU Lalit, strongly objected to the petition. Justice Thakur remarked,
“Bharat or India? You want to call it Bharat, go right ahead. Someone wants to call it India, let them call it India.”
Fast forward to 2020, the Supreme Court once again declined to entertain a similar plea. Instead, the Court suggested that the plea could be transformed into a representation and sent to the Union government for a suitable decision. The then Chief Justice of India, SA Bobde, stated,
“Bharat and India are both names given in the Constitution. India is already called ‘Bharat’ in the Constitution.”
The Process of Amending the Constitution
Should the government decide to officially recognize only ‘Bharat’ as the country’s name, they would need to introduce a bill to amend Article 1 of the Constitution. As per Article 368, the Constitution can be amended either through a simple majority or a special majority.
Certain articles, such as the admission of a new state or the allocation of Rajya Sabha seats for States and Union Territories, can be modified with a simple majority. However, for more significant changes, including any alteration to Article 1, a special majority of at least two-thirds of the members present and voting would be necessary.
As the debate continues, the nation keenly observes the unfolding events, awaiting a resolution to a question that touches upon the very identity of the country.
