Controversy Surrounds India’s Use of “Bharat” as Alternative Name in G20 Summit Invitation
India, as the host country for the upcoming Group of 20 (G20) summit, has stirred up a heated debate after an official invitation sent on behalf of President Droupadi Murmu referred to the nation as Bharat instead of India. The decision to use Bharat has divided opinions among political leaders and the public, reflecting the ongoing tensions between different ideologies within the country.
The invitation, which was sent to visiting leaders of the G20 nations, described President Murmu as the “President of Bharat.” This move was met with enthusiasm by many Hindu nationalist leaders from Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). They hailed it as a rejection of India’s colonial legacy, emphasizing that Bharat is rooted in the country’s rich cultural and historical heritage. It is worth noting, however, that the term India was widely used even before British colonialism.
Opposition groups have raised concerns about the motivation behind using Bharat and the timing of this decision, suspecting that it appeals to Prime Minister Modi’s Hindu nationalist base. These critics argue that the ruling party’s frequent efforts to stir up their supporters, such as the sudden ban on the country’s largest currency bills, only serve to deepen the political divide within the nation.
While there have been no immediate comments from Prime Minister Modi on officially changing the country’s name to Bharat, Indian news media sources have reported that the BJP might propose this change in a future session of the federal Parliament. This prospect has further fueled the ongoing discussions surrounding India’s identity and its historical and cultural roots.
Bharat, originally derived from the Sanskrit language, is the official name of the nation in Hindi. However, all communication in English and with other countries uses the term India. The country’s Constitution itself only mentions Bharat once, in the following statement: “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States” (Article 1). Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar clarified this point by referring to the Constitution and urging everyone to read it.
Critics have pointed out that the Constitution exclusively refers to the nominal head of the country as the President of India, which further contributes to the complexity of this issue.
This invitation controversy follows recent statements by Mohan Bhagwat, the chief of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a powerful organization that influences India’s Hindu right. Bhagwat advocated for using the name Bharat instead of India, sparking further debate about national identity and historical significance.
In recent years, leaders from Prime Minister Modi’s party have already changed the names of various places, including a bustling city in northern India, as a means of erasing remnants of the country’s colonial past. However, critics argue that many of these place names had a Muslim origin, suggesting that such actions may disproportionately target the Muslim community under Prime Minister Modi’s rule.
Opposition political leaders have criticized the use of Bharat as a replacement for India. Their newly formed alliance, known as INDIA (Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance), seeks to prevent Prime Minister Modi from winning a third consecutive term in the general elections next year. One opposition leader, Manoj Jha, took to social media to express his discontent, stating, “It has just been a few weeks since we named our alliance as INDIA, and the BJP has started sending invitations with ‘Republic of Bharat’ instead of ‘Republic of India.’ You will neither be able to take India from us, nor Bharat.”
As India continues preparations for the G20 summit, the controversy surrounding the use of Bharat in the official invitation reveals the deep-seated divisions within the nation. It remains to be seen whether this debate will lead to any official changes or further exacerbate tensions as India navigates its complex identity and historical narrative.