\n<\/p>\n
This month\u2019s G20 summit in New Delhi gave rise to a controversy about a possible name change for the host nation, after the Indian government denoted the country as \u201cBharat\u201d instead of the usual \u201cIndia\u201d on official guest invitations.<\/p>\n
This was a clear departure from political convention, and the ensuing debate focused on the need for a name change as well as the possible cost<\/a>. The constitution of India, meanwhile, contains both names and uses them interchangeably.<\/p>\n While the opposition criticized<\/a> the administration of prime minister Narendra Modi, leaders of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) welcomed<\/a> the presumptive move, with some declaring the name change as necessary to \u201ccome out<\/a> of the colonial mindset,\u201d saying that those opposing it \u201care free to leave<\/a> the country.\u201d<\/p>\n The possible adoption of the term Bharat<\/em> over India<\/em> closely aligns with the inclinations of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the mother organization of Modi\u2019s BJP. Founders of both the RSS and BJP advocated<\/a> for a stringent, Hindu-centric vision of India (which they called \u201cHindusthan,\u201d land of Hindus), wherein religious minority groups, particularly Muslims and Christians, must live \u201cwholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment\u2014not even citizen\u2019s rights.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cOur country is Bharat, and we will have to stop using the word India<\/em> and start using Bharat<\/em> in all practical fields\u2014only then will change happen,\u201d stated RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat on September 1.<\/p>\n Christianity Today<\/em> spoke to Indian Christian leaders on the likelihood of the name change and their reactions. While some expressed concern about the possible impact on minorities, especially Christians, others dismissed it as a diversionary political tactic.<\/p>\n Two days after Bhagwat\u2019s statement, dinner invitations sent to dignitaries attending the G20 Summit on September 9 and 10 introduced president Droupadi Murmu as the \u201cpresident of Bharat\u201d rather than the conventional \u201cpresident of India.\u201d Traditionally, invitations issued by Indian constitutional bodies have consistently used the name India<\/em> in English texts and Bharat<\/em> in Hindi texts.<\/p>\n This deviation from the norm raised questions about the intentions of the Modi government, which has ruled the country for more than nine years yet has shown no preference for Bharat<\/em> in the past.<\/p>\n The controversy further escalated when a photo of an invitation to the formal G20 banquet, addressed from the \u201cpresident of Bharat,\u201d went viral on social media. The two booklets released and distributed to the G20 dignitaries by the Modi government included one titled Bharat: The Mother of Democracy<\/em><\/a>, which claimed, \u201cBharat is the official name of the country. It is mentioned in the Constitution as also in the discussions of 1946\u201348.\u201d The booklet also refers to Hindu religious texts, such as the Mahabharata<\/em> and Ramayana<\/em>, and outlines \u201cdemocratic ethos in Bharat over thousands of years.\u201d<\/p>\n On the same day, BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra tweeted<\/a> that Modi was attending a summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Indonesia as the \u201cprime minister of Bharat.\u201d<\/p>\n The development occurred just days after the Modi government\u2019s surprise announcement<\/a> of a five-day special session of Parliament held September 18\u201322. Since the government did not announce the agenda for the special session, unconfirmed reports<\/a> emerged about the tabling of a resolution<\/a> to change the name of the nation.<\/p>\n Speculations were put to rest after the government published the agenda before the session began this week, but the confusion still gave rise to a controversy. Concerns were raised about the government\u2019s intent and the possibility of changing the name of India to Bharat, given Modi and his party\u2019s commitment to right-wing ideology and their push for Hindi language.<\/p>\n A. C. Michael, former member of the Delhi Minorities Commission, spoke to CT on the spread of right-wing ideology and the proposal of the name change. He expressed concern about religious fundamentalism and majoritarianism, which have adversely affected the \u201csecular fabric\u201d of the country.<\/p>\n \u201cReligious minorities are already being treated as second-class citizens: no freedom to eat what we want, no freedom even to dress the way we like,\u201d he said, citing local bans of Muslim headscarves<\/a> in a Karnataka school. \u201cNaming [India as] Bharat will be like a last nail on the coffin.\u201d<\/p>\n Van Lalnghakthang, a professor of ethics and theology in Manipur and an office bearer of a Reformed Presbyterian church, sees this proposal as an attempt \u201cto promote a particular group, and alienate the minorities.\u201d<\/p>\n Adding fuel to the already blazing fire, Modi opened the G20 Summit with a placard<\/a> placed before him that read \u201cBharat\u201d instead of \u201cIndia.\u201d Modi\u2019s sudden preference for Bharat <\/em>raised eyebrows.<\/p>\n \u201cThe possible name change \u2026 suggests an underlying objective, i.e., an attempt at changing India\u2019s history,\u201d Lalnghakthang said.<\/p>\n The renaming of cities in India predates Modi, with the most striking examples being the renaming of Bombay to Mumbai in 1995, when the regional political party Shiv Sena assumed power. This decision was motivated by the party\u2019s desire to shed colonial associations and honor the city\u2019s Maratha heritage, paying homage to the goddess Mumbadevi in the process.<\/p>\n Calcutta was changed to Kolkata to match its Bengali pronunciation in 2001, and Bangalore to Bengaluru in 2014. Since Modi\u2019s arrival on the national scene in 2014, there have been many official initiatives to remove symbols of British rule and traces of the country\u2019s Muslim history from India\u2019s urban landscape, political institutions, and history books.<\/p>\n For instance, Allahabad, founded by Mughal emperor Akbar, became Prayagraj in 2018, reflecting its status as a Hindu pilgrimage site. However, some historical names, such as the Allahabad High Court, have not been changed.<\/p>\n In 2015, the new Modi government renamed New Delhi\u2019s Aurangzeb Road to APJ Abdul Kalam Road. In 2016, Haryana\u2019s BJP government renamed Gurgaon to Gurugram, after the mythological character Guru Dronacharya. In 2018, the Mughalsarai Junction Railway Station was renamed Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction, likely because of the word Mughal<\/em>, a historic Muslim dynasty that ruled the subcontinent for hundreds of years, in its name.<\/p>\n Churches generally have not been affected by the name changes. While relatively newer churches are using the new names of their cities, such as Kolkata Christian Fellowship<\/a>, which was founded in 2005, older Roman Catholic dioceses of Madras and Calcutta, as well as the Anglican dioceses of the Church of South India and the Church of North India, use the older names. The nearly 200-year-old historical educational institution in Chennai still goes by the name of Madras Christian College<\/a>.<\/p>\n Changing names of institutions, churches, and organizations is not as simple as it may sound in India, say Christian leaders.<\/p>\n \u201cThere is a lot of paperwork, documentation, and legal hassle involved in changing to any name,\u201d said Vijayesh Lal, the general secretary of the Evangelical Fellowship of India (EFI). \u201cSecondly, the names that have been in use for many years become \u2018brand names,\u2019 and nobody can take the risk of such a change.\u201d<\/p>\n The debate between India<\/em> and Bharat<\/em> is quite old. Although people who support calling the country Bharat argue that the name India<\/em> was forced<\/a> upon the nation by the British, historians say that the name has been in use for many centuries, even before the colonial period.<\/p>\n The term India<\/em> came from the Indus River, a Greek pronunciation of the Sindhu River. Even before Alexander the Great\u2019s Indian campaign in the third century B.C., travelers from distant lands referred to the region southeast of the Indus as \u201cIndia.\u201d<\/p>\n Bharat<\/em>, on the other hand, comes allegedly from the Hindu epic Mahabharata<\/em>, particularly from the mythological king Bharata. Another school of thought claims the term came from the Vedic tribe of Bharatas, mentioned in Hindu scriptures.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are a secular nation, and many cultures and languages exist in our nation,\u201d Lalnghakthang said. \u201cThis may be a plot to remove secularism by renaming the nation on religious grounds. This may impact religious freedom for minorities, including Christians, in India.\u201d<\/p>\n The preamble of the constitution begins with \u201cWe, the people of India.\u201d Part one of the document in English states, \u201cIndia, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States,\u201d while in Hindi it states, \u201cBharat, that is India, shall be a Union of States.\u201d<\/p>\n Changing India\u2019s name to be only Bharat would involve<\/a> a constitutional amendment, which would require a two-thirds majority in both houses of parliament.<\/p>\n In 2015, the Modi administration had opposed a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court of India that sought to change the name of the nation from India to Bharat. The government told<\/a> the Supreme Court at the time that \u201cthere is no change in circumstances to consider any change.\u201d Now, however, there seems to be a change in Modi\u2019s stance.<\/p>\n Atul Aghamkar, national director of EFI\u2019s National Center for Urban Transformation, said it was common for him and his peers while growing up to identify themselves as \u201cBharatiyas\u201d (people of Bharat) in the Hindi and Marathi languages and as \u201cIndians\u201d in English.<\/p>\nA divisive dinner<\/h5>\n
What\u2019s in a name?<\/h5>\n
Bharat and beyond<\/h5>\n