ForumIAS announcing GS Foundation Program for UPSC CSE 2025-26 from 10th August. Click Here for more information.
Source: The post is based on the article “Disentangling the 2030 global renewable energy target” published in “The Hindu” on 16th September 2023.
Syllabus: GS2- Polity- Indian constitution
News: The article discusses the controversy surrounding an official G-20 summit invitation from Rashtrapati Bhavan that referred to the President of India as “President of Bharat.”
What are the arguments in favor of using “Bharat” interchangeably with “India”?
Constitutional Reference: Article 1 of the Constitution mentions “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States,” implying a dual recognition of the country’s name.
Historical Context: The Constituent Assembly debates saw members like H.V. Kamath and K.T. Shah advocating for “Bharat.” B.R. Ambedkar, in a compromise, added “that is Bharat” to the draft.
Symbolic Significance: Using “Bharat” could be seen as an attempt to reconnect with Indian roots and distance from colonial ties.
Public Perception: Some believe that the term “Bharat” resonates more with India’s cultural and traditional identity than the English term “India.”
Legal Proposition: Some senior advocates of the Supreme Court and other proponents suggest that a simple resolution in Parliament can officially recognize “Bharat” alongside “India.”
What are the arguments against using “Bharat” interchangeably with “India”?
Constitutional Provision:
Constitutional Discrepancy: Article 52 of the Constitution specifically mentions the title as “President of India” rather than “President of Bharat.”
Not Truly Interchangeable: In Article 1, “India, that is Bharat,” indicates that “Bharat” serves as a clarification or translation of “India” and not an interchangeable term in the original text.
Historical Consensus:
During the Constituent Assembly debates, “Bharat” was added as a compromise, without suggesting it can be used interchangeably in the original Constitution.
Communication and Representation Concerns:
Risk of International Ambiguity: Using “Bharat” in international treaties and communications might confuse foreign entities, given the official recognition as the “Republic of India.”
Potential for Public Misunderstanding: The unanticipated change in official communication, without clear explanation, has led to public uncertainty.
Consistency in Official Communication: To prevent misunderstandings and maintain clarity, a country should have one consistent official name in all forms of communication.
