BJP can steal INDIA’s limelight—it must bring ‘Bharat’ in the Constitution

If the country's name had remained Bharat or Hindustan, Muslims here would have referred to themselves as Indian or Hindustani Muslims.

File photo of Opposition leaders in Bengaluru (Photo/ANI)

BJP is trying to outsmart the Opposition parties’ ‘India’ alliance by juxtaposing the image of ‘Bharat’. However, it’s too late for them, as they have never made an effort to establish ‘Bharat.’ Instead, they have bestowed praises upon ‘India.’ They have coined various slogans such as ‘Make in India,’ ‘Stand Up India,’ ‘Start-Up India’; official schemes such as ‘Accessible India,’ ‘Digital India,’ ‘First Develop India’. Even the Planning Commission was renamed as ‘NITI’ Aayog (National Institution for Transforming India). To the extent that even in establishing their own think-tank like institutions, the Sangh Parivar has chosen names such as ‘India Image Foundation,’ ‘India First Foundation,’ ‘India Policy Foundation,’ etc. They have not used the word ‘Bharat,’ which would have been simple and better.

But now, since the Opposition has adopted the name ‘India’ for their alliance, the BJP leaders are demeaning it by stressing on ‘Bharat’. This is a move too late, their criticism now is much like sour grapes. Because in the BJP’s coalition NDA (National Democratic Alliance), ‘Bharat’ does not figure. It takes a coalition’s name to counter the rival coalition’s name.

By all indications, the Opposition has unsettled the BJP with just one name. At the very least, they should now recognise the power of right words. Had the BJP understood it in time, they could have tried to make a consensus to amend the Article 1 of the Constitution. After all, they have already changed the names of several roads, institutions, and railway stations. Race Course Road was renamed as Lok Kalyan Marg, and Mughalsarai was changed to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg. Do they only care about promoting their leaders names? They should have first amended the name of the country.

The swadheenata philosophy

Decades ago, Hindi poet and thinker Ajneya (S H Vatsyayan) had raised this issue. Not out of mere sentimentality but with a profound message. He called it the issue of the mentality of swadheenata (independence) versus a thoughtless mentality. According to Ajneya, our government is not truly independent; the system is merely an ‘inheritance’. In the wordings ‘India, that is Bharat’, Bharat has been reduced to a mere explanation of something central, India being foregrounded. Thus, priority was not to the indigenous but the British imperial traditions. How can the sense of independence thrive in such a scenario? asked Ajneya. This he wrote nearly four decades ago.

Not that these thoughts belong only to a “narrow-minded” Hindi-speaking Hindu. Even some established English-speaking scholars, that too from a minority community, had similar complaints. Girilal Jain, the renowned editor of The Times of India, had seen the roots of various evils in independent India associated with the word ‘India’. According to him, one of the biggest mistakes our leaders made was allowing the country’s name to remain ‘India.’ In Girilal ji’s words, in independent India, “this one word has caused significant damage.” It has separated ‘Indian’ from ‘Hindu.’ Worse, it made ‘Indian’ superior to ‘Hindu’! If the country’s name had remained Bharat or Hindustan, the Muslims here would have referred to themselves as Bharatiya or Hindustani Muslims. Even today, Arabs call us ‘Hindavi’ or ‘Hindu’. Europeans also used to call Indians ‘Hindu,’ and they still do. This is our true identity, it had space for Muslims as well. And they would have continued to be connected if the country’s name had been reverted to its original.

An opportunity for BJP

In fact, the Congress MP Shantaram Naik from Goa had even presented a Bill in the Rajya Sabha twice (last in 2012) regarding this matter, proposing that the word ‘India’ should be replaced with ‘Bharat’ in the Constitution’s Preamble and the Article 1. Indeed, ‘Bharat’ is a more comprehensive and meaningful term, whereas ‘India’ is merely a geographic entity. Naik took a significant step to rectify a major flaw. If the BJP had an understanding of culture, it was a beautiful opportunity to support & take up the issue. Unfortunately, it let go of that opportunity as well.

Truth be told, there is still an opportunity. In the Constitution, where it says ‘India, that is Bharat,’ simply changing it just ‘Bharat’ or amending it to read ‘Bharat, that is India’ would enhance our respect in the world. If the lapsed Bill presented by Shantaram Naik, the Congress member, is now passed in the Parliament by the BJP, it could diminish the shine of the opposition’s ‘INDIA.’

First, because it was originally a proposal from a deceased Congress leader. Second, any opposition party may not object to it, as they could be accused of being ‘anti-Bharat.’ Third, the BJP members will have the satisfaction of accomplishing a meaningful task. So far their countless campaigns and activities had been superficial, theatrical, and meaningless. They have plastered the names of their ordinary leaders all over hundreds of public places, but the most important name, the country’s name, they have let remain foreign.

Reinstating the country’s name is not a mere show-off. The thoughts of Ajneya and Girilal Jain are indeed profound and worth contemplating. It is futile to think that such an amendment will not get through. It will be passed because most parties in India are patriotic and culture-loving. But even if it isn’t passed, the effort will be commendable. After all, it’s BJP leaders who formed the NJAC in 2014. Even though it was later dismissed by the Supreme Court. A similar attempt should be made to change ‘India’ to ‘Bharat.’

What a shame that we are carrying on with the colonial burden in Amrit Kaal. The importance of one’s correct name is understood by the entire world. After the downfall of the communist rule, Russia restored Leningrad to its old name St. Petersburg, Stalingrad to Volgograd, and so on. Countless cities, buildings, and roads in Eastern Europe had their names changed similarly. Poland became Polska, Ceylon in the neighborhood became Sri Lanka, and Burma became Myanmar. Likewise, the people of Maharashtra renamed Bombay to Mumbai, reclaiming the land associated with Mumba Devi, and Trivandrum was changed to its original meaningful Thiruvananthapuram. There are numerous such examples. The fundamental principle is that names that cause hurt or confusion to the people should be changed. Unfortunately, India has not seen leadership emerge that truly understands this. Ajneya had pointed to this lack only.

Otherwise, those who felt it necessary to change ‘Gurgaon’ to ‘Gurugram’ should have first changed ‘India’ to ‘Bharat’. ‘Bharat’ or ‘Bharatvarsh’ have been used in all our local, regional and national languages. Hence, reinstating it would not pose any difficulty to any region. On the contrary, ‘India’ reminds us directly of the British colonial rule. Probably, the first usage of the word ‘India’ in an official context was around four hundred years ago in the East India Company. When they arrived in India, people here used to refer to it as ‘Bharatvarsh’ or ‘Hindustan.’

Therefore, after the end of the British rule, it would have been appropriate to reclaim the country’s original name. It is surprising that with such a great cultural heritage as ours, the indigenous leaders have neglected it. Apparently we are still not free from mental slavery. Especially, the intellectual training of the RSS-BJP and its affiliates, claiming to be ‘cultural nationalists,’ is so pitiable that even basic ideas remain beyond their ken. They confront the Congress but embrace Islamists. Perhaps, there can be no clearer example of foolishness than this.

The author is a Hindi columnist and professor of political science. He tweets @hesivh. Views are personal.

(Edited by Anurag Chaubey)