6 Sep 2023 3:26 AM GMT
Hundreds of years ago, famous English playwright William Shakespeare wrote, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.” This is what Juliet says to herself, as she ponders over the meaning of a name. Hundreds of years later, we ponder over the same thing, against the backdrop of rumours of a name change to be proposed for the country in the upcoming 'special session' of the Parliament.
What did the Constituent Assembly say about this?
Article 1 of the Constitution says, India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States. Little known is the fact that the original draft did not contain any mention of the name ‘Bharat’. The draft constitution was prepared by a committee headed by Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar – fondly remembered as the father of the Indian Constitution – and presented to the constituent assembly on November 4, 1948. Almost a year later, on September 17, 1949, Ambedkar proposed an amendment including the name ‘Bharat’ in the first sub-clause, besides suggesting minor changes in the second sub-clause dealing with the constituent states.
The deliberations in the constituent assembly over the opening provision centred on two main issues: first, the relationship between ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’; and second, the administrative and socio-political implications of the quasi-federal structure envisioned by Ambedkar. Admittedly, the second point was more contentious, leading to verbal skirmishes on the floor of the assembly, but much was also said - mostly on September 18, 1949 - about the proposal to give the newly independent country two names, instead of one.
Several amendments were suggested by other assembly members, although none were accepted. After Ambedkar, All India Forward Block leader HV Kamath moved the first amendment proposing to replace the relevant portion of the first sub-clause with ‘Bharat, or in the English language, India’, drawing inspiration from the Irish Constitution. He said:
Next, Seth Govind Das, a Congress leader from Central Province and Berar, suggested that the name ‘India’ be categorically designated as one in prevalence only in foreign countries, arguing that 'India', unlike 'Bharat' did not find mention in the most ancient of the region's texts –
Another member of the Indian National Congress, Kamalapati Tripathi stressed the precedence ‘Bharat’ should enjoy over ‘India’, saying –
United Provinces representative Govind Ballabh Pant, representing the northern part of India, wanted ‘Bharatvarsha and nothing else’. This was in line with what another United Provinces representative, Professor Shibban Lal Saksena, had demanded in November 1948: that the name ‘Bharat’ be exclusively used. Pant said –
None of these proposed amendments, however, found favour with the constituent assembly and consequently failed. Interestingly, Ambedkar expressed his disinclination to enter into a debate over the ancient etymological roots of the suggested names, pointing to the limitations of time. During the discussion on the name that ought to be conferred on the newly independent republic, Kamath sought to trace the origins of the alternatives that some of the constituent assembly members had proposed. He began –
Ambedkar interjected at this point. He asked –
In the end, Kamath proposed to change the name of the country to ‘Bharat’, but did not find much support. Another interesting suggestion was made by Naziruddin Ahmad, a member of the constituent assembly representing West Bengal. Ahmad, who also famously lobbied for the inclusion of interplanetary travel in the Constitution, suggested that the country be renamed as ‘United States of India’.
While Kamath agreed with his colleague insofar as interplanetary travel was concerned, he found the suggestion to fashion the country’s name after the United States of America outlandish. He said –
At one point, when Kishore Mani Tripathi elaborated on the importance of 'Bharat', Ambedkar said, "Is this all necessary sir?...There is a lot of work to be done".
Ultimately, the Assembly rejected all amendments to the draft Article 1, except those introduced by the drafting committee chairman BR Ambedkar. Article 1, as it stands today, was adopted by the assembly on 18 September 1949.
What happens now?
India, that is Bharat, has been called by many names at various points in history. The name ‘India’ can etymologically be traced back to ancient Greek and Latin text referring to the land beyond the ‘Sindhu’ river. ‘Bharat’ or ‘Bharatvarsh’ finds mention in many ancient Hindu religious scriptures and despite scholarly differences over their actual origin and use, these have informed our religious and cultural imagination. ‘Hind’, and ‘Hindustan’, with their Persian roots, have been inherited from the Sultans and Mughals and it has eventually become a part of the common parlance in other languages as well. There have been other names, depending on the language, the historical context, and the idea sought to be conveyed.
Each of these monikers is not only steeped in the resonance of a storied past, but carries with it a vision for the present and the future of the ‘imagined community’ that is this nation-state. Language is not passive, but an active vehicle of transcendental thoughts and ideas. The politics of naming has been an integral part of our nation-building project, as evidenced by our constituent assembly electing to give the country two names – India and Bharat – arguably in an effort to recognise its past glory while charting out a path of pluralism for the present and the future.
At the inception of our independent country, our forefathers and mothers who fought to grant constitutional recognition to both names emerged victorious. Around seven decades later, this old debate has seen a revival. The bridge between ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’ has widened with the opposition alliance naming itself Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance or INDIA on the one hand, and some members of the ruling party distancing themselves from what they now say is a relic of a colonial past. The battle lines have been drawn, and the air is rife with speculation over an impending 'name change' for the country. With the general elections just around the corner, the timing of this is also suspect, prompting one to ask: Should the name of a country, which is so deep-rooted in the shared consciousness of more than 140 crore people, be subjected to political expediencies?