Senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh had a meltdown on Tuesday amid speculations that the Indian government might soon bring a resolution to rename India as Bharat.
Taking to Twitter, Ramesh fumed over the Rashtrapati Bhawan’s invitation for a G20 dinner on 9 September under the title ‘President of Bharat’ instead of the customary ‘President of India’.
Resorting to fear-mongering, Ramesh insinuated that the government altered the character of the Constitution and Preamble, adding that Article 1 can now read: “Bharat, that was India, shall be a Union of States.”
The shared culture and history, common traditions, and civilisational continuum define Bharat
Long before the Constitution came into existence, India was commonly known as Bharat by its people. The framers of the Constitution acknowledged this historical and cultural continuity by referring to the country as ‘India, that is Bharat’ in Article 1 of the document. This recognition emphasised the enduring importance of the name ‘Bharat’ in the nation’s identity and history.
The current Indian Constitution continues to state, “India, that is Bharat,” allowing for the interchangeable use of both “India” and “Bharat” when referring to the country.
Jairam Ramesh appears to suggest that the President of India’s choice to include ‘Bharat’ in the G20 dinner invitations has significantly transformed the essence and structure of the Constitution. This insinuation hints at the idea that the Constitution of the country has undergone an irreversible transformation for referring to the country as Bharat, potentially disseminating misinformation to instil fear among Congress supporters and mobilise opposition against the Central government. His usage of ‘Bharat, that was India’ underscores his erroneous belief that India and Bharat cannot be used interchangeably.
Congress claimed that the Union Government had changed the name to ‘Bharat’ because they were afraid of the I.N.D.I.A. bloc. But this notion that the Centre has changed the country’s name from India to Bharat is grossly erroneous, given that the Constitution itself identifies India as Bharat. India had always been identified as Bharat, including in the Constitution, so to claim that the name has been changed is profoundly misleading and inaccurate assumption.
Even the national anthem of the nation, ‘Jana Gana Mana,’ includes ‘Bharat’ in its lyrics rather than ‘India.’ Does this imply that the national anthem has contravened the principles of the country’s Constitution? Does the exclusion of ‘India’ from the national anthem amount to an assault on the Constitution?
In addition, the passport of India clearly mentions ‘Bharat Ganrajya’ in Hindi and ‘Republic of India’ in English. The use of Bharat and India is complementary rather than contradictory as the Congress leader wants us to believe. The country has always been named as Bharat, and there is no
Furthermore, the occasion has afforded yet another opportunity for the Congress party to fuel their misconception that India is not a nation but a ‘Union of States’, which has come under assault because of the presumed preeminence granted to Bharat over India.
In fact, this objection to the use of Bharat is laughable, given that the Congress had named their boondoggle project ‘Bharat Jodo Yatra’ or container yatra as it was popularly known, after Bharat and not India.
Over the past few months, the Congress party has focused on fostering sub-nationalism and regionalism by emphasising that India is not a nation but a ‘Union of States’ as mentioned in the Constitution without fully grasping its purpose. While India or Bharat stands for the large body of people with shared culture, common history, descent, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular territory, the State stands for a constitutional framework that runs the country. The Congress party is deliberately conflating the two to sow doubts among its residents and create an opportunity for its political resurgence.
‘The federation of India is indestructible, not a result of agreement by the States’: Dr BR Ambedkar on the use of ‘Union of States’ in the Constitution
None better than the chief architect of the Constitution, Dr BR Ambedkar, eloquently explained the rationale for the inclusion of the phrase ‘Union of States’ in the document.
Clearing apprehensions over the inclusion of the ‘Union of States’ in the Constitution, Dr BR Ambedkar said, “The Drafting Committee wanted to make it clear that though India was to be a federation, the Federation was not the result of an agreement by the States to join in a Federation and that the Federation not being the result of an agreement no State has the right to secede from it. The Federation is a Union because it is indestructible.”
“Though the country and the people may be divided into different States for convenience of administration the country is one integral whole, its people a single people living under a single imperium derived from a single source,” he further added.
According to Dr Ambedkar, the federal structure of India was indestructible, meaning the states were an integral part of the country, with no provision whatsoever to secede from the federation.
Nevertheless, Congress continues to stoke fear psychosis among people by resorting to lies, misinformation, and falsehoods as it seeks to instigate outrage and revive its political fortunes. The latest outcry on the use of Bharat is yet another instance when Congress has been blowing the smoke to deliberately confuse and mislead the nation.
By choosing to identify as Bharat, the Modi government is not changing the country’s name but reclaiming its civilisational identity, long smothered by multiple waves of Islamic invasions followed by two centuries of British colonialism and subsequently over seven decades of suppression by successive Congress governments.
