When President Droupadi Murmu sent invitations in English for a G20 summit dinner identifying herself as the “President of Bharat”, it sparked a national debate. Usually, the term “India” is used in English correspondence, while “Bharat” is reserved for Hindi. Officials in the president’s office chose not to comment on the matter.
The curious wording of the invitations is creating a stir, especially in the context of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist agenda. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has previously made efforts to rename towns and cities with colonial legacies, fueling discussions about whether this is a move towards renaming the nation’s official name as ‘Bharat’ .
Any such change would involve amending India’s constitution, which would require a two-thirds majority in both houses of the Indian Parliament. The constitution currently reads, “India, i.e. Bharat, shall be a Union of States”, with wording similar to its Hindi version.
Interestingly, the invitation controversy aligns with the government’s mysterious call for a five-day special parliamentary session, without revealing the agenda. This has led to whispers that an official name change could be on the table. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, an ideological wing of the ruling BJP, has been consistent in defending the name ‘Bharat’.
Contrary to the belief that the term “India” is a colonial imprint, historians indicate that the name actually predates British rule. It comes from the Indus River, known as “Sindhu” in ancient Sanskrit. The term “Bharat”, on the other hand, appears in ancient texts, but is generally seen as a cultural identifier rather than a geographical one.
Although there is no confirmation about an imminent name change, the invitations have certainly fueled the dialogue about India’s national identity.
This article is sourced from and written by AI.
Track and stay informed about AI-generated news:
English 
Español de Venezuela 