KATHMANDU, Sept 5: The Indian government's recent decision to replace the name "India" with the Sanskrit word "Bharat" in official dinner invitations extended by Indian President Droupadi Murmu to G-20 guests has ignited a fresh row in the Indian political circle, further deepening the divide between proponents of cultural revival and critics who see it as a divisive move.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi's administration issued dinner invitations for the guests of upcoming G-20 summit with the title "President of Bharat" referring to Indian President Murmu, instead of the traditional "President of India." The decision reflects the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) ongoing efforts to distance the country from colonial-era names and restore a sense of ancient Indian heritage.
While the nation officially goes by two names, "India" and "Bharat," the former is more commonly used both domestically and internationally. Bharat is an ancient Sanskrit word that is believed to have roots in early Hindu texts and also serves as the Hindi word for India.
SC verdict on Article 370 has strengthened the spirit of Ek Bha...
Supporters of the change argue that "India" was imposed by British colonizers and symbolizes a period of subjugation lasting about 200 years until India gained independence in 1947.
"Another blow to slavery mentality," declared Pushkar Singh Dhami, the top elected official of Uttarakhand state and a prominent BJP leader, in a tweet where he shared the G20 dinner invitation featuring the term "Bharat."
The Modi government has a history of renaming landmarks associated with India's Mughal and colonial past. In 2015, Aurangzeb Road, named after a Mughal king, was changed to Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam Road following protests from BJP leaders. Last year, a colonial-era avenue in central New Delhi used for ceremonial military parades was also renamed.
The government contends that these changes aim to reclaim India's Hindu heritage, a move that resonates with the BJP's core ideology.
However, critics argue that this move could have unintended consequences. Shashi Tharoor, an opposition lawmaker, expressed concern over the potential loss of the "India" brand value built up over centuries.
"While there is no constitutional objection to calling India 'Bharat,' which is one of the country's two official names, I hope the government will not be so foolish as to completely dispense with 'India which has incalculable brand value built up over centuries,'" Tharoor tweeted.
According to rpeorts The controversy surrounding the renaming of India to Bharat highlights the ongoing tension between those seeking to assert India's cultural identity and those who view these changes as politically divisive, raising questions about the nation's historical narrative and its future direction.
