6 min readNew DelhiSep 8, 2023 06:21 PM IST
First published on: Sep 7, 2023 at 06:53 PM IST
In his old age, Groucho Marx told his friend and biographer that he hated the stage name “Groucho”, which he had carried for six decades and which had made him famous the world over. It made him sound “like I am the kind of guy who goes around whipping children.” The problem was that he did not like his birth name Julius either, since the uncle after whom he was named was not someone to look up to.
Occasionally, a nation with a long colonial past may also be gripped inexplicably by a strong desire to give up a constitutionally-sanctioned name given by colonisers. This issue first surfaced in the Constituent Assembly debates, leading to many skirmishes on the floor of the Assembly. Eventually, the elders decided to give the new nation two names: Bharat, that is India. Doesn’t the Republic of Ireland also carry its original name, Eire?
But the issue erupted again recently, when the RSS chief stated that the name “India” should be dropped because it was given by the colonial masters. He was wrong. The name crops up much before the reviled British colonisers used it, back when the Greeks came calling. Anyway, while the TV channels got their evening’s worth of slanging matches between party spokespersons and the rest, the dinner invitations sent out for a formal G20 banquet referred to our President as the President of Bharat. And the official booklet on the PM’s visit to Indonesia for the ASEAN meeting also referred to him as Prime Minister of Bharat. In the blink of an eye, the expected names were tweeting their support: Amitabh Bachchan, Sadhguru, Virender Sehwag, et al.
The matter was laid to rest when it came to light that in 2015, the BJP-led Centre had told the Supreme Court that there was “no change in the circumstances” since the issue was debated and resolved unanimously in 1949. In 2020, the then Chief Justice of India dismissed a PIL seeking a name change. With that the Opposition’s speculation that the impending five-day special session of Parliament might be an effort to effect a name change from India to Bharat, was also dismissed as rumour by the Minister for Information and Broadcasting. He also suggested that the resistance to the use of the ancient Hindu name Bharat “clearly showed the mindset” of those opposing it.
Dropping “India” would actually pose several problems. After 75 years of Independence, from Indian passports to the jerseys worn by our cricketers to renowned Indian institutes of higher learning like IITs and IIMs, India is everywhere. Around 2003, it was the BJP-led government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee that came up with the slogan of “India Shining”. After coming back to power in 2014, the BJP came up with many highly publicised schemes like Digital India, Start up India, New India and so on.
The current discomfort with the name “India” has as much to do with the alleged decolonisation process as with the latest acronym, INDIA, adopted by the country’s united group of Opposition parties. By adopting this acronym, these somewhat bedraggled parties — pushed into near oblivion with the ruling party sucking up most of the oxygen in the media space — were also slyly thumbing their nose at the ruling party. The coining of INDIA reflects the native intelligence and independence of the people of this country. After all, Indians have protected their independence and identities in the most trying of circumstances in the past. This is reminiscent of Gandhi’s arrival on the political scene in 1918 and his declaration of Satyagraha and the adoption of symbols like the spinning wheel and khadi and the bhajan-singing followers marching with him, all of which made the baton-wielding British look patently comical and somewhat silly.
There is no denying the fact that as the G20 leaders’ jets begin flying in, opening up a convoluted cultural debate about how unreasonable it is to leave out the age-old name “India” just because it reminds us of colonialism showed poor timing. Those asserting that only the Hindu name “Bharat” — deriving from the mythical king Bharat, son of the apsara Shakuntala and king Dushyant — should be used have also unwittingly helped brand INDIA as a group of wronged and resistant Indians bent on preserving the assimilative powers and dignity of the world’s greatest religions and cultures.
The powerful always attach great importance to being seen as strong, wise and capable of taking their enemies by surprise. But one can’t help feeling that even if this excising of India from its conjoined twin Bharat was part of some well-thought-out political strategy to label the Opposition as weak Anglophiles, it doesn’t show us in a very positive light globally.
When it acts lawlessly, power will always strive for an appearance of legality. In order to show that there is public approval on a matter, every government indulges in displays like a special session of Parliament — especially when foreign dignitaries arrive for summits. If you didn’t know any better, you’d say the gods of comedy and tragedy have had an equal hand in the creation of the charade, with potted plants, fairy lights and billboards welcoming visitors even at Nigambodh Ghat, the largest cremation ground in the capital.
A world leader must keep his chin up when millions of eyes from around the globe are on him. At the same time, those around him might claim that “Bharat” is just fine and that it is lucky compared to so many of its suffering neighbours in South Asia. Inconvenienced by global warming and recession yes, but no, not poor and suffering any more.
The writer is a freelance journalist and former chairperson, Prasar Bharati
"After 75 years of Indepen dence, from Indian passports to the jerseys worn by our cricketers to renowned Indian institutes of higher learning like IITs and IIMs, India is everywhere," writes Mrinal Pande. 
Share
