“Give Bharat”: fights break out in India over renaming the country

***

“India, my venerable teacher, is located almost at the very edge of the earth’s disk,” said old man Hottabych through the mouth of Volka ibn Alyosha. If the action of the Soviet fairy tale by Lazar Lagin took place not even in our days, but a little later, then it is quite likely that the student on the geography exam got it not about India, but about Bharat.

In September, the world’s media kept writing about Indian politicians’ plans to rebrand their country. By and large, this has been talked about for quite a long time, signatures were collected under the relevant petitions, and spears were broken in the media.

But what spurred discussions about changing the name of the birthplace of Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Raj Kapoor?

Perhaps the main trigger was the invitations sent out on behalf of the Indian president to world leaders on the eve of the G20 summit in New Delhi, in which the host country was mentioned not as India, but – in the Sanskrit manner – as Bharat.

In fact, both names – India and Bharat – are officially used in a country with a population of 1.4 billion people, which has more than 20 official languages. “India, that is, Bharat, shall be a union of states,” says the country’s constitution.

Indian passports also use both the country’s names – India in English and Bharat in Hindi.

The question, therefore, is what the state will be called in the international arena. A number of countries in the relatively recent past have demanded that they be called abroad exactly as they want. At one time, for example, the Cape Verde Islands became the Republic of Cape Verde, and the Ivory Coast became known as Côte d’Ivoire. And most recently, Turkey demanded that in English texts it no longer be called Turkey (which also translates as “turkey”), but in the Turkish way – Türkiye.

Be that as it may, CNN notes, the use of the word “Bharat” in invitations to VIP guests at the G20 summit marks a marked change in the naming of the huge Asian country on the international stage under Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Hindu-nationalist ” Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

September’s G20 summit was India’s first of its kind, as Narendra Modi seeks to boost New Delhi’s global influence after nearly a decade in power during which he positioned himself as a leader seeking to shake off its colonial past, emphasizing the need to “break free” from slavish thinking.”

India was under British colonial rule for about 200 years until it gained independence in 1947 from the “Mistress of the Seas.” And those who prefer the name “Bharat” say that the word “India” by which the country is known throughout the world is a relic of a cursed colonial past. The fact is that the name “India” appeared in ancient Western civilizations from the Sanskrit word for the Indus River – Sindhu, and was later adapted by the British Empire.

“The word ‘India’ is an insult given to us by the British, while the word ‘Bharat’ is a symbol of our culture,” BJP politician Harnath Singh Yadav told Indian broadcaster ANI.

“We are Bharatiyas and India is a name given by the British and it is high time we officially reclaimed our original name Bharat,” ex-Indian cricket star Virender Sehwag said on social media, calling on sports officials to use the name “Bharat” on players’ jerseys. during the Men’s Cricket World Cup.

During its tenure in power, the Narendra Modi government has taken a number of steps to rid the country of the “remnants of British rule” and shake off the remnants of “colonial baggage”. As part of this policy, various objects are being renamed – and not only those related to the colonial past.

So, in 2022, the government renamed Rajpath, a 3-kilometer boulevard formerly known as Kingsway that runs through the center of New Delhi. The new official name, “Kartavya Trail,” will “eliminate any trace of colonial thinking,” the government said. And in 2018, three Indian islands in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands group, named after British rulers, were renamed after Indian figures to erase “those signs of slavery.” Why, over the past decades, many cities and states have already been renamed in the country. Thus, Bombay has long turned into Mumbai, Madras into Chennai, and Calcutta into Kolkata.

Sources said the government may bring forward a resolution to change the country’s name later this month during a five-day special session of Parliament that begins on September 18. The fact that the government has not announced any agenda for the special session has only increased speculation on the matter.

Be that as it may, back in 2020, a resident of the country of Delhi, Nama, filed a petition in the Supreme Court demanding to change Article 1 of the Constitution – more precisely, to exclude “India” as the name of the country and retain only “Bharat”. The petitioner expressed a desire to recognize either “Bharat” or “Hindustan” (Hindustan) as the sole name of the country. His petition argued that “getting rid of the English name, although seemingly symbolic, will instill a sense of pride in our nationality, especially for generations to come. In fact, replacing the word ‘India’ with the word ‘Bharat’ would vindicate the persistent struggle of our ancestors for freedom.”

“It is time to recognize the original and authentic name of the country i.e. Bharat, especially when our cities have been renamed in accordance with the Indian spirit,” the statement said.

However, as it turns out, not everyone in India is enthusiastic about renaming their country.

“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 abandon ‘India’, which has incalculable brand value accumulated over centuries.” , Shashi Tharoor, a former diplomat and prominent legislator from the main opposition party Indian National Congress, is indignant on social networks.

In July, leaders of India’s 26 opposition parties formed an alliance known as INDIA (or Indian National Alliance for Inclusive Development) in an attempt to unseat Modi in the next general election.

***

In the history of the 20th and 21st centuries there are many examples when certain countries changed their name. French Sudan, which gained independence in 1960, began to be called Mali. Another former colony of France – Dahomey – took a different name for itself in 1975: Benin (there was once such a historical state in West Africa, which was later liquidated by European colonialists). And Upper Volta decided to be called Burkina Faso in 1984, which translates as “country of worthy people.”

The former British possession of Nyasaland is today known as Malawi, Northern Rhodesia as Zambia, and Southern Rhodesia as Zimbabwe. Likewise, the former British African protectorates Bechuanaland and Basutoland became Botswana and Lesotho.

In some cases, it was necessary to reinvent the names of young states – the unification of Tanganyika and Zanzibar gave the “sum” of Tanzania. And the accession of North Borneo and Sarawak to the Federation of Malaya led to the appearance of Malaysia on the world map.

The island of Ceylon became known as Sri Lanka, and British Honduras is now known as Belize. As a colonial relic, Burma also abandoned its former name, preferring to be called Myanmar (however, the former rulers from Great Britain still prefer to use the old name of the country).

Long-suffering Cambodia experienced repeated name changes, which after the overthrow of the monarchy received the name Khmer Republic. The Pol Potites who came to power renamed the country “Democratic Kampuchea”, which was replaced by the pro-Vietnamese “People’s Republic of Kampuchea”. After the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops, the country is again called Cambodia.

The latest cases of rebranding were the Kingdom of Swaziland, which decided from 201 to avoid confusion with Switzerland (indeed, some may confuse Swaziland and Switzerland) to be called Eswatini. Here the case is similar to the Indian one – both names, old and new, are translated as “Swazi country”.

Well, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, seduced by the prospect of being accepted into NATO and other structures, followed Greece’s lead and began to be called “North Macedonia.” On this issue, a referendum was held in the Balkan country – without political scandals.

The “Bharat” example can be contagious. In New Zealand, for example, a petition has also been created to rename the country. Representing the interests of the indigenous population of the kingdom – the Maori – the party collected tens of thousands of signatures for its appeal to parliament in record time.

Those pushing for a rebrand want “Kiwi country” to be called “Aotearoa” in the Maori language. “These are exciting times and we need to be strong in our identity as one nation,” said Maori Party leader Debbie Ann Ngarewa-Packer.

Politicians’ opinions on the renaming are divided – some believe that New Zealanders have even more serious problems.

“I believe in freedom of expression. Some people prefer to call the country New Zealand, while others prefer to call it Aotearoa. The name Aotearoa is on our currency and passports issued by the previous government,” says New Zealand politician David Seymour.

However, even Maori nationalists oppose the referendum on renaming the country – after all, representatives of the country’s indigenous inhabitants make up only 17% of the population due to colonization.

And in February 2019, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte said that it would be possible to rename his country and give it the name “Maharlika”. After all, the island republic in Southeast Asia is still named after the Spanish King Philip II – also a colonial legacy. Which, however, survived Dutarte’s presidency – the power changed, but the name of the state did not…

***

But let’s return to New Delhi. Actually, the question “India or Bharat?” not new at all, notes the Indian Express. As early as September 18, 1949, the draft Article 1 of the Constitution, which refers to the Union of States as “India, that is, Bharat,” was officially adopted by the Constituent Assembly.

However, apart from Article 1, the Constitution, originally drafted in English, does not contain any mention of “Bharat” in any other provision. The preamble to the fundamental law of the land also talks about “We the people of India”.

In 2020, Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde rejected the petition to change the name. “Bharat and India are both names given in the Constitution. India is already called “Bharat” in the Constitution,” the judge snapped.

As it turned out, the name “Bharat” did not figure in the original draft of the Constitution, and it was during the debate that the Constituent Assembly considered names and formulations such as Bharat, Bharatbhumi, Bharatvarsh, “India that is Bharat”, and “Bharat that is India” .

According to rumors, a bill to rename the country as Bharat may be introduced in the upcoming special session of Parliament between September 18 and 22. However, changing the name will require more than just parliamentary approval. This will incur other costs associated with rebranding and marketing.

“How much will it cost to change the name of India to Bharat?” – this is the question asked by the Indian edition of Business Standard. And it appeals to figures based on a model by South African intellectual property lawyer and blogger Darren Olivier. He used this model to calculate the cost of renaming the Kingdom of Swaziland to Eswatini in 2018.

The model compares country renaming to rebranding efforts at large companies. According to the model, the average marketing spend of a large enterprise is about 6% of its total revenue, while rebranding costs can reach 10% of the total marketing budget. India’s total revenue in 2022-23 was Rs 23.84 trillion. According to Olivier’s model, India will have to pay Rs 140 billion to rename itself Bharat.

So, of course, it’s up to the residents of India to decide, and the name “Bharat” sounds very beautiful – but it seems that a lot of money, instead of rebranding, could be spent on more pressing needs.