In a dramatic political assertion, the Congress party has accused the Modi government of undermining the essence of the “Union of States” by referring to the President as the “President of Bharat” in a G20 dinner invitation.
However, a profound examination of Bharat’s constitution reveals that Article 1 unequivocally states, “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” This constitutional article reinforces the union of states under the dual nomenclature of ‘India’ and ‘Bharat.’
Nonetheless, speculation has arisen that the government may contemplate a shift to officially recognizing ‘Bharat’ as the country’s sole name, potentially omitting ‘India.’ Such a transformation would necessitate amending Article 1 of the Constitution.
Congress leader Shashi Tharoor, while acknowledging the constitutional validity of calling India ‘Bharat,’ expressed hope that the government exercises prudence and preserves the invaluable brand value associated with ‘India.’
Congress MP Manish Tewari, in reference to Article 52 of the Constitution, highlighted that the document explicitly mentions a “President of INDIA,” thereby reiterating the constitutional commitment to the name ‘India.’
This provocative development, evident in a G20 dinner invite referring to the ‘President of Bharat,’ has triggered spirited debates, raising concerns about the potential erosion of India’s federal identity.
As a special parliamentary session looms, the Modi-led government may grapple with the pivotal decision of altering the country’s name from ‘India’ to ‘Bharat.’ Such a monumental shift would require a bill in Parliament to amend Article 1 of the Constitution.
The ensuing deliberations in the political arena will undoubtedly shape India’s identity, reflecting the nation’s historical roots while considering its contemporary global positioning.
