The Genesis of the India vs Bharat Debate: The G20 Summit and Constitutional Identity

The Constitutional Framework: Dual Nomenclature Under Article 1

The foundation of this debate rests firmly within the constitutional provisions that established India’s identity at independence. The India vs Bharat constitutional debate finds its legal anchor in the Constitution, which recognizes both names equally and deliberately through specific legal provisions. The opening clause of Article 1 of the Constitution states: “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States” [1]. This provision, drafted by the Constituent Assembly in 1949 and adopted in 1950, established the dual nomenclature system that has governed the nation’s official identity for over seven decades. The framers intentionally incorporated both names to acknowledge the country’s ancient civilizational heritage while recognizing its modern global identity.

The constitutional provision creates a unique duality where both names carry equal legal weight. The English version of the Constitution begins with “India, that is Bharat,” while the Hindi version reverses this formulation to read “Bharat, that is India.” This linguistic symmetry was designed to respect the multilingual character of the nation and ensure that neither name took precedence over the other. The First Schedule of the Constitution, which specifies the territories of states and union territories, further reinforces this dual nomenclature by using both names interchangeably across different language versions.

The historical context surrounding the adoption of this provision reveals the careful deliberation that went into its formulation. During the Constituent Assembly debates that took place on September 17, 1949, several members expressed strong preferences regarding the country’s name. Seth Govind Das and other members advocated passionately for “Bharat” as the sole name, arguing that “India” represented colonial legacy and foreign imposition. Hargovind Pant, representing the hill districts, stated that people of Northern India “wanted Bharatvarsha and nothing else” and reminded the Assembly that the name was given by foreigners who had robbed the nation of its freedom [2]. However, prominent voices like Hari Vishnu Kamath drew parallels with Ireland’s constitution, which had successfully changed its name upon achieving independence, suggesting India could follow a similar path.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, as Chairman of the Drafting Committee, ultimately steered the Assembly toward compromise. In the context of what would later evolve into the India vs Bharat debate, when Kishori Mohan Tripathi suggested that “Bharat” reminded everyone of the country’s past glory, Ambedkar pragmatically questioned whether such prolonged debate was necessary given the volume of work remaining. The motion was adopted, establishing the dual nomenclature that has characterized the nation’s constitutional identity since independence [2].

The G20 Summit Controversy: Shifting Conventions

The G20 Summit dinner invitation represented a departure from established diplomatic conventions that had governed official communications for decades. Traditionally, invitations issued by Indian constitutional authorities mentioned “India” when the text was in English and “Bharat” when the text was in Hindi. This convention had been consistently followed across governments of different political persuasions, creating a predictable framework for international communication. The September 2023 invitations broke this pattern by referring to “President of Bharat” in English-language documents sent to international dignitaries [3].

The timing of this nomenclature shift proved particularly significant. The invitations were distributed just days before the government announced a special five-day parliamentary session scheduled for later that month, without disclosing the agenda. This coincidence fueled speculation that constitutional amendments regarding the country’s name might be under consideration. The speculation gained further momentum when function notes for Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Indonesia for the ASEAN-India Summit and East Asia Summit on September 6-7, 2023, also referred to him as the “Prime Minister of Bharat” [4].

However, this was not the first instance of such usage in official communications. When Prime Minister Modi attended the 15th BRICS Summit in South Africa and subsequently visited Greece in August 2023, government notifications had already referred to him as the “Prime Minister of Bharat” [4]. These precedents suggested a gradual shift in official nomenclature rather than a sudden departure from established practice. Additionally, the G20 Summit venue itself was named “Bharat Mandapam” (meaning cultural corridor or International Exhibition-cum-Convention Centre), which Modi had inaugurated on July 26, 2023.

The government also distributed a booklet titled “Bharat: The Mother of Democracy” during the summit, and Modi sat behind a nameplate reading “Bharat” during the inaugural session rather than “India” [5]. These multiple instances indicated a coordinated approach to emphasizing the Sanskrit name across various official contexts. Officials at the G20 event wore badges reading “Bharat Official,” further reinforcing the nomenclature shift across all levels of representation.

Legal Requirements for Constitutional Amendment

Any formal change to India’s constitutional name would require adherence to stringent amendment procedures established under Article 368 of the Constitution. This provision, which governs all constitutional amendments, establishes a multi-tiered process designed to balance flexibility with the protection of fundamental constitutional principles. Understanding these requirements is essential to evaluating whether the nomenclature shift at the G20 Summit could evolve into a formal constitutional change.

Article 368 establishes the parliamentary procedure for constitutional amendments. The provision states: “Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may in exercise of its constituent power amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this article” [6]. This grants Parliament broad authority to modify constitutional provisions, but subject to specific procedural requirements designed to ensure careful deliberation and broad consensus.

The amendment procedure requires that a Constitutional Amendment Bill be introduced in either House of Parliament. The Bill must then be passed in each House by what is termed a “special majority” – meaning a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting [6]. This dual requirement ensures that amendments have substantial support both in terms of absolute numbers and among those participating in the vote. Importantly, there is no provision for a joint sitting if the two Houses disagree; each House must pass the amendment separately with the required majority.

Certain amendments that affect the federal structure require additional ratification by state legislatures. Article 368 specifies that amendments affecting matters such as the election of the President, the executive power of the Union and States, the High Courts, the distribution of legislative powers between Union and States, and the amendment procedure itself must be ratified by the legislatures of not less than one-half of the states by a simple majority [6]. Whether changing the country’s name would fall under this category remains a matter of legal interpretation, though arguments could be made that such a fundamental change to national identity would affect the federal structure and thus require state ratification.

The Twenty-fourth Amendment Act of 1971 significantly strengthened Parliament’s amending power by making presidential assent mandatory for constitutional amendments. Before this amendment, there was uncertainty about whether the President could exercise discretion in giving assent to constitutional amendments. The 1971 amendment explicitly provided that when a Constitutional Amendment Bill is presented to the President, “he shall give his assent to the Bill and thereupon the Constitution shall stand amended” [7]. This removed any possibility of presidential veto over constitutional amendments.

The Basic Structure Doctrine: Limiting Parliamentary Power

The most significant limitation on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution emerged from judicial interpretation rather than explicit constitutional text. The landmark judgment in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) established the “basic structure doctrine,” which fundamentally altered the understanding of Parliament’s constituent power and created enduring constraints on constitutional amendments.

The case arose from a challenge by Kesavananda Bharati, the chief pontiff of Edneer Mutt in Kerala, against state land reform legislation that sought to impose restrictions on the management of religious property. The petition, filed under Article 26 concerning the right to manage religiously owned property without government interference, challenged the validity of the Twenty-fourth, Twenty-fifth, and Twenty-ninth Constitutional Amendments [8]. The case was heard by the largest Constitution Bench in Indian history, comprising thirteen judges, over sixty-eight days from October 31, 1972, to March 23, 1973.

The Supreme Court delivered its historic judgment on April 24, 1973, in a narrow 7-6 majority decision. The Court held that while Parliament has broad power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter or destroy the Constitution’s basic structure [8]. The judgment represented a carefully balanced approach: it overruled the earlier decision in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), which had held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, while simultaneously establishing new limits on the amending power.

The majority opinion articulated several crucial principles. First, the Court held that the power to amend the Constitution is distinct from ordinary legislative power, being instead a constituent power. Second, while this constituent power is broad, it is not unlimited – amendments that damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution are invalid and can be struck down through judicial review. Third, the term “amend” in Article 368 does not include amendments that would alter the Constitution’s basic structure [8].

The judgment did not provide an exhaustive list of what constitutes the “basic structure,” leaving this to be determined on a case-by-case basis. However, the Court identified several features as falling within this protected category: the supremacy of the Constitution, the republican and democratic form of government, the secular character of the Constitution, separation of powers, and the federal character of the Constitution. Subsequent judgments have expanded this list to include free and fair elections, judicial independence, the rule of law, and the doctrine of judicial review itself.

The Kesavananda Bharati doctrine has proven remarkably durable. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), the Supreme Court struck down the Thirty-ninth Constitutional Amendment, which had sought to place the Prime Minister’s election beyond judicial scrutiny, holding that free and fair elections and judicial review were part of the basic structure. In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Court struck down provisions of the Forty-second Amendment that had attempted to give Parliament unlimited power to amend the Constitution, holding that limitations on the amending power were themselves part of the basic structure [8].

This judicial doctrine has significant implications for any potential attempt to change the country’s name. If such a change were deemed to affect the basic structure – for instance, by fundamentally altering the nation’s identity in a way that undermines its unity or federal character – it could be subject to judicial review and potentially struck down despite following proper parliamentary procedures. The doctrine creates a substantive limitation beyond the procedural requirements of Article 368.

Political Dimensions and Opposition Response

The nomenclature shift at the G20 Summit triggered immediate political responses that revealed deeper tensions in Indian politics. The opposition’s reaction was swift and pointed, focusing on both the timing and potential implications of the change. Several opposition leaders suggested that the government’s emphasis on “Bharat” was a response to the formation of the opposition alliance known as “INDIA” (Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance) in July 2023.

Jairam Ramesh, a senior leader of the Indian National Congress, wrote on social media platform X: “Rashtrapati Bhawan [President’s House] has sent out an invite for a G20 dinner on Sept 9th in the name of ‘President of Bharat’ instead of the usual ‘President of India.’ Now, Article 1 in the Constitution can read: ‘Bharat, that was India, shall be a Union of States.’ But now even this ‘Union of States’ is under assault” [5]. This statement highlighted concerns that the nomenclature change might be part of broader efforts to alter the constitutional framework.

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal posed a provocative question on social media, asking whether the government would change the country’s name again if the opposition alliance changed its name to “Bharat.” He stated in Hindi: “These people are so upset with the INDIA alliance that they will even change the name of the country?” [4]. This framed the nomenclature shift as a petty political response rather than a principled constitutional position.

Shashi Tharoor, a former diplomat and prominent Congress lawmaker, adopted a more measured stance while expressing concerns about completely dispensing with “India.” He wrote: “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” [3]. Tharoor’s statement acknowledged the constitutional legitimacy of using “Bharat” while emphasizing practical considerations regarding international recognition and established branding.

The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party and its supporters defended the nomenclature shift on cultural and historical grounds. Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami described it as a “proud moment for every Indian” and tweeted about the significance of having “The President of Bharat” written on the invitation. He characterized the shift as “another blow to slavery mentality” [5]. This framing positioned the use of “Bharat” as part of broader efforts to shed colonial legacies and reclaim indigenous identity.

However, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar attempted to downplay the controversy by stating simply: “India is Bharat. It is there in the constitution. I would invite everybody to read it. When you say Bharat, it evokes a sense, a meaning and a connotation” [3]. This response suggested that the government viewed the use of both names as constitutionally permissible and semantically meaningful rather than as a formal policy change.

Historical Context: Names and Colonial Legacy

Understanding the India vs Bharat debate requires examining the historical evolution and significance of both names. The name “India” derives from the Sanskrit word Sindhu, referring to the Indus River. Ancient Western civilizations used variations of this term to describe the region of the Indus Valley, where one of the world’s oldest civilizations flourished. The Greeks and Persians, who interacted with the people of the Indus Valley, used the term “Indica” to describe the region, which later evolved into “India” in English [5].

Contrary to popular belief, the name “India” predates British colonial rule by centuries. Travelers from as far away as Greece identified the region southeast of the Indus River as India even before Alexander the Great’s campaign in the third century BCE [3]. The name thus has ancient roots, though it was indeed popularized and standardized during the colonial period as Britain established formal administration over the subcontinent.

The name “Bharat” or “Bharata” has even more ancient origins, appearing in texts like the Rig Veda and other Sanskrit scriptures written approximately two thousand years ago. However, historians note that “Bharata” in these ancient texts referred to a somewhat ambiguous territory or socio-cultural landmark rather than a clearly defined geographical entity [3]. The term “Bharatavarsa” mentioned in ancient texts may have extended beyond today’s borders of India, potentially including regions that are now part of other countries.

The Modi government has undertaken various initiatives aimed at what it describes as removing “vestiges of British rule” and freeing the nation from its “colonial baggage.” In 2022, the government renamed Rajpath, a 3-kilometer boulevard formerly known as Kingsway that runs through the heart of New Delhi, to “Kartavya Path” (Path of Duty), stating that the new name would “remove any trace of colonial mindset” [3]. Similarly, in 2015, New Delhi’s Aurangzeb Road, named after a Mughal emperor, was changed to Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam Road. In 2018, three islands in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands that were originally named after British rulers were renamed [5].

These renaming initiatives have drawn criticism from those who argue they represent attempts to erase important aspects of Indian history, including both Mughal and colonial periods, rather than to embrace the full complexity of the nation’s past. Critics contend that selectively removing names associated with certain historical periods reflects ideological preferences rather than a balanced approach to historical memory.