India vs Bharat Debate


From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Prelims level: Related provisions

Mains level: India that is Bharat- name change debate, Constitutional perspective and way forward


What’s the news?

  • The recent official invitation from Rashtrapati Bhavan referring to the President of India as the President of Bharat has ignited a fervent debate and raised questions about the country’s official nomenclature.

Central idea

  • The controversy arises from the use of the term President of Bharat in the official invitation sent out by Rashtrapati Bhavan. Constitutionally, there is no provision for a president of Bharat. This seemingly innocuous change has triggered a larger conversation about the nation’s identity, politics, and historical context.

Historical Context

  • Constituent Assembly Debates:
    • During the Constituent Assembly’s deliberations for the Indian Constitution, the question of the country’s official name arose.
    • Diverse opinions were expressed regarding whether to adopt Bharat or India as the preferred name.
  • Preference for Bharat:
    • Some constituent assembly members favored Bharat as the official name.
    • They cited its deep-rooted historical and cultural significance, drawing from ancient Indian texts and traditions.
  • Preference for India:
    • Conversely, other assembly members leaned toward retaining ‘India’ as the official name.
    • They argued that India was a name already recognized internationally, particularly during the colonial era.
  • B.R. Ambedkar’s Compromise:
    • To reconcile these differing views, B.R. Ambedkar, the chairperson of the drafting committee, introduced a compromise.
    • He proposed the inclusion of Bharat in Article 1 of the Constitution to accommodate both names.
  • Intent of the Compromise:
    • The compromise aimed to respect the historical and cultural significance of ‘Bharat’ while preserving the international recognition of India.
    • It sought to acknowledge linguistic diversity and cultural heritage within the constitutional framework.

Constitutional Perspective

  • Official Nomenclature: President of India: Article 52 of the Indian Constitution clearly states that there shall be a President of India. This is the official nomenclature of the head of state as established by the Constitution.
  • Article 1 of the Constitution: Article 1 of the Constitution reads, India, that is, Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
  • Hindi Translation Clarification: The word Bharat is used in the Hindi translation of the Constitution, but it does not appear as an independent word in the original Constitution in languages other than Hindi.
  • Clarificatory Phrase That is:
    • The phrase that is in Article 1 is considered clarificatory, explaining or further clarifying the preceding word, India.
    • Therefore, the interpretation is that Article 1 signifies that India, known as Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
  • Translation as a Clarification:
    • Article 394A (2) emphasizes that the translation of the Constitution is meant to have the same meaning as the original.
    • This reinforces the point that Bharat is a translation of ‘India’ in the Hindi version, and India is the authentic name of the country unless changed through a legal process.

The potential ramifications of renaming India Bharat

  • International Confusion: The use of Bharat alongside India in official communications may cause confusion in international diplomacy, trade agreements, and diplomatic relations as foreign governments and entities may encounter varying references.
  • Legal Implications: Changing the country’s name could require the revision of existing laws, treaties, and agreements to accommodate the new name, potentially leading to complex legal challenges.
  • Administrative Challenges: Renaming entails substantial administrative efforts, including updating official documents, government websites, passports, currency, and various bureaucratic aspects. This can result in logistical challenges and significant costs.
  • Cultural and Historical Significance: India has deep cultural and historical significance, and changing it may disrupt these connections and create a sense of alienation among certain sections of the population.
  • Unity and Inclusivity: Renaming should consider the sentiments of diverse communities within the country to maintain national unity and inclusivity. A hasty or unilateral decision could create divisions.
  • Global Reputation: A country’s global reputation is closely linked to its name. Changing it can impact how the world perceives and interacts with the nation, potentially requiring time to establish a new global identity.
  • Economic Impact: The renaming process can have economic consequences, including rebranding costs for businesses, potential disruptions in trade, and impacts on tourism and foreign investments.

Arguments Against the Rename

  • Confusion in Official Communication: The potential for confusion arises if Bharat is used interchangeably with ‘India’ in official communication. Maintaining a single, consistent name is essential for clear diplomatic relations and international agreements.
  • Official Name: Republic of India: The official name of the country is the Republic of India in official communication with foreign countries and international bodies. Using Bharat alongside India could lead to inconsistency and misunderstanding in international dealings.
  • Foreign Government Confusion: Foreign governments might be perplexed if India is referred to differently in various agreements, sometimes as the Republic of India and sometimes as the Republic of Bharat.

Way forward

  • Constitutional Clarity: Ensure any change in the official name of the country follows a formal constitutional amendment process. This requires an amendment to Article 1, which currently defines the country as India, that is, Bharat, which shall be a Union of States.
  • Historical Context: Take into account the historical context and significance of the name India in the country’s identity. Recognize that India has historical continuity and international recognition.
  • Linguistic Consistency: Recognize linguistic diversity within India while maintaining consistency across different languages and scripts used within the country. Bharat is primarily used in the Hindi version of the Constitution.
  • International Relations: Consider the potential implications for India’s international relations and reputation. Maintain a single, consistent name in official communication with foreign countries and international bodies to avoid confusion and maintain diplomatic clarity.
  • Public Sentiment: Engage with the public and seek their input and feedback on this significant decision. Public sentiment and consensus should be considered in any decision to change the official name.
  • Historical Symbolism: Acknowledge that renaming may carry broader symbolism beyond a linguistic change. Addressing issues related to colonial symbols and administrative structures should be part of a comprehensive approach.
  • Legislative Process: Follow the legislative process outlined in the Indian Constitution for any changes to the country’s name, ensuring transparency and adherence to constitutional principles.


  • The controversy surrounding the use of Bharat in official communication requires constitutional clarity and consensus-building. In the spirit of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, it is essential to ensure that any changes reflect the unity and inclusivity that India stands for.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


Join us across Social Media platforms.

💥Mentorship New Batch Launch
💥Mentorship New Batch Launch