India vs Bharat: Same old trick of dividing nation!

The communal politics of the ruling BJP has taken a new turn. The usual chanting of Jai Shri Ram and denunciation of so-called appeasement politics has now given way to articulating Hindutva in some other way. It includes calling India Bharat and attacking Dravidian politics in the name of Sanatan. This seems to be a new phase in defining the identity of the country and its inhabitants. Though the Hindutva outfits, including the Rashtriya Swyamsevak Sangh, have loved to dwell on who is Hindu, who is not, what is Bharat, etc. In the process, they are triggering fresh debates on issues that have been settled long ago. The Hindutva forces had attempted to thrust their conception of religion and nationhood upon the independence movement too and miserably failed in it. Their last attempt also failed when the Indian Constitution rejected declaring India a Hindu nation. Most analysts believe that this change of gear to give a new impetus to the politics of Hindutva is inspired by the desire to win the 2024 elections. This is indeed the correct view, but there are also other factors. Is the RSS not to celebrate the centenary of its foundation in 2025 with some achievement? A victory in 2024 is not only necessary for a grand celebration but also for the future march of Hindutva. The Sangh Parivar has to realize both objectives.

Last week, the invitations for G-20 guests were issued in the name of the President of Bharat. This revived a debate that had been settled by the Constituent Assembly. None other than Dr. Ambedkar had rejected any alteration in the first sentence of Article 1 of the Constitution: India that is Bharat. Members questioned the wisdom of having two names of equal value and suggested removing one. Some members suggested that it should be mentioned that India is an English translation of Bharat. Dr. Ambedkar did not give in. His version was carried by a majority vote. Was it necessary for the members of the Constituent Assembly to go with the idea of keeping both names? Indeed, this was the case. The country was divided on the basis of religion, and the leaders of the freedom struggle were made to accept the partition by force. Had they not accepted, the British would not have transferred power. If they were to gain independence, they had no option other than to swallow the bitter pill of partition. They did accept the partition, but they never accepted the basis on which it was done. They rejected religion as the basis for partition. We rejected being called Hindustan because it supported the idea of a nation based on religion. In a way, it was an endorsement of the demands of the Muslim League.

The name Bharat has also been taken from Sanskrit. It has been a Hindu symbol. In post-1857 India, the name became synonymous with Bharaatmata, which was a form of the goddess Durga. However, it immensely inspired the freedom movement. During the 1920s and 1930s, when the communal question became very troublesome for the leaders of the freedom struggle, the symbol was redefined to make it a secular symbol. Maharshi Aurobindo wrote in 1920 against symbolizing Bharatmata as a deity of any particular community or religion. In the same vein, Jawaharlal Nehru opined in his famous work, Discovery of India, how he tried to infuse his the idea of Bharat Mata in the minds of common peasants.

"Bharat Mata, Mother India, was essentially these millions of people, and victory to her meant victory to these people. You are parts of this Bharat Mata, I told them, you are in a manner yourselves Bharat Mata, and as this idea slowly soaked into their brains, their eyes would light up as if they had made a great discovery," he writes in the book. This seems to be the inspiration behind adopting Bharat as the name of the country. However, it is obvious that India has been put before Bharat to get rid of any misrepresentation. The recent controversy proves that the apprehension was right that communalists might misinterpret it.

The Hindu right has been adept at spreading falsehoods. The BJP and its supporters are accusing those who are supporting India of displaying a colonial mindset. They are saying that India is the name given by the British. This only shows ignorance of history. The Greeks used the name for the people of the Indus region. They used to call the Sindhu the Indus. This was similar to the Persians’ calling Sindhu Hindu. So, it is wrong to think that India is a colonial name.

Interestingly, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar rejected Bharat as the name of an independent India. In his famous book on Hindutva, he says that no country should be named after a king, even if the latter had a glorious career. He was referring to Bharat, the son of Dushyant and Shakuntala.

"The name 'Hindusthan' must continue to be the appellation of our country:‐ Such other names as India, Hind, etc., being derived from the same original word Sindhu, may be used, but only to signify the same sense: the land of the Hindus, a country that is the abode of the Hindu Nation. Aryavarta, Bharat-Bhumi, and such other names are, of course, the ancient and most cherished epithets of our Motherland and will continue to appeal to the cultured elite. In this insistence that the other land of the Hindus must be called Hindusthan', no encroachment or humiliation is implied in connection with any of our non-Hindu countrymen," he opined in his presidential address to the Hindu Mahasabha. This was the time when both Hindu and Muslim communalists were weakening the freedom struggle. Is the RSS not igniting the same communal flame that divided India in the past?