It’s More Than Just a Name Game

Newsreel Asia Insight #28
Oct. 29, 2023

The tussle over what to call the country—Bharat or India—has become a contentious issue with a recent recommendation to switch the term “India” with “Bharat” in NCERT school textbooks. Amid this name game, Kerala stands out for its clear rejection of the change.

The state’s Education Minister, V. Sivankutty, cut through the noise with plain talk. He said that forcing the use of “Bharat” over “India” is “narrow politics,” as reported by The Wire.

In the Constitution, both terms co-exist. Article 1 of the Constitution says, “India, that is Bharat.” The terms are used freely, without fuss. So, why make it an issue now?

In a nation grappling with economic downturns, joblessness and insufficient governance, why does the name debate even matter? It’s hard to escape the feeling that this is a diversion. It’s like worrying about the wallpaper while the house is on fire. When real issues are at stake, the name game seems like a smokescreen. It draws public attention away from pressing concerns that truly affect daily life.

The recommendation came from a sub-committee led by Prof. C.I. Issac, who believes he’s acting in “public interest.” He argues that the term “Bharat” has deeper historical roots, tracing back 7,000 years. He says this is about our future generations.

But, is it really? Here’s the thing. Names carry weight. They’re loaded with history, meaning, and identity. To rename a country in school textbooks is not merely an academic exercise; it’s a political act.

Sivankutty notes that this push aligns with other actions by the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Union government. The same government has been visibly unsettled by the opposition’s use of the acronym INDIA. There’s a pattern. Prime Minister Modi even tried to rebrand NDA to add “Development” instead of “Democratic,” the Wire reported. It’s not just a name. It’s an agenda.

Education, it’s worth noting, isn’t solely a Union subject. State governments have considerable say. Kerala’s decision to rebuff the name change is rooted in India’s federal structure. The state had even reintroduced portions removed by NCERT in their local curriculum. This resistance is about autonomy. It’s about historical accuracy. It’s about democratic rights.

Prof. Issac, for his part, denies any association with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, despite past membership in its student wing, the Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad. Speaking to the Wire, he asserts his religious and social identity – a church going Christian – as a defense. But, the fact remains that identity politics are not merely about personal affiliations. They impact policy decisions that affect millions.

So, where does this leave us? At the crossroads of history and politics. The name India, as Issac points out, became official under British rule in 1868. Bharat, he says, has ancient origins. Fine, but names can evolve. They carry the weight of history, yes, but also the imprint of the present.

In the end, names are symbols. They stand for something. And when it comes to a nation’s name, that “something” is the collective identity of its people. In India—or should I say Bharat—that identity is diverse and ever-evolving. To insist on a single term is to negate that rich tapestry.

Let’s call a spade a spade. This isn’t just about names. It’s about who gets to define identity, history, and, ultimately, the nation itself. But shouldn’t we be focusing on the quality of governance and the health of the economy instead? After all, aren’t these the issues that truly matter?