A Comprehensive Analysis of Constitutional, Historical, and Cultural Dimensions
Advocate
Kishan Sanmukhdas Bhawnani
The proposal to rename India as Bharat has once again ignited a nationwide debate—one that touches upon the nation’s civilizational roots, constitutional provisions, and evolving cultural identity. The name Bharat, deeply rooted in ancient Indian texts such as the Vedas, Puranas, Upanishads, and the Mahabharata, is viewed not merely as a title but as the embodiment of the soul of Indian civilization. As I, Advocate Kishan Sanmukhdas Bhawnani from Gondia, Maharashtra, believe, the debate bridges the country’s historical consciousness with contemporary nationalism.
The Context of the 2025 Private Member’s Bill
In December 2025, an MP from Jaipur introduced an important Private Member’s Bill in the Winter Session of Parliament, seeking to officially change the nation’s name from “India” to “Bharat.” The proposal triggered extensive discussion not only among parliamentarians but also among historians, constitutional scholars, linguists, and members of the international community.
For centuries, the Indian subcontinent has been known by multiple names—Indus (linked to the Indus Valley Civilization), Hindustan (influenced by Persian usage), and Bharat, which originates from ancient Vedic tradition. The Bill asserts that Bharat is the oldest, most authentic civilizational name for this land and that its consistent presence in classical literature makes it the rightful national identity.
Historical and Cultural Foundations
According to the Bill, Bharat is a name that predates colonial rule by millennia. International travelers, scholars, and chroniclers—long before the British era—referred to this land as Bharatvarsha. The argument emphasizes that while the British popularized the name India in administrative documents, Indian society continued to use Bharat in cultural, religious, and philosophical traditions.
The Bill argues that retaining a colonial name after 78 years of independence is a historical anomaly that requires correction. It further highlights that Bharat symbolizes cultural values, spiritual philosophy, and an unbroken civilizational identity.
Constitutional Basis: Article 1
The strongest constitutional foundation for the proposal is Article 1 of the Indian Constitution, which states:
“India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.”
The Bill interprets this as recognition of Bharat as the original name and India as merely its English translation. It argues that when multiple names exist, the original and indigenous name should be prioritized in official use, government documents, diplomatic communication, and international representation. It further proposes amending the English translation of the Constitution to remove the word India altogether.
Key Provisions Proposed in the Bill
The Bill includes several major provisions:
1. Declaring “Bharat” as the sole official name of the nation—to be used in passports, government documents, currency, gazettes, court records, international agreements, and ministries.
2. Phasing out the term “India” over a transition period of three years.
3. Updating educational curricula—instructing CBSE, NCERT, UGC, and universities to exclusively use Bharat in history, civics, geography, and political science content.
4. Registering the nation internationally as “Bharat.”
5. Amending official English translations of the Constitution and legal documents through a proposed English Translation Committee.
6. Establishing a unified national identity with a single official name for domestic and global use.
Changing City Names vs. Changing the Country’s Name
The Bill draws a comparison with renaming cities and states—Bombay to Mumbai, Madras to Chennai, Calcutta to Kolkata, Gurgaon to Gurugram, Allahabad to Prayagraj—and argues that if cities can reclaim their historical names, the country too should reclaim its oldest civilizational name.
International Perspective
The proposal notes that several international travelers and historians—including Xuanzang, Megasthenes, Fa-Hien, and Al-Biruni—referred to this land as Bharatvarsha. Even German texts of the 1800s used the term Bharat. According to the Bill, adopting Bharat as the sole name aligns more closely with the country’s historical identity in world literature.
Advantages and Concerns
Perceived Advantages:
Reinforces civilizational and cultural identity
Enhances national pride and continuity with ancient heritage
Aligns with constitutionally recognized nomenclature
Strengthens symbolic decolonization
Key Concerns:
Extensive administrative cost of replacing the name in documents, treaties, branding, and international registrations
Possible confusion in global trade and diplomacy
Risk of temporary economic and bureaucratic disruption
The global brand “India” is well-established and may be affected
Conclusion
The 2025 Bharat Name Change Bill is not merely a linguistic proposal—it is a profound reflection on how the nation sees itself and wishes to be seen by the world. It encompasses historical continuity, constitutional interpretation, cultural identity, and post-colonial reclamation.
Whether or not the proposal is adopted, it is evident that the India–Bharat debate will remain a focal point of political, constitutional, and cultural discourse for years to come.
(Note:Compiler & Author
Tax Expert, Columnist, Literary Writer, Thinker, Poet, Sangeet Madhyma, CA (ATC), Advocate
Kishan Sanmukhdas Bhawnani, Gondia, Maharashtra)
