Assistant Professor

Department of English

Sardar Bhagat Singh Government College

 Dhaka, Puvayan, Shahjahanpur, U.P., India 

Abstract

Recently, the current government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi used the words ‘President of Bharat’ instead of ‘President of India’ on the invitation card of the G-20 summit.  This change in terminology sparked reaction and revealed the political dimensions of the use of these names. India was the name the Greeks used to describe us while Bharat or Bharatvarsha was the name used by the natives. The name India is derived from the river Sindhu which flows in the north west of the country.

Keywords

Bharat, Democracy, Governance, Secularism, Traditional, Associated, Citizens.

Introduction

India and Bharat are two terms often used to describe different aspects of India’s society and governance.

“India” typically refers to the modern, urbanized, and globalized face of the country. It represents the rapidly growing economy, technologically advanced cities, and diverse cultural influences. India is often associated with democracy, secularism, and individual rights.

“Bharat” refers to the more traditional, rural, and culturally rooted aspects of India. It represents the villages, small towns, and rural regions where traditional customs and values are still prevalent. Bharat is often associated with traditional agriculture, community-based governance, and a focus on collective welfare.

Both India and Bharat contribute to the socio-political fabric of the country. The term “India vs Bharat” is sometimes used as a metaphor to describe the tensions and struggles that arise when trying to balance the modern and traditional aspects of Indian society within the framework of democracy. It highlights the challenges of bridging the gap between different segments of the population and ensuring equal representation and opportunity for all.

Democracy in India: Back Ground  

Democracy in India is an age-old concept.  According to the Indian ethos, democracy encompasses the values of freedom, acceptance, equality and inclusivity in the society and it provides an opportunity to its common citizens to live a quality and dignified life.  Participatory institutions like Sabha, Samiti and Parliament have been mentioned in the lines of the earliest available sacred texts – Rigveda and Atharvaveda.  The last word ‘Sansad’ is popular denoting the Parliament of our country.  The great epics of this land, Ramayana and Mahabharata also talk about involving people in the decision making process.  It is also found in Indian written examples that the right to rule is acquired through merit or consensus and is not hereditary.  The validity of voters has been continuously discussed in various democratic institutions like councils and committees.  Indian democracy is truly a celebratory celebration of people’s truthfulness, cooperation, coordination, peace, empathy and collective strength.

Current Usage / Modern Usage

Both ‘Jai Hind’ and ‘Jai Bharat’ are seen in use in contemporary India, reflecting the coexistence of different cultural and linguistic traditions.  For example, both expressions are used in most major speeches (such as the Independence Day address), which reflects the recognition of the diverse historical and cultural fibers that form the fabric of the nation.

India and Bharat are two terms often used to describe different aspects of India’s society and governance. These terms represent the dichotomy between the modern, urbanized, and globalized face of the country (India) and the traditional, rural, and culturally rooted aspects (Bharat). Understanding the concept of India vs Bharat helps in understanding the complexities of democracy in India.

India, as a country, has seen rapid economic growth, technological advancements, and cultural diversification. It is home to megacities like Mumbai, Delhi, and Bangalore, which are hubs of innovation, commerce, and urban development. India represents the modern aspirations of its citizens, often associated with democracy, secularism, and individual rights.

On the other hand, Bharat embodies the traditional and rural aspects of the country. It represents the villages, small towns, and remote areas where traditional customs, social structures, and cultural practices are deeply rooted. Bharat is associated with traditional agriculture, community-based governance, and a focus on collective welfare.

When discussing democracy in India, it is essential to consider the challenges and tensions that arise due to the coexistence of these two contrasting aspects. India’s democracy aims to ensure equal representation and opportunity for all citizens, regardless of their urban or rural background. However, disparities in education, infrastructure, and socio-economic development create significant gaps between India and Bharat.

One of the challenges faced in democratizing Bharat is the limited access to quality education and resources in rural areas. This lack of educational opportunities can hinder individuals from actively participating in the democratic process, making them more susceptible to misinformation and manipulation.

Another challenge is the digital divide between India and Bharat. While urban areas have access to advanced technology and internet connectivity, rural areas often face connectivity issues, limiting their access to information and online services. Bridging this digital divide is crucial to empowering citizens in Bharat to participate fully in the democratic process.

Furthermore, the representation of Bharat in the Indian political system is a topic of scrutiny. While urban areas have a strong political presence and influence, the voices of rural communities might not receive the same attention. The rural-urban divide can lead to a lack of understanding and representation of the concerns and needs of the rural population.

Efforts have been made to address these challenges and ensure that democracy reaches every corner of India. Initiatives like Digital India, which aim to provide internet connectivity and digital literacy in rural areas, have made progress in bridging the digital divide. Promoting inclusive education and decentralized governance structures can also contribute to a more equitable democratic system.

It is important to recognize that the India vs Bharat dichotomy is not an absolute division, but rather a spectrum along which every Indian citizen exists. Many individuals navigate between the modern and traditional aspects, contributing to the complex tapestry of Indian society.

In conclusion, understanding India vs Bharat is crucial to comprehend the of democracy in India. While India represents the modern, urbanized, and globalized aspects, Bharat embodies the traditional, rural, and culturally rooted facets. Balancing the interests, needs, and aspirations of both India and Bharat is an ongoing challenge in India’s democracy, requiring efforts to bridge the gaps in education, infrastructure, representation, and digital connectivity. complexities

Bharat Vs India: Historical Back Ground

It’s related to ‘Bharat’ and ‘India’ Origin of names: The word ‘India’ and its other variants (such as ‘Hind’ in Arabic-Persian or Hindustan in Turkish) are of foreign origin.  These names were historically used by outsiders to refer to the Indus or the lands south and east of the Indus River.

Historical usage: The term ‘Hindustan’ was often used to refer to the northern regions of the Indian subcontinent during Afghan and Mughal rule.

Later, European colonial powers, especially the British, used the term ‘India’ to describe not only the northern region but the entire subcontinent.  For them, it was primarily a geographical designation.

Syncretistic word ‘Hind’: Leaders like Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose advocated a syncretic word ‘Hind’, which could be acceptable to the wider population including people of different religions.

The word ‘Hind’ is still in use today and expressions like ‘Jai Hind’ reveal its enduring importance in Indian culture.

Balance Between India Vs Bharat : Balance between ‘Bharat’ and ‘India’:-

Adoption of the Constitution: The Indian Constitution was originally adopted in English by the Constituent Assembly.  This underlines the historical and legal importance of the English version as the fundamental text of the Constitution.

Publication of Hindi translation: Apart from the English version, the Hindi translation of the Indian Constitution was published in the year 1950.  This translation was signed by the members of the Constituent Assembly and was done in accordance with a resolution passed by the Constituent Assembly.

Official status of both versions: The existence of both English and Hindi versions of the Constitution underlines their official status within the Indian legal framework.

This reflects the importance of providing access to the Constitution in both the official languages of India—English and Hindi.

Article 1(1): Article 1(1) of the Constitution defines the name and nature of the country.  The English version states – “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States”;  Here the emphasis is on the word ‘India’ as the primary name.

The Hindi version reads – “Bharat, i.e. India, will be a union of states”;  Here the name ‘India’ has been given prominence.

Conclusion

In conclusion, understanding India vs Bharat is crucial to comprehend the of democracy in India. While India represents the modern, urbanized, and globalized aspects, Bharat embodies the traditional, rural, and culturally rooted facets. Balancing the interests, needs, and aspirations of both India and Bharat is an ongoing challenge in India’s democracy, requiring efforts to bridge the gaps in education, infrastructure, representation, and digital connectivity.

Such a name change could alienate parts of the country that prefer the name ‘India’ rather than ‘Bharat’.  Public sentiment and regional preferences regarding the country’s name are diverse and should be considered in any decision.  Any deviation from this tradition may have cultural and identity implications.  The use of ‘India’ in English and ‘Bharat’ in Hindi reflects the linguistic diversity of India and is considered prudent and constitutionally correct.

Reference

1.     Austin Granville 2004, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, Delhi: Oxford University press.

2.     Barrow,Ian J2003, From Hindustan to India: naming change in changing names’, Journal of South Asia studies.

3.     Olivelle, Patrick 2004, The Law cade of Manu: A New translation by Patrick Olivelle, Oxford: Oxford University press.

4.     Pal, Bipin Chandra 2010, The soul of India: A constructive study of Indian Thought and Ideals, Delhi Rupa I co.,

Smith, John, India, London, K Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.Ltd, 1894