.png){kind=small}
There’s one thing that’s been dominating the global socio-political chatter in the past few days, outside of the grand and extravagant G20 Summit that concluded in New Delhi yesterday. The renaming of India to Bharat. The topic has quickly made it to the high table of discussion among political analysts, media channels, historians, and branding experts, who have formed several theories in support/dismissal of the argument. But why all the fuss about the name change? If corporations, councils, buildings, roads, and our own species of homo sapiens can undergo a name change, why not a country? And haven't countries done this in the past?
Be it Southern Rhodesia changing its name to Zimbabwe, Swaziland to Eswatini, Czech Republic to Czechia, Burma to Myanmar, Siam to Thailand, Ceylon to Sri Lanka or the most recent case of Turkey renaming itself to Türkiye – countries have gone in for overhauling their name for various reasons ranging from breaking away from colonial associations and improving administrative efficiency to minimizing confusion (owing to similarity to objects or places as was the case with Swaziland and Turkey) and upholding ancient cultural ethos. The first and the last, arguably are the key catalysts driving India’s reported plan of renaming itself, but there’s more to it - what I call the interplay of 3Ps.
First, a well-timed and smartly-planned poll plank by the Modi government to counter the opposition parties’ INDIA party, floated a few weeks ago. The move has to be seen in the light of growing chorus of ‘Judega Bharat, Jeetega India’ tagline for INDIA alliance that follows the tremendous outreach and success of the Congress party’s ‘Bharat Jodo Yatra’ earlier this year. Beyond the wordplay, what’s evident is the ruling party’s big, bold and smart move to announce to the global community, its intent of rebranding through high-profile global events such as the 15th BRICS Summit in South Africa, the 18th East Asia Summit in Indonesia to the grand display at the 18th G20 Summit. In a pre-election year, this may perhaps help add ammunition to its nationalist agenda. With two more months left before India’s G20 Presidency term comes to a close, the government might make necessary overtones to drive the message loud and clear, exert its voice as the leader of Global South, and solidify its perception of Hindutva supremacy.
Image by nitinkathole88 from Pixabay
Second, the push to embrace Bharat as the official name reflects the government’s desire to assert a renewed sense of national pride by reconnecting with the nation’s historical and mythological heritage, while driving the narrative on ‘cultural nationalism’. The proponents’ argument is that Bharat, which finds reference in the ancient holy texts of Vedas, Puranas and epic of Mahabharat is the original name of the land, aka Bharat Varsha that was inhabited by the descendants of King Bharata. Second argument is, it resonates more with Hindi, India’s national language, projecting a more authentic representation of the nation’s identity. The claim that the word ‘India’ has been derived from the Sanskrit word ‘Sindhu’ which was used by the Greeks and Persians to refer to the region of Indus Valley, and subsequently evolved into ‘India’ under British rule, has been dismissed as the anglicized version reflective of ‘colonial slavery’.
The third angle, which is perhaps the kingpin to this whole renaming saga, is the intention of the Modi government to exert and expand India’s soft power (a term coined by the eminent American political scientist Joseph Nye in 1990), on global stage. The timing chosen is crucial just when the world is taking note of the country’s resounding success of Chandrayaan-3 (the lunar mission), the consensus on joint declaration at G20 Summit and India’s leadership of Global South, and growing accolades/wins at major international sporting events such as World Archery Championship, World Athletics Championships including its record haul of seven medals at the Tokyo Olympics. The recognition of International Day of Yoga and the International Year of Millets 2023 by the UN at the behest of Indian government, the singular focus on promoting alternative therapies in medicine – Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy, are all well-coordinated attempts aimed at enhancing India’s soft power (or at least the perception), eventually with an objective of securing a permanent seat at the UN Security Council. However, for now beyond topping headlines and making for great optics, the name change to Bharat may not yield much geopolitical dividend unless India manages to enter the top league in various soft power index rankings. (India ranked 28 in the Brand Finance’s 2023 Global Soft Power Index, an improvement from 36th rank in 2021).
Keeping aside the reasons for the government’s choice of using the ancient monicker ‘Bharat’ in recent official communications, a name change at such a large scale is going to have several implications at various levels. To begin with, any rebranding is a tedious exercise that should be done with abundance of caution and meticulous research. Brand ‘India’ is a well-established one with an age-old reputation built over centuries. Shedding that to embrace a name that better represents cultural ethos, may confuse the global community, hurt trade and tourism, and dilute brand equity.
Secondly, the rebranding exercise is going to be an expensive affair costing a huge sum to the national exchequer. According to a model used by a South African blogger, this could cost upwards of Rs 14,000 crore, which is more than what the Centre spends every month on its food security programme.
Next is the administrative and legal challenges involved in renaming a country. While the Constitution of India recognizes both ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’ as legitimate names of the country, any change to the Preamble to replace India with Bharat would require a constitutional amendment to be passed by two-thirds majority in the two Houses of Parliament and ratified by at least half of the states. Given the ongoing row and the opposition’s outrage, this is going to be a painstakingly long process.
Lastly, the operational challenges involved in renaming a country in a digital-first era bring forth a cascade of ramifications. Whether it is changing digital domain, updating official literature, names of institutions and business enterprises or name plates of government officials, it is going to be an operational nightmare. Sri Lanka underwent a name change way back in 1972 but it took the island nation close to four decades to purge its earlier name ‘Ceylon’ from all government use. For a country that’s 50X larger than Sri Lanka (in land), it’s anyone’s guess on how this quagmire would unfold. Until then, cheers to Made in Bharat, India Meri Jaan!