Should a country be referred to as the name that the rest of the world
refers to them as or should they be referred to by their pre-colonial
name? India’s Bharat Janata Party. party certainly thinks so.
At the G20 summit hosted in New Delhi, India, earlier this year, to
members that were invited to the event by an invitation that referred to the
ceremonial president as the “President of Bharat,” leading to confusion and
speculation throughout all chambers of society.
When questioned on the matter, the government officials and other
dignitaries said that this is no odd move on their part as the constitution itself
begins with the line, “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.”
A country potentially in the process of reverting its name to a label that
does not hold negative memories for its people is normally hailed as a
celebratory moment or event; however, multiple people have criticized and
expressed their concerns over this move by the G20 committee as it now used
by many people apart of India’s Bharatiya Janata Party and their supporters,
who have been well known to be radical Hindu-nationalists and hold strong
anti-minority views. A common conclusion people have drawn regarding
the reason behind the sudden change has to do with the political ties and
tensions by India’s borders. As India is considered the world’s most populous
democracy and is one of the more influential countries in the Asiatic

continent, they have been a dependable partner for Western democracies due
to souring relations with China and its diplomats. It is also well known for
being one of the most reliable for Western nations in regards for cooperative
diplomacy.
“With the stuff going on [in that region] between China and India, I think
India may be trying to redefine itself,” Ritish Ratanpal, a sophomore and
student of Indian heritage, said.
For most, although the possible change may present itself as a surprise, the
majority of Indian students on campus have been unaffected by the change as
they are used to the address of ‘Bharat’ when they speak with their families
in their native tongue; however, when speaking in English the title of India
holds more familiarity for them when discussing the country in English.
“It’s just kind of like an internal [change to me]. I don’t think that there
will be a global impact or anything like that,” Gurkirat Tiwana, a senior and
student of Indian heritage, said.
Jeneveve Winchell-Buren, an international issues teacher here at West,
shared some concerns she had seen when reading on the issue.
“[As I] was learning about [the issue], some concerns that I had with
the name change regards to it being an intentional act to maybe exclude the
Muslim minority,” Winchell-Buren said, “and so, I am interested to see if that
is the case and if that is maybe the reason for the name change, then there
might be pushback on that front for that reason.”
And due to the strong ties India shares with the US, it is less likely
that American news stations and publications would report on India’s human
rights violations. Whether India’s government decides to formally alter the
name of its nation or not, their rebranding should not distract you from the
fact that the policies the BJP is endorsing infringe on the human rights of
millions of people living in within India’s borders.