An invitation from the MEA to G20 members for a dinner addressing Droupadi Murmu as the "President of Bharat" has sparked a row.
Published Sep 05, 2023 | 8:02 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 05, 2023 | 8:30 PM
Representational photo of the Indian flag. (Creative Commons)
An invitation extended by the Union Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) for G20 delegates, which identifies Droupadi Murmu as the “President of Bharat” instead of the “President of India”, has sparked a row.
With leaders of the ruling BJP crediting it as a move towards “Amit Kaal”, questions have been raised on whether the Narendra Modi government at the Centre intends to replace “India” with “Bharat” as the norm and whether “India” would be dropped entirely from official usage.
South First spoke to Constitutional experts on what such a move would mean and what it would take to make such changes.
A Constitutional amendment is not required if the Union government decides to use “Bharat” along with “India”, which is what experts opined, but there is more to it.
Article 1 of the Constitution says “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States”.
Varying views have been expressed ever since the MEA invite went viral on the morning of Tuesday, 5 September, with several Opposition parties objecting to the replacement.
From a purely legal point of view, however, the reading is different.
“I don’t find anything objectionable about using ‘Bharat’ because Article 1 mentions both ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’,” noted retired Supreme Court judge Justice J Chelameswar.
“Legally speaking, the invitation from the President can go out as President of Bharat,” he added.
A former chief justice of a high court expressed a similar opinion. According to him, there was nothing illegal in the way the invitation had been drafted and the use of Bharat in the place of India wherever the government intended to.
Take, for example, currency notes that are currently issued in the name of the Reserve Bank of India. If the government decides to change India to Bharat, all it needs to do is bring in an amendment to the RBI Act.
If the government decides to change it to the Reserve Bank of Bharat, both the current and future currency notes can be valid if it’s given a prospective effect.
If the Union government, however, intends to replace “India” with “Bharat” and use only the latter for all official purposes, it would require a Constitutional amendment, said the experts.
In such an event, whether it breaches the basic structure of the Constitution is again a matter of legal interpretation.
The overwhelming view, however, appears to be that the move is meant more for optics than any serious intent of changing the Constitution.
Politically, it’s an apparent counter to the Opposition bloc Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance, whose acronym is INDIA.
It is also being seen as an attempt to cater to the core vote bank of the BJP ahead of the upcoming elections to several state Assemblies, where the prospects of the saffron party are not seen to be as bright.
