Why Is 'India' Being Replaced By 'Bharat' On University Degrees?

The debate over the use of “India” versus “Bharat” has resurfaced after several universities and educational institutions began issuing degree certificates carrying the word “Bharat” instead of “India” or giving greater prominence to the Hindi name. The development has reignited a wider political and constitutional discussion over the country's official identity and whether the government is gradually moving towards replacing “India” with “Bharat” in official documents.

 Why Is The Bharat Debate Back?

The controversy gained attention after reports emerged that some universities were issuing degrees and certificates using “Bharat” in place of “India.” The move comes amid a broader trend in recent years where government communications, official invitations and policy documents have increasingly featured the term “Bharat.”

The issue first became a national debate in 2023 when invitations for the G20 Summit dinner referred to the President as the “President of Bharat.” Since then, discussions over the use of the country's Hindi name have continued in political and academic circles.

Who Is Behind The Push?

Supporters of the move, including several leaders from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the RSS, argue that “Bharat” reflects the country's civilisational heritage and indigenous identity more accurately than “India,” a name associated with the colonial era.

They contend that using “Bharat” strengthens cultural self-confidence and reconnects the modern republic with its historical roots. Critics, however, view the push as politically motivated and argue that both names have long coexisted without controversy.

Opposition parties have accused the government of attempting to alter established constitutional practices and divert attention from more pressing issues.

What Does Article 1 Of The Constitution Say?

The debate often centres on Article 1 of the Constitution, which states: “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.”

The provision deliberately recognises both names. During the Constituent Assembly debates, members discussed various alternatives before agreeing on the formulation that acknowledged both “India” and “Bharat.”

As a result, the Constitution does not place one name above the other. Both enjoy equal constitutional recognition.

Is Bharat Already An Official Name?

Yes. “Bharat” is already one of the country's official constitutional names. Government documents, laws, court proceedings and official communications can legally use either “India” or “Bharat.”

Various Indian languages have historically used the term "Bharat” while “India” remains the country's most widely recognised name internationally. Both names appear across official institutions and public records.

Can The Government Remove 'India' Completely?

No government can simply eliminate the term “India” through an executive order or administrative decision. Since the name is embedded in Article 1 of the Constitution, removing it would require a formal constitutional amendment.

Any attempt to replace “India” entirely would likely trigger significant political, legal and diplomatic debates.

What Would Need To Change?

To remove “India” from Article 1, Parliament would need to pass a Constitutional Amendment Bill with a special majority in both Houses. 

Beyond constitutional changes, numerous laws, institutions, treaties, passports, currency documents and international agreements would require revision.

Have Other Countries Changed Their Names?

Yes. Several countries have changed or updated their official names to reflect historical, cultural or political considerations. Examples include Sri Lanka, which was formerly known as Ceylon; Myanmar, previously Burma; Türkiye, which requested wider international use of its Turkish name instead of Turkey; and Eswatini, formerly Swaziland.

However, such changes generally involved formal legal processes and extensive domestic and international adjustments. In India's case, both “India” and “Bharat” are already constitutionally recognised, making the current debate less about adopting a new name and more about which of the two existing names should receive greater official prominence.