Political Time Capsule: When Mulayam sought to replace ‘India that is Bharat’ with ‘Bharat that is India’

Opposition parties in India are challenging Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the use of "President of Bharat" instead of "President of India" in G20 invitations. The Samajwadi Party, a principal partner in the opposition alliance, had previously proposed a similar idea in 2004. The party's leader at the time, Mulayam Singh Yadav, championed a resolution in the Uttar Pradesh legislative assembly to replace the phrase "India that is Bharat" with "Bharat that is India". The resolution received unanimous support, but the party has remained silent on the current issue.

LUCKNOW The recent decision by the Centre to use “President of Bharat” instead of “President of India” in official G20 invitations has stirred up opposition parties, coalescing under the banner of the INDIA alliance, to challenge Prime Minister Narendra Modi ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

Mulayam Singh Yadav (HT File)

However, one of the principal partners of the INDIA alliance, the Samajwadi Party, had previously proposed a similar idea about 19 years ago within the Uttar Pradesh legislative assembly. The then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and stalwart of the Samajwadi Party, Mulayam Singh Yadav, had championed a resolution in the state legislative assembly, urging for the replacement of the phrase “India that is Bharat” with “Bharat that is India” through a constitutional amendment.

At that juncture, Yadav had tabled the resolution, soliciting an amendment to Article 1 within Part 1 (Name and Territory of the Union) of the Indian Constitution. The state legislative assembly unanimously endorsed this proposal on August 3, 2004.

“I propose the substitution of the words ‘India that is Bharat’ with ‘Bharat that is India.’ However, it appears they are reluctant to entertain this proposal. I call upon the minister for parliamentary affairs (then Mohammad Azam Khan) to introduce a resolution to this effect. The state legislative assembly ought to pass this resolution and subsequently forward it to the parliament. Where lies the impediment in doing so? Honourable Deputy Speaker, I hereby propose the inclusion of ‘Bharat that is India’ through a constitutional amendment to the Indian Constitution. I request your permission to endorse this proposal, and I hope for unanimous support,” Yadav articulated during his speech in the state legislative assembly on August 3, 2004.

Subsequently, Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Mohammad Azam Khan indicated that the resolution had been tabled with an open mind, driven by a profound love for the country, transcending all political considerations. “It is regrettable that, even after 56 years of independence, we continue to employ the same nomenclature (imported from abroad). We cannot entirely dispense with this, as it pertains to a language issue.”

Yadav’s 2004 resolution has seemingly placed the Samajwadi Party in a quandary. On the current matter concerning the central government’s use of “President of Bharat” in the official G20 invitations, SP leaders have maintained a deliberate silence.

When contacted, SP spokesperson Rajendra Chaudhary stated that he was unaware of the 2004 resolution. “We are steadfastly defending the Constitution and preparing for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections as part of the INDIA alliance,” Chaudhary succinctly remarked, without providing further elaboration.

Regarding reports suggesting that the Samajwadi Party’s manifesto for the 2004 Lok Sabha elections promised the replacement of “India” with “Bharat” in the Constitution if the SP came to power, Chaudhary expressed uncertainty about such a commitment.

Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Suresh Khanna verified that Mulayam Singh Yadav had indeed presented the resolution on August 3, 2004. He asserted that the BJP consistently supported the use of the term “Bharat” in lieu of “India,” and the then leader of the opposition, the late Lalji Tandon, had welcomed the SP’s initiative.