![Bharat Bharat](https://i0.wp.com/novumtimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Bharat-India.webp?resize=1024%2C761&ssl=1)
“President Droupadi Murmu’s G20 Summit Dinner Invitations Stir Controversy: ‘President of Bharat’ Takes Precedence over ‘President of India'”
President Droupadi Murmu’s dinner invitations for world leaders attending the G20 Summit in New Delhi on September 9 at Bharat Mandapam have sparked debate. Rather than using the traditional title “President of India,” these invites referred to her as the “President of Bharat.” This development was first reported by The Indian Express, and insiders believe the Ministry of External Affairs’ role in the G20 events influenced this terminology shift.
This move hasn’t gone unnoticed or without criticism. Senior Congress leader, Jairam Ramesh, vocalized his concerns on X (previously known as Twitter). He pointed out that while Article 1 of the Constitution might state, “Bharat, that was India, shall be a Union of States,” this ‘Union’ concept itself appears to be under scrutiny. Assam’s Chief Minister, Himanta Biswa Sarma, retorted by proudly calling India the “Republic of Bharat,” echoing a sentiment that celebrates India’s rich civilization moving towards a prosperous future, or “Amrit Kaal.”
The backdrop to this discussion is the anticipated parliamentary session from September 18-22. Rumours suggest that proposals to drop ‘India’ from the Constitution are afoot, replacing “India, that is Bharat” from Article 1 with just ‘Bharat’.
Reinforcing this sentiment, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief, Mohan Bhagwat, recently advocated for referring to ‘India’ as ‘Bharat’ during an event in Guwahati. Highlighting the ancient and timeless essence of the name ‘Bharat,’ Bhagwat urged citizens to adopt this moniker wholeheartedly.
As preparations continue for the G20 Leaders’ Summit 2023, set for September 9-10 at Bharat Mandapam in Pragati Maidan’s international convention and exhibition centre, BJP national president J P Nadda criticized Congress’s stance. He questioned the party’s patriotism and asserted that their objections seemed more rooted in political biases than genuine concern for India’s honour.