Opinion: India To Bharat? Examining Precedents And Their Outcomes

The host nation of this year's Group of 20 summit has two official names: India and Bharat. The first was inherited from the country's former British overlords; the other derives from Sanskrit and emanates an ancient sanctity. There was much social media fluttering, therefore, when a dinner invitation went out to conference guests from the "President of Bharat," rather than the expected and globally familiar appellation. Prime Minister Narendra Modi prefers the Sanskrit. Indeed, the word echoes in his ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

There have been relatively recent precedents for change among other former British colonies. Burma, Rhodesia and Ceylon are now officially Myanmar (1989), Zimbabwe (1980) and Sri Lanka (1972), respectively. Why shouldn't India decide which name it prefers?

One deterrent is that any rebranding comes late in India's rise to global prominence. It takes some work to make things stick. Zimbabwe was helped by the the association of its former name with white minority rule. I still run into people who call Sri Lanka, Ceylon. The Burma-to-Myanmar is so recent that even experts stumble from one into the other.