India vs. Bharat: Another case of marketing myopia?

livemint.com:

startups which copy and paste, this could prove costly economically and probably culturally as well, no matter how many pundits insist both ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’ are allowed under the Constitution. Imagine the bills of rebranding. Outlook magazine estimated it to be around ₹15,000 crore, funds which could help fight poverty.

There would be operational expenses, too, in revising all currency notes, coins, passports, sign boards, maps, letterheads, consulates and much else. Contracts handed out will also make space for corruption. Rebranding India involves reshaping the way it is perceived domestically and internationally.

Renaming is so extreme that nations rarely consider doing it, and if at all, only in exceptional circumstances. Turkey has been known as Turkiye internally since its inception in 1923, and the change faced no resistance. Ankara had its reasons.

Constitutionally, India is alternatively known as Bharat. A politically motivated switch from ‘India’ to ‘Bharat’ for all references would not only be a waste of public resources, but also an abuse of majoritarian power. Such decisions should never be one-sided, and what’s done for domestic public consumption will not help internationally.

Without full support at home, the use of Bharat may adversely affect inward tourism. Politicians may have specific constituencies in mind, but bureaucrats must demur. Globally, rebranding efforts are carried out for various reasons.

For example, when a country undergoes a significant economic shift, say from an agrarian to an industrial or knowledge-based economy, rebranding can help. Think of South Korea’s rise as an economic powerhouse. A country can also be repositioned to attract tourists and showcase a unique aspect of its