By Frank Rausan Pereira
Speculation is rife that the government may change the country’s name to Bharat from India. A controversy erupted last week after invites were sent by President Droupadi Murmu calling herself “President of Bharat” for a dinner on the side-lines of the G20 summit.
As a practice, invitations issued by Indian constitutional bodies have always mentioned the name India when the text is in English and the name Bharat when the text is in Hindi.
For the record – According to Article 1 of the constitution, the invite is perfectly in line with it and does not violate the basic structure.
Names India goes by
Bharat and India are in common use and Hindustan/Hind appears from time-to-time. We also have another ancient name ‘Jambudweep’, that appears in our scriptures.
According to the Constitution – “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States”. The naming of the country was debated by the drafting committee of the constitution. Before the Constitutional Assembly in 1949, the country was known as Bharat, India, and Hindustan. While a good number of the drafting committee members preferred the old name, Bharat, many others favoured India. That’s what led to the Constituent Assembly choosing both the names. But India was given precedence over Bharat; that was largely due to colonial hangover and cultural imperialism imposed on us by the West.
Let’s not forget, the name also changes with context or language. In our vernacular languages we always refer to our country as Bharat or Bharata. For instance in Hindi ‘Mein Bharat ka rehne wala hoon’ (I am a resident of Bharat) … or in other regional languages – Kannada for example – namma desha, Bharata (Our country, Bharata).
The two terms are also used to describe progress or backwardness in the country. Rural India is somehow referred to as Bharat and urban, developed regions as India. For example – We will be happy when not just India, but Bharat develops, is a phrase that we’ve come to hear at webinars and discussions. Another example is of many national events or festivals with the theme – ‘Where Bharat meets India’. This clearly suggests that these two entities are different. Isn’t it confusing and derogatory?
Let’s now take a closer look at the origins of the three names mentioned above.
Bharat
“Bhārat”, the name for India in several Indian languages is the short form of Bharatvarsha, and is derived from the name of the Vedic tribe of Bharatas who are mentioned in the Rigveda as one of the principal kingdoms of the Aryavarta. It is also variously said to be derived from the name of either King Dasaratha’s son Bharat of Ramcharitmanas or King Dushyanta’s son Bharata of Mahabharata.
India
The name “India” is originally derived from the name of the river Sindhu and has been in use in Greek since Herodotus (5th century BCE). The English form “India” gained greater relevance when the country was ruled by the British from the late 18th century onwards, and was prominently used in historical maps. After gaining freedom, the country’s new leaders did not do away with the usage, but incorporated it in official documents.
Hindustan
Like India, “Hindustan” also traces its origins to the river Indus. The Persians couldn’t say Sindhu and hence referred to the mighty river as Hindu. The word made its debut in an inscription found at Persepolis in Iran, which was the capital of the Persian or Achaemenid Empire of Darius 1.
So, out of the three names currently in use for the country, only the name ‘Bharat’ is a name native to us, i.e., a name given to us by ourselves. Whereas, two of these names Hind and India, extensively used in colonial historical context, are the names given to us by outsiders. They both come from the same source: the river Sindhu.
Bharat or India?
India is a name given to us by outsiders. As a word, it came to major usage thanks to our Western Colonial masters and is reminiscent of colonial disparagement, of loot, plunder and destruction. There is no mention of the word ‘India’ in our sacred scriptures or ancient literature. Neither does it exist in our Jain or Buddhist texts, nor has it been a part of our vernacular languages. Why should we take pride in a name given to us by outsiders, when we have our own indigenous name that represents our history and rich culture?
That having been said, India is a brand that has been built over the last 75 years and taken to new heights in the recent past. Also there is a great big water body that is named after India – the Indian Ocean. It is a water mass of strategic significance that is a playground for all major powers in the world. The fact that it is named “Indian Ocean” is a matter of pride for Indians. Would we like to let go of that? Especially at a time when countries like China are just waiting for an opportunity like this to strike.
There will also be apprehension in the non-Hindi speaking states that Bharat is a Hindi term and doesn’t represent the whole country. Regional sentiments are anyways at a feverish high ever since Stalin Jr’s ‘Sanatana Dharma’ remarks and this will only add fuel to the fire.
So this is where we stand as far as the India vs Bharat debate goes. If I were to choose – It would be Bharata, staying true to our Sanskrit roots and giving other vernacular languages their due as well. The name change may seem challenging at the moment, but don’t forget that it has been done and successfully so. One recent example is Turkey to Turkiye.
That having been said, the name of a nation is important but what’s even more important is its people and that is what we should be focussing on – their upliftment to the fullest.
The author is Senior Journalist and Founder of Bharata First.
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of Financial Express Online. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.