Bharat

India, That is Bharat: Tracing the Names of a Nation

In the heart of India, a debate stirs. The name of the country, India, has long been intertwined with its history, culture, and identity. But whispers of change have emerged, as speculation arises about a shift from 'India' to 'Bharat.' Is it merely a matter of semantics, or does it signify a deeper transformation?

Article 1 of the Indian Constitution provides a clue, as it seamlessly uses both names: "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States." This dual nomenclature might appear puzzling to some, but it reflects the complex tapestry of India's past and present.

In recent times, opposition politicians have caused ripples by sharing images of official invitations to G20 events hosted by "The President of Bharat," instead of the customary "President of India." These subtle shifts in nomenclature have sparked curiosity and debate, but they are not without historical context.

The roots of "Bharat," "Bharata," or "Bharatvarsha" can be traced back to ancient Puranic literature and the epic Mahabharata. According to these texts, Bharata was the land between the "sea in the south and the abode of snow in the north." This definition extends beyond geography; it encompasses a religious and socio-cultural entity. 'Bharata' signifies a territory where the Brahmanical system of society prevails, as noted by social scientist Catherine Clémentin-Ojha in her 2014 article, 'India, That is Bharat…': One Country, Two Names.

Bharata is also tied to the legendary ancient king of the Rig Vedic tribe of the Bharatas, considered the forefather of all the subcontinent's peoples. This historical depth adds layers of meaning to the name 'Bharat.'

Jawaharlal Nehru, writing in 1927, alluded to the "fundamental unity of India" rooted in "a common faith and culture." He saw India as 'Bharata,' the holy land of the Hindus, with significant pilgrimage sites scattered across the subcontinent.

But what about 'India' and 'Hindustan'? These names, too, have intriguing histories.

'Hindustan' likely originated from 'Hindu,' the Persian cognate of the Sanskrit 'Sindhu' (Indus). This term gained prominence during the Achaemenid Persian conquest of the Indus valley around the 6th century BC. The suffix "stan" was later added, creating "Hindustan."

The Greeks, having learned of 'Hind' from the Persians, transliterated it as 'Indus.' By the time of Alexander the Great's invasion in the 3rd century BC, 'India' was associated with the region beyond the Indus.

During the early Mughal era in the 16th century, 'Hindustan' referred to the entire Indo-Gangetic plain. However, by the late 18th century, British maps increasingly used the name 'India,' marking the decline of 'Hindustan's' association with all of South Asia.

Historian Ian J. Barrow, in his 2003 article 'From Hindustan to India: Naming Change in Changing Names,' noted that the term 'India' gained favor due to its Graeco-Roman associations, its European history of use, and its adoption by scientific and bureaucratic organizations like the Survey of India. 'India' came to signify a bounded British political territory, signaling colonial shifts in perspective.

So, how did 'Bharat' and 'India' both find a place in the Constitution? The debates surrounding the naming of India in the Constitution are enlightening. When discussions began in the Constituent Assembly on September 17, 1949, regarding the "Name and territory of the Union," a division emerged among members.

While some were against the use of 'India,' which they viewed as a reminder of colonial rule, others proposed compromises. Hari Vishnu Kamath suggested "Bharat, or in the English language, India," while Seth Govind Das proposed "Bharat known as India also in foreign countries."

Hargovind Pant, representing the hill districts of the United Provinces, advocated strongly for 'Bharatvarsha,' emphasizing that the people of Northern India "wanted Bharatvarsha and nothing else." He contended that clinging to the word 'India' would perpetuate the legacy of foreign rulers.

Ultimately, none of these suggestions were accepted, and 'Bharat' and 'India' coexisted in the Constitution. This decision mirrored the contrasting visions of a burgeoning nation, where history, culture, and politics intersected.

In conclusion, India, or Bharat, is a land of diverse histories and identities, captured in its multifaceted names. Whether this dual nomenclature continues to evolve or remains as it is, it is a reminder of the complexity and richness of a nation that has endured and adapted through millennia. The names India and Bharat, like the nation itself, tell a story of continuity and change.