The nation really needs a healthy debate on Bhaarat versus India regarding an appropriate name for our nation. Needless to add, this is a matter of national pride.
How many countries in the world have two names? One constitutionally documented and another probably an English translation for people who cannot pronounce it correctly. Since English or any other European language-speaking people had a problem pronouncing names of eastern origin, they changed names of countries and their peoples according to their convenience, which we blindly accepted. We, in India for example, function with two names for our country. The original name, ‘Bhaarath,’ as derived from our historical past; and the name was given by our invaders, ‘India.’ These invaders, who came up to the river Sindhu, pronounced it as Hindhu. In the course of time, this became Indus which became India which they found easiest to pronounce. The name has finally stuck on us for several centuries now.
Our historians should give a satisfactory explanation for the evolution of this name “India” and trace its origin. In my own research, I have not found this name India either in the Vedas, Puranas, Itihasas, or even in the Amarakosha. The ancient scriptures say “Jambu Dweepe, Bhaarata Varshe….” And, from time immemorial, a meaningful Padam in Samskrith mentions Bhaarat that has been in vogue for centuries. Can anyone refute these facts?
Mahatma Gandhi wanted to dissolve the Indian National Congress after Independence to form another party with an indigenous nomenclature. Fearing an identity crisis, his political descendants did not heed his advice.
Yet our Constitution called this country by the name “India” which we have used liberally even after our country gained independence from foreign invaders. While our leaders proudly use the name “Bharatha” or “Bhaaratamaata” when they speak in our Rashtrabhaasha or vernacular languages, they switch over to call this nation “India” while addressing the nation in English. I think we prefer to call our country “India” for the benefit of non-Bhaarateeyas.
While our neighbouring country Srilanka eschewed the name Ceylon long ago (that name is not used anywhere even by mistake) we, in this country, prefer to cling on to that name left behind by our invaders. If our present rulers thought it appropriate to change the names of cities, streets, and airports from their British or Muslim nomenclatures, why have we not thought fit to do the same with our country’s name? Instead of using two names, which is ridiculous, we should restore the original name Bhaarat, and let the world know who we are as a historical race.
According to political analysts, Mahatma Gandhi wanted to dissolve the Indian National Congress after Independence to form another party with an indigenous nomenclature. Fearing an identity crisis, his political descendants did not heed his advice. They continued to fight the national elections under the same familiar name of the ‘Indian National Congress.’ A splinter group from that party, however, called themselves the Janata Party which later became the Bharatiya Janata Party. Since changing the name of our country to Bhaarat may be advantageous to the ruling BJP, the Congress opposition may not agree to the change. Since this issue has political implications, the nation really needs a healthy debate on the question of Bhaarat versus India to arrive at an amicable solution regarding an appropriate name for our nation. Needless to add, this is a matter of national pride.
Note:
1. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.
BJP accuses Rahul of grossly violating the Model Code of Conduct at Coimbatore in Tamil…
'Women empowerment' in the current scenario Women's rights, women's equality, and women empowerment are hot…
Iranian counterpart was responsive and assured he would understand the situation and help, says Jaishankar…
Israel-Iran war continues to fuel gold prices On Monday, Gold prices surged on the Multi…
Jaishankar calls for avoiding escalation and exercising restraint as tensions between Israel and Iran continue…
MCC nodal officer issues warning to Shashi Tharoor over 'unverified claims' The sitting Thiruvananthapuram Congress…
This website uses cookies.
View Comments
Article 1 Clearly states in itself That
India,That is BHARATA Shall be union of states...
The Past name was India and New Name Bharat shall be union of States
Not india shall be Union of states
Same line wrote in both Hindi and english constitution copies...
Jai Bharata🇮🇳
Agree it is time to change country name to any Sanskrit meaning which the sanskrit will decide that is symbolic of our hindu culture.... ..Use of of ...sthan is not Islamic, it is very sanskrit word.
The Word Hindusthan is also used by many meaning where Hindus live. This is probably persian/ arabic origin used by the muslim invaders Many East Asian countries use the word Hindu for India. Constitution clearly says Bharath. It is only the usage of word Bharath is lacking. First start using the word in central Govt usage and states will follow suit.
Who lived on this Land at first, inhabitants of Black skin with brown skin were the original inhabitants. Shiva is the first person who lived with his wife called Parvathi and his progeny. He lived in a place called Kashi ( InChina)
beside Manasarovar near mount Kailash (Unclimbed ). Shiva is also called Pashupatinath. The seal was discovered at the Harappa and Mahenj0-daro site of the Indus valley civilization. Shiva is one of the most significant Mahayogi. Indus days are much before the emergence of the Vedic cult. The language of Indus people was established on seals. Yoga was his regular practice with the dance. OM is the original symbol of the Indus people.
Can we also think to give The name to his land-SHIVA BHOOMI .
Modi government must change the name now.
It is long overdue
Where is need for a debate? India is already Bharat, and the backing for Bharatha is so rock solid and the one for India is so shallow that it's no contest. Moreover there is no such thing in India called an 'amicable' debate. It'll only give the usual suspects another excuse to scream and shout. Why even give room for it?
Indian constitution already says,'1. (1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.' In Hindi, it's even more direct - 'भारत का संविधान
उद्देशिका
हम, भारत के लोग, भारत को एक 1
[संपूर् ण प्रभुत्ि-संपन्न समाजिादी
पंथननरपेक्ष लोकतंत्रात्मक गर्राज्य] बनाने के शलए, तथा उसके समस्त नागररको.....
So better to leave well enough alone.
But what we can do is - Begin using the term Bharatha every time we speak or write of our nation. Even when we speak in English to outside audiences or readers. Soon it will become commonplace and even the rest of the world will begin using it.
The name India has to be erased.
Burma is Myammar
Ceylon is Sri Lanka
etc
The name India should be been erased in 1947.
Like Article 370, it must be removed.
The sooner the better.
The country is known as Aryavarth, i.e the land of Aryans. Arya means noble and therefore the Country was called Aryavarth, inhabited by Aryans, The word Bharath of course is there and in the Sankalpa pronounced before any ritual, the country is called Bharatha Varsha, Bharath khande and so on. In the fitness of things the Country shall be called Aryavarha or Bharath harsh, Bharath means the bestowed of Knowledge and not because the country was ruled by ruler by name Bharath
Hence in the fitness of things that the country shall be called Aryavarth and inhabitants as Aryas. In the alternative the country shall be called Bharath varsh and the inhabitants as Bharathis. The term India imposed by foreigners shall go immediately, In fact I wrote many letters to late Vajpayee and also to the present P.M but no action taken,