The debate surrounding the use of ‘India’ versus ‘Bharat’ was rekindled when a special session of the Parliament was announced, coupled with the President’s invitation to G20 delegates, which referred to ‘President of Bharat.’ This debate intensified further when a senior politician proclaimed that ‘India’ was a name imposed upon the nation by the British. To gain a comprehensive understanding of this issue, it is imperative to delve into the historical origins of both names.
The earliest reference to ‘India’ can be traced back to the Rig Veda, an ancient Indian text, where it mentions ‘Sapta Sindhu,’ denoting the seven territories surrounding the river Sindhu. Interestingly, the Persians pronounced Sindhu as ‘Hindu,’ which is evident from the holy book of Zoroastrians, where ‘Sapta Sindhu’ is referred to as ‘Hapt-Hindu,’ signifying the territory around the river. In 516 BC, Darius I, a Persian king, conquered the Sindhu Valley, leading to the Greeks learning about ‘Hind’ through the Persian empire, which subsequently evolved into ‘Indus’ due to differences in pronunciation. The Greek historian Herodotus mentions the ‘Indus’ river and ‘Indian’ in his writings. ‘India’ was already in use during Alexander the Great's invasion of the Indian subcontinent. It was employed to describe the geographic area located across the Indus river.
On the other hand, the name ‘Bharat’ finds its roots in ancient Indian literature and the epic ‘Mahabharata.’ It is associated with Emperor Bharata, who is believed to have ruled over a vast domain of land, which was comparatively larger than today’s India. During the Vedic period, ‘Bharat’ signified fire, king, and world protector. The oldest known mention of ‘Bharatvarsha’ can be found in the inscriptions of Hathigumpha.
From this historical perspective, it becomes evident that both ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’ along with other names like Aryavat, Hindustan, Tianzhi, Jambudweep are names with thousands of years of history, each carrying unique cultural and historical significance.
The recent debate surrounding the potential renaming of a nation that was established 76 years ago, raises concerns about political tactics reminiscent of divide and rule. As of today, India occupies a prominent position on the global stage, emerging as a pivotal actor in diplomatic affairs. However, with pressing challenges such as significant poverty, hunger, sectarian tensions, and a crime rate of 445.9 per 100,000 individuals, the proposal to rename the country appears misplaced, especially when considering its well-established identity over nearly eight decades.
The citizens of India, also recognized as Bharat, ought to prioritize national growth and international collaboration. Strengthening the nation’s foundation should be the primary agenda, encompassing poverty alleviation, promoting a transparent and corruption-free administration, ensuring women’s safety, and above all, fostering the unity of its people. The Constituent Assembly, responsible for framing India’s Constitution, deliberated extensively on the nation’s nomenclature before reaching a consensus. Recognizing the cultural and linguistic diversity of India, the adoption of dual nomenclature, ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’, symbolizes its multifaceted identity.