Despite the fact that Article 1 of the Constitution uses the two names interchangeably: “India, or Bharat, shall be a union of nations,” there are concerns that the country’s name will be officially changed from India to Bharat. There is speculation. Also, some names, such as Reserve Bank of India and Indian Railways, already have Hindi variations including ‘Bharatiya’.
In June 2020, the Supreme Court rejected a PIL seeking to remove “India” from the Constitution and retain only Bharat in order to “ensure the people of this country…move beyond its colonial past.” He said: “India is already called Bharat in India” is the very constitution. ”
So where did the name ‘Bharat’ come from?
The roots of ‘Bharat’, ‘Bharata’ or ‘Bharatvarsha’ go back to Puranic literature and the epic Mahabharata. The Puranas describe Bharat as the land between “the sea in the south and the abode of snow in the north.”
Social scientist Catherine Clementin Ojha described Bharat in terms of a religious and socio-cultural entity rather than a political or geographical one. “Bharat” refers to “a supra-regional and subcontinental area in which a Brahmanical social system prevails,” Clementine-Ojha wrote in his 2014 paper “India, it is Bharat…”: One Nation , writing in two names (South Asia Interdisciplinary Academic Journal). .
Bharata is also the name of the legendary ancient king who was the ancestor of the Rig Vedic tribe of Bharatas, and by extension, the ancestor of all the peoples of the subcontinent.
In January 1927, Jawaharlal Nehru spoke of the “fundamental unity of India” that had existed since “the distant past”, that is, the “unity of common faith and culture”. India is the holy city of Hinduism, Bharat, and it is no wonder that the great places of Hindu pilgrimage are located in the four corners of India: the southernmost point overlooking Ceylon, the westernmost point washed by the Arabian Sea, and the easternmost point. Not. It faces the Bay of Bengal and the Himalayas to the north. ” (2nd collection of selected works)
So what about “India” and “Hindustan”?
The name Hindustan is believed to be derived from “Hindu”, the Persian cognate form of the Sanskrit word “Sindhu” (Indus). The term became popular with the Achaemenid Persian conquest of the Indus Valley (northwestern part of the subcontinent) beginning in 2001. 6th century BC (the time when Buddha lived in the Ganges River basin).
The Achaemenids used the term to identify the lower Indus River region, but from around the 1st century AD the suffix “stan” was used in its name to create “Hindustan”.
The Greeks, who gained knowledge of ‘Hind’ from the Achaemenids, transliterated the name as ‘Indus’. By the time King Alexander of Macedon invaded India in the 3rd century BC, “India” had come to be identified with the region beyond the Indus River.
By the early Mughal Empire (16th century), the name “Hindustan” was used to refer to the entire Indo-Gangetic plain. Historian Ian J. Barrow writes in his article “From Hindustan to India: Name Change in Name Change” (Journal of South Asian Studies, 2003): Emperor of the Mughal Empire, which comprised most of South Asia. ”
From the late 18th century onwards, the name ‘India’ was often used on British maps, and ‘Hindustan’ began to lose its association with South Asia as a whole. “Part of the appeal of the term India may have been its Greek and Roman ties, its long history of use in Europe, and its adoption by scientific and bureaucratic organizations such as the Survey of India,” Barrow said. wrote.
“The adoption of India suggests how colonial nomenclature marked a shift in perspective and helped guide an understanding of the subcontinent as a single, bounded British political territory.” he added.
How did “Bharat” and “India” come into the Constitution?
In his monumental ‘Discovery of India’, Nehru refers to ‘India’, ‘Bharat’ and ‘Hindustan’ as follows: Bharata is an old Sanskrit name derived from the mythical founder of this race. ”
However, when the question of naming India in the constitution arose, ‘Hindustan’ was dropped, leaving both ‘Bharat’ and ‘India’.
During the Constituent Assembly debates, on September 17, 1949, the “Name and Territory of the Union” came up for discussion. From the moment the first article was read, “India, or Bharat, shall be a Union of States,” divisions arose within the membership. Many members objected to the use of the name “India” as a reminder of the country’s colonial past.
Hari Vishnu Kamath suggested that the first article should be “Bharat, this is what India will look like in English”. Seth Govind Das, representing the Central Provinces and Berar, proposed “Bharat to be known abroad as India”.
well read
When Dulquer Salmaan had to take out his Porsche to command respect on the set of a film, ‘suddenly they brought a chair for me’
Kriti Sanon says the choreographer yelled at her in front of 50 people. “I started crying. I will never work with her again.”
Hargobind Pant, who represented the hill regions of the Union states, clarified that the people of north India “want only Bharatvarsha and nothing else”.
Mr Pant argued: “As far as the word “India” is concerned, our members seem to have some attachment to it, for reasons which I really cannot understand.” We must know that this name was given to our country by foreigners who took away our freedoms in order to acquire our wealth. And yet we cling to the word ‘India’. If we did, it would only show that we are not ashamed of this derogatory term imposed upon us by our alien masters.”
None of the proposals were accepted by the committee. But, as Clementin-Olla points out in his article, they “depict contrasting visions of the emerging nation.”