India or Bharat? As the history books show, this is a question that goes back centuries.

As India prepares to host the G20 summit this weekend, state-issued invitations sent to world leaders using the word “Bharat” have ignited rumours that Narendra Modi’s nationalist government might plan to phase out the English name.

 

Some have declared it a triumphant move to finally throw off colonial chains, others have called it a disastrous vanity project by the prime minister.

In 1947, when British rule was finally overthrown, India ostensibly had three coexisting names, each with its own history, connotation and legitimacy.

There was India, a name thought to have its origins in Sanskrit, referring to the Indus River that runs through the north of the country. It was first used in different iterations by the Persians, the ancient Greeks and Romans more than 2,000 years ago and was widely adopted by British maps in the 18th century to refer to the territory in the subcontinent under British rule.

There was Hindustan, the name used by the Persians, the Greeks, Delhi sultans and the Mughals for hundreds of years to refer to a large stretch of the north and centre of the subcontinent.

 

Finally there was Bharat, a name that is traced back to an ancient Sanskrit text, the Rig Veda – written around 1500BC – which mentions the Bharata clan as one of the principal tribes occupying an area now known as north India. It is also the name of a legendary king that appears in the Sanskrit epic the Mahabharata, who Hindus claim was the father of the Indian racFor Jawaharlal Nehru, the anti-colonial leader who would go on to be India’s first prime minister, his country was all three. In his seminal book, The Discovery of India, written in 1944 after being jailed by the British, he stated: “Often, as I wandered from meeting to meeting, I spoke to my audiences of this India of ours, of Hindustan and of Bharata, the old Sanskrit name derived from the mythical founders of the race.”

 

FULL STORY

I thought India was many independent kingdoms with their own names until unified by the Brits.

8 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I thought India was many independent kingdoms with their own names until unified by the Brits.

Somehow I have a feeling native Indians might feel differently much like the native Americans feel about the American government 

10 hours ago, Tug said:

Somehow I have a feeling native Indians might feel differently much like the native Americans feel about the American government 

By itself, this usage might seem perfectly innocent. But you're not taking into account the virulent Hindu nationalist policies of the current Indian government.

24 minutes ago, placeholder said:

By itself, this usage might seem perfectly innocent. But you're not taking into account the virulent Hindu nationalist policies of the current Indian government.

This.

The irony is, they write the word Bharat in English script. 

Real nationalists would write 

भारत

Now that would make the change of name confuse the world.

It's its historical name.

On 9/7/2023 at 4:04 PM, BritManToo said:

I thought India was many independent kingdoms with their own names until unified by the Brits.

Yeah, and it took a long time to kick out the Brits. 

India has already changed the name of all its major cities. And name changing is common in the Asia region. Formosa/Taiwan, Malaya/Malaysia, Ceylon/Sri Lanka. Burma/Myanmar. Even Siam/Thailand.

20 hours ago, placeholder said:

By itself, this usage might seem perfectly innocent. But you're not taking into account the virulent Hindu nationalist policies of the current Indian government.

Right: nationalist branding. Even if the current ultra-nationalist Indian government manages to regularize the use of “Bharat” as the international (English-language) moniker for their country, it may become forever associated with that government and get ditched when more progressive leadership again takes charge in India. Like the name “Zaire,” adopted by a corrupt dictator, was discarded right after his death, or like “Myanmar” might get discarded as the English-language name for that country should the military ever be removed from power there. (Aung San Suu Kyi, when she’s speaking English, continues to use “Burma.”)

Will not change the fact that Modi is a dictator with little regard for other cultures/ethnicities in the country, albeit, a validly elected dictator.

 

Your passport is fake sir, there is no country by that name.

Borat would be more appropriate.

Looks like a lot of ex Colonial countries want to get rid of their

British past

Remembering the bad things and forgetting the good 

If that's what they want go for it ????

3 hours ago, Bangkok Barry said:

India has already changed the name of all its major cities. And name changing is common in the Asia region. Formosa/Taiwan, Malaya/Malaysia, Ceylon/Sri Lanka. Burma/Myanmar. Even Siam/Thailand.

Except Hong Kong SAR, the Capital of which is still officially Victoria the main road running through it being Queen's Road Central with many other roads in the area and throughout Hong Kong, even buildings and districts still named after former Colonial Governors such as Pottinger, Peddar, Nathan, Peel, Southorn, Blake. There are even some HK$ coins still in circulation bearing the Queens head... Elizabeth, not Victoria????     

On 9/7/2023 at 1:04 PM, BritManToo said:

I thought India was many independent kingdoms with their own names until unified by the Brits.

India or Bharat existed well before the Brits came! It is one of the oldest civilisations. Of course, at different times in its 5000 years of recorded history, there were different dynasties ruling over various swathes of territory. 

4 hours ago, shackleton said:

Looks like a lot of ex Colonial countries want to get rid of their

British past

Remembering the bad things and forgetting the good 

If that's what they want go for it ????

The depredations of the British Empire particularly of India, the jewel in the Crown, would make any country want to forget their rapacious rule, I'd think!

6 hours ago, BoganInParasite said:

Will not change the fact that Modi is a dictator with little regard for other cultures/ethnicities in the country, albeit, a validly elected dictator.

 

He's probably the most popular leader they've ever had, and international polls regularly show him as one of the top heads of state globally. 

On 9/8/2023 at 11:29 AM, Purdey said:

The irony is, they write the word Bharat in English script. 

Real nationalists would write 

भारत

Now that would make the change of name confuse the world.

Well, Bharat IS written in the Devnagri script, but obviously it has also t be wwritten in the Roman script, for those who can't read Devnagri. 

The Japanese call their country Nippon (pronounced Nihon), Egypt calls itself Masr, Germany calls itself Deutschland. And so many other examples of different national names and anglicised names. Where is the dichotomy in this?

On 9/8/2023 at 8:35 AM, placeholder said:

By itself, this usage might seem perfectly innocent. But you're not taking into account the virulent Hindu nationalist policies of the current Indian government.

I'm sorry but you have zilch idea of what you're talking about. 

On 9/7/2023 at 12:25 PM, Social Media said:

 

India or Bharat? As the history books show, this is a question that goes back centuries.

As India prepares to host the G20 summit this weekend, state-issued invitations sent to world leaders using the word “Bharat” have ignited rumours that Narendra Modi’s nationalist government might plan to phase out the English name.

 

Some have declared it a triumphant move to finally throw off colonial chains, others have called it a disastrous vanity project by the prime minister.

In 1947, when British rule was finally overthrown, India ostensibly had three coexisting names, each with its own history, connotation and legitimacy.

There was India, a name thought to have its origins in Sanskrit, referring to the Indus River that runs through the north of the country. It was first used in different iterations by the Persians, the ancient Greeks and Romans more than 2,000 years ago and was widely adopted by British maps in the 18th century to refer to the territory in the subcontinent under British rule.

There was Hindustan, the name used by the Persians, the Greeks, Delhi sultans and the Mughals for hundreds of years to refer to a large stretch of the north and centre of the subcontinent.

 

Finally there was Bharat, a name that is traced back to an ancient Sanskrit text, the Rig Veda – written around 1500BC – which mentions the Bharata clan as one of the principal tribes occupying an area now known as north India. It is also the name of a legendary king that appears in the Sanskrit epic the Mahabharata, who Hindus claim was the father of the Indian racFor Jawaharlal Nehru, the anti-colonial leader who would go on to be India’s first prime minister, his country was all three. In his seminal book, The Discovery of India, written in 1944 after being jailed by the British, he stated: “Often, as I wandered from meeting to meeting, I spoke to my audiences of this India of ours, of Hindustan and of Bharata, the old Sanskrit name derived from the mythical founders of the race.”

 

FULL STORY

The Vedas may have been first written down after 3500 BC.
Indus script is earlier than Brahmi script, which was used to write down Ashoka's Edicts.

18 minutes ago, captpkapoor said:

The depredations of the British Empire particularly of India, the jewel in the Crown, would make any country want to forget their rapacious rule, I'd think!

Time the UK stopped giving them foreign aid then.

Or maybe they should be proud enough to refuse it (fat chance)!

Edited September 9, 20232 yr by BritManToo

33 minutes ago, captpkapoor said:

I'm sorry but you have zilch idea of what you're talking about. 

Thank you for your detailed and fact-filled rebuttal. Modi fan much?

 

‘Bharat’ or ‘India’? The Controversy Over Some Hindu Nationalists' Push to Rename India

The government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has referred to India as “Bharat” in invites for a dinner party at the upcoming G-20 Summit in New Delhi, a move that has sparked controversy. 

The invites referred to the President of India, Droupadi Murmu, as “President of Bharat.” News of the invites comes two days after Mohan Bhagwat, the chief of the Hindu nationalist organization Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, an ideological mentor of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, said in a speech that the country should use the word Bharat instead of India.

https://time.com/6310821/bjp-rename-india-bharat/

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Time the UK stopped giving them foreign aid then.

Or maybe they should be proud enough to refuse it (fat chance)!

How could they afford their space program without foreign aid?

On 9/9/2023 at 2:07 AM, Bangkok Barry said:

ndia has already changed the name of all its major cities. And name changing is common in the Asia region. Formosa/Taiwan, Malaya/Malaysia, Ceylon/Sri Lanka. Burma/Myanmar. Even Siam/Thailand.

Singapore road names are still the original "British-given" ones.

On 9/9/2023 at 3:44 AM, ballpoint said:

Borat would be more appropriate.

Borat was a charcter used by Ali G   the comedian  - is he more appropriate ?

On 9/9/2023 at 9:44 AM, ballpoint said:

Borat would be more appropriate.

Yes , a very nice.

 

 

On 9/9/2023 at 4:06 PM, placeholder said:

Thank you for your detailed and fact-filled rebuttal. Modi fan much?

 

‘Bharat’ or ‘India’? The Controversy Over Some Hindu Nationalists' Push to Rename India

The government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has referred to India as “Bharat” in invites for a dinner party at the upcoming G-20 Summit in New Delhi, a move that has sparked controversy. 

The invites referred to the President of India, Droupadi Murmu, as “President of Bharat.” News of the invites comes two days after Mohan Bhagwat, the chief of the Hindu nationalist organization Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, an ideological mentor of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, said in a speech that the country should use the word Bharat instead of India.

https://time.com/6310821/bjp-rename-india-bharat/

I'm nobody's fan. Just placing facts on record here. Please do read other journals and historical volumes rather than the Western inspired view of Time, BBC, etc. The bias shows in referring to "Hindu nationalist" and similar terms. 

On 9/9/2023 at 5:55 PM, herfiehandbag said:

How could they afford their space program without foreign aid?

You think India RECEIVES foreign aid? India GIVES foreign aid, just google the figures. To Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Maldives. You're living in the previous century, buddy!

Interesting book on the subject and of those times by Gore Vidal , probably the best historical novelist I have ever read.

Creation 

"A sweeping novel of politics, war, philosophy, and adventure–in a restored edition, featuring never-before-published material from Gore Vidal’s original manuscript–Creationoffers a captivating grand tour of the ancient world.
Cyrus Spitama, grandson of the prophet Zoroaster and lifelong friend of Xerxes, spent most of his life as Persian ambassador for the great king Darius. He traveled to India, where he discussed nirvana with Buddha, and to the warring states of Cathay,  "