Is The Name 'India' A British Construct? (Image: Screenshot from Indian Constitution available at legislative.gov.in)
The name ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’ has come into limelight with the Rashtrapati Bhavan’s invite for a G20 dinner mentioning “Bharat”, instead of “India”. This, has sparked a debate about the origins of the names.
A true verification by the history of the names suggests that, both ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’ have been a part of the history of India as a country on its growth path, including the name ‘Hindustan’. The names can be traced from the Rig Veda to the Constitution of India, with the Article 1 in the Constitution of India, reading, “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” In the official usage terms of the nation, India and Bharat, both can be seen in use.
Looking back at the origin of the name Bharat, it can be seen coming from the Puranic literature and other Sanskrit texts which are from the first centuries of the Christian era, says Catherine Clementin-Ojha in ‘India, that is Bharat…’: One Country, Two Names’. The name refers to a region – a naturally bounded region where a specific social order prevails. Prior to being known as Bharata, the land was called Aryavarta, meaning the land of the Aryas and Aryans being the people who came into India.
Bharat is also claimed to be the land of the descendents of the mythical King Bharata. Beyond this, no clarity on this can be found but that the people of the country from then till now has passed it on through generations surpassing the colonial periods. Clementin-Ojha adds only two dimensions to it, relating to region and social.
The name India can be traced back to the Greeks. The Greeks used Indike and Latin India, which meant the land beyond the river Sindhu — which is mentioned in the Rigveda. The Arabs and Persians said Hindu while the Greeks said Indus. The name has its mention in the Byzantine ethnography, old English language as early as the 5th century, has undergone French Influence and has landed in modern English. The influence of language, its usage and region can be seen definitely visible in the name’s usage. India can also be found in Greek geographer-historian Herodotus’ work, clearly showing that it has had a wider appeal and is not restricted to any period of usage.
Meanwhile, the name Hindustan, is more attached with the Mughul period where India had political unity, which added to the cultural unity of Bharata. Catherine Clementin-Ojha, in her research says that, at the time of Independence, the names, Bharat, India, Al-Hind and Hindustan was in coexistence.
The names, all of them has shown a historical, cultural and even geographical beginnings or roots. Recently, on this largely uncoordinated debate on several social platforms, various responses have come up. The Congress leader Jairam Ramesh said, that the renaming could be an assault on the “Union of States.” Shashi Tharoor, looking at a different picture said, that, “while there is no constitutional objection to calling India “Bharat”, which is one of the country’s two official names, I hope the government will not be so foolish as to completely dispense with “India”, which has incalculable brand value built up over centuries. We should continue to use both words rather than relinquish our claim to a name redolent of history, a name that is recognised around the world.”
The names have been used interchangeably, with Nehru saying, “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.”
A search on the name India leads to the understanding that the name is not a particular construct of any administrative unit which governed India, the name does not descend from the British period in India, but has been handed over to a nation on its growth path, on its forward movements, throughout cultural and historical transformations that the country has witnessed for centuries.
