Rename India as Bharat, says Congress MP

[desicanuk]

hind mahasagar

No.Thats Farsi.Indians never called their country Hind - short for Hindustan.India should signify the area inhabited by Indic peoples i.e Pakistan,Bharat,Bangladesh,Nepal and Sri Lanka.Bhutan and Sikkim would be included as well.So India would replace the term Indian sub-continent.In that case Indian Ocean would remain Indian Ocean.Of course ,we would need unanimity on part of all South Asian countries.

 

[natarajan]

I dont want as i now feel indian ocean is ours

 

[Singh]

No.Thats Farsi.Indians never called their country Hind - short for Hindustan.India should signify the area inhabited by Indic peoples i.e Pakistan,Bharat,Bangladesh,Nepal and Sri Lanka.Bhutan and Sikkim would be included as well.So India would replace the term Indian sub-continent.In that case Indian Ocean would remain Indian Ocean.Of course ,we would need unanimity on part of all South Asian countries.

What about Jai Hind

 

[Singh]

Relevant Article

Hind, Hindi, Hindu, Hindutva
​

As children in the 1940s, we used to sing, 'Hindi hai hum chalis karod'. The 400 million population of the 1940s thought of themselves as Hindi, belonging to Hind. Subhash Chandra Bose in Germany established a radio station and his slogan was Jai Hind. This is the slogan prime ministers shout from the Red Fort on Independence Day.

Bharat is another entity altogether. That is post-Partition and is in the Constitution perhaps to assuage some feeling that India should have a link with the glorious days of the Indo-Aryans. But Bharatvarsha was never all of India; at best it was Punjab, Haryana and Delhi. You could stretch it to include UP and Bihar but Bengal (Gaud) was never part of it, to say nothing about Dakshin, all the land south of the Vindhyas.

Even so, choosing Bharat was a display of a worry about the idea of calling the newly independent country Hindustan or even Hind. There was a claim that the word Hindu and Hinduism were Persian in origin and hence, by implication, Muslim and alien. This was an anachronism since the Persian language which formed the word Hind was Indo-Iranian, a branch of the Indo-European from which one arc came to India composing the Vedas. Hind is just Sindh and Hindu Sindhu. Calling India Hind rather than Bharat would have been quite alright. Hindus were just the people who lived in the land of the Indus. Savarkar's essay on Hindutva is very defensive about the word Hindu and Hindutva. His concern is about denying any alien origins of the word Hindu. He was looking for an overarching identity for all Indians (pre-Partition) and chose Hindu rather than Hindi. This was sad for a simple reason. The word Hindu was given a religious connotation by the British Census investigators. Nineteenth century British were enamoured of classification and measurement and definitions. Traditionally sceptical of such things, they embraced science, as they understood it, with unwise enthusiasm. They had to have categories for classifying their subjects. Hinduism became the label for the religion of the majority. Any self-respecting traditionalist would have spat at the word since Brahmanism is the better word or if you like, sanatan dharma.

Before the British arrived, Muslims were known as people adhering to Islam. There was no such single word for the adherents of Brahmanism. Hindu then was contrasted with Muslims as a separate entity thanks to British enthusiasm for labelling and their impatience with subtleties of any religion which was not monotheistic. Brahmanism has never been a single religion of the Abrahamic type with a Church, a clergy and liturgy. It is a multi-splendoured festival of belief in many Gods and Goddesses, many sects and open doors.

By using the label Hindutva fifty years after the British had falsely labelled the religion of the majority, Savarkar muddied the waters. Hinditva would have been much better. But he had an ideological reason for using the word he did. Whatever his protestations and those of his followers, the word was a deliberate provocation since by implication the religious connotation was carried across into the national identity. Those who were not Hindu by religion had to sign up to Hindutva because that was where they were born. If this was provocative before 1947, it became murderous after Partition.

The very idea that a nation has to have single people is a European invention. It was used to launch movements in many regions of the Austro-Hungarian Empire to break it up. The Empire was a multi-national tolerant entity just as its rival the Ottoman Empire was. States could easily contain communities differing by language and religion. The First World War broke up the two empires. Many nations were born, some such as Palestine still waiting to become nation states. There was no reason for Indians to fall for this European disease; after all, the mother country, Great Britain, was a mélange of many nationalities—Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Cornish and English.

Mohan Bhagwat has asserted that the next Prime Minister should be a champion of Hindutva. I wish he had said Hinditva. We have had enough murders wearing false labels. Even after 65 years of Independence, the nation is still fragile.

Hind, Hindi, Hindu, Hindutva - Indian Express

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Cannot agree on some one who is pushing other to see only his view based on religion mainly..

 

[Ray]

We are only enamoured by cosmetic ego salves.

It is time to look at the present and apply ourselves of the real bread and butter issues.

 

[Rage]

Rename India as Aryavarta.

 

[Dukes Mangola]

Bharatavarsha does not cover the entire territory.

Aryavarta is a meaningless term. Arya refers to a noble person. Calling India Aryavarta would be akin to an English speaking country deciding to name itself Gentlemanland. I hope people have better taste than to resort to that. Besides, there still exist ignorant fools in the country who persist in believing in the Aryan-Dravidian divide who won't let it pass without grave challenge. Good luck getting the Dravidian parties on board.

The accurate word to refer to the entire territory would be Jambudweepa. But that is also open to a form of pedantry in that the Indus river valley and half of Magadha is no longer part of the present day Republic. Perhaps Jambudweepa could be an accurate substitute to "Indian sub-continent".

There is no completely accurate term; from a geographical point of view, Jambudweepa comes closest, and from an ideological point of view, Bharatavarsha (Bharata) comes closest.

 

[Bangalorean]

No way. India is a wonderful brand name. India has been known from eons. Marco Polo set out for the fabled land of India. Columbus set sail to search for India. Vasco Da Gama went looking for India. India was the land of fabled riches, wealth, prosperity and the beacon of civilization from time immemorial.

It is positively stupid to ditch such a good brand name. We can be called both, India and Bharat. That's the current situation, and its just fine.

 

[Sambha ka Boss]

Both names Bharat and India are historical and give a sense of pride.

 

[Razor]

There is no completely accurate term; from a geographical point of view, Jambudweepa comes closest, and from an ideological point of view, Bharatavarsha (Bharata) comes closest.

What do you mean by "from a geographical point of view"?
"Dweepa" means island, right?

 

[Sambha ka Boss]

Bharat is another entity altogether. That is post-Partition and is in the Constitution perhaps to assuage some feeling that India should have a link with the glorious days of the Indo-Aryans. But Bharatvarsha was never all of India; at best it was Punjab, Haryana and Delhi. You could stretch it to include UP and Bihar but Bengal (Gaud) was never part of it, to say nothing about Dakshin, all the land south of the Vindhyas.

Now this one is complete nonsense. Here some Gyan for you.



उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम् ।
वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र संततिः ।।

uttaraṃ yatsamudrasya himādreścaiva dakṣiṇam
varṣaṃ tadbhārataṃ nāma bhāratī yatra santatiḥ

"The country (varṣam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bhāratam there dwell the descendants of Bharata."

 

[Rowdy]

sonia will have a hard time understanding what he said.

I prefer "Aryawrat"

 

[Rowdy]

Bharatavarsha does not cover the entire territory.

Aryavarta is a meaningless term. Arya refers to a noble person. Calling India Aryavarta would be akin to an English speaking country deciding to name itself Gentlemanland. I hope people have better taste than to resort to that. Besides, there still exist ignorant fools in the country who persist in believing in the Aryan-Dravidian divide who won't let it pass without grave challenge. Good luck getting the Dravidian parties on board.

The accurate word to refer to the entire territory would be Jambudweepa. But that is also open to a form of pedantry in that the Indus river valley and half of Magadha is no longer part of the present day Republic. Perhaps Jambudweepa could be an accurate substitute to "Indian sub-continent".

There is no completely accurate term; from a geographical point of view, Jambudweepa comes closest, and from an ideological point of view, Bharatavarsha (Bharata) comes closest.

It sounds cooool