A Name ‘India’ Worth Fighting For Uncovering the Conflicts Sparked by Country Name Alteration
 |
Constitution of India
In addition to the examples listed above, there are many other countries that have changed their names over the centuries. Some of the most notable examples include:
Persia to Iran (1935)
Siam to Thailand (1939)
Burma to Myanmar (1989)
Holland to Netherlands (1815)
Irish Free State to Ireland (1937)
1. Colonial rule: Many countries that were once colonies changed their names after gaining independence. This was a way to assert their sovereignty and distance themselves from their colonial past.
2.
National identity: Some countries change their
names to reflect their national identity or to promote unity among their
people. For example, the country of Rhodesia changed its name to Zimbabwe after
gaining independence from the United Kingdom.
3.
Political reasons: Some countries change their
names for political reasons. For example, the country of North Korea changed
its name from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea in 2018.
4.
Cultural reasons: Some countries change their
names for cultural reasons. For example, the country of Sri Lanka changed its
name from Ceylon in 1972.
Country name changes can be complex, but they are
also a fascinating part of world history. Certainly, changing the name of a
country for political benefit is not uncommon. It's a strategic move that
governments may employ to achieve various political goals.
The seven names of India are as follows:
- Bharat, Aryavarta, Hindustan, Tenjiku, Jambudweep, India, Hind
The name "Bhārat”, which is used for India in
multiple Indian languages, primarily originates from the Vedic Bharata tribe
mentioned in the Rigveda as a prominent kingdom within Aryavarta. Alternatively,
it is associated with Bharata, the son of King Dushyanta in the Mahabharata
epic. Initially, the term Bhārat denoted the western region of the Gangetic
Valley but later encompassed the entire Indian subcontinent.
|
History
of ‘Bharat’ according to Mahabharat: Bharata
(Sanskrit: भरत, romanized: Bharata) is a legendary
king featured in Hindu literature. He is a member of the Chandravamsha
dynasty and becomes the Chakravarti (universal monarch). He is regarded to be
the ancestor of the Pandavas, the Kauravas, Brihadhrata, and Jarasandha. The
Bhāratas, a prominent historical tribe mentioned in the Rigveda, are regarded
in Hinduism to be the descendants of Bharata. The
legend of Bharata is featured in the Adi Parva of the Mahabharata, where he
is mentioned as the son of Dushyanta and Shakuntala. The story of his parents
and his birth is related to Kalidasa's famous play, Abhijñānashākuntala. According
to popular tradition, Bhārata, the traditional name of the Indian
subcontinent, is named after Bharata.
|
Āryāvarta
“Āryāvarta”, derived from
Sanskrit, meaning "Land of the Aryans," is a term found in ancient
Hindu texts like Dharmashastras and Sutras. It refers to the northern region of
the Indian subcontinent, encompassing the Indo-Gangetic Plain and adjacent
areas where Indo-Aryan tribes settled, and where Indo-Aryan religious practices
and rituals held sway. The geographical boundaries of Āryāvarta evolved over
time, expanding eastward as the influence of Brahmanical ideology extended
during the post-Vedic era.
Tenjiku
“Tenjiku”, which translates to
"heaven," is an antiquated Japanese term referring to ancient India.
This word originates from the Japanese pronunciation of the ancient Chinese
name for India, known as "Tianzhu." On the other hand, 'Aryavarta' signifies
the "Land of the Noble People." In Sanskrit, it literally translates
to "Land of the Aryans" and was commonly used to describe the region
inhabited by people in northern India.
Hindustan
"In the thirteenth century, the term 'Hindustan'
found its earliest recorded usage in Persian, courtesy of chronicler
Minhaj-i-Siraj. He employed it to denote regions encompassing Punjab, Haryana,
and the territories lying between the Ganga and Yamuna rivers. Minhaj-i-Siraj's
usage of the term carried a political context, referring to lands within the
dominions of the Delhi Sultanate.
Hind
During the 14th century, Amir Khusrau utilized the term
'Hind' to describe the cultural essence of the region.
The Mughal Empire, spanning from 1526 to 1857, adopted the
name 'Hindustan' for its domains. Notably, the term 'Mughal' was never employed
to refer to the land itself. With the empire's expansion, 'Hindustan' also
expanded in scope. Simultaneously, the concept of 'Hindustan' representing the
entirety of the Indian subcontinent is evident in the writings of Baburnama and
Ain-i-Akbari."
The name "India" has a fascinating history. It
ultimately comes from the Sanskrit word "Sindhu," which referred to
the Indus River and the lower Indus basin in what is now modern-day Sindh,
Pakistan. The Old Persian equivalent of "Sindhu" was
"Hindu," and when Darius I conquered Sindh in about 516 BCE, the
Persian term "Hinduš" was used to describe the province in the lower
Indus basin.
Scylax of Caryanda, an explorer for the Persian emperor,
likely adopted this Persian name and introduced it to the Greek language.
Herodotus, a Greek historian, used the terms "Indos" for the Indus
River and "Indian" for the people of this region in his Geography.
The pronunciation change of /h/ to /ɪ/ in
the Greek word "Indos" was probably due to the Greek dialects spoken
in Asia Minor.
Over time, the Greek term "Indía" came to
represent the region beyond the Indus River, including areas up to the Ganges
delta. Megasthenes later expanded the definition to include the southern
peninsula of India.
In Latin, the term "India" was used, and it
appeared in Old English and Middle English as "Ynde" or
"Inde" under French influence. Eventually, "Indie" emerged
in Early Modern English. The name "India" returned to English usage
in the 17th century, possibly influenced by Latin, Spanish, or Portuguese.
It's worth noting that the Sanskrit word "Indu,"
which means "drop (of Soma)" or is sometimes used for
"Moon," is unrelated to the name "India," despite some
historical misconceptions.
The adoption of the name "India" by the British
can be understood through several factors:
1.
Linguistic Diversity: When
the British arrived in the Indian subcontinent, they encountered a vast array
of languages and cultures. The term "India" was already established
in European literature, making it a convenient choice.
2.
Drive for Unity and Simplification: The
British sought a unified term that was recognized in European circles, aiding
in administrative ease and governance of the diverse regions they controlled.
"India" provided this unity.
3.
Political Implications: While
"Bharat" held cultural and historical significance, "India"
was seen as a more neutral and politically expedient choice. It potentially
made it easier for the British to establish and maintain control over the
region.
4.
Constitutional Recognition: The
Indian Constitution acknowledges both names, stating that "India, that is
Bharat, shall be a Union of States." This recognition reflects the
historical complexity of the naming.
5.
Current Speculation: In
recent times, there have been discussions about reverting to the name
"Bharat." Such debates have even surfaced on international platforms
like the G20 summit. However, these discussions are often rooted in cultural
and nationalist sentiments.
6.
Cultural and Historical Significance:
"Bharat" has deep historical roots, tied to Hindu epics like the
Ramayana and Puranic literature. Despite British influence, it continues to
hold a significant place in Indian culture.
The adoption of "India" by the British
was influenced by linguistic practicality, the need for administrative unity,
political considerations, and historical factors. The coexistence of both
"India" and "Bharat" in the Indian Constitution reflects
the rich tapestry of India's cultural and historical heritage.
Article 1(1): Article 1(1) of the Constitution defines the
name and character of the country. In the English version, it states "India,
that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States," emphasizing
"India" as the primary name.
“The word 'India' is not derogatory”
1. It
possesses a remarkable indigenous heritage. Within the vast and diverse corpus
of sacred and Sanskrit literature, the essence of 'India' may not be explicitly
named, but its essence is intricately woven into the tapestry of culture and
wisdom. The term 'India' may not be prevalent in Buddhist or Jain texts, but
the spirit of this land transcends words and permeates their teachings. Across
South Asia's myriad languages, the essence of 'India' may be expressed
differently, but its enduring presence is unmistakable.
2. The
name ‘India’ is indeed an exonym, a name bestowed upon us by outsiders.
However, this very history of foreign nomenclature is a testament to our
resilience and the diverse influences that have shaped our identity over
millennia. Our nation's pride does not stem from the origin of its name but
from the strength, culture, and unity of its people. We have transformed
'India' into a symbol of endurance and adaptation, embracing the richness of
our history while forging our own path forward. How can this name be an exonym?
When does this name originate from Sindhu River one of the pride of India?
3. As
elaborated earlier, the term 'Indian' when used in a broader global context has
sometimes carried unintended and inaccurate associations with the indigenous
peoples of the Americas. It's important to acknowledge and respect the
preferences of these communities, who rightfully prefer to be identified as
'indigenous.' However, our identity as 'Indians' carries its own unique
significance and history, celebrating the diversity, resilience, and cultural
tapestry of our nation. While we recognize the sensitivities surrounding the
term, we can also take pride in redefining it positively, emphasizing our
distinct heritage and the richness of our land.
4. It
is undeniable that the term 'India' carries echoes of a colonial past marked by
exploitation and upheaval. John Keay encapsulates this historical perspective
in his book 'India: A History.' However, we can reclaim and redefine the
meaning of 'India' in a modern context, emphasizing its evolution, resilience,
and the collective aspirations of its people. Rather than dwelling on its past
connotations, we can forge a new narrative that celebrates our nation's
progress, unity, and the rich diversity that defines us today.
5. Our
wise forbearers recognized the significance of both 'India' and 'Bharat' in our
constitution, highlighting the importance of acknowledging our historical roots
and the contemporary identity of our nation, bridging the past and present.
6. The
proposal to change the country's name raises questions about its motivations.
The existing name, 'India,' carries immense historical and cultural
significance. Speculations arise whether such a change is driven by political
motives or other considerations. It's essential for the government to
transparently communicate the rationale behind this decision, ensuring it
reflects the collective will of the nation and serves the best interests of its
people. Any alteration to the country's name should be well-justified,
respecting its rich heritage and the sentiments of its diverse populace to
maintain trust and unity within the country.
This blog delves into the controversy surrounding the
proposed alteration of the country name 'India.' It highlights the conflicts
and debates triggered by this change, emphasizing the importance of preserving
the historical and cultural identity associated with the name 'India.'
Ultimately, it argues that 'India' is a name worth defending.
You can address your mother using various endearing terms
like 'Ma,' 'Ummi,' 'Amma,' or simply 'Mother,' but her love and care remain
unwavering.