India or Bharat?

[Asiansoul]

G20 invitations throw up question dating back centuries

Some say use of ‘Bharat’ is move to finally throw off colonial chains, others call it disastrous Narendra Modi vanity project


Hannah Ellis-Petersen South Asia correspondent
Thu 7 Sep 2023 02.00 BST

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 race.

For 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.”


It wasn’t until 1949, when India’s constitution was drafted, that a decision was made about what the country’s formal name should be. With the committee torn over whether it should be “India” or “Bharat”, the decision was finally made that it should be both, while Hindustan was dropped entirely.

Even then, the decision caused anger in parliament. “We must know that this name was given to our country by foreigners who, having heard of the riches of this land, were tempted towards it and had robbed us of our freedom in order to acquire the wealth of our country,” said Hargovind Pant, an MP, after the constitution draft was read aloud.

Yet both names continue to be used widely domestically. India is used in English communication, while it is Bharat in almost all Indian languages. Bharat is referred to in the national anthem, and Bharat and India are written on Indian passports.

While various legal and parliamentary petitions have been raised requesting that Bharat be the only legitimate name, citing the name India as a colonial hangover, they have been duly dismissed.

However, the argument raised its head again this week when an invitation sent to heads of state for a dinner being hosted for the G20 leaders’ summit, being held in Delhi this weekend, referred to the “President of Bharat” in English. It also appeared in an English G20 booklet for foreign delegates, titled Bharat, the Mother of Democracy, which stated that “Bharat is the official name of the country” and Indian officials at the G20 summit will now bear tags saying: “Bharat – official.”


While the ruling Bharatiya Janata party (BJP), led by Modi, has denied rumours an official name change is on its agenda, officials have confirmed that Bharat will increasingly be used in official communication.

Many have seen this move by the BJP as part of its wider Hindu nationalist agenda, which has sought to distance India from its British colonial past, with the renaming of roads and monuments as one such measure. At the renaming last year in Delhi of the Raj Path, meaning King’s Way, to Kartavya Path, Modi congratulated India on its “freedom from yet another symbol of slavery of the British Raj”. Names relating to the Muslim Mughal rulers, which the BJP also describes as colonisers, have also been erased.

The push for Bharat to be India’s official name has strong support in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the hardline rightwing religious nationalist group from which the BJP originated. “At times we use India so those who speak English will understand. But we must stop using this. The name of the country will remain Bharat wherever you go in the world,” said RSS’s chief Mohan Bhagwat, speaking last week.

The move to use Bharat in the G20 invitations provoked strong support from within the BJP. One minister, Dharmendra Pradhan, said it was a step towards overcoming a “colonial mentality”. “This should have happened earlier. It gives great satisfaction to the mind. Our introduction to ‘Bharat’. We are proud of it.”

Himanta Biswa Sarma, the BJP’s chief minister of Assam, said: “Republic of Bharat – happy and proud that our civilisation is marching ahead boldly.”

Yet those in the opposition condemned the move and speculated it was an attempt by the BJP to undermine the opposition parties, which recently came together in a coalition under the acronym INDIA.

Mamata Banerjee, chief minister of West Bengal, called it “a blatant attempt to distort the history of the country”.

Shashi Tharoor, a politician with the main opposition Congress party, said both names carried value. “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.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...back-centuries

[Anorexic_Barbie]

What a rubbish article

Is she serious??? Vedas are 1500BC?

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 race.

Soooo, Vedas were written 3,000 years before Jesus was born??

Mahabharat was written before the Vedas?
LoL

[Neha.Kulkarni]

Originally Posted by Anorexic_Barbie

What a rubbish article

Is she serious??? Vedas are 1500BC?

Soooo, Vedas were written 3,000 years before Jesus was born??

Mahabharat was written before the Vedas?
LoL

I knowwww!!

It's bad enough seeing that rubbish when M make videos distorting the age of vedas, but constant rubbish by the Guardian paper, all bcoz they hate Modi ji

I sent an email:

xxxxxxxxx@hotmail.co.uk>
guardian.readers@theguardian.com

Hello,

I would like to inform you that the following article has many errors:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...back-centuries

One such error is:

Quote: "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 race."


The Mahabharata epic was compiled 4-5,000 years ago, where the name Bharat is mentioned.
The name Bharat also appears in the Bhagavad Gita (again 5,000 years old)
The 4 Vedas are older than the Mahabharat period /epic.
The name Bharat is also mentioned in the epic Ramayana (which is older then Mahabharat).
Vedas do not mention a Bharata clan.

We're assuming you have the verses or directly translated sources from Sanskrit to confirm your statements?
Which we highly doubt.


Might I suggest you do some actual research instead of employing some imbecile with half baked knowledge.
Stop with your propaganda.

Something to help you get started:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhJ-0ul5wj4&t=71s

“And remember that this, which forms part of the Mahabharata, the greatest epic on earth was written four or five thousand years ago." Source: Mountain Paths Published Paperback: 324 pages Publisher: University of California Libraries (January 1, 1919) Language: English ASIN: B006FX6KPA

Some automated reply:

Readers' editor (Guardian) <guardian.readers@theguardian.com>
xxxxxxxxxxx@hotmail.co.uk
Thank you for your email. This is an automated response to confirm that the readers' editor's office has received your email.


If you have not already done so, please send a web link or details (eg date and page number) for any story about which you are making a comment or complaint, or in which you've spotted a possible error.


Kindly note: we value and read all emails received but regret that we cannot undertake to enter into individual correspondence unless you are the subject (or their authorised representative) of an article or image.



Details of the complaints process are here

Further information about the role of the Readers' Editor's office is here



Daily corrections and clarifications are published here


If your email concerns an article in the Observer, please forward your *original* email to: observer.readers@observer.co.uk



Redirecting your message

The Readers’ Editor is not involved in commissioning articles or deciding what is published by the Guardian and Observer. Please see the section on "article submissions and story suggestions" for details of where to send press releases and news tips or how to share reader experiences.

If you have a query about anything else, please visit the Guardian's help centre.



--
Guardian readers' editor's office



Kings Place, 90 York Way,

London N1 9GU

theguardian.com

-----

Download the Guardian app for Android and iOS


-----



This e-mail and all attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail and all attachments immediately. Do not disclose the contents to another person. You may not use the information for any purpose, or store, or copy, it in any way. Guardian News & Media Limited is not liable for any computer viruses or other material transmitted with or as part of this e-mail. You should employ virus checking software.

Guardian News & Media Limited is a member of Guardian Media Group plc. Registered Office: PO Box 68164, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London, N1P 2AP. Registered in England Number 908396

[jay999]

Originally Posted by Neha.Kulkarni

I knowwww!!

It's bad enough seeing that rubbish when M make videos distorting the age of vedas, but constant rubbish by the Guardian paper, all bcoz they hate Modi ji

I sent an email:

Some automated reply:

Nothing will happen, they will just make some shitty excuses
pointing at some fucked up book printed by someone they know
or another Nehru type fucktard!

[jay999]

Read the bullshit on here..They know fully well people will start doing google searches and the page was updated only yesterday.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharatas_(tribe)

wtf is this shit >>> Etymology

The name Bharata is of Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian origin, meaning "bearers" or "carriers"

Indo Iranian? What the fuckers are saying is, Aryans came from outside of India and settled in the north

Two Bharatas, Devaśravas Bhārata and Devavāta Bhārata, are mentioned as living near the Āpayā, Sarasvatī and Dr̥ṣadvatī rivers.[6]

Devavāta's son, Sṛñjaya Daivavāta, defeated the Turvaśas, and is mentioned alongside Abhyāvartin Cāyamāna who defeated the Vṛcīvants under Varaśikha. These battles occurred at the Hariyūpiyā (modern Hali-āb) and Yavyāvatī rivers (modern Zhob) in what is now eastern Afghanistan.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] In a hymn to Sarasvatī, it is stated that she aided (or is sought to aid) Vadhryaśva in defeating niggards, foreigners, insulters of gods, haters, and the sons of Br̥saya. Witzel notes that the name Br̥saya is of non-Indo-Aryan origin,[14][15] and Parpola proposes that the name came from the language of the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex. He states that Br̥saya was a hereditary regnal title in the region, and that it existed even till the time of Alexander the Great.[16] In addition, the poet expresses the desire not to leave the Sarasvatī river (modern Helmand and Arghandab).[17][18][19][20] Both hymns mentioning the two are attributed to Bharadvāja Bārhaspatya.[21]

Under the chieftain Divodāsa Atithigva, the Bharatas moved through the Hindu Kush mountain range, which borders the Indian subcontinent in the northwest

The Bharatas were an early Vedic tribe that existed in the latter half of the second millennium B.C.E.

In the epic Mahābhārata, the ancestor of Kurus becomes Emperor Bharata, and his ruler and kingdom is called Bhārata.[43] The Bharata clan mentioned in Mahabharata is a Kuru clan which is a sub clan of the Puru clan who were the cousins of the Yadavas.[44] "Bhārata" today is an official name of the Republic of India.[45]

Bharat was the ancestors of the Kurus and Pandavs.
So why have they only put Kurus?
His kingdom was Hastinapur, which ruled pretty much India at that time.


Guess who the source is of this wiki update bullshit ?

That famous bitch Thapar, Romila (2002),

The Penguin History of Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300, Allen Lane; Penguin Press (published 2003), p. 114, ISBN 0141937424

[Neha.Kulkarni]

Originally Posted by jay999

Nothing will happen, they will just make some shitty excuses
pointing at some fucked up book printed by someone they know
or another Nehru type fucktard!

Created a video!
Thanks for screenshot of Romila Thaper...Added to the video:

YouTube

#g20summit2023 #Bharat #Guardiannews
Bakwas by: Hannah Ellis-Petersen "https://twitter.com/HannahEP" wrote:
"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 race."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...back-centuries

Maurice Maeterlinck (1862–1949) "The Greatest Epic Mahabharata is 5,000 Years Old"

YouTube

“And remember that this, which forms part of the Mahabharata,
the greatest epic on earth was written four or five thousand years ago."
Source: Mountain Paths Published
Paperback: 324 pages
Publisher: University of California Libraries (January 1, 1919)
Language: English
ASIN: B006FX6KPA https://www.amazon.com/Mountain-path.../dp/B006FX6KPA

https://sacredsites.com/asia/india/amarnath_cave.html

"For example, when Khwaja Muinuddin Chisti settled at Ajmer he took two wives,
although he was then aged sixty-five.One of them was a Hindu raja's daughter
who had been seized during a raid on the Hindus by the local commander."
Source: Women of India: Their Status Since the Vedic Times by Arun R.
https://books.google.co.uk/books/abo..._of_India.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Malik_Isami

Source: Jackson, Peter (2003). The Delhi Sultanate:
A Political and Military History
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Delhi-Sulta.../dp/0521543290

"He raised taxes to levels where people refused to pay any. In India's fertile lands
between Ganges and Yamuna rivers, the Sultan increased the land tax rate on non-Muslims by
tenfold in some districts, and twentyfold in others."
https://books.google.co.uk/books/abo...n_Peoples.html

"His distant campaigns were expensive, although each raid and attack on non-Muslim kingdoms
brought new looted wealth and ransom payments from captured people.
The extended empire was difficult to retain, and rebellions all over Indian subcontinent became routine." https://books.google.co.uk/books/abo...y_Its_Own.html

The Delhi SultanateA Political and Military History
By Peter Jackson · 2003
https://archive.org/details/TheDelhi...icCivilization

Guardian Media email ID for bogus articles: guardian.readers@theguardian.com