Should India Change Its Name To Bharat?

Should India Change its Name to Bharat?
In the last four thousand years or so the Indian sub-continent has gone through a lot of names. Since the
Indus Valley Civilization spanned from what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan to the heart of Madhya Pradesh
there have been dozens of other civilizations and ruling dynasties. With a few glaring omissions after the
Indus were the Mayurans, the Cholas, the Mughals, Hindustan, the Portuguese, the French, the British and
now India's democracy. What we know as "India" today had never been united into one territory until the
British seized control from hundreds of smaller kingdoms. In a standard process of succession every new
leader that took control decimated the remains of the previous civilization and attempted to start a new
history. And in every instance cities were dubbed with new names.
Since India gained independence from British rule the Indian government, spurred on by fundamentalist
parties that originated in Mumbai, has been changing urban monikers to the "original" Hindu names. Bombay
became Mumbai, Delhi - Dilli, Calcutta - Kolkotta, Madras - Chennai and as of today Pondicherry has been
renamed Puducherry.
Putting new names on cities, towns and streets may be a way to lay claim to the land in some fundamental
way, but calling the new name "original" has some dark undertones. When Bombay was first called Mumbai it
was little more than a fishing village with a moderate sized port. When the British took control it
transformed into a world economic juggernaut. Delhi grew into a prominence under several generations of
Islamic rule--many of whom would have scoffed at the recent name change. What we know as the Indus
Valley Civilization or Harappa was most likely called Meluha by the people at the time. The city of
Pondicherry didn't even exist before the French borrowed the name of an insignificant fishing village and
turned it into their center of operations in South Asia. Renaming it Puducherry is returns it to village status
and ignores a rich French history.
If the trend should continue it would make sense that the entire nation of India should get a name change.
After all, India was only the name that Alexander the Great (or Sikander if we want to keep up the
Indianization of names) gave to all the people on the other side of the Indus River. Technically it would
include most of Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bangladesh and parts of Burma...er...Myanmar.
Would it make sense to call India "Bharat" or "Hindustan"? Bharat is the Sanskrit name for the land of the
Mahabarata. It carries Hindu connotations and overlooks centuries of Islamic and British rule. "Hindustan",
however, was the name for British occupied India and represents the first time that the entire region
existed under a single leadership. If politicians did try to rename India there would probably be riots on the
streets. Every minority group in the country would feel disenfranchised--as if their own regional histories
had no real stake in the nation.
But if you can't rename the country, why can you rename the cities? You cannot simply delete several
millennia of non-Hindu rule from the pages of history (though they may have tried that in Gujarat). Sure,
under the British many people suffered. People suffered under the Mughals, too. More people lived in
poverty than palaces in the areas where there were flourishing Hindu kingdoms. How much better is the
India that we know today? Has giving it a new name changed anything?
Bharat vs India: A culture clash
February 25th, 2008
Bharat and India are not separate pieces of land.

However, they are separate states of mind.
While India believes in the West, Bharat reposes its trust in the ancient culture of the land. While India
looks towards the west for solutions, Bharat looks within for solutions. The Indian outlook is materialistic,
while the Bharathiya ethos views spirit as primary and believes in the spiritual approach. While India
believes in self-indulgence, Bharat believes in sacrifices. While India believes in individualism, Bharat
believes in family values. The list seems to be endless.
It must be said that India has its birth in Macualay’s minutes. Lord Macualay – the man who designed the
Indian education system said: “Our English schools are flourishing wonderfully; we find it difficult to
provide instruction to all. The effect of this education on Hindus is prodigious. No Hindu who has received
an English education ever remains sincerely attached to his religion. It is my firm belief that if our plans of
education are followed up, there will not be a single idolater among the respected classes 30 years hence.
And this will be effected without our efforts to proselytize; I heartily rejoice in the prospect’“ Today, the
word Macualay’s children refers to the breed of Indians – who are Indians in blood and colour but British in
taste, morals and opinions.
During the British rule, there seem to have been two motives working in the minds of the rulers: plundering
the wealth of this land and the ‘white man’s burden ‘ of civilizing the natives (the term used by them to
refer to all Indians). While the plundering was done in the name of the trade, the de-indigenisation of
Bharat was achieved through Macualay’s education.
Both the culture shock and the plunder was equally brutal: Perhaps many of us do not know that India was
the richest land till the British came on the scene.. Whereas Britain’s share in world exports before was
only 9% as against India’s share of 19% today our share is only 0.5%.
In the Round- table conference in 1931, Mahatma Gandhi in one of his speeches said, “The beautiful tree of
education was cut down by you British. Therefore today India is far more illiterate than it was 100 years
ago.” Immediately, Philip Hartog, who was a parliamentarian stood up and said, “Mr.Gandhi, it is we who have
educated the masses of India. And therefore you must take back your statement and apologise or prove it.”
Gandhiji said he would prove it. But the debate did not continue for lack of time. Later one of his followers,
Shri Dharampal, went to the British museum and examined the reports and archives. He published a book
“The Beautiful Tree” where this matter has been discussed in great detail. By 1820, the British had already
destroyed the financial resources that supported our educational system- a destruction that they had been
carrying out for nearly twenty years. But still the Indians persisted in continuing with their system of
education. So, the British decided to find out the intricacies of this system. Therefore a survey was
ordered in 1822 and was conducted by the British district collectors. In the survey it was found that the
Bengal presidency had 1 lakh village schools, in Madras there was not a single village without a school, in
Bombay, if the village population was near 100, the village had a school. Teachers as well as students of all
castes were in these schools. The Brahmins accounted 7% to 48% of the teachers, and the rest of the
teachers in any district, came from other castes. Further all children had their education in their mother
tongue.
Losing roots means losing power: How does a nation get weakened? A nation gets weakened when the
ignorance of the people about their own roots increases, or when they become ashamed of themselves or of
their forefathers. Actually that is where real regression of a nation starts. A nation, which wants to forget
about itself and imitate other nations, cannot redeem itself but is on the path of self-destruction. The
regression is there in our nation at present. And if we truly do not want to weaken ourselves as a nation, we
need to extricate our educational system out of its Macaulayian traits, and obtain a fresh and untainted
understanding of our ideals; which have held us together as a nation for nearly ten thousand years.
Only when a nation progresses along its roots, it truly advances. Indigenous growth is better than imitation
of the west any day.
Comment received for the above:

Isn’t it obvious that if a person is educated he would immediately question the idiotic ritualistic
superstitious practices. Education would make a human being to question the in-human Varnashra Dharma of
Hinduism which distinguishes among Human Beings – which makes fellow humans as un-touchables – which
boasts of Brahmin supremacy and makes everyone else submissive – which does not allow humans from other
castes to perform Pujas in the sactum-sanctoriums of the temples. It woudl question practices like SATI.
Education is a boon which questioned the basic fraud of the Brahminical-Aryan teachings. British Education
made Indians think that all Humans are equal and the myths propagted by the Hindu literature are hum-bug.
So it is certain and obvious that as more ands more people learnt English and British system of education
they would move away from the criminal Hindu religion. What is wrong?
Source: http://greathindu.com/2008/02/bharat-vs-india-a-culture-clash/
Bharat: not INDIA
India got independence in 1947 and this year India is celebrating it’s 60th year of independence from British.
Indian civilization is at least 5000 years old and spread over the present day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Burma
and Nepal. Some research says, Sindhu became Hindu in Persia and became Indos in Greek and the country was called
as India by Greeks. So the word India may be a corrupt form of the original Sindhu. In Urdu, the country is called Hindustan,
a place where Hindus live.
However, what is India called by Indians? Bharat. The country is always referred to as Bharat in almost all Indian languages.
Though India was not a single Kingdom in the past, all smaller kingdoms were refered to be a part of Bharat Khand. An old
Sanskrit mantra says “Jamboo Dveepe, Bharata Khande …” that is, all kingdoms and regions in this part of the world were
referred to as part of Bharat Khanda (continent) which now we call as Indian subcontinent. The name is after the king
Bharata, mentioned in Mahabharat.
The name Indians is given to many aborigines and tribals of the world like Red Indians in USA, Australian Indians, Amazon
Indians, etc. Many times, Indians in US are mistaken as indigenous Red Indians. Even though one shall not rise at the cost of
others, it is considered derogatory.
I always wonder why we call our country as India and ourselves as Indians. Why do we use a corrupt name to describe
ourselves? Why not make Bharat, the official name of the country and all Indians as Bharatians (or Bharat vasis). We call the
country Bharat Desh, anyway, in almost all our local languages. Only, it shall be made official internationally. Of course, we
shall not use Hindustan as the country is also home to many other religions.
What is there in name, so ask many. However, to me, every thing starts from name. Even a small spelling mistake in our
name offends us and it is strange that we, as a nation, are not at all offended by a corrupt name given to us by some
foreigners. We continue to take pride in that and call ourselves proud Indians. I think it’s time we shall know the truth...
Example:
Passport its written Bharat Ganarajya in Hindi and Republic of India in English . I think we should call it Republic of Bharat.
1. Britishers who had the desire to destroy the nation's identity. They started their scheme with changing the
name of the country. They called it India?
2. Noun is the name of a person, place or things. exp. India or Bharat . India=India, Bharat =Bharat. Then why
translate India = Bharat or Bharat = India?
3. Recently In our country Bombay has become Mumbai, Calcutta has become Kolkata and Madras has
become Chennai but India cannot become Bharat?
4. `Bharat mata ki jai' has been the slogan and mantra throughout the Country during freedom struggle.
Why?
5. The highest national award open to any Indian is also called `Bharat Ratna`?
6. Ceylon has become Sri Lanka. Burma has become Myanmar. Gold Coast in Africa has become Ghana.
Likewise we should also rename our great country as Bharat?
7. Why `Bharat ka Samvidhan' should be translated as Constitution of India and not as Constitution of
Bharat?
8. In all language call America = America, Pakistan=Pakistan, Shi Lanka=Sri Lanka, Punjab=Punjab, Tamilnadu
= Tamilnadu then why Bharat = INDIA?
9. We are proud of INDIAN? OR We are proud of Bhartiya?
10. Why not use Bharat instead of India?
11. Why two names for our motherland? Is not retaining the name `India' an act of mental slavery?
Source: http://www.bharatwisdom.com/Blogs/tabid/418/EntryID/13/Default.aspx

Should India Change Its Name To Bharat?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Should India Change Its Name To Bharat?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Should India Change Its Name To Bharat?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Should India Change its Name to Bharat?

Bharat and India are not separate pieces of land.

Comment received for the above:

You might also like