Whether it’s Bharat, India or Hindush, each of these names represented relatively small portions of what we now collectively identify as India
By Utkarsh Shukla
The central government’s recent move to change the reference from ‘President of India’ to ‘President of Bharat’ on official G20 summit invitations has raised eyebrows and ignited a public debate. So, let’s dive deeper into history to understand about India and Bharat
The first word that has similar resemblance with Bharat appears as a lineage entity is in Panini’s Ashtadhyayi 4.2.113 in fourth century BC:
Where Bharata refers to a gotra in the eastern part of northern India, excluding the eastern most region of Prachya. It’s important to note that there does exist a tribe called Bharata in the Rigveda, but it doesn’t specifically apply to a defined territory. Instead, the name of their territory is recognised as Kuru. Patanjali’s Mahabhashya written during the Sunga dynasty in 2nd century BCE, which is a commentary on Panini’s Ashtadhyayi, has clearly mentioned that the word भरत represents the भरतगोत्र and not any geographic location.
First Recorded Use
The first recorded use of the term ‘Bharatvarsha’ dates back to the 1st century CE, as evidenced by the inscription at Hathigumpha, attributed to the Kalinga King Kharavela. In this historical inscription, King Kharavela proudly mentions his conquest of ‘Bharatavarsha.’ It’s intriguing to note that, during this period, ‘Bharatvarsha’ did not encompass Kalinga or the region of Orissa in the eastern part of the subcontinent.
Second Mention
The second mention of ‘Bharatvarsha’ can be found in Vishnu Puran 2.3.1
It describes the land located north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains as Bhāratam, where the descendants of Bharata reside. The date of composition of the Vishnu Puran falls between the end of the first and the middle of the fourth century AD, ie, between 100 and 350 AD. The nature of the Smriti contents of the Vishnu Puran, as compared with those of the Markandeya, tends to show that the former is later than the latter. So, it is highly probable that Vishnu Puran was written in the period of Gupta Empire. Additionally, ‘samudra’ didn’t always refer to the ocean but could denote any substantial body of water or the confluence of rivers.
Bharat as ‘mata’
Bharat, in its historical context, was never a ‘mata.’ The concept of Bharat as a mother finds its roots in the Unabimsa Purana, the 19th Purana, authored by the Bengali literary figure Bhudev Mukhopadhyay and initially published in 1866. Within these pages, Bharat Mata is portrayed as Adi-Bharati, the spouse of Arya Swami, who represents the quintessence of all that is inherently Aryan, reflecting the ancient Indian civilisation’s ideals and heritage.
Emergence of India
India, on the other hand, first appears in the 5th century BC in the writings of Herodotus as his name for the easternmost fringes of the inhabited world, with the Indus River serving as its eastern frontier. Herodotus, often hailed as the ‘Father of History,’ provided one of the earliest documented references to the term ‘India’ as a geographical region. This historical observation marks the emergence of India as a recognisable entity on the world, signifying its position in the ancient world’s geography and the beginning of its enduring historical narrative.
Hindush
Even before Herodotus, in the mid-sixth century BC, the name Hindush, which serves as the root for the later term Hindustan, emerged in the historical records. This name was prominently featured in the Naqsh-e Rostam inscription by the Persian emperor Darius. Darius applied the name Hindush to the Indus basin, designating it as the easternmost province of the mighty Achaemenid Empire.
This early reference to Hindush not only underscores the region’s significance in the ancient world but also highlights the enduring historical importance of the Indus River and its surrounding territories, which would later become integral to the concept of Hindustan and India.
Bharat Vs India
Interestingly, none of the names mentioned, whether it’s Bharat, India or Hindush, encompassed anything south of the Vindhyas or extended to the northeast. Instead, each of these names represented relatively small portions of what we now collectively identify as India. This historical observation highlights the diverse and complex nature of the Indian subcontinent, where various regions held distinct identities and were often referred to by different names in antiquity.
So, when we engage in debates over Bharat Vs India, we essentially grapple with the question of which of these historical names should take primacy over the diverse regions comprising the subcontinent. If we make a case for Bharat, it primarily rests on its etymological vintage. However, it’s important to note that Bharat is at least 600 years younger in historical terms than Hindush (or indirectly, Hindustan) and is about 500 years younger than India.
It becomes evident that there’s no single historical name that comprehensively applies to the entirety of the vast subcontinent, encompassing all the regions that collectively constitute our modern country today. The subcontinent’s history is an intricate tapestry woven together by countless kingdoms, cultures and peoples, each with its own distinctive identities and appellations. This historical complexity underscores the rich diversity and multifaceted nature of the Indian subcontinent, challenging any singular name to encapsulate its full breadth and depth.
Preserving Both
Maintaining both the names, India and Bharat, is a wise decision. Each name carries its unique significance, and it would be unwise to discard either one. The name India encapsulates a rich tapestry of historical and cultural legacies, resonating with centuries of history and global recognition. By preserving the name India, the nation continues to honor this legacy and maintain its international identity.
Conversely, Bharat invokes the deep-rooted connection to ancient heritage and traditions, emphasising the indigenous essence of the nation. Thus, retaining both names ensures that India/Bharat can draw strength from its diverse historical, cultural and linguistic heritage, preserving a comprehensive understanding of its identity.