Feb 8, 2020. Updated: May 24, 2024.

Part of "Bhārata, that is India" series

Why the Name "Bhārata"?

This series is a collection of posts that tells my idea of Bhārata, and I find it appropriate to start by explaining why I use the name "Bhārata" and not "India" throughout this series.

It is because Bhārata is an endonym, while India is an exonym.

It is said that the word "India" evolved from the word "Hindu", but to suit the western languages (or morphology). It therefore can be considered as an exonym, while the name "Bhārata" and it's versions are endonyms. I see no reason to call ourselves or our nation formally by an exonym. Hence my use of the name "Bhārata".

Also, the name "Bhārata" enbodies belongingness, culture, history and heritage. It has been referenced in the oldest literatures of the geography and in the travelogues of various global travellers of that past. Hence my use of the name "Bhārata".

The word "Indian" is very ambiguous and requires context. Is it a citizen from Bhārata or the indigenous people of America? I see no reason to use contexts as workaround just to use a foreign name. Hence the use of the name "Bhārata".

***

In the year 2023, the names Bhārat and India received an unsolicited political affiliation. It all started with the opposition bloc forming a new alliance and naming it I.N.D.I.A (Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance). The ruling alliance responded by using the name Bhārat for the state in the G20 summit.

The naming as I.N.D.I.A was a deliberate move to portray themselves as the soul of India (which is alright) and to be called as India (which is not alright). It only takes common sense to realise that I.N.D.I.A will be acronymised, not abbreviated, because it is far easier to say "India" than say "I.N.D.I.A" (pronouncing the dots). Media will use the acronym because "India" is shorter, easier to type, takes less real estate in screen and papers, and is more visually aesthetical than "I.N.D.I.A", especially when you consider Bhāratīya scrips.

Their naming intention became evident when Shri. Shashi Tharoor, an MP from the opposition, remarked after the G20 counter move by the ruling party, that I.N.D.I.A bloc be renamed as BHARAT, that stands for Betterment, Harmony And Responsible Advancement for Tomorrow. They simply wanted the name of their alliance to be synonymous with the name of the country¹.

One cannot fail to notice that the naming process was reversed here. Usually, apt names are given first, and then abbreviated or acronymised if there is scope for it. But here, it is evident that they already had decided that the name should be acronymised to "INDIA" or "BHARAT". So, each alphabet was given a word. This can be proved further by looking at what the first A in BHARAT stands for — "and", a word that is generally avoided in abbreviations and accronyms. Also, take a look at the four consecutive adjectives in I.N.D.I.A — Indian National Developmental Inclusive — a very strange and meaningless combination. A proper arrangement of the same words would be Indian National and Inclusive Alliance for Development — a name that cannot be acronymised as INDIA, but only as INIAD. The name of the bloc as I.N.D.I.A seems very much like a marketing gimmick.

Both political sides have their good sides and bad sides. But the naming of a political bloc to be synonymous with the name of the nation/country is inappropriate. It is in fact a violation of the tenet that no player is bigger than the game; or no political party is bigger than the country/nation itself.

What seemed like a counter move from the ruling party, was merely a decision to use the name "Bhārat" in the G20 summit, wherever the name India was previously used. This move initiated conversations in the political space about renaming India to Bhārat — conversations and concerns that was idiotic because Bhārat is already the name for India constitutionally — "India, that is Bhārat". A nation cannot be renamed to it's current name!

The final outcome of this naming exercise is that an unsolicited political affiliation was given to both names in the public mind. This isn't just unfortunate, but extremely consequential too, since both names have a place in our conversations — "Bhārat" domestically and "India" globally.

***

What's in a name is contextual. In some cases, a name is merely a tool to identify an entity. In others, it also represents a culture, a set of values or a meaning. It is for the latter reason, that all names in the social and political space must endonyms — ie, they must be rooted in their indigenous languages.

The invaders of Bhārata as well as her immigrants have infused their eponyms in many fronts — some originals like "Taj Mahal", while others alternate names like "Bangalore", "Bombay" and "Cochin" for indigenous names. There is no reason to rename the original works, but it is irrefutably reasonable to reclaim the original names that were been mangled. Those who gave alternate names did so for the need of a name that went well with the diction of their language, and we must reclaim the original names because they go well with the diction of our languages.

That said, our education system brought us up with the exonyms, and therefore has acclimatised us with these names. Most of us, including me, often use the name "India" or "Bangalore" in our conversations, especially English conversations. The change to endonyms is not impossible though, but a matter of will and practice.