‘Bharat, That Is India’: What’s in a Name?

“India, that is Bharat, shall be the union of states” – so declares the preamble of the Indian Constitution. It was recently reported that the Republic of India is planning to change its name to Bharat. “Bharat” is already commonly used in India, though not in every context. As seen in the above quote, it is also used in formal language. 

Thus, my reading of the recent news is that the Indian government is not trying to change the official name of the country as used by itself. That name is “Republic of India” in English and “Bharat Ganarajya” in Hindi; Bharat is already included in the latter. If I understand correctly, the Indian government wants to change international references to the country – that is, how other countries and entities should formally refer to it. 

United Nations, Divided Notions

This would imply asking the United Nations and other international bodies to begin calling India “Bharat,” just like Turkey recently did with the name Türkiye. Certain feelers have already been put out; in a few recent instances, the Indian government and its highest representatives have used Bharat when communicating and meeting with foreign entities. Thus, even if we do not have evidence of the U.N. being formally asked to use the name Bharat, we can see that the New Delhi government is already attempting to use this term in international venues.

Bharat is a name of ancient ancestry. It originates from Sanskrit and thus is seen as more traditional and identity-related than “India.” It is used in Hindi and other modern Indian languages. “India,” in turn, is the country’s name in English (although the term originated from ancient Greek)  and in this sense is foreign, even if it is also very commonly used in the country. I will not delve into the complex and fascinating etymologies of these two names (along with their third synonym, Hindustan). For a very short primer on their origins, Akhilesh Pillalamarri recently wrote about it for The Diplomat’s website (titled “What should India’s Name Be?”). 

The name “India” is in wide currency in that country not only because English is one of the two official languages there, but also because the spoken forms of modern Indian are highly Anglicized. Thus, when uttering a sentence in common, informal Hindi, a person may refer to his own country as “India.” In Poland, for instance, that would be unthinkable (every Polish person when speaking in Polish refers to the country as “Polska”; “Poland” is only used in English). But when one shifts to formal and highly Sanskritized Hindi, using India instead of Bharat would seem out of place.

India vs Bharat: One Nation, Many Interpretations

I believe that every country should have a right to decide what it should be called, not only internally but also externally. The latter is important as well because the names we use for other countries have often been filtered through other languages: they have often been deformed, sometimes were even meant to be derogatory, and are very commonly shadowed by the colonial past. Externally, the matter becomes even more complex in cases where another state lays claim to the same name (as happened with North Macedonia and Greece). Internally, the issue becomes a challenge if there is more than one name used, and in cases where the competing names represent conflicting identities or political tendencies. 

As for India’s external name, there is no other claimant to any of the three names (India/Hindustan/Bharat). Thus, it is the domestic perspective of the name, and particularly its colonial aspect, that is crucial. The period of British colonialism still looms over the Indian national psyche. A Polish person like me typically does not mind most of the people in the world calling us “Poland,” but this is probably because we have never been a British colony. I assume that the pill would have been more bitter if the globally used name for Poland had come from German or Russian – the languages of two countries with which Poland has shared a particularly troubling history. 

Of course, the name “India” is not derogatory by any means, and indeed, predates the establishment of the British Raj. But the country’s global name is in English, which also happens to be the language of past colonial rule. I also need to stress that probably a great many Indians do not mind this at all. 

On the other hand, some apparently would be glad to see the change – as proved by the support that many declared as soon as the recent news about “Bharat” broke out. At the risk of a sweeping generalization, it is probably safe to assume that the support for the name change is greater on the right wing of the Indian political spectrum, while support for retaining “India” as the country’s international name is higher on the left.

Another aspect is that in certain very specific contexts, “India” and “Bharat” are being used as opposites: two worlds in one country, two aspects of the same nation. “India,” being the country’s English name, may be used as a metaphor for the urban world of Anglicized elites, as opposed to Bharat, which symbolizes the realm of the rural, traditional masses. To be sure, this dichotomy is by no means formal. As stressed above, formally India is included in the English name of the country, and Bharat in the Hindi one. However, this dichotomy may be salient politically.

This may explain why the attempts to use “Bharat” internationally have occurred at this particular time. Recently, an alliance of India’s opposition parties has been enhanced and renamed from the UPA to INDIA. Yes, the opposition alliance will now be named with an acronym that forms the name of the country – which may cause a lot of confusion. Let us imagine a crowd hearing a politician from the ruling party blatantly attacking the opposition by claiming that “INDIA is anti-India” – would everyone understand his accusation?

The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party may thus try to regain the narrative upper hand by shifting the focus from India to Bharat. They may now stress that for them, the country is really called Bharat, which will allow them to once again present themselves as votaries of traditions and champions of the masses, thus implying that the opposition represents the Westernized elites. That is why I assume that the shift from India to Bharat will occur externally, on the international level, but will have mostly domestic ramifications.

Post Scriptum – or Simply Speaking, P.S.

One final point to add is that changing the country’s international name is a choice between self-representation, identity, and tradition on one hand and smoothness of communication on the other. As stated above, I believe that every country should have a right to be referred to by its chosen name. But the counterpoint is that others may not know how to pronounce the name the right way. 

It is true that the internally accepted names of many countries are mangled and maimed forms of their original, traditional names. But they are not being mangled only because we learn them filtered through third languages (in simpler words: many country names are used in their English forms even when they are not spoken in English). They would be deformed in other languages even if they had not been filtered to them through dominant international languages, such as English, French, or Spanish. No one knows every language in the world, including the peculiarities of its phonetics, and thus we are bound to make mistakes when uttering these names. While Turkey has every right to be called Türkiye, I must humbly admit I do not know how to pronounce the latter name. 

Or, to use the instance of my own name: I have a right to expect others to call me Krzysztof, but I am also aware that this would be very difficult for the majority of people outside Poland. Thus, I usually choose an Anglicized and shortened form – Chris. It is a form that sounds very different from my true name (even though its etymology is the same, from Greek). But as more people across the world know English than Polish, I assume that they will know how to pronounce Chris, and that it will be easier for them. For the same reason, many Koreans and Chinese use “English” versions of their names when communicating with foreigners. 

Luckily, the name Bharat is much easier than Krzysztof.