The Renaming Of India To Bharat: Causes And Effects

There has been debate in the nation of India that its name should be changed to Bharat. It appears that India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi has addressed this to the parliament of that nation.

Naturally may believe that this name change is a racist measure that favors Hindu Nationalism. But does it really? The following that is cited must be taken into consideration.

"The term "Hindu" traces back to Old Persian which derived these names from the Sanskrit name Sindhu (सिन्धु), referring to the river Indus. The Greek cognates of the same terms are "Indus" (for the river) and "India" (for the land of the river)"- Wikipedia.

This Wikipedia reference clearly indicates that India and Hindu have the same root morphology. Therefore India is more associated with Hindu than Bharat is. This reference also cites that Hindu is derived from Sindh and Indus. Two of the first Indian civilizations, Harappa and Mahenjo Daro, were in that region. Because Sindh and the Indus River are now in Independent Pakistan and not Independent India, this name change to Bharat seems to be viable and more appropriate.

The country (varṣam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bharatam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata. —Vishnu Purana (2. 3. 1) (Ancient Hindu scripture)

The preceding phrase, while stipulated in Ancient Hindu Scripture, has nothing to do with the descendants' religion. Hinduism itself is not a religion. It is a heritage of a people from the country of Bharatam. The Old Testament of The Holy Bible can also be described as a heritage with all its folklore and parables. Both Christianity and Islams are both faith-based, however, and are considered religions due to its core principles and edicts.

In lieu of the foregoing, Bharat refers to a specific geographical land mass from the Indian Ocean in the south to the snowy mountains in the Himalayas and even in those bordering the Afghanistan regions. That describes the Indian sub-continent today.

In the last decades of the 18th century, the British started to refer to that sub-continent as India as the British East India Company had extensive land holdings in South Asia, including the Indus Valley. The name stuck. The name India furthermore received more permanence when that sub-continent became an official colony of the British Empire in 1857. That colony was called British India. While Sindh, the Indus Valley, and the Indus River were part of British India and also previously of the British East Indian Company, they have never been part of Independent India. Hence one reason why today's India would want to be renamed.

So as India is now rapidly trying to remove the colonialist yoke of the British Empire from its nation, would it not be appropriate to rename itself as Bharat? After all, nearly all non-Hindus (one-fifth of India's population) in that nation are viewed as descendants of Bharata and thus hail from Bharatam. The religion/faith, or lack thereof, of any of its people is not a factor. Due to the fact that the name Bharat is far more an irreligious name than India, perhaps this name change is in order.