Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s country card at G-20 Leaders’ Summit read Bharat instead of India. Before that, the plane Modi flew to Bali for the Association of South East Asian Nations meet had Bharat emblazoned on it in big bold letters. And the invite for dinner that Droupadi Murmu sent to global dignitaries attending the G-20 Summit was in the name of “President of Bharat” rather than the “President of India” the world is used to.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government’s overdrive to replace India with Bharat is more than obvious and its next steps are worth watching. But the ongoing cacophony over changing the name of our country begs the question – what happened to Hindustan?
Hindustan is missing from the debate, although it reverberates in prose and poetry, films and of course poet Mohammad Iqbal’s iconic ode to the nation — Sare Jahan Se Achcha Hindustan Hamara — which is no less popular than Jana Gana Mana despite not being the national anthem.
In today’s Hindu-first climate, Hindustan is a hot potato because of its association with Muslim and Mughal rule – and Urdu. According to historian Marshal Hodgson, in the Islamic and Persian traditions, it was standard practice to name a land after its biggest community. Just like Hindustan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan are prime examples of this approach to christening countries after their majority race.
In another era, Hindu Right ideologue V. D. Savarkar tried to Sanskritise Hindustan by spelling it as Hindusthan, but even his innovative zeal failed to purge it of its association with Muslim power in the popular imagination. But while jettisoning it today, let’s not forget that Hindustan has great religious significance for Sikhs as it figures in their holy scripture, Guru Granth Sahib, and is inseparable from their faith which is sacrosanct.
But Bharat is the flavour of the season because of its roots in the Brahmanical order — it is representative of Hindu religion, culture and society which the current dispensation swears by. And the BJP does have a strong case as the mythical warrior king, Bharat — the son of revered Shakuntala and Dushyant — is commemorated in the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas and other scriptures, including Mahabharata, for establishing its civilizational centrality and eminence.
Its advocates even cite seventh century Chinese traveler Hieun Tsang’s writings which mention Bharat, underlining its wide acceptance as the nation’s name before Muslim and British rule. There are no doubts in their hearts and minds that as Bharat is the country’s original and authentic name, deleting India from the
Constitution and lawfully making it Bharat will instill a sense of pride in our past and rebrand us in modern times.
According to historians, India has been in circulation since King Alexander’s invasion to describe territories east of the River Indus. But it was British rulers who really popularised India through maps, books, official correspondence and government records, displacing Hindustan which fell by the wayside. British monarchs were known as Emperor of India or Empress of India. After independence, for 76 long years India and Bharat have been used interchangeably — India in English and in Hindi Bharat — as both enjoy constitutional recognition. But now the duality is about to be stamped out — India will make way for Bharat!
In the Discovery of India, Jawaharlal Nehru spoke of India, Bharat and Hindustan in the same breath — or rather in one, single sentence. It underlined plurality and breadth of vision without a trace of oneness or one-upmanship.
(SNM Abdi is an independent, Pegasused reporter and commentator on foreign policy and domestic politics)
