Bharat to be the official name? - Page 14

As of my last knowledge update in September 2021, "Bharat" is one of the official names of India. In the Constitution of India, the country is referred to as "India" and "Bharat" (in Hindi script: भारत) as the official names. The term "Bharat" is used to represent India in Hindi, one of the official languages of the country.

Originally posted by: dusk2dawn

Apologize for jumping the gun but our passports too bears Bharat Ganarajya means Republic of India.

So why not??

This reminds me of the pratigya we used to recite in our assembly

I am writing in gujju

Bharat maro desh chhe . (India is my country)
Badha Bhartiya mara bhai behen chhe ( All Indians are my brother and sister) (except my hubby )

Yeah same

In Hindi too we use to say the same

Bharat hamara desh hain

Hum sab Bharatvasi bhai behen hain.

यदि त्वया संस्कृतस्य निपुणता स्यात्, तर्हि ते नमः करोमि।

On the topic of the oldest Indian language, determining the absolute oldest is not easy due to limited historical records. There are records of ancient vernacular languages like Prakrits spoken on the Indian subcontinent before Sanskrit's emergence but as far as classical literature and scholarly works are concerned, Sanskrit was the dominant language.

Regarding AIT/AMT, both theories are based on historical interpretations subject to change. As of today, the more widely accepted view is AMT. But if you go back further in time to understand the evolution of homo sapiens, we have the "out of Africa" model (Homo sapiens evolved in Africa before migrating across the world) and the "multi regional" model (evolution of Homo sapiens took place in a number of places across the world over a long period of time). In between these two, the "out of Africa" model is currently the more widely accepted model.

IMO, "which race originated where" shouldn't really matter. Borders (political boundaries) are more or less well defined now and are here to stay, a few disputes here and there notwithstanding. Based on "migration data", no country/continent can lay claim to another landmass so other than "bragging rights", I don't see much point to this dispute.

I think our country has been addressed with both the names where and how it should already . In Hindi we were always taught Bharat (as someone said here it's always said Bharat mata ki jai and not India) and India is used most of the times when it needs to be communicated in English.

So why the change now?! Let it be addressed how and where it applies to be. (India/ Bharat)

Originally posted by: SlatePencil

Why forums? Rename it as Bharat Sammelan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju-JXaR0E1Q

The real reason for wanting to change the name.

https://news.abplive.com/news/india/india-to-bharat-country-name-change-what-supreme-court-said-1627743

What has changed in the intervening 3 years????

The Hindutva claim on IVC legacy was debunked through new genetic studies

It became clear that IVC was not Vedic civilisation but was prevedic.

Now they want to clear the history of IVC because they as in Vedic people are not part of it.

Why not call it India/ Hindudesh/Hindustan which is named after people of Hindu culture which encompasses Southern folk religion, Vedic religion Buddihsm Jainism Sikhism yes Parsee and Christianity too?

Nobody is changing anything.

Constitution reads — India, that is Bharat.

It’s already there. India and Bharat can both be used as per our constitution. Govt has just started using it more. Itne mein toh melt down ho gaye

Originally posted by: aparnauma

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju-JXaR0E1Q

The real reason for wanting to change the name.

https://news.abplive.com/news/india/india-to-bharat-country-name-change-what-supreme-court-said-1627743

What has changed in the intervening 3 years????

The Hindutva claim on IVC legacy was debunked through new genetic studies

It became clear that IVC was not Vedic civilisation but was prevedic.

Now they want to clear the history of IVC because they as in Vedic people are not part of it.

Why not call it India/ Hindudesh/Hindustan which is named after people of Hindu culture which encompasses Southern folk religion, Vedic religion Buddihsm Jainism Sikhism yes Parsee and Christianity too?

No idea what made you think that. The genetic experts of the same group had different views about it. Niraj Rai still claims IVC was Vedic, while others say it wasn't.

The recent development with southern arc papers has cleared that R1a genome has nothing to do with the Vedic civilization (that doesn't mean IVC was necessarily Vedic but it doesn't mean the opposite too)

No one can clear the history of IVC, they are a part of history about whom unfortunately noone knows one, and India word is as much aligned to IVC as Bharat is.

Hindu culture doesn't encompass everyone, definitelty not Muslims Christians or Jews, why and how can the country be named after them

Originally posted by: aparnauma

How did Vedic people decide that Bharat includes land from to sea? And what sea was that? Was it Indian ocean or Arabian sea? The map clearly tells that regions where Vedic people livied and the extant of their land.

Amalgamation with indigenous people? Didn't Islamic invaders say the same thing? Imposition of their culture is what they did. If people felt that Vedic culture is part of their culture there would not have been a need for Dravidian movement. If the Vedic culture has been so great the lower strata would not have dumped it for a foreign religion. People would not have burnt Manusmritis.

The Dravidian movement is a very recent movement hardly 100-200 years old while the Vedic attire of South India is over 1500 years at the least.

Islamists never amalgamated with natives, they wanted everyone to forget their Gods and worship theirs, Aryans never did that.

The ocean was Indian ocean and it was very well mentioned and documented, how they did it?? Just the same way Greeks called the entire area Indoo without ever even stepping in here, and the mere fact that they called all as Bharat show that they never discriminated between the two.

This map is upto 500 BCE, while the time period I am saying is post that, there is still a 1000 years gap between 500 BCE and 500CE by when the entire area had become that of Vedics

Manusmriti is not the core of Vedic culture, it is a Smriti among many other (Parasara, Yagnavalkya etc.) the Smriti texts are never necessary to be followed. And about people leaving, it wasn't only the lower strata who left, many left for getting benefits from the ruling class and many stuck to

Aside I never even said that Vedic culture was the greatest of all, I just said that it was accepted by all across the country.

My question to you since the start was the same if the name given by Greeks (who were also from the same PIE group to which Aryans belonged) was acceptable, what was the issue with name from the people of same group who settled in here

This thread is still active?

Bharat and India both are great names