Bharat to be the official name? - Page 12

Bharat is a name derived from ancient King Bharat who was the ancestor of Kauravas and Pandavas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharata_(Mahabharata)

The word 'Mahabharat' itself is a proof how ancient the name is and its significance. In modern days ofc India has taken precedence as English is the language of conquerors but just because its more in use does not mean we must accept it.

Also, I am least bothered what this forum is called. It is a business after all. All they care about its profit and number of users or they would not have allowed Pakistani forum on this site.  

Also, for those who say Aryans brought Vedas with them when they came to this land, it's a myth propagated by western historians who have a habit of appropriating anything that is good. It's their inherent racism. Thay cannot stand the idea of Vedas coming from anyone but them.

Simple logic is that so far, where ever the invaders have gone, they have taken their Gods with them. The stories of those Gods and their origins do not change. Hindu Gods so far are firmly rooted in this soil. Nobody has claimed Rama was born in Vatican/Jerusalem/or some Greek city. Neither has anyone ever claimed Shiva resides on a mountain in the Alps. Hindu Gods, Vedas, the entire Hindu culture has firm roots in Bharat. So we can safely say they were not originated/brought to this country by invaders.

Originally posted by: aparnauma

If India was a name given by foreigners so is Bharat which was given by the outsiders who entered this country. The part of the land which they called Bharat did not include the portion South of Vindhyas.

We may not know what those people lived in Indus Valley people called themselves but we have physical evidence of the great culture they built. Unlike some other pastoralists whose greatness solely lies in the stories they wrote about themselves and boasting about how they drove the people south.

So if we want our heritage to be reflected in the name our country India is any day better than Bharat.

The name India has sprung from aspirations of people from all over the world wanting a part of it . It comes with a brand value that no other country in the world can match it. 

India is the reason why w have places like West Indies, Indo China  not to mention Indian ocean.

***** For the record I never had problems with Bharat or India. If they want to chane this for some cheap political gains I will oppose.

To be honest I'd preferI ndia and Hindu Desh over Bharat anyday.

@bold if you had even a bit of knowledge of history, you would know that Bharat word did include areas South of Vindhyas. The definition of Bharat as per Vishnu Puran is the area which is marked by Himalayas in north and ocean in the south. And all living here are Bharatiya. This definition is pretty old, on the contary, the Greeks thought India to be only the region in and around Indus so named that part (northwestern region) as India, their definition did not include South or East

I dont think I asked you about whether or not people lived before invasions, I asked do you know what they called this country, if yes then lets promote that name for this nation, if not I think Bharat is the best bet because it was given by the invaders who came settled and amalgamated here.

The name Bharatvarhsa was used by those whose heritage made this area a superpower of its time, gave best mathematicians, best architects, made this land a golden bird for entire world. You are judging the greatness of theirs by their stories? You need to see what the Proto-Indo-European language speakers gave to this region, The Mauryas, The Guptas, The Palas, the entire culture of this region was built up by them, the physical evidence of their greatness is spread across the country, if you only bothered to read the epigraphy 

And had you actually read their stories, there is no mention of driving anyone to South neither do any literature of South mention about having being driven from North. In fact there is no physical evidence either that they were invaders or that they actually disrupted the existing civilization in any way. There is a reason why Aryan Invasion Theory was changed to Aryan Migration Theory academically because no evidence either literary or archeologically was ever found of any invasion.

@Red, you entire post still doesn't explain why "India" reflects our culture more than Bharat? India is a later word, never used by people staying in this land, the invaders who named us Indians or India never settled here, never considered this land as their own (unlike the Indo Aryans who considered this land more precious than heaven) never amalgamated to this culture, how is their name more reflective of our culture than Bharat? The name India has aspirations of people across the world to conquer over, not to be a part, else they would have been part of it instead of invading and looting...

I have no issues with your personal views or on which name you prefer. But if you wrongly quote history for this I will definitely respond

One question and may be the learned can answer.

Is it true that in Britain, the currency, Passport and ALL transactions are changed to represent the current monarch?

If the heads of nation decide on something as significant as that, they surely know what the impacts would be and the transition will be planned seamlessly.

Every change comes with some inconveniences in the beginning and that is fine. Together we can deal with it.

If the argument is that it makes no difference to the current situation, our society, current situation etc., then that's good isn't it? If it makes no difference, why fret?

Originally posted by: aparnauma

Point no 1 Sanskrit is not the oldest language leave alone in our country.Dravidian languages were in use in India long before Sanskrit arrived on scene.

Point no 2 Sanskrit did not give rise to greek as you seem to believe.

Point No 3 Davidian languages are seperate group altogether which were not born from Sanskrit.

The name Bharat doesn't mean anything to people of Davidian origins who were actually descendents of the people of Indus valley civilisation.

Before the arrival of Aryans and their horses and their Vedas the language spoken in this land was a Protodravidian language from which Tamil Telugu Kannada Malayalam and some laguages in central India Nepal and the current day Baluchistan (Which were all part of the great Indian subcontinent)

Tamil Telugu and Devanagari Scripts developed in parallel. So Sanskrit should NOT be down in peoples throats.

It would be a good idea to know the  history of this land before assuming that people all over the country will accept this name Bharat

There is no tangible or physical evidence that Dravidian languages existed in India before Sanskrit, it's just an assumption.

Also is pretty clear that not the entire IVC spoke the same language, so they speaking Proto Dravidian is just your presumption.

Sanskrit as well as Dravidian languages was written in Brahmi script (of the Indo Aryans)earlier so no way to compare that with Devnagri. If IVC was Dravidian they would have carried forward the IVC script which they didn't clearly proving that they weren't IVC descendants 

The IVC people genome is no where closer to South Indians of today than it is to East Indians. East India share highest genetical connect with IVC.. and AASI

The oldest text of Dravidians the Sangam literature speak of Mahabharata, Shiv and Ram.

The Tolkappiyan oldest Tamil grammar texts calls the people here the people of Chaturveda (4 Vedas)

Talagunda inscriptions speak of 3 Vedas(this is the oldest found inscription with the names of Vedas)

South never had any issues with the culture of North or the culture given by Indo Aryan invaders, they always considered themselves to be a part of that same civilization 

A bit of study will help you are right, no need to make everything political 

Right from the beginning all are shouting "Bharat Mata Ki Jai!" Has anybody ever heard "India ki Jai " ... so in our hearts its not India ...but Bharat Mata only .. I don't see the need to change ... just make Bharat more prominently visible ... that's it.  

Not here for the debate over languages or the name Bharat but the Aryan-Dravidian argument caught my attention. 

The entire Aryan Invasion Theory is a myth - it was fabricated and maintained for political purposes. 
Extracted from a news article:

This theory was pushed hard for various reasons. It not only explained the similarities between Sanskrit and Greek or Latin very easily, when one assumed that a branch of the Aryans migrated towards Europe as the other invaded India. Besides this, it also made it easy for the British rulers to show themselves as another Aryan group gifting true civilisation to India and civilising the uncouth masses. Another more sinister reason was its use to strengthen the divide and rule policy of the British, where this Aryan invasion/migration theory proved useful in widening the divisions among high-caste Indians (supposed Aryans descendants) and the tribals and lower castes (cleverly represented as original inhabitants of India), while also creating the North-South divide.

While later Max Mueller himself in a speech to the Strasburg University (1872) had accepted that the Aryan Invasion theory was not correct and Aryans were not a race, in post-independence Indian history the Nehruvian “scholars” found it better to keep the Aryan Invasion Theory running for political and ideological benefits and other vested interests. In order to keep this theory alive various steps were deliberately taken, which included “(1) invention of non-existent texts; (2) deliberate mistranslations of texts; (3) the invention of nonexistent archaeological evidence; (4) distortion of archaeological evidence; (5) basic methodological flaws such as circular reasoning, oversimplification, etc; (6) the recycling of long-discarded theories such as racial ones; (7) the misquoting, blanking out or demonising of scholars opposing the Aryan paradigm” (Danino, “Fabricating Evidence in Support of the Aryan Invasion / Migration Theory,” 2018, p. 3).


Unfortunately, our history textbooks weren't corrected! There was no invasion and no one came on horses with Vedas - its all been falsified. The terms Aryan and Dravidians were made to imply two races when actually, they are just groups of people speaking different languages to satisfy the Britisher's divide and rule tactics. 
Here's the full article, I am sure you will find more resources on the web:

The big Aryan-Dravidian debate: Inventing an invasion that never took place in India (firstpost.com)

Originally posted by: aparnauma

Point no 1 Sanskrit is not the oldest language leave alone in our country.Dravidian languages were in use in India long before Sanskrit arrived on scene.

Point no 2 Sanskrit did not give rise to greek as you seem to believe.

Point No 3 Davidian languages are seperate group altogether which were not born from Sanskrit.

The name Bharat doesn't mean anything to people of Davidian origins who were actually descendents of the people of Indus valley civilisation.

Before the arrival of Aryans and their horses and their Vedas the language spoken in this land was a Protodravidian language from which Tamil Telugu Kannada Malayalam and some laguages in central India Nepal and the current day Baluchistan (Which were all part of the great Indian subcontinent)

Tamil Telugu and Devanagari Scripts developed in parallel. So Sanskrit should NOT be down in peoples throats.

It would be a good idea to know the  history of this land before assuming that people all over the country will accept this name Bharat

Originally posted by: Sutapasima

Right from the beginning all are shouting "Bharat Mata Ki Jai!" Has anybody ever heard "India ki Jai " ... so in our hearts its not India ...but Bharat Mata only .. I don't see the need to change ... just make Bharat more prominently visible ... that's it.  

Best solution

I don't think we need to change the name Bharat. Bharat is one of the unique names given to our country. It shows pride and respect for our nation. Through this name Indian fell to be proud.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

There is no tangible or physical evidence that Dravidian languages existed in India before Sanskrit, it's just an assumption.

Also is pretty clear that not the entire IVC spoke the same language, so they speaking Proto Dravidian is just your presumption.

Sanskrit as well as Dravidian languages was written in Brahmi script (of the Indo Aryans)earlier so no way to compare that with Devnagri. If IVC was Dravidian they would have carried forward the IVC script which they didn't clearly proving that they weren't IVC descendants 

The IVC people genome is no where closer to South Indians of today than it is to East Indians. East India share highest genetical connect with IVC.. and AASI

The oldest text of Dravidians the Sangam literature speak of Mahabharata, Shiv and Ram.

The Tolkappiyan oldest Tamil grammar texts calls the people here the people of Chaturveda (4 Vedas)

Talagunda inscriptions speak of 3 Vedas(this is the oldest found inscription with the names of Vedas)

South never had any issues with the culture of North or the culture given by Indo Aryan invaders, they always considered themselves to be a part of that same civilization 

A bit of study will help you are right, no need to make everything political 

Language development is different from Script development.

The script that is Devnagari used for writing sanskrit did not develop till 500 /600 bc and around the same script  for ancient Telugu and Tamil developed from Bhattiprolu Brahmi script. Here is how languages of the world have developed. 

Currently the term Aryan is not used all thanks to Hitler. But they are renamed as Indoeuropeans who are pastoralists from Steppes near Caspian sea.

Linguistic families are used to study cultures As you can see Dravidans are separate entity altogether.

Since Vedas seem to be the standards for some groups of people in this country in Rigveda also it is mentioned that when Aryans encountered a few groups of people who they referred to as Anrayas and they wrote that they drove these anaryas called dasyus down south.

Yes there is no proof that Aryans destroyed Indus valley civilisation  but there are enough proofs that they got into fights with people who are indigenous and they were also referred to as dark skinned people.

S there are people who did  not agree with the  pastoralist community and  it is proof that there are two  different types of people existed then. And even science confirms this. Most of the south Indians who speak Dravidan language are genetically different from the people who spoke Indoeuropean languages and of course East asian language people also came into picture around the same time.

Modern Indians who speak Dravidan languages live in the South of India are a mixture Indoiranian indo african hunter gatherers afroasiatic origin while the Indoeuropean group of language speaking  modern Indians are a mixture of Steppe pastoralists and the indigenous Indians who are a mixture of above mentioned groups which formed AASI.

Indus valley people did not have the genes of Indoeuropean language speaking people instead their gene makeup is more similar to the gene makeup of Tamilans and people of Andhra south of River Krishna.

@red That means you don't know history of Dravidian movement. Andhras(Telugu speaking Dravidians) may not have had so much opposition towards the culture of North due to various reasons. 

But have you ever spoken to a Tamilian or a Kannadiga? Why do you think people from south protest against Hindi imposition?Not having issues with North culture is not the same as accepting it as their own culture. 

The ancient invaders tried to change the culture of indigenous people then came Muslims and lastly the colonialists. This land called India has been a composition of federal provinces since ancient times and it never had a homogenous culture. Imposition of Vedic ideas and Indoeuropean languages on all of India is not correct.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

@bold if you had even a bit of knowledge of history, you would know that Bharat word did include areas South of Vindhyas. The definition of Bharat as per Vishnu Puran is the area which is marked by Himalayas in north and ocean in the south. And all living here are Bharatiya. This definition is pretty old, on the contary, the Greeks thought India to be only the region in and around Indus so named that part (northwestern region) as India, their definition did not include South or East

I dont think I asked you about whether or not people lived before invasions, I asked do you know what they called this country, if yes then lets promote that name for this nation, if not I think Bharat is the best bet because it was given by the invaders who came settled and amalgamated here.

The name Bharatvarhsa was used by those whose heritage made this area a superpower of its time, gave best mathematicians, best architects, made this land a golden bird for entire world. You are judging the greatness of theirs by their stories? You need to see what the Proto-Indo-European language speakers gave to this region, The Mauryas, The Guptas, The Palas, the entire culture of this region was built up by them, the physical evidence of their greatness is spread across the country, if you only bothered to read the epigraphy 

And had you actually read their stories, there is no mention of driving anyone to South neither do any literature of South mention about having being driven from North. In fact there is no physical evidence either that they were invaders or that they actually disrupted the existing civilization in any way. There is a reason why Aryan Invasion Theory was changed to Aryan Migration Theory academically because no evidence either literary or archeologically was ever found of any invasion.

@Red, you entire post still doesn't explain why "India" reflects our culture more than Bharat? India is a later word, never used by people staying in this land, the invaders who named us Indians or India never settled here, never considered this land as their own (unlike the Indo Aryans who considered this land more precious than heaven) never amalgamated to this culture, how is their name more reflective of our culture than Bharat? The name India has aspirations of people across the world to conquer over, not to be a part, else they would have been part of it instead of invading and looting...

I have no issues with your personal views or on which name you prefer. But if you wrongly quote history for this I will definitely respond

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.