Language Log
A short history, and the politics, of the many names of
the country.
Image
credit: Dibyangshu Sarkar/AFP
Jun
24, 2016 · 08:00 am Updated Jun 24, 2016 · 11:17 am
One of
the last vestiges of “Bombay” is about to be wiped out. More than 20 years
after Bombay was renamed as Mumbai, the Bharatiya Janata Party government at
the Centre is preparing to make the High Court located in the city follow suit.
In the upcoming monsoon session of Parliament, legislation will be moved to rename
Bombay High Court as Mumbai High Court. At the same time, Madras High Court
will also get an identity that reflects the city’s current name, Chennai.
Language
nationalism is an on-and-off factor in Indian politics. In the 1960s, Tamils
rioted over concerns that the New Delhi was forcing Hindi down their throats.
Mumbai frequently sees Marathi nationalists go on rampage against purported
outsiders. The 1990s saw a spate of city renamings, with colonial names
replaced by local language names.
Globally,
language identity is the most common basis for nationalism. This means that
renaming has been a common activity: Burma became Myanmar, Ceylon, Sri Lanka
and Siam, Thailand.
What
is interesting, however, is that Indian nationalism has never involved itself
in matters of nomenclatural identity. But this is not for the lack of options.
Like Bombay/Mumbai/Bambai, the country also has three names that are in popular
use: India, Bhārata and Hindustan.
India
as “Bhārata”
The
oldest of these is Bhārata, a Sanskrit word dating to the Puranas, which would
make it at least 2,000 years old. Now, Puranic geography isn’t the most
accurate at describing the planet, but it makes up in imagination what is lost
in accuracy. The Puranas envisage a land mass on which humans dwell called
Jambudvipa – “jambu” being the Sanskrit name for the Indian blackberry and the
origin of “jamun” in Hindi-Urdu. Jambudvipa, in turn, was divided into nine
parts, one of which was Bhāratavarsa.
However,
as Indologist Bimala Churn Law points out:
“Bhāratavarsa is not our India of present geographical area." An exact
mapping of the Pauranic Bhāratavarsa is difficult – and mostly moot given how
different modern geography is from ancient myth – but it might have also included
faraway Sumatra, now in modern-day Indonesia.
Bhārata,
as a word for India, therefore, has far more modern origins. Nevertheless,
given the prestige of Sanskrit, Bhārata has been borrowed into almost every
Indian language as a name for India.
India
as Hindustan
The
other local language name for the country is Hindustan. It started off as an
exonym – an external name for a geographical place (like Peking , the name
given by foreigners, versus Beijing) – and is a Persian word. Hindu was the
Persian name of the people who inhabited that land. In Sanskrit, it has the
same origin as Sindhu. Like Bhārata, Hindustan was geographically ambiguous in
ancient times (like any geographical name at the time). It referred to the area
around the Indus (hence Sindh) or the entire area east of the river (a fairly
good fit then with modern-day India).
Indians
themselves would use this word only when Persian-speaking Turks established
multiple sultanates in the subcontinent, starting with the Mamluk Sultanate in
Delhi in 1206 AD.
In
medieval India, while the word Hindustan was very popular, it didn’t refer to
the entire subcontinent but only a part of it, which roughly corresponds to the
modern-day cow belt. Thus, there is a town called Sirhind – Persian for “head
of Hind” – close to the Punjab-Haryana border, and plundering Maratha armies
would often talk of entering Hindustan from the Deccan as they crossed the
river Tapi. This is also why, when the British
encountered spoken Hindi-Urdu, they took to calling it Hindustani in much the
same way as Bengali was the British name for the language spoken by people in
Bengal.
Hindustan,
the subcontinent
As the
modern concept of nationalism took root during the British Raj, the name
Hindustan started being used as a pars pro toto for the Indian subcontinent.
This is not uncommon. The Holland and Netherlands phenomenon is
another example of a single region overshadowing a larger geographical area.
Nevertheless, shades of the old meaning survive today. Bengalis still refer to,
say, people of Uttar Pradesh-origin as Hindustanis.
While
the name Hindustan has no status in the eyes of the Indian state whose formal
names remain Bhārata and India, it is the most popular, even natural, word in
spoken Hindi-Urdu for the country. Consequently, Hindustan/Hindustani is a common
word used by Bollywood for India across film titles and song lyrics, while
Bhārat is rarer and only reserved for formal occasions.
Along
with Bollywood, the Hindutva ideology is a great promoter of Hindustan as it is
a key part of the alliterative slogan “Hindu-Hindi-Hindustan”. This trilogy of
religion, language and region, as a defining aspect of Hindutva, was proposed
by Hindu nationalist leader Vinayak Savarkar, who was perhaps unaware of the
common Persian origin of all three words, leading to the delicious irony of a
chauvinist movement using a word of foreign origin to name itself.
India
as India
The
name given to the land by the ruling British owes its origin to the word
“Hind”, which entered the Greek and Latin languages as “India”, literally the
region of the river Indus. The name “India” was perhaps the first unambiguous,
legal name for the whole subcontinent that was in common use. However, the name
India as a synonym for the Indian subcontinent ended in 1947 with Partition.
Pakistan's
founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who wanted Pakistan and Hindustan to add up to
“India” after Partition, objected to New Delhi's appropriation of the word
“India”. In September 1947, eight weeks after Partition, Jinnah wrote to
India’s governor general Louis Mountbatten: “It is a pity that for some
mysterious reason Hindustan have adopted the word “India” which is certainly
misleading and is intended to create confusion”.
Anti-“India”
nationalists
Nationalist
movements usually dislike exonyms, doubly so when they are an outcome of
colonialism. Thus, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Zimbabwe all replaced their colonial
names – Ceylon, Burma and Rhodesia.
In
much the same way, there were quite a few political formations within India,
which, for reasons of their own, agreed with Jinnah that India wasn’t a
suitable name for the newly-partitioned county. These came to the fore in the
Constituent Assembly, as the body discussed the very first article of the
Constitution which read: “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States”.
The pro-Bharat constituency was a mixed group of Hindu and Hindi nationalists.
Seth Govind Das, a Congressmen from Madhya Pradesh and head of the All India
Cow Protection League, attacked the name India as a colonial
imposition with some non-partisan help from the Encyclopedia Britannica:
The
word India does not occur in our ancient books. It began to be used when the
Greeks came to India. They named our Sindhu river as Indus and India was
derived from Indus. There is a mention of this in Encyclopedia Britannica.
On the contrary, if we look up the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Brahmanas and our
great and ancient book the Mahabharat, we find a mention of the name “Bharat”.
In the
end, the name India was retained, a rare example of a colonial exonym being
used in a post-colonial state. In 1950, this was a strategic decision since the
name India carried with it international prestige and provided a stable link
with 200 years of the British Raj – an advantage Pakistan and Bangladesh, the
two other successor states of the Raj did not have.
Opposing
and accepting 'India'
Nevertheless,
historical movements to expel the name “India” keep resurfacing. The Samajwadi
Party, using Hindi rather than Hindu nationalism, asked to
rename India as “Bharat” in its manifesto for the 2004 General Elections.
Hindutva
ideologues, repeating Savarkar’s etymological confusion, still continue to ask
for “Hindustan” to be brought back. In 2003, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, part of
the Sangh Parivar, made the demand for Hindustan as did
Bharatiya Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy, in 2013.
Unlike,
say Tamil or Kannada identity, language is hardly central to Hindu nationalism,
so the movement for Hindustan has remained rather listless. Hindi nationalism
was a major force till 1947, mostly in opposition to its Siamese twin Urdu, but
the distributed nature of the language means its politics is quite different from,
say, Marathi. Hindi, even in its home states, is mostly an urban language and
states like Uttar Pradesh have vast rural swathes where languages like Awadhi
or Bhojpuri, and not Hindi, are native tongues.
Additionally,
after 200 years of India being the official name of the land, it is slowly
ceasing to be an exonym and is being absorbed into Indian languages. The name
“India” is now used by non-Anglophones quite easily, and is so common that it
is even entering
written forms. This represents an interesting contrast with regional exonyms
such as West Bengal (Paschim Banga), Madras (Chennai) and Bangalore (Bengaluru),
amongst others, which have followed the globally more common option of
reasserting local language names.
Source: scrollin
