“India” in English, “Bharat” in Hindi: this is a debate that takes on an international dimension, as at the 2023 G20 summit in New Delhi, where the invitation was signed by “the president of Bharat”. The same was on the table of the Prime Minister, who until then was appointed as India’s representative, in English. However, the question is not new.

India as we know it today is still very new: it was born in 1947. But Indian civilization dates back to the 6th century BC, around the Indus River, previously called the Sindhu. Anne Viguier, teacher-researcher at the National Institute of Oriental Languages ​​and Civilizations (Inalco) and historian specializing in India, explains the following linguistic developments: “Initially, Sindhu became Hindu in Persian. It was SM, so the S changed. And then the H disappeared and it became India.” Sindhu would also give the name “Hindustan”, which literally means “land of the Indus”, or even “Al-Hind”, which was used by the Arab people.

Therefore, most Indian names were first discovered almost 2,500 years ago, on this river Indus… But around the 5th century AD, a second term appeared: namely “Bharat”, which is a derivative “named after a mythical king who appears in Sanskrit writings from the beginning of our era, in the puranas”, explains Anne Viguier. The Puranas are legendary stories, the pillars of Hindu religionoscillates between epics of kings and philosophical reflections, including tales of gods and goddesses.

India: a mix of languages, cultures and identities

Here we have three main names for a civilization stretching from Pakistan to Bangladesh: “India”, “Hindustan” and “Bharat”. “What is interesting to note is that these three terms have changed in meaning throughout history. So today these words don’t have the meaning we gave them centuries ago.” Anne Viguier analysis.

“Bharat”, for example, is currently claimed by Hindu nationalists to be derived from sacred texts. But this connotation is still very new! “In fact, the term “Bharat” could have been used by a Muslim poet in the late 19th century to refer to this region of India., says Anne Viguier. Since the 8th century, India is colonized by Muslim clans and then by Europeans, with the British, French, Portuguese, Danish and Dutch empires. Therefore, the country has experienced centuries of foreigners naming the same region differently.

Which brings us to 1947: India’s independence. At that time, Indians used “India”, “Bharat”, “Al-Hind” or “Hindustan” to refer to their land. “The terms vary, this is part of India: a very ancient history, with an accumulation of external and internal perspectives.developed Anne Viguier.

It took the Indians two years to write the Constitution, from 1947 to 1949. There had to be a compromise in choosing the name. Anne Viguier explains her writing process: “Discussions around this term lasted all day. (…) At that time there was “Bharat” and “India”. Some argue that the term is simply “Bharat”, because the terminology “Indian” has become colonial, even though it was of course not originally the case. However, since the Constitution is written in English, and it is also about being able to express oneself so that all Indians understand it, it was decided to retain both names.” This is why we can read, in the first line of the Constitution: “India, that is Bharat, is a Union of Nations.” However this is the only time the word “Bharat” appears in the text.

The current debate is against the backdrop of Hindu nationalism

Today, Indians generally use “India” when speaking English and “Bharat” when speaking Hindi, which are the country’s two official national languages. However, the country has 22 official regional languages, and there are still: “There are many other languages ​​besides that”explained Anne Viguier. “The last census in 2011 recorded more than 19,000 mother tongues.”

At the time of independence, English was chosen to unite linguistic diversity. The fact that Prime Minister Narendra Modi wanted to formalize a Sanskrit term to refer to the country, therefore not appealing to all Indians, according to Anne Viguier. “Bharat was not unanimously accepted for two reasons: the exploitation of this name by Hindu nationalists, who suggested the term – because it appears in Sanskrit texts – was linked to the origins of Hinduism. The second reason is linguistic, as it is a Sanskrit word and the people of South India, who speak Dravidian languages, are very careful about maintaining their distinctiveness and do not want English to disappear or be contested as an official language.”

This debate is increasingly relevant in the 2024 elections, where 26 opposition parties have formed a coalition with the acronym “INDIA”. According to Anne Viguier, when Narendra Modi forced the name Bharat to talk about India, “There is a kind of political exploitation. This is a kind of protest to reject the term Indian, as if it were foreign, and therefore allows us to also reject this alliance.”