A new discussion has started raging in my country of birth. What should be the name by which we should refer to it
(Picture taken from Times of India.)
I saw posts on Instagram and Twitter with persons suggesting one name was more relevant than the other.
The people are referred to as Finns or in Finnish as Suomalainen.
AI provided this answer as to the name of this
country as per the Constitution.
AI also gave a response as to the historical name of this country:The name of the country in the Finnish Constitution is the Republic of Finland, also known as Suomen tasavalta in Finnish.
The country Finland is commonly known by two names: Finland and Suomi. "Finland" is an foreign-language term for the country, which has been used internationally for many years. On the other hand, "Suomi" is the Finnish name for the country and is used by the native Finnish-speaking population.
The origin of the name "Suomi" dates back to ancient times when Finland was inhabited by Finnish tribes. The meaning of the word is not entirely clear, but it is believed to have originated from the Proto-Finnic term "suomaa," which means "swampland." This name likely reflects the country's landscape, featuring numerous lakes and forests.
The adoption of the name "Finland" in English came about through various historical and linguistic reasons. During the Middle Ages, the region was part of the Kingdom of Sweden, and the Swedish name for the area was "Finland." This name then became widely known internationally when Finland was a part of the Swedish Kingdom.
Later, when Finland was under Russian rule in the early 19th century, the Finnish language began to gain prominence and recognition as a distinct identity. As a result, the Finnish name "Suomi" became more commonly used among the Finnish-speaking population.
Both names, "Finland" and "Suomi," are now commonly used to refer to the country, depending on the language being spoken. "Finland" is the primary foreign name, while "Suomi" is the Finnish name.
Is there any controversy in having two names - each with its own importance!
Take look at the Indian Constitution:
“The Constitution of India begins by saying ‘India that is Bharat’, the Hindi version says ‘Bharat that is India’.
The name mentioned in the Tamil version of the Indian Constitution is பாரதம் (Pāratam), which is the Tamil transliteration of the Sanskrit word भारत (Bhārata). The Tamil version of the Constitution was adopted in 1956, and it has the same legal status as the English version.
The word பாரதம் (Pāratam) is used throughout the Tamil version of the Constitution to refer to the country of India.
The Malayalam version of the Indian Constitution refers to the name of India and Bharat as ഭാരതം (Bhāratam). This is the Malayalam transliteration of the Sanskrit word भारत (Bhārata).
The Malayalam version of the Constitution was adopted in 1956, and it has the same legal status as the English version. The word ഭാരതം (Bhāratam) is used throughout the Malayalam version of the Constitution to refer to the country of India. For example, Article 1 of the Malayalam version states:
ഭാരതം, അതായത് ഇന്ത്യ, സംസ്ഥാനങ്ങളുടെ യൂനിയനായിരിക്കും.
(Bhāratam, athāyat Intiya, saṃsthāngaḷuṭe yūniyanāyirikkum.)
Which translates to:
India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
The name ഭാരതം (Bhāratam) is also used in the Malayalam names of many government institutions and organizations, such as the ഭാരത സർക്കാർ (Bhāratha Sarkar; Government of India) and the ഭാരത തെരഞ്ഞെടുപ്പ് കമ്മീഷൻ (Bhāratha Tēraññjetuppu Kammīṣaṇ; Election Commission of India).
The use of the name ഭാരതം (Bhāratam) in the Malayalam version of the Constitution and in the names of government institutions and organizations reflects the long and rich history of Malayalam culture and language in India.
In the Bengali version of the Indian Constitution, the name of India is "ভারত" (Bharat) and Bharat is also referred to as "ভারত গণরাজ্য" (Bharat Ganarajya).
When we wrote our book "The Titanic Called India" in 2015 we tackled this subject of names of cities at the start of our chapter on Bangalore.
We wrote:
Bengaluru:
A City in Self Immolation
The name Bangalore was officially changed to Bengaluru on the 1st of November 2015.
Hundreds of Indian cities have had their names changed since India became independent in 1947. The latest round was the 11 cities in Karnataka State, of which Bengaluru was the largest.
They wondered why these cosmetic changes were done.
It costs the country many crores to implement such a simple name change. As no one wants to oppose the mass mentality, and these sorts of changes, which have nothing to do with policies, development or growth, but are purely to get votes by pleasing an uneducated set of people run by useless emotions, this has become a national priority.
It is an attempt to change history, because people do not appreciate history!
Bombay was changed to Mumbai, Madras to Chennai, Calcutta to Kolkota, Poona to Pune.
The question is who benefits from such changes!
Nobody seems to care how much it costs as it appears they are not paying for it as it does not go out of their personal bank accounts.
But someone is paying for it! It is everyone!
But then who cares?
Annikki said she did not like the new name. Jacob was indifferent. Since neither Annikki nor Jacob are taxpayers in India, their views do not matter. If this is what Bengaluruns liked, so be it! To hell with the cost!!!
Let us take look at this map of the subcontinent during Mahabharat times.
This video looks at the history of India every year.
It is also important to look at the oldest languages of the world and the oldest spoken language of the world as shown in this video.
Although Sanskrit and Tamil are the two oldest languages of 5000 years, the oldest spoken language is Tamil. Hindi and Urdu are relatively new languages.
There is no connection between the southern part of the subcontinet and the northern part in ancient Indian history.
The Arayan culture is not native to India as Dravidian culture is.
Hence the imposition of that era of history is totally disrespecting the indigenous Dravidian culture that prevailed here.
Also look at what is considered as the oldest spoken language in the world, which is Tamil.
What respect is given to that part of our culture by choosing the name of Bharat for the country.
So why not use the word of a living language and not a dead one?
Pāratam!
The claim that India was derived from the colonial history has been debunked by a well researched article which linked the derivation of India from the name Indumathi. (The following was published in the Times of India.)
"Once upon a time, there was a princess called Indu (the moon) or Indumati (the full moon). Her brother was Bhoja, king of Vidarbha. She chose Aja, king of Ayodhya, as her husband. They had a child called Dasharatha. But then, one day, she died, startled by a flower that fell from heaven. Aja could not bear to live without her, and so died soon after, passing on the mantle of the throne to their young son. Dasharatha’s eldest son was Ram, born of the senior queen Kaushalya. His second son was Bharat born of his favourite queen Kaikeyi.
What are the arguments being made for and against changing the name of India to Bharat?
The argument for changing the name of India to Bharat is primarily based on assumed the historical and cultural reasons. Here are some key arguments quoted in favour of the change:
1. Historical and Cultural Continuity: Bharat is claimed to be the ancient Sanskrit name of India, with roots dating back to several millennia. Supporters argue that changing the name to Bharat would reflect the country's rich historical and cultural heritage, emphasizing its deep-rooted traditions and heritage.
2. National Identity: Renaming the country to Bharat is seen by some as a way to reinforce a sense of national identity among its citizens. By adopting the "indigenous" name, proponents argue that it will strengthen the unity and pride of the diverse Indian population.
3. Symbolic Representation: Advocates believe that the name Bharat carries important symbolism that aligns with the values and ethos of the nation. The name is supposedly associated with India's ancient Vedic civilization and signifies a greater connection to the country's timeless heritage.
4. Indian Languages and Vernacular: Bharat is widely used in various Indian languages, including Hindi, Marathi, and Bengali, among others, as the name for India. Supporters argue that adopting Bharat as the official name would eliminate the language bias associated with the “English” term "India."
However, there are also arguments against changing the name to Bharat. Here are some of the key counter arguments:
1. Historical and Global Recognition: The name India has been widely recognized and used for centuries in both historical contexts and global interactions. Changing the name to Bharat will lead to confusion or require significant effort and resources to update official documents, maps, treaties, and international agreements.
2. Linguistic Diversity: India is known for its linguistic diversity, with numerous languages and dialects spoken throughout the country. The name India has become a common unifying factor across different linguistic groups, allowing for ease of communication and identification among the diverse population.
3. Political and Administrative Challenges: Implementing a name change on a national level requires significant administrative efforts, including amending the Constitution, updating legal documents, changing the names of government bodies, and altering educational curricula. Such a process can be time-consuming, costly, and may face resistance from various stakeholders.
4. Prioritization of Other Issues: Critics argue that changing the name of the country to Bharat may divert attention and resources from more pressing socioeconomic and developmental issues that require immediate focus. They believe that the government's efforts should be concentrated on addressing these challenges instead of a symbolic name change.
Overall, the decision to change the name of India to Bharat involves weighing historical and assumed cultural heritage against practical considerations, administrative challenges, and the potential impact on national and international recognition.
It is interesting to see how Amitabh Bachan introduced the Shillong Chamber Choir when they sang “Vande Mataram” on his tv program.
Secondly how much would Amitabh Bachan hand over to the exchequer from his "personal wealth" to change the name from India to Bharat.
This is the ultimate in political sycophancy, and not any stand on principles.
Narendra Modi went on this tirade to change the name when the Opposition Alliance this year made I.N.D.I.A. their acronym for their stand against him.
All it shows is childishness.
Modi has a mass following of people who have no other claim to fame than other being blind Hindutva bhakths.
These are same people who believe that Modi connected a pipe to the drain and used the "gas" from the drain to heat the tea for his "mythical" tea stand at a "mythical" railway station!
I wish Modi would give this appropriate high technology gas from drain technology to millions of his bhakths!
It may save us a lot of oil and gas imports!
Is India to be governed by these blind bhakths or on the basis of historical and economic considerations.
The first estimate for the change of name is Rs. 12000 crores. This is unlikely be the final value, but will be manyfold times this estimate.
Let Amitabh Bachan, Gautam Adani, the Ambani brothers, suggested by some as being Modi's financiers, foot this bill.
Why pass this cost on to the ordinary people of India?
With the large proportion of the Indian population living in gross poverty, can a country afford such a luxury.
In what way will they benefit?
Will it give them food, or shelter, clothing, education, safety, social security.
I recently addressed a leading newspaper editor on by when social security would become a feature in life in our country.
The answer was unequivocal - NEVER!
Take a look at the leading world indicators between the two countries of my interest, Finland and India/Bharat/Pāratam.
The country should make it its first priority to make it the leading in at least a few of these indicators which would directly reflect the well being of the people.
Once that is done it is my personal opinion that people will not “time waste” on irrelevant exercises as changing the name of our country.
As a footnote it is interesting to who are the most wanting for India to give up its name! It is none other than Pakistan. :-)
The transboundary Indus river basin has a total area of 1.12 million km2 distributed between Pakistan (47 percent), India (39 percent), China (8 percent) and Afghanistan (6 percent). Pakistanis feel that they should have been given the name, India, as it is the country through which the Indus River mainly runs through.
"The Islamic Republic of India also known as Pakistan"?
What would be the reaction of Modi and his bhakths (and Amitabh Bachman) to handing over the name "INDIA" to Pakistan on a golden platter? :-)
