India and/or Bharat - Name controversy

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.

Before going into the name for my country, let us look at the name of another country, Annikki’s country, called Finland which is also called Suomi. 

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.

The name of the country in the Finnish Constitution is the Republic of Finland, also known as Suomen tasavalta in Finnish.

AI also gave a response as to the historical name of this country:

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.

Kaikeyi tried to secure Dasharatha’s throne for Bharat using her cunning, but Bharat had too much integrity to accept it. He insisted Ram inherit the crown, as per the law. Ram established the legendary Ram-rajya, and ruled the land we now call India, named after his grandmother Indumati, and Bhaarat, named after his brother Bharat. These names remind us that Ram’s kingdom was full of women who were much loved by their husbands, and brothers who did not fight brothers over property."

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. 

Amitabh Bachan has tweeted more than once about changing the name from India to Bharat. Would he be singing "Proud to be a Bharatian" and delete his stand that it is "Proud to be an Indian”?

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? :-)

Useless Terrorist profiling

This post should be under my JM Politics Blog, but I thought it important enough to get multiple exposure, so it is also posted on my main "Jacob's Blog".

I just read an excellent article in Think Progress, January 6, 2010, by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, and Alex Seitz-Wald: "TERRORISM: The Wrong Kind Of Profiling" (reproduced below, Copyright acknowledged) which highlighted how the right wing conservatives in the US and other countries are talking about ethnic and racial profiling, as they consider all Muslims as terrorists before they board an aircraft, etc.

TERRORISM
The Wrong Kind Of Profiling

Following the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack by 23-year old Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a public debate has erupted over the proper way to prevent terrorists and other criminals from endangering airline passengers in the future. While many politicians, pundits, and public policy leaders have engaged in responsible and rational discussions about the intelligence failures that allowed Abdulmutallab to bring bomb materials on an aircraft, a whole host of conservatives have endorsed racial and ethnic profiling that would seek out terror suspects simply on the basis of the color of their skin or religious identity. While many right wingers seem to be comfortable with succumbing to racist and nativist hysteria, the truth is that racial and ethnic profiling is tremendously ineffective. A more rational approach to profiling based on behavior -- rather than race or identity -- would help keep Americans safe while maintaining our civil rights and constitutional freedoms.

THE RIGHT'S EXTREMIST REACTION: It wasn't long after Abdulmutallab's failed attack that conservative pundits and politicians began to call for racial and ethnic profiling of people from Muslim backgrounds. Right-wing radio host Mike Gallagher argued for separate lines at airports to "scrutinize anybody with the name Abdul or Ahmed or Mohammed," which are some of the most common names in the world. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) said, "One hundred percent of the Islamic terrorists are Muslim, and that is our main enemy today. So why should we not be profiling people because of their religion?" Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich wrote a column on Human Events titled "On Terrorism it's Time to Know, to Profile, and to Discriminate," in which he claimed that "cultural sensitivities" are preventing security officials from stopping terrorism; the next day, Gingrich clarified his comments by saying he thinks that profiling should be based "on behavior, not ethnic ... [or] racial profiling." Perhaps the most brazen call for ethnic profiling came from retired Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, who declared, "If you are an 18 to 28-year old Muslim man then you should be strip searched. And if we don't do that, there's a very high probability that we're going to lose an airliner."

WHY RACIAL PROFILING DOESN'T WORK: The fact is that racial and ethnic profiling doesn't work. It creates a false sense of security and causes law enforcement resources to be wasted in chasing the wrong targets. As the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights' reports, racial profiling "diverts precious law enforcement resources away from investigations of individuals...who have been linked to terrorist activity by specific and credible evidence...[and] ignores the possibility that someone who does not fit the profile may be engaged in terrorism." Indeed, On Dec. 28, two Middle Eastern men were pulled off a flight heading to Phoenix because passengers reported they were engaging in suspicious behavior; it ended up that the men were simply speaking a Middle Eastern language. The same day, a Nigerian businessman was taken off an airplane because passengers became suspicious that he was lingering in the bathroom for too long. The FBI confirmed that the individual's behavior was due to a legitimate illness. It's important to note that terrorists come in all shapes, sizes, and colors, and do not simply belong to one religion, ethnicity, or nationality. The "shoe bomber," Richard Reid, was Jamaican and British. Al Qaeda recruit Adam Pearlman was an American. Germaine Lindsay, one of London's 7/7 bombers, was Afro-Caribbean. Scott Roeder, who killed abortion-performing doctor George Tiller last year, was a white evangelical Christian. Racial profiling would, as Salam Al-Marayati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council notes, extend our police dragnet over "potentially hundreds of thousands of [innocent] people every year" and drain precious resources away from other, more important security measures. And as a recent study by the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science concludes, racial profiling has been no more effective than random screening in rooting out terrorists.

A BETTER WAY: While racial and ethnic profiling is a failed strategy that goes against our basic values, there are smarter profiling methods that police and other security officials can use to prevent acts of terrorism. A memo titled "Assessing Behaviors" circulated by law enforcement officials in October 2002 outlined such a strategy. One of the writers of the memo pointed out, "Fundamentally, believing that you can achieve safety by looking at characteristics instead of behaviors is silly. If your goal is preventing attacks...you want your eyes and ears looking for pre-attack behaviors, not characteristics." Former Bush counterterrorism officials have also objected to racial profiling and point out that looking for suspicious behavior is much more important. Former Bush CIA director Michael Hayden said that seeking out terrorists isn't "a question of ethnicity or religion." Rather, "it's what people do that we should be paying attention to." Former Bush Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff argued that "relying on preconceptions or stereotypes is actually kind of misleading and arguably dangerous" because terrorists intentionally recruit people "who don't fit the stereotype." Philip Baum, editor of Aviation Security International, suggests "effective profiling...is based on the analysis of the...behavior of a passenger and an inspection of the traveler's itinerary and passport; it does not and should not be based on race, religion, nationality or color of skin." As former Homeland Security press secretary Russ Knocke explained in 2006, security personnel are, and should be, trained "to look for abnormal human behavior. ... That is in no way racial profiling. That is behavioral profiling."

The article shows the stupidity of such an act as ethnic and racial profiling, as valuable resources are squandered.

It is my "contention of 1" that Al Qaida and other terrorist groups are flying out all sorts of schemes just to throw the entire security apparatus into a tizzy. The more failed attempts, the better for them, as the stupid security analysts start chasing shadows rather than real targets.

That pResident Bush went about wire tapping and searching his entire US population (just to stay ahead of his political opponents) shows how this sort of behaviour by a meglomaniac has squandered the valuable resources of an intelligence community.

Obama has fallen into the same trap. In his recent speech he talked about the failure to connect dots. The reason is that with one million or a billion dots to connect, even with super fast computers, this is impossible. It is easy to see this in hindsight!

During my recent trip to India I passed through so many security checks - Helsinki, London, Mumbai, Cochin, Bangalore, Chennai, Ahmedabad, Delhi. Every single airport followed a different procedure. Every single airport failed to focus on the real problem - separating the real and honest traveller from the potential terrorist. Hence, 99.9% of the procedure was just a waste of valuable resources.

If I were a terrorist, one look at these illogical procedures would have given me 200 ways on how to beat the system. That is what Al Qaida and other terrorist organisations are focusing on.

The security analysts want to show us they are doing a great job (to get a greater allocation of financial resources and to show important they are), but all they are doing is following a set of useless procedures.

As one writer put it, soon we will be travelling on airplanes in the NUDE - but then they will need to do an internal body scan, so we will all be cut open before we get on the plane. Great news for surgeons!

Stupid? Well, that is how stupid the present procedures are, and everyone mutters, "Oh, this is to keep US safe!" (No pun intended!)


We are no safer now than we were 25 years ago. In fact, every new procedure the security analysts introduce makes us less safe as it cuts out one more method the terrorists would have considered. They will concentrate on other more effective methods while sending the security analysts barking up the billion wrong trees!.

Also a Cottonian....

Mysore Palace

Yesterday I took on another hat. I became an Old Cottonian. Although I did not complete my schooling from Bishop Cotton's, Bangalore, I studied there between 1949 and 1954, when I shifted to Cathedral and John Connon School, Mumbai. But my formative years were at Cotton’s and I enjoyed my years there, both in the kindergarten in the Girls’ School and later in the Boys’ School.

Due to Aditya Sondhi, I became involved with the writing of his wonderful book about Cottons and thanks again to him, I have stayed in touch with major events happening in the school.

It just so happened that our visit to Bangalore coincided with the 5th General K. S. Thimayya Memorial Lecture. The subject was by 64er Gopal K. Pillai, IAS, and the current Home Secretary, Govt. of India Old Cottonian (1964) on “India’s Internal Security: Challenges & Responses”.

Mika and I attended the lecture, which was preceded by a morning coffee in the school garden in front of the simply enormous Bishop George Edward Lynch Cotton Auditorium built in 2004 on the 3rd XI field.

As we walked into our alma mater, many changes were observed as on a saturday morning sports practice was in progress on the 1st XI pitch and the school was humming with activity. Greeted in front of the Warden’s Office, a feeling of great nostalgia came over me as I recalled my years in this school. They had been pleasant and wonderful days indeed. I met Aditya Sondhi (Managing Trustee) for the first time and was impressed by his cool and calm appearance and the way he and his colleagues, C N Kumar, Kiran Lakhani, Jairaj Daniel, Rajeev Purnaiya (Trustees of the Gen K S Thimayya Memorial Trust (Regd) handled the Old Cottonians and the numerous distinguished guests who had arrived for this august occasion.

After a really wonderful morning repast produced by the catering division of the school, we trooped into the auditorium, which was then packed to the brim. Mika and I represented a whole host of matthan’s who had passed through this school, starting from the very first Indian girl, Mrs. K. C. Chacko (my father’s eldest sister) right down to Mika, who had, like me studied his formative years in the school between 1976 and 1983.

The lecture was simply excellent as we were briefed on the issues and the responses of the Indian Government in a most candid manner. After the lecture we had a question and answer session and this was a no holds barred session with the final set of questions by the father of the late Late Major Sandip Unnikrishnan, who gave the supreme sacrifice on 26.11.2008. He had been an Old Cottonian. The questions were hard hitting but respecting the wishes of the father, I do not put forward his concerns on this public forum. The lecture and question and answer session overran by almost a hour

After the lecture we adjourned to the Bangalore Club where we were entertained to a lunch by the Trustees. Annikki and I had a chance to have a very intimate conversation with General Thimayya’s daughter, her husband and daughter-in-law and also meet some very old family friends who were not only Cottonians but also those whom I had shared our childhood years with. We recalled many past events of our families and it was with great sadness we pulled ourselves away from this very august gathering and returned to the hotel - exhausted.

As Annikki and Mika rested, i ran to see another dear friend, anil Ananthakrishnan and his wife, Lalitha. It was really wonderful to see how much they had accomplished during the past three years in developing and launching the EKO Vehicles concept which has been Anil’s life’s work from the early 1960s. What he has achieved with his wife in the last three years is truly outstanding.

A tough day but much was left undone. We go on to another exciting day ahead!

(PS: Annikki was brought up as a Seventh Day Adventist Christian, as her father discovered his true faith after the Finnish - Russia Winter War and World War II, where he had served and survived on the frontline (as a soldier) all through it. However, it was not till 1984 that Annikki took the step to be baptized into the faith after her marvellous experiences in the hands of her God. She was baptized in the Church in Bangalore. She attended the Church while Mika and I attended the lecture.)

(PPS: I will return to uncovered dates as I get some free time. Today is the Bangalore Malayakil Matthan Reunion lunch followed by a trip to Mysore. Hopefully back around midnight.)