Why is it important to change the name of the country from India to Bharat or Hindustan?

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court that the name India is a symbol of British slavery, whereas it is necessary to name Bharat or Hindustan because it will awaken patriotism.

Why is it necessary to change the name?

After the fall of Communism, the names of innumerable cities, buildings, roads were changed in Russia, Ukraine, Central Asia and all over Eastern Europe. In Russia, Leningrad has again renamed St. Petersburg, Stalingrad to Volgograd, etc. In the neighbourhood, Ceylon took its name from Sri Lanka and Burma took Myanmar. Great Britain itself had to change its official noun to the United Kingdom. There have been deep cultural and political sentiments behind these names

Therefore, it is sad that after independence, the names of many provinces and cities were changed here, but the name of the country remains unchanged. The time has come for those who have given 'Trivandrum' to Thiruvananthapuram, 'Madras' to Tamil Nadu,' Bombay 'to Mumbai,' Calcutta 'to Kolkata or' Bangalore 'to Bangaluru,' Orissa to Odisha and 'West Bengal' to Paschimbanga It was considered necessary to rename etc. - All of them together should now replace the word 'India' with Bharat or Hindustan. Because India is the word that was imposed on us by the institution which had forced us into slavery and enslavement.

It is not just a matter of emotion. The naming of a country, the state has a serious implication. The example of South Africa is instructive. Names of 916 places have been changed in the last ten years there! These include not only cities but also rivers, mountains, dams and airports. Several names are proposed to be changed further. This was done on the basis of the principle that the names which hurt the public should be changed. There the subject is so serious that a government commission called 'South Africa Geographical Name Council' is holding a public hearing on it.

Therefore, Changing the name of our country is also a question of great importance. Nomenclature is a symbol and tool of intellectual-cultural dominance. For the past eight hundred years, foreign invaders have tried to destroy our cultural, Dharmik and educational centres and give it a new look and name. The British rulers also put innumerable places hereafter their rulers, generals. 

In education, Lord Macaulay made an open declaration that he wanted to change the mindset of the Hindustani and make them voluntary British servants, who would remain Bharatiya only by body. 

In fact, only the British did not understand the importance of changing names, words and ideas. When the Muslim League demanded a separate Muslim country and finally took it here in 1940, it was named Pakistan. If they wanted, they could name the new country as 'West India' or 'Maghribi Hindustan' - as in the divisions of Germany, Korea etc., ie East Germany, West Germany and North Korea, South Korea. But the Muslim League kept a different Mazhabi name. Behind this also there was a desire to leave one identity and adopt another. Even the Muslim leaders did not adopt the word Mughalia, 'Hindustan', even considering themselves as the successors of the Mughals. Why?

Because names and words are not inanimate devices. They belong to a language and culture. As Nirmal Verma has written, many words are museums in themselves, in which a thousand years old tradition, memory, manner and knowledge of a society is condensed. That is why when someone leaves a language, then, knowingly and unknowingly, he leaves the whole consciousness and tradition behind it. Presumably, this is why our nationalist leaders, writers or journalists who are based solely on English education, and who have not studied Sanskrit or Indian scriptures in their original form, are often unable to deal with the consciousness of the Hindu people. On many points, their views begin to meet with secularists or anti-Hindu 'moderns'. Because they have been educated on those points on the basis of foreign language and foreign concepts. That is why in spite of their goodwill they become non-Indian, non-Hindu in contemplation.

In fact, one of the biggest mistakes we made in 1947 was that even after becoming independent, the country was renamed as 'India'. Girilal Jain, the ill-reputed scholar editor of the Times of India, wrote that in independent India, this "one word caused great destruction" in India. He wrote this matter in the context of the Islamic problem. If the name of the country was Bharat, then there is no request for anyone to join Bharatiyata! 

According to Girilalji, India first separated Indian and Hindu. Worse, they made 'Indian' bigger than Hindu. If this had not happened, today the work of secularism, diversity, and multi-cultural word-trap and noose would not have been so simple.

If the name of the country was Bharat, the Muslims of this country would call themselves Bharatiya Muslims. They are still called 'Hindvi' Muslims in Arabia. For centuries, foreigners continued to call the people of Bharat as 'Hindus' and still today. This is our identity throughout the world, with which Muslims were also associated. Because they are all converted people from Hindus (not only M.K Gandhi, Farooq Abdullah also says).

Thus, it is necessary to discard the names given by foreigners. There is a sense of importance and pride in its identity. There can be no objection to any language, region, caste or sect in changing India to Bharat. The word Bharat has been used in all languages of this country. Rather, the reason why Madras, Bombay, Calcutta, Trivandrum, etc. were changed, is also more appropriate to change the name of the country. The term India refers directly to British rule over Bharat. The first use of 'India' in the official name was done in 'East India Company', which made us slaves and made us suffer. When they came to this country to do business, the people country used to call it Bharatvarsha or Hindustan.

 

In fact, last year, Congress MP from Goa Mr Shantaram Naik had also presented a private bill in the Rajya Sabha to amend the constitution in this matter. In this, he said that in the Preamble of the Constitution and Article 1, the word India should be changed to Bharat. Because Bharat is a more comprehensive and meaningful word, whereas India is only a geographical expression. Heartfelt thanks to Mr Naik for recognizing a major flaw and proceeded to remove it. But there has been lack of any campaign in its favour by the aware and patriotic Hindustanis.

Such intellectuals will protest silently in an attempt to name the country as Bharat. Because they are being dehumanized with a sense of 'Bharatiyata'. The problem is that the way a local public was strong for Kolkata, Chennai and Mumbai, it does not look like Bharat. Not because there are few who want it. But precisely because the spirit of Bharat is not of localism, but of nationality. Therefore, political and intellectuals who abstain from patriotism for some reason or the other are associated with 'internationalism' or 'global' sentiment.

Changing the word India to Bharat is a national question, which is why all groups and ideologies that consider the national sentiment as inferior have a grudge against it. They will inculcate all kinds of narrow feelings to protest. The slow cultural-political consciousness of North India or the so-called Hindi region facilitates them. There is more ideological slavery, infighting, mistrust, discrimination and petty selfishness in the region. Foreign, harmful thoughts also have more influence on them. They have been telling their humble imitation, 'co-ordination', 'confluence', 'unity in diversity', etc., to bow down to external attackers, other aggressive thoughts, etc. It is slavery-filled self-sufficiency, which has been described as "reconciliation of surrender" after being defeated by foreigners. This was most criticized by Dr Ram Manohar Lohia.

The British kept us, slaves, for 200 years, looted the property of the country, carried out atrocities with the countrymen, yet still keep their name and today it has been 72 years yet the name has not been changed is a big surprise. Everyone calls their country by their own name. Why are there two names in our country? The work that the government should have done is today a citizen has petitioned the Supreme Court. The government should also tell the Supreme Court that the name of the country should be changed soon and the word India should be changed to Bharat or Hindustan.