Which of the countries are known by two different official names? Apart from Bharat, that is India, I can recall none!
Ever since its independence in 1947, it has been called both Bharat and India. With utmost regard to the makers of our constitution, I would like to state that their predicament at giving a unique name to the nation has done much harm than good to the character of the nation. We have been living in perpetual duality. Our claim for ‘unity in diversity’ has little meaning. We remain a divided lot – ethnically as well as theologically.
I remember one of my foreigner friends telling me, “Even after travelling in India from Kashmir to Kanya Kumari, I did not meet a single Indian! I came across Kashmiris, and Rajasthanis, and Haryanvis, and Punjabis, and Bengalis, and Biharis, and Madrasis, and Gujratis, and Maharashtrians, and Keralites, and Goans, and Tamlians; they were all fantastic people, but I did not find a single Indian amongst them!”
If Ceylon could change its name to Sri Lanka; Siam could be known by the name of Thailand; Gold Coast could resolve to call itself Ghana; Northern and Southern Rhodesia could be renamed Zambia and Zimbabwe respectively; Persia could become Iran and Upper Volta could cherish to have Burkina Faso for its name, Burma preferred to call itself Myanmar, then what keeps us from having our own unique name? Dutch East Indies became Indonesia, British Guiana became Guyana, German South-west Africa became Namibia, Spanish East Indies became Philippines and East Pakistan became Bangladesh soon after their independence; whereas constitution makers of our country chose to continue with the name given to it by her oppressors.
It is shameful that we do not have national pride. Pride comes from identity. How can we have national pride with our dual identity? We are not sure whether to call our country Bharat or India? We are not sure whether to call ourselves Bhartiya or Indian? We don’t translate names. Do we? Then what is the need to have a name in Hindi and another in English?
All the issues that relate to the identity of a nation were ignored, and if not ignored, postponed for an indefinite period. While it may be a matter of pity that the makers of our constitution shied away from having a unique name for the nation, it is a matter of shame that they refrained from adopting a common language as an official language of the country. How can a nation that has neither a unique name, nor a common language, hope to stay unified?
maybe it is so for we are in the habit of having at least two names – one nick name and the other the official name. well, this is on a lighter note though 🙂
Maybe you are right. Bharat is perhaps the nick name of India … as we would have Dhania, Gobar, Ramua…. where we do not seem to love it, but rather disregard it… and I am serious.
This is highly thought provoking. I have also experienced a lack of the so called ‘identity’. My home town ‘Kozhikode’ was dubbed ‘Calicut’ by British. Today, some identify it as Kozhikode as some don’t.