�Hindu�, India and �Bharat� � The Story behind Word Origins

Several months ago, a friend asked me the origin of the word India and ?Hindu?.
That question spurred this brief piece of research.

Most experts agree today that the name ?India? was derived from the river Indus
(in today?s Pakistan). But the name ?Indus? itself has a fascinating history
behind it.

In ancient times, the entire Indus river system (along with its seven tributaries
� Chenab, Ravi, Sutlej, Jhelum, Beas and the now extinct River Saraswati[i]) and
the area it covered, used to be called ?Sapta Sindhu[ii]? i.e. the land of seven
rivers (?Sindhu? means river in Sanskrit).

The word ?Sindhu? not only referred to the river system and adjoining area but
also became the label to denote the culture that had developed along its valleys
(In fact, continuing archaeological evidence suggests that the ?Indus Valley
Civilization? should more accurately be called the Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization
considering the land mass where it developed).

The corruption of ?Sindhu? into ?Hindu? can be traced back to journeys made by
early Persian explorers from the Northwest who due to the peculiarities of their
own language aspirated the ?S? sound in ?Sindhu? to make the word ?Hindu?
Thus to world beyond, the area around the Saraswati-Sindhu rivers and its culture
became to be known as the area of ?Hindus? (thus the name Hindustan which
literally means the land of ?Hindus?)

This nomenclature stuck and became particularly prevalent after the invasion and
conquest of ?India? by Mughals. The Mughals (based on the earlier Persian
terminology) used the term ?Hindu? to refer to the original inhabitants of the
land and this label became the way to distinguish native/indigenous/ancient
culture form that of the invaders.

About 2500 years ago, when the Greeks first reached the river plains of Punjab,
they borrowed the name of the region from the Persians and simply modified it to ?
Indos?. ?Indos? later morphed into ?Indus? in Latin ? by which name the river is
still known in the West. The Romans began to call the whole land mass after this
river and thus the name ?India? came to stay ? which has been the form used by
Europeans over the ages.

It is clear from the above that the word ?Hindu? simply meant (someone living in
India) �Indian� or (something) related to India.

The term Hindu did not signify any religion or set of religious beliefs but was
really a label for a specific landmass. At best the word simply implied someone
associated with (or dwelling in) the geographical area the boundaries of which
were roughly covered by the Saraswati-Sindhu rivers and their tributaries.

In the words of Dr Morales, ?the term �Hindu� is not a term that is inherent to
the religion itself. Rather, the term is known to have been first coined by the
ancient Persians, who were culturally, religiously, and perspectively extrinsic to
the culture. The term was first used by these ancient Persians in order to
conveniently designate the ancient Vedic spiritual culture, and was mistakenly
used to refer to the Vedic religion as primarily a geographic and ethnic
phenomenon, more than as a religio-philosophical world-view.To the ancient
Persians, the word ?Hindu? simply referred to the culture, people, religion and
practices of the peoples who lived on the other side of the Sindhu River. In the
ancient Avestan Persian language �s� grammatically became �h�. Thus, the Persians
pronounced the name of this river ?Hindhu?, rather than ?Sindhu?. Thus,
ironically, the currently used word ?Hindu? is itself a corruption of the Persian
word ?Hindhu?, which is in turn a corruption of the term ?Sindhu?, which is itself
only referring to a river, and not a religion! Thus when the word ?Hindu? is used
today to refer to the ancient religion of India, the term is in actuality a
corruption of a corruption of a word whose meaning is irrelevant to begin with.In
his essay, ?Word as a Weapon?, Dr Morales has further examined the labels ?Hindu?
(and ?Hinduism?) and suggested alternative terms.In my review of his essay,
http://hindu_dharma.blogspot.com/2005/11/excerpts-from-word-as-weapon.html, I had
offered the following suggestion, which I believe is even more relevant today:Let
us henceforth decide to refer to ancient Indian achievements as Hindu achievements
(which is what they are). And let us all insist on calling our religions ?Sanatana
Dharma? rather than a sterile ?Hinduism?.

?Bharat?, that is India

India?s ?official? name is Bharat ? and this is accorded equal primacy as the word
India in the Constitution. In fact the First Clause of the Constitution begins
with the words, ?India, that is Bharat?.

There is a general mis-conception that India (or to be more accurate, ?Bharat?) as

a nation did not exist until the British brought hundreds of princely states and
fiefdoms under central rule. This is false and historically inaccurate ? those of
you who have read History would be aware that Samrat Ashok?s kingdom probably had
the largest expanse of land of any kingdom in ancient times and of course included
almost all of the Indian sub-continent ? i.e. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and
parts of neighbouring states such as Nepal and Afghanistan.

In the words of Shri Srinivasan Kalyanaraman, ?For those who think that the nation
of Bharat is a British creation, they should be reminded about Rigveda verse by
Vis�vamitra RV 3.53.12: vis�va_mitrasya raks.ati brahmedam bharatam janam, (this
mantra of Vis�vamitra will protect the nation of the people of Bharatam). In Tamil
bharatam (written pa_ratam) refers to the Hindu ra_s.t.ra. �
http://hindu_dharma.blogspot.com/2006/02/india-that-is-bharat.html

There are also references in ancient literature, including the ?Bhagavad-Gita? to

large parts of the landmass that we now call India, as ?Bharat? or ?
Bharatavarsha?. See e.g. an article written by Shri Bhatnagar at
http://humnri.com/HumZ/Articles/Article.aspx?number=15181

??from Scanto V of Srimad Bhagavatam -Chapter 19 -The description of Jambudwipa

concluded:
The people of Bharatavarsa touch with their body too the water of these rivers,
which purify them by their very names.(17)Candravasa Tamraparni, Avatoda,
Krtamala, Vaihayasi, Kaveri, Veni, Payaswini, Sarkaavarta, Tungabhadra, Krsna,
Venya, Bhimarathi, Godavari, Nirvindhya, Payosni, Tapi, Reva, Surasa, Narmada
Carmanvati (and) Sindhu, two big rivers � Andha (Brahmaputra) and Sona (Sone) �
Mahanadi, Vedasmrti, Rsikulya, Trisama, Kausiki, Mandakini, Yamuna, Saraswati,
Drsadvati, Gomati, Sarayu, Rodhaswati Saptavati, Susoma, Satadru, Candrabhaga,
Marudvrdha, Vitasta, Asikni (and) Viswa are (the names of) the principal rivers.
(18)

But all this would be irerelevant if we ourselves forget our name ? so let us make
an effort to remember (and to make others aware) that India does have an
indigenous name ? ?Bharat? ? and let us be proud of it.