Bharat Vs India Vs Hindustan! The fight is on!

Raju Korti
The recent overemphasis by Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi on the use of "Hindustan" as against its other counterparts like "Bharat" or "India" have expectedly stirred a hornet's nest. But a disclaimer in place first! This blog is not about Rahul Gandhi per se but political leaders' penchant to twist the words to their advantage by poking people's brittle emotional and political conscience. 

It is no surprise that in "India, that is Bharat", a phrase that former MP and journalist Baburao Patel used extensively to make his proclivities clear, the tendency to politicise every issue has become ingrained in the fabric of public discourse. From social issues to cultural events and even matters relating to scientific research or technological advances, there is a marked propensity among political parties and their supporters to view everything through a partisan lens. As a natural corollary, this politicization often leads to polarized debates where the focus shifts from the substance of the matter at hand to scoring political brownie points or subtly reinforcing ideological stances. Among other things, it hinders constructive dialogue and problem-solving, potentially overshadowing history, genuine concerns and solutions inclined to boost political agendas.

Politicians are known to use "Bharat," "Hindustan," or "India" strategically to appeal to different sentiments and audiences for political gain. Behind the specious terming, there are subtle messages to convey so they carry to the right quarters. All the three have a historical and cultural context but politicians have fine-tuned the art of creating controversies where none (should) exist.

Remember, days before the much anticipated G20 summit was scheduled to begin in Delhi, the dinner invite mentioning "President of Bharat" sparked widespread controversy. It was a political full toss  (or a yorker?) delivered to a class of people who revel in conspiracy theories and love to ready everything between the lines. Knowing Modi's predilection and talent to finger his opponents, this was quickly interpreted as "India" would be officially named as "Bharat" in the ensuing session of the parliament. That didn't happen but always ready to rub salt on the opposition's festering wounds, I am sure the PM just derived some fiendish pleasure.

Following the G20 dinner invites, the Modi's visit to Indonesia for the 20th ASEAN India Summit and 18th East India Summit, added fuel to the fire by referring to him as the "Prime Minister of Bharat". In all the indignation, it was forgotten that this was not the first time "Bharat" was used in an official document. When Modi attended the 15th BRICS summit in South Africa and then went on an official visit to Greece thereafter, the government notification referred to him as "Prime Minister of Bharat". The use of "Bharat" as against the commonly used "India" by the international community, was dubbed as a "symbol of colonial slavery."

Without quoting Shakespeare's trite, each of these words have their own origin. In its Constitution, the world's most populous country has been mentioned as "India" and "Bharat". "Hindustan" is believed as the land of the Hindus. It is an attribution that comes most Muslim countries, especially referred to as such by Pakistan. The use of "Hindustan" is loaded with political and religious overtones that can be understood and let pass, unlike "Bharat" which has acquired a political tinge. 

The words "Hindustan", "Bharat" and "India carry a deep cultural, historical and political implications in the context of Indian subcontinent. From time to time, these are twisted and used out-of-context to give it a glaring political hue. Politicians are known to have used "Bharat" or "Hindustan" to invoke a sense of cultural pride or national identity rooted in historical and cultural heritage. No prizes for guessing these appeal to sentiments of nationalism and cultural unity, especially among conservative or traditional voters.

Depending on the context and audience (read constituency), these are also tossed around or sautéed to align with specific religious communities. To that extent, "Hindustan" signifies a Hindu-majority identity (or a more pointed reference to the minorities), appealing to voters who prioritize religious affiliation in their political choices. The choice between "Bharat" and "India" carry a subtle political hint where "Bharat" is often associated with a more traditional or indigenous identity, contrasting with "India" which is perceived as a legacy of colonialism. Often, these are conveniently interchanged to appeal to different demographics.

In multilingual and culturally diverse "India" "Bharat" or "Hindustan" are used in regions where these terms resonate more deeply due to historical, linguistic or cultural reasons. Politicians cunningly shape historical perspectives to fit their political narrative. The manipulation of these terms is a reflection of the complex socio-cultural and political landscape of the country. Leveraging them to gel with target audiences and strengthening political prospects come with a hefty price that the country pays in terms of their divisive outcome. 

All three have a distinct etymology and I would not labour over them for obvious reasons but vulnerable population needs to understand the political tapestry of the Indian sub continent and their implications. A simplistic view of these terms, knowing their cultural dynamics, would perhaps take away all the vicious sting that politicians bring to them with their ulterior motives but that is impossible where people cud on issues that don't need too much to be read into.

As a fundamental rule, I have used all three from time time to time in different but non-controversial contexts. I clearly remember, I had used "Hindustan" in an attribution to Asaduddin Owaisi and some overzealous elements on Facebook, pounced on me as if I had coined the word. Owaisi and his ilk get away with these (things) but those commenting from the sidelines with zero vested interests face the flak. Do I need to say more?