Article 1 of the Constitution of India starts with the clause: “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States”. The formal name of the country is ‘Republic of India’, but has been addressed by the common name: ‘India’ - both locally and globally. The name ‘India’ has been in existence from the time of its independence, and even many centuries before independence - in the vast annals of time and history.

However, the word ‘Bharat’ has also been in vogue for a very long time - albeit only at a local level, and not on a global scale. Locally, the formal title: ‘Republic of India’ is translated as ‘Bhārat Gaṇarājya’.

Many assume that the word ‘India’ is foreign-born, and only the word ‘Bharat’ is locally-rooted. They also tend to think that ‘India’ is rooted in English or historically from Latin & Greek, whereas ‘Bharat’ is rooted in Hindi or historically from Sanskrit & Prakrit.

This paper critically examines the above-mentioned curious case of India vs. Bharat. It inquires on both the names, from various source materials in multiple fields: history, linguistics, archaeology, geography, literature, inscriptions, religious mythology, astrology & various other epistemic segments.

Even though the word ‘India’ seems to stem from ancient Koine Greek Ἰνδία, it is actually an exonym of the endonym ‘Síndhu’ (सिन्धु) - a term for the river in the Indus basin. This paper explains the universal concept of Endonym & Exonym, and asserts that Exonyms arising out of pronunciation difficulties are not ‘foreign origin’. The words - ‘Hindu’, ‘Hindus’, ‘Indus’, ‘Indos’, ‘Indica’, ‘India’ - are all mere phonetic derivations of the Toponym ‘Sindhu’ – which is the root word.

If unknowingly some may dislike the word ‘India’ as foreign-born, the same can be said of the word ‘Bhāratam’ - which is also a derivation from Indo-Iranian & Indo-European roots.

Going back to the roots, this paper establishes the etymological root of ‘Bhāratam’ as: bhara* / bharata* (meaning ‘to carry / to bear’) - which exists across many Indo-Iranian languages like Persian & Avestan. Sanskrit language too, borrows aptly from that bharata* root (भरतम् / भारतम्) and names Agni (Fire God) as ‘Bharata’ - one who ‘carries / bears’ offerings in the fire sacrifice, from earthly mortals to heavenly gods. Adi Sankara attests to the same in Bṛhadāraṇyaka Bhāṣya. The same root bharata* cognates with Iranian & European words like bʰárati, buɾdan, burden and barada. Hence, similar to the word ‘India’, the word ‘Bharat’ may also be construed as ‘foreign origin’ (Iranian root).

This paper further dwells upon the Pre-Vedic ‘Bharata Tribes’ and their migration from the North West to Eastern Gangetic Plains. It touches upon tribal passages from Rig Veda, the wars waged by Bharata Tribes (Dāśarājñá yuddham), Tribe migration, Emergence of the early Kuru Kingdom & Bharata Varsha, References from Mahabharata on Lunar Dynasty kings – Dushyanta & Bharata, and the Jain Religious reference on Bharata Chakravartin - the son of 1st Preceptor (Tirthankara) Rishabha Natha.

The omission of South India from Bharata Varsha may surprise many, but attested by texts like Manu Smriti and lines from the Hathigumpha Inscription. This paper reads from the said inscription of the 1st century BCE, and other empirical evidences & geographical manuscripts.

Finally, the paper briefly touches upon the Constituent Assembly debate on the draft of Article 1 (“India, that is Bharat”) in the Indian Constitution and the eventual Vote. The Drafting Committee Chairman, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s wisdom prevailed, and both the names were adopted as Names of the Nation.

Such an anthropological & historical review would clear the air, and help in the true understanding of both the words: ‘India’ & ‘Bharat’ - used to signify a great subcontinent, its people & the society - that has been culturally diverse across many centuries of world history.