Origin of the country name "Bharata"

First of all, we have to keep in mind that the notion of a ‘Nation-State” is a very recent political system that came into the existence after French Revolution. That was India which never was a single politically governed entity hence there never was any need to have a single name for the entire subcontinent. The different states were known after their regional names and if larger empires comprised many regions they were known after the ruling dynastic name. Maurya, Satvahana, Gupta, Kushana, etc. empires are fine examples to make this point. 

The earliest name for the region of Indus valley (or sub-continent) appears in Sumerian records belonging to the period of Sargon (2323-2279 BCE) which mentions the ships coming from Meluha. In another inscription, the name of the region is spelled as Melukha from where men used to come to sell gold dust. Mythological legend such as  "Enki and Ninhursag" also refers to Meluha in the following words, "May the foreign land of Meluhha load precious desirable cornelian, perfect mes-wood and beautiful aba wood into large ships for you" Besides this there are other inscriptions as well those describes the import of various artifacts, dogs etc. from the region of Meluha.  According to the records the traders of Meluha had established their colony in southern Sumer in the City-State of Girsu.

We are not sure whether Meluha was meant for the whole subcontinent or just the region of Indus valley which heavily traded with Sumer. Also, it is not clear whether the Indus people had named their region Meluha or it was the name devised by the Sumerians. Since the Indus script is not deciphered so far we may not know what Indus people called their land in their times. However, this is the first reference to the name of the Indus region or subcontinent.

 

It is now clear that Indians also have preserved this name in its original form in Prakrit language as Milichha or Milakkha which was later corrupted in Vedic language as “Mlechha” and meaning also changed drastically from country name to a term meant for barbarians speaking a strange language. To new entrants in India, the Vedic Aryans,  this corruption and giving the term a convenient meaning was quite natural. The way they misused the tribe name “Sudda ( Shudra in Sanskrit) by considering them insignificant and impure, they did the same with the original country name. In the later course of the time, besides Indians, they applied these terms to foreigners as well.  But the fact is the Vedic Aryans know only the Saptasindhu region (north-west India) before they entered the subcontinent. They did not know at all what lay beyond the Indus River and its tributaries. They called “Brahmarshi Desha” to the Kuru-Panchal region where they settled initially and Aryavarta to the broader east-west region. They used the corrupt word Mleccha for the local people.

 

However, the scholars like Michael Witzel,  Asko Parpola, A. H. Dani, etc. now believe that the “Meluha” is a Sumerian corrupt form of the original Prakrit name “Miliccha”.or “Milakkha”.  Though the country name adorned entirely different meanings, the word still survives and now we can say this was the most ancient name of the country or its north-west part. This name in Purana times was again changed to Bharat Varsha gradually replacing the ancient name.

 

To find the name of the country we have to depend on mythological and epical sources. Indian mythologies are full of contradictions and inconsistencies hence it becomes difficult to arrive at any conclusion based on historical proofs. We have to infer logically from the available mythologies of various religions to reach any conclusion.
 

 Alternate Names of the country

We will have a glance at the various names the subcontinent was called with. Some of the names are indigenous and some are given by foreigners. In modern times only two names, India and Bharat, are applied to the republic of India. In popular culture, the name Hindustan also is in vogue.

Hind/Hindustan: After Meluha, ‘Hindave’ or Hind was another name for the subcontinent or just for the region around the known large river ‘Sindhu’ to the western world. The land beyond Sindhu was barely known to the westerners, even to the close neighbors Iranians. The term “Hindave” appears in Avesta, a religious scripture of Zoroastrians. To which early Rigveda refers as Saptasindhu appears in Avesta as Haptahindu because of the sound change in the Old Persian language. However, these 7 rivers didn’t belong to the tributaries of the Sindhu River but these were known large seven rivers that surrounded their known world.

May it be whatsoever, the word “Hind” was applied by the westerners in various forms to the land surrounding the Sindhu River and beyond. Vedic Aryans coming from the Helmand valley of modern Afghanistan also did not know much about the tribes that had occupied various regions beyond Punjab and hardly knew anything about the southern regions beyond Vindhya. Manusmriti’s geography evidences the fact that the Vedics gradually came to be acquainted with the various regions and tribes of the subcontinent. The lands they were situated in were called either “Aryavarta” or Brahmarshi Desha”. In short, to the early Vedics name of the nation (land) they situated in was limited to their settlements and known parts of the northern regions of the sub-continent. Name Bharat does not appear in any Vedic records as the name of the region or subcontinent.

This would mean that the word Hindave denoted just the land beyond the Indus River which was not known to the western world. The term Hindustan acquired a larger meaning when the Turks established their political power in the subcontinent. Still, from the records of medieval times, it appears that the name Hindustan was mostly applied to north India, and the southern part was still known as “Dakkhan.” In a later era, when the British started to rule the subcontinent they gave larger meaning to the term “India” as a political unit and under the umbrella term covered almost all the regions of the subcontinent.
 
 The name Indica (Indoi) given by Greeks also did belong to the Sindhu River. The present official name ‘India’ is a further development of the Greek pronunciation Indoi.  This does mean that the Indus River played a significant role in providing regional identity to the people of the subcontinent.

Jambudwipa:

 

Though mythologically a popular term but scarcely used to describe the subcontinent, the Jambudwipa term has occupied almost every Mythological book. Jambudwipa is one of the seven continents divided by different 7 kinds of oceans. The descriptions of all these seven islands seem to be a fantasy of ancient mankind. It has no resemblance to any material world. For example, Jambudwipa was full of monstrous Jamun trees. The Puranas portray Jambudwipa as being depressed on its south and north and elevated and broad in the middle. The elevated region forms the Varsha (region) named Ila-vrutta or Meruvarsha. At the center of Ila-vrutta lies the golden Mount Meru, king of mountains. On the top of Mount Meru, is the vast city of Lord Brahma known as Brahmapuri. Surrounding Brahmapuri are 8 cities - the one of Lord Indra and of seven other gods. The city of Brahmapuri is said to be enclosed by a river, known as Akash Ganga which after encircling the Brahmapuri "splits up into four mighty streams", which are said to flow in four opposite directions from the landscape of Mount Meru and irrigate the vast lands of Jambudwipa.

Jain mythology also has preserved the myth of Jambudwipa. According to Jain cosmology, Jambūdvīpa is at the center of Madhyaloka, or the middle part of the universe, where the humans reside and is divided in continent islands. Jambudwipa is surrounded by salt-ocean and so on. Mount Meru is at the center of the world surrounded by Jambūdvīpa, in form of a circle forming a diameter of 100,000 yojanas.

Jambūdvīpa continent has 6 mountains, dividing the continent into 9 zones (Kshetra). The names of these zones are: Bharat Kshetra, Mahavideha Kshetra, Airavat Kshetra, Ramyakwas, Hariwas, Hairanyvat Kshetra, Haimavat Kshetra, Devkuru and Uttarkuru

  
Though the above description does not fit to any land the name Jambudwipa seems to have applied to India at many places in ancient scriptures. The knowledge of geography was so limited in the ancient past that the people used their imaginations to have a mythical picture of the universe they lived in. Jain mythology applies the name “Bharat Varsh” to a part centered by a mountain but the description of the geography almost is imaginary. But an inference can be derived that though the knowledge of the subcontinent and the world was very limited, the name “Bharat” was applied to the subcontinent in ancient times and that the oldest memories have been preserved in Jain and Hindu mythologies.

Nabhivarsha /Ajnabhvarsha

As the knowledge of mankind grew the names of the land were given after the name of the ruling dynasty. Nabhivarsha is the first such name that was given to the land where King Nabhi, father of the first Tirthankara Rishabhnath, ruled extensively. Nabhivarsha was considered as a part of Jambudwipa. But this name did not gain much popularity as the son of Rishabhnatha, Bharat, shadowed his grand Fathers popularity, and the name Nabhivarsha or Ajnabhvarsha was soon got

replaced with Bharatvarsha. Adipurana gives a detailed, but a mythical account of the era of Nabhi. However, it can be derived that Nabhi was a popular king who ruled over a large part of the subcontinent hence the region was named “Nabhi Varsha” (Region of Nabhi).

Bharat

 

Of two official names, Bharat is one that has been in the use since millenniums. As we have seen in Jain and Hindu mythologies “Bharat Varsh” (Region of Bharata) appears in the description of the mythical Jambudwipa. However, there has been always a controversy over the issue of who was that Bharat after whom the subcontinent was named?

 

We have to deal with this issue very carefully.

Bharat Tribe

Rigveda mentions a mighty tribe Bharat ( Bharata or Tritsu, a hypothetical sub-clan of Puru Tribe) which was initially associated with other Vedic tribes as a political or religious alley and sometimes as a leader. The king Sudasa, the hero of the celebrated Battle of Ten Kings is supposed to belong to Bharata (Trutsu) clan. He had defeated the Puru tribe, which is referred to as Anarya, Ayajju, as well in this battle. We have to bear in mind that these Rigvedic tribes dwelled in the Basin of Helmand River which earlier was known as Sarasvati to the Vedics and Harhvaiti to the Zoroastrians. The Mahabharata does not mention the battle of Ten Kings at all nor the celebrated Sudasa who brought such a great victory. This only does mean that this Bharata tribe had nothing to do with the Puru/Kuru clan of Mahabharata. In Rigveda Bharatas and the Purus had turned into enemies. In the line of the great king Pururavas, we find no mention of the Bharat tribe. Instead, he was against fire-sacrifice-oriented religion and hence was killed by the Vedic Brahmins.  Also, in Rigveda, Bharata and Puru are the names of the two distinct tribes whereas in Mahabharata both are the personal names.

The Mahabharata genealogies are restricted to the regions where the distinct Puru/Kuru clan (descendants of Nahusha) ruled and not the Sudasa. Hence, there was no need to mention the Sudasa, his predecessors or successors in the Puru/Kuru lineage in Mahabharata. Most probably, the later writers of the Mahabharata had borrowed the names of Yayati’s sons such as Puru, Anu, Druhyu (From Sharmistha) Yadu, and Turvasu (From Devyani) from the Rig Vedic tribal names to bridge the missing or forgotten link in the genealogy. In reality, there cannot be any possible relationship between these tribe names with the personal names of Yayati’s sons, unless they were borrowed directly from the Rig Veda. If we try to assume that, the Yayati’s sons, establishing different kingdoms, formed the Rig Vedic tribes, we do not get any such support from the Mahabharata. Yayati had cursed his other sons except for Puru when they declined to transfer their youth to him. (1.84, Mahabharata)

The supposed Bharata clan of Sudasa and Bharata (Son of Dushyanta) of Kuru lineage were two distinct families/persons. The Rig Veda nowhere mentions the famous Kurukshetra through which the Saraswati is supposed to have flowed. Had the Ghaggar been the lost Saraswati and the Bharata clan of Sudasa ruled on the banks of the most revered river Saraswati and in whose reign, the most sacred scriptures had been composed; one would expect his mention in Mahabharata. But it is not the case. If the Puru’s of the Rigveda are considered to be the same as those mentioned in Mahabharata, Puru’s of  Rigveda were sworn enemies of Bharata’s who were decisively defeated by the Bharata clan. Hence Bharata of Mahabharata has nothing to do with the Bharata clan/tribe of Rigveda hence Bharata clan which delved in Afghanistan cannot be associated with the country's name.

Also, we should bear in mind that the Bharata tribe, too, is enigmatic. Though, it has been attempted to relate this tribe with Sudasas (Tritsus) and the Purus, the name Bharata does not appear in the Rig Veda as a name of any particular tribe whose existence can be shown independently. Bharata is mentioned in the Rig Veda in about 15 verses, but in at least four verses, the name Bharata appears as a synonym of Agni, at one place of Maruts and at some times of gods. At some places, the Bharatas are mentioned as insignificant, such as in RV 7.33.6. However, from Rig Veda, it seems that the term ‘Bharata’ is a generic term, like Puru, not specifically the name of any tribe. The seer Vishwamitra is said to be among the sons of Bharata, the third Mandala of Rig Veda is attributed to Vishwamitra hence, it often is called Bharata book. But Bharat in Rig Veda remains a very mysterious term, not associated with any tribe or person of fame.

 

The Manusmriti mentions the name of the region where they were settled in following manner-

 

 “The region of Kuru, Matsya, Shursena and Panchal  is called lands of Brahmarshi.” (Manu-2.19)

 

“The land lay between Himvat and Vindhya and which is spread towards the east of Prayag and west of Vinasana is called Madhya Desha.” (Manu 2.21)

 

“But the wise men call this land ‘Aryavarta’ land that lay between both the mountains and between the oceans of the west and east.” (Manu. 2.22)

 

Manu and other Vedic literature nowhere mention “Bharata” as the name of any region or sub-continent hence, India could not have derived the Name Bharata after a tribal name that delved not in the sub-continent but eastern Iran.

Daushyanti Bharat

The second claimant is another Bharat, son of Dushyanta and Shakuntala from their pre-matrimonial relations. Mahabharata gives him comparatively very short space. He ruled the Kuru kingdom and did not seem to have expanded its boundaries to create a mighty empire. Though his descendants were also called “Bharatas”, it nowhere is mentioned that the kingdom was known after him. The kingdom was always known as Kuru-Panchal. “Mahabharata”, the name of the epic derives from the tragic war taking place between the descendants of Bharata. However the original name of the epic was “Jaya” which contained just 8800 verses which later was expanded to 24000 stanzas and came to be called “Bharata”. Again in later course expansion of the epic continued to reach almost one lakh shlokas and came to be known as Mahabharata. The original poet never intended the epic name should be called after Bharata and hence he had titled it “Jaya” (Victory).

Mahabharata in Adiparva (69.49) and Anushasan Parva (76.26) indicate that the descendent and predecessors of Bharata will be known as Bharatas. This does mean that it has no territorial reference as some may want to believe.

However, when Bharata's name for the subcontinent came into the vogue some authors of the past tried to connect Daushyanti Bharata with it. However, though Bharata has shown conducting many fire sacrifices including Rajasuya it is clear that he never brought, forget the subcontinent, even north India under his control. The fact is evident from the various independent kings of the south and north who participated in the Bharata war.

The epic name “Mahabharata” does not belong to any territory but to the war fought between the descendants of king Bharata. Hence we cannot connect Daushanti Bharata with the country name.

 

Dasharathi Bharat

We know another Bharata, son of King Dasharatha of Ramayana. Some believe that the country name belongs to this Bharata. However, the link is very weak. Bharata was the younger step-brother of Rama whom his mother Kaikeyi was eager to make crowned king by sending Rama into exile. However, Bharata did not accept the throne; instead, he preferred to rule the kingdom as caretaker king. Since he neither was the crowned king nor did expand the kingdom, and remained confined to the traditional boundaries of his ancestral kingdom, it will be unwise to credit him for the country's name.

Most importantly, there is no scriptural evidence including Ramayana to suggest the country name was given after him.

Rishabhanath’s son Bharat

 We have seen that India (or most of its part) was also called Nabhi Varsha. According to Hindu and Jaina Puranas Nabhi was the father of the first Tirthankara Rshabhanatha. “Varsha” means ‘territory’ so Nabhivarsha would mean the territory of king Nabhi. Though we do not know the boundaries of Nabhi’s territory it is obvious it must have been substantially large to be named after its emperor. The capital of Nabhi’s empire, as per mythology, was Ayodhya, known as Viniy in his times.

Whether Rishabhnatha was a historical person or not is a hotly debated issue since his lifetime’s description we get is too mythical. As we go back in ancient history, since memories become vague, the normal tendency is for the descriptions to become mythical.  Mythical accounts cannot be discounted just as sheer imaginations, but the historical facts can be searched after proper analysis of the myths.

Apart from Jaina literature, we find names of three Teerthankara’s, Rishabh, Ajitnatha, and Arishtanemi mentioned in Yajur Veda which approximately belongs to the 8th century BC. Being Veda’s an independent source, the information can be taken as reliable though the time of all these ford makers has to be speculated. But we can safely place them in the pre-Vedic era.

Bharata (from Sunanda) and Bahubali (from Sumangala) were sons of Rishahnatha. Bharata became an all-conqueror whereas Bahubali renounced worldly pleasures and took an ascetic life in South India. Bahubali is to this date showing his presence through his huge statue at Shravanbelgola. If faith and folk traditions are believed Bahubali was indeed a historical person, deified in course of the time. Bharata was a historical person who established his empire to be known after him.

We have more scriptural evidence that establishes that traditionally Rishabha’s son Bharata is responsible for the country's name. Apart from Jain Puranas numerous Hindu Puranas like Vishnu Purana (2,1,31), Vayu Purana (33,52), Linga Purana (1,47,23), Brahmanda Purana (14,5,62), Agni Purana (107,11–12), Skanda Purana, Khanda (37,57) and Markandaya Purana (50,41 clearly credit Bharata, son of Rishabhnatha, for the designation Bharata Varsha (territory of Bharata). For example, Vishnu Purana mentions:

ऋषभो मरुदेव्याश्च ऋषभात भरतो भवेत्
भरताद भारतं वर्षं, भरतात सुमतिस्त्वभूत्

Rishabha was born to Marudevi, Bharata was born to Rishabha,
Bharatavarsha arose from Bharata and Sumati arose from Bharata.
—Vishnu Purana (2,1,31)

ततश्च भारतं वर्षमेतल्लोकेषुगीयते
भरताय यत: पित्रा दत्तं प्रतिष्ठिता वनम (विष्णु पुराण, २,१,३२)

This country is known as Bharatavarsha since the times the father entrusted the kingdom to the son Bharata and he himself went to the forest for ascetic practices.
—Vishnu Purana (2,1,32)

This would mean that in popular and mythological culture it was a fact that the Son of Rishabha, Bharat, was credited for the territorial name Bharata. However, it appears that before the second century BC Bharata's name was used for the region of Gangetic plains which gradually came into use for the entire subcontinent.

Purana’s final recessions were compiled during the third-fourth century AD, during the Gupta era, and when the Sanskrit language had fully developed. The origins of the Purana and Epics are now traced to the Prakrit origins which later were transliterated to Sanskrit with many Vedic additions and deletions. Without going into much detail about this it suffices to say that the designation “Bharata” was initially limited to north India and later on it came to refer to the subcontinent.

We have another important proof to establish this fact. The name Bharat (Pr. Bharad) appears for the first time in Hathigumpha inscription of Jain emperor Kharvel of Kalinga belonging to the second century BC. The inscription states, “[नगरिय कलिंग] राजनिवासं महाविजय पासादं कारयति अठतिसाय सतसहसेहि [।।] दसमे च वसे दंड संधि साम [मयो] भारदवस पठानं मही जयनं … कारापयति. (Line ten, Hathigumpha Inscription) which can be translated as “… And in the ninth year [His Majesty] caused to be built [in Kalinga Nagari] the Great Victory palace the royal residence at the cost of thirty-eight hundred thousand (coins). Then in the tenth year, [His Majesty] the embodiment of politics, diplomacy, and peace, caused [ the army] to march through Bharatavarsa for conquest.”

This inscription is historically important because this is the first inscription that mentions Bratavarsha. Also, this inscription indicates that to Kharvel, Bharavarsha was a territory through which he marched for his military exploits. So, by Kharvela’s time entire subcontinent was not named after Bharata. Kharavel being a Jain monarch his reference to Bharat is certainly related to the son of Rishabha and none else as in the same inscription Kharvel describes how he won back the image of Jina (Rishabhnatha) that was moved by Nanda king to his capital.

 

We have another inscription from Wai (Maharashtra) belonging to the first century AD that also mentions Emperor Bharata and Bharatkshetra. The six-lined inscription in Maharashtri Prakrit was found on the pedestal of a broken idol. A line of the inscription reads “भरहखेते भरहसमो भरहणाम विखाह....” (In Lands of Bharat there is a king named Bharat who is as famous as Bharat.)

 

In Jain Puranas, north India is mentioned as Bharat Varsha and South as Airavat Varsha. In the third century BC, many Jains migrated to the south owing to the worst famine and carried the name Bharata along with them and by the fourth century AD the name was applied to the entire sub-continent. This is why Vishnupurana states that-

उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम् ।
वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र संततिः ।।

"The country (varṣam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bharatam; there dwell the children of Bharata land.”

 

It seems that with growing interactions between the foreign worlds the people of the subcontinent must have felt the need for a single name to refer to the whole of the subcontinent and hence Bharata came to refer to the landmass that lay between the Himalayas and the ocean of the south.
 
 Etymology of Bharat

Since Prakrit is the original language, we have to bear in mind that the original name of the country was “Bharad” or “Bharah” as mentioned in the Kharvela and Wai inscriptions and Jain records. The Sanskritisation of the “Bharad” is Bharat. Bharad would mean “who provides”. And Sanskrit etymology also supports this.
In Sanskrit, the word Bharata is derived from the artificial root ‘bhru’, which is said to be meaning provide for, to be maintained, cherished, or one who protects. From this root ‘Bhrata’ (Brother), Bhartru, and so the Bharata words have been evolved, all mean the same. The name ‘Bharata’ (Bharada, Bharha) originated keeping this meaning in mind. King Bharata was the protector of the earth and the cherisher of the people. Hence the country getting name after him was natural as the land also fulfills and supports the meaning that the word “Bharat” has. The land which cherishes and provides is also Bharata.
 
Conclusion-

Looking at the available scriptural and inscriptional proofs the country name Bharata came into existence from the legendary Chakravartin King Bharata, son of the first Tirthankara Rishabhnatha. Apart from mythological stories we can trace the origin of the country's name to this Bharata as other claimant personalities or tribes of similar names stand weak in light of the scriptural as well as inscriptional records. The name “Bharadvas” (Bharatavarsha) initially must have belonged to the regions controlled by Bharat which terminologically was expanded to apply the whole of the subcontinent to revere the memories of a lawgiver, just and mighty emperor, and the land also stood to the meaning of that term. The Vedic Bharata tribe or Daushyanti Bharat couldn’t have been responsible to name the subcontinent after them as it is not supported by even scriptural proofs.

-Sanjay Sonawani