Pakistan might change its name to India, if India changes its name.

It has been rumoured that India might change its name to Bharat, leaving the name up for grabs.

A state-issued invitation to the G20 summit this weekend, hosted by India, referred to the country in a different way, inviting world leaders to a state dinner hosted by the “president of Bharat”.

Meanwhile, prime minister, Narendra Modi, typically refers to India as Bharat, a word dating back to ancient Hindu scriptures written in Sanskrit, and one of two official names for the country under its constitution.

And the broadcaster News18 said unnamed government sources had told it that members of his Hindu nationalist ruling party, Bharatiya Janata party (BJP), who have previously campaigned against using the name India, which was imposed during the British conquest, would put forward a special resolution to give precedence to the name Bharat in the next session of parliament - so watch this space.

Now, nationalists in Pakistan have reportedly claimed they’ve got dibs on the name because it’s tied to the Indus region, so they might lay a claim on the name, India if it is derecognised at the UN.

But given the Indian government has not made any official statement on changing the name of the country, they might have to stick with Pakistan for a while yet.


  • @Bondrewd
    link
    English
    111 year ago

    Jesse what the fuck are you talking about? The Mughals were a Timurid descendant dynasty who founded the Mughal empire in the 1500s and it was basically gone by the middle of the 18th century.

    Early Muslim conquests in India were primarily done by individuals of arabic background.

    • @generalpotato
      link
      English
      3
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      ?

      How does anything I’ve written contradict what you’re talking about?

      What the fuck are YOU talking about?

      Edit: Clearly context isn’t a thing and we’re on the nit pick bandwagon. So here, let’s spell it out. I’m using Mughals as a synonym for Muslim because it’s simpler to understand and paint a picture of what transpired in broad strokes.

      • @Jolan
        link
        English
        31 year ago

        I’m gonna be honest when you mentioned mughals ruling India for 1000 years i did get a bit confused so i get why their nitpicking. But other than that it’s good👍

        • @generalpotato
          link
          English
          31 year ago

          Thanks for keeping it civil. I amended the post just so it’s clear.

      • @Bondrewd
        link
        English
        2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Dont do it. You are seriously misrepresenting the situation. Invasions of that kind barely consisted of any significant population exchange. Muslim and non-muslim populace is just about 100% genetically identical.

        Its kind of like calling germans nazis. Sure, the nazi rule is still at large in the central of Europe. Hey, its just broad strokes, dude…

        • @generalpotato
          link
          English
          21 year ago

          Holy fuck. What a leap.

          Muslims were invaders. Doesn’t mean the net effect of the invasions were bad for the region in terms of social and economic development. There were legitimate wars between Ummayads and Rajputs.

          What the fuck are you on about genetics? This has nothing to do with genetics and the make up of the populace there.