India [meaning of]

India that is Bharat [Article-1]

India [ Geo-political] -those parts of the peninsula of India that until 1947 were under British rule or protection together with Baluchistan, the Andaman Islands, the Nicobar Islands and, prior to 1937, Burma


Bharat [भारत] [ term explains Avestan hindu-/həndu-saptá síndhavaḥ could be cited as hapta hindu ]

The information provided by Herodotus finds clear confirmation in the inscriptions of the Achaemenid kings (DB, DPe, DSe, DNa, DSaa, XPf), where we find toponyms such as Θataguš, Gandāra, and Hinduš, which are also used to identify their respective populations.

Information about the people that lived along the Indo-Iranian border in the third century B.C.E. also comes from the edicts of the Mauryan king Aśoka. The fifth edict gives a list of people, including the Yona (cf. OPers. Yaunā “Ionians”), Kambojas, and Gandharans; and in his twelfth edict appears the compound name Yonakambojesu. There is little doubt as to the identity of the Gandharans or as to that of the Yona. The latter were the Greeks of Asia, to whom was directed the Greek version of the king’s edict, which was discovered at Kandahar by the Italian expedition conducted by IsMEO. The Kambojas have been identified variously with the people that lived on the left bank of the Kabul river or, more specifically, with the people for whom the Aramaic version of the edicts of Aśoka had been written (U. Scerrato, in Pugliese Carratelli and Garbini, 1964, pp. 14-15 G. Pugliese Carratelli and G. Garbini, A Bilingual Graeco-Aramaic Edict by Aśoka. The First Greek Inscription Discovered in Afghanistan (Serie Orientale Roma, 29), Rome, 1964.).

Nāder’s invasion of Hindusthan. The pretext for Nāder Shah’s invasion of Mughal territory was the failure of the Mughal emperor Rowšan Aḵtar “Moḥammad Shah” (r. 1719-48) to make an official pledge of preventing Nāder’s Afghan adversaries from crossing over into Mughal territory in search of refuge after Nāder’s capture of Qandahār in 1738 (Fraser, passim; Malcolm, pp. 70-71, 78-79; Sykes, 259; Islam, 1970, pp. 143-45; Lockhart, pp. 122-24). However, the prospect of plundering Mughal territory was also a highly alluring temptation for the cash-strapped Persian monarch. Nāder’s invasion of the Mughal empire and the sacking of its capital Delhi came at a time of ongoing disintegration of Mughal central authority and increased internal and regional challenges to Mughal rule. During the three decades prior to the Persian invasion, the Mughal empire had been subject to regional fragmentation and autonomous provincial challenges, as in the case of the Sikh contestation of provincial power in Punjab (Alam, chap. 4; Grewal, chap. 5), as well as territorial raids and annexations by neighboring regional powers, such as the Maratha incursions from the south—including an invasion in 1737, during the Maratha Peshwa of Baji Rao I, which brought the enemy forces to the environs of Delhi (Gordon, chap. 5 -Stewart Gordon, The New Cambridge History of India. II.4: The Marathas 1600-1818, Cambridge, 1993.).

Imposition British rule in Southern region– Beginning in 1770, Karim Khan’s government also received representatives from the independent, Muslim-ruled kingdom of Mysore in the Deccan in southern India. In addition to seeking expanded trade in the Persian Gulf through establishing a trading post on the Persian coast, the ruler of Mysore, Hyder Ali (Ḥaydar ʿAli; d. 1782), who had just concluded a successful defensive war against the EIC and its regional allies in 1767-69, also sought a formal alliance with the Zand court directed against the EIC in the Persian Gulf; neither of these objectives appears to have succeeded. Following the deaths of Karim Khan and Hyder Ali, the latter’s heir to the throne Tipu Sultan (r. 1783-99) also attempted to expand Mysore’s commercial base in the Persian Gulf and made abortive attempts to form an anti-British coalition with the Zand court and its successor Qajar state in Persia, along with other regional powers and France, as he militarily clashed with British forces in India before being finally defeated and killed in battle (John R. Perry, Karim Khan Zand: A History of Iran, 1747-1779, Chicago, 1979.).

भगवद्गीता १.२४-२५

एवमुक्तो हृषीकेशो गुडाकेशेन भारत
सेनयोरुभयोर्मध्ये स्थापयित्वा रथोत्तमम् ॥२४॥

The word used in Gita in the sense of Son of Sage Emperor Bharat

भगवद्गीता ४.७

यदा यदा हि धर्मस्य ग्लानिर्भवति भारत
अभ्युत्थानमधर्मस्य तदात्मानं सृजाम्यहम् ॥७॥

  • Bharat and Dharma is interconnected
  • Secularism is disconnected and avoidable
  • Divinity is the attribute of Bharat Varsha

Comment by Madhusudan Saraswati[1502]: मधुसूदनः एवं सच्चिदानन्दघनस्य तव कदा किमर्थं वा देहिवद्व्यवहार इति तत्रोच्यते यदा यदेति । धर्मस्य वेदविहितस्य प्राणिनामभ्युदयनिःश्रेयससाधनस्य प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिलक्षणस्य वर्णाश्रमतदाचारव्यङ्ग्यस्य यदा यदा ग्लानिर्हानिर्भवति हे भारत भरतवंशोद्भवत्वेन भा ज्ञानं तत्र रतत्वेन वा त्वं न धर्महानिं सोढुं शक्नोषीति सम्बोधनार्थः । एवं यदा यदाभ्युत्थानमुद्भवोऽधर्मस्य वेदनिषिद्धस्य नानाविधदुःखसाधनस्य धर्मविरोधिनस्तदा तदात्मानं देहं सृजामि नित्यसिद्धमेव सृष्टमिव दर्शयामि मायया. Bha + Rata = Bharata – Practitioner of knowledge.

Examples :

  1. Therefore, when we had Indian States and when Jaipur was an Indian State for the purpose of Section 13[Limitation Act] Jaipur was looked upon as a foreign country. After Independence the Adaptation of Laws Order of 1948 brought about a change and in place of “British India”, the British connection having come to an end, the express-on “Provinces” was substituted and “foreign country” was defined as any country other than India but included also any acceding state. Therefore, Jaipur which acceded to India would still be a foreign country for the purpose of this definition. There was a further alteration by Adaptation of Laws Order of 1950 and in place of “Provinces” the expression “States” was substituted and “foreign country” was defined as any country other than India but includes also any Part B State. Therefore, for the purpose of Section 13, Part B State was bill a foreign country and the plaintiff was entitled to exclusion of time if the defendant resided in a Part B State. By this Adaptation Order the expression “States” was also defined as all tile territories for the time being comprised within Part A States and Part O States. Therefore, India was what was constituted by Part A and Part C States excluding Part B States. Then we come to the final legislative change which amended the Act and brought it into the shape and form which it now possesses and which it possessed at the date of the filing of the suit. and that is Act III of 1951. That Act was passed to provide for the extension of certain taws to Part B States and in the Schedule we have various Acts set out which have been adapted and which have been extended to Part B States. Among these laws is the Limitation Act and the change that was brought about was that the expression “India” was substituted for “States” and “foreign country” was defined as any country other than’ India but including also the States of Jammu and Kashmir, and “India” was defined as the territory of India excluding the States of Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, it will be immediately noticed that Section 13 has been altered and amended from time to time in order that it should march with political and geographical changes that have been brought about in India. We started with a British dependency, we became independent, we had Indian States which had not completely integrated with India, and then we had complete integration, and this historical development of the country is fully reflected in the varying definitions that have been given to the expression “India” and to the expression “foreign country.” Therefore, till Act III of 1951 was passed, according to the definition of “foreign country” in the Limitation Act and according to the clear language used in Section 13, the defendants did reside and carry on business outside India as it then was and their residence in that part of the country was looked upon by the law as residence in a foreign country.[ (1958) AIR(Bombay) 137 : (1957) 59 BomLR 828 : (1958) ILR(Bombay) 165 BOMBAY HIGH COURT ( Before : Chagla, C.J; S.T. Desai, J ) CHOTMAL GANESHRAM BHARADIA Vs. RAMCHAND TARACHAND]
  2. The learned author has further observed that the concept of coparcenery, as understood in the general sense in English law, has different meaning in India or Hindu legal system. In English law, coparcenery is the creation of act of parties or creation of law. In Hindu law, coparcenery cannot be created by acts of parties; however, it can be terminated by acts of parties. The coparcenery, in Hindu law, was limited only to male members, who descended from the same male ancestors within three degrees. These coparceners have important rights as regards property of the coparcenery; but so long the coparcenery remains intact, no member can claim any specific interest in any part of the property of the coparcenery, because of the specific nature of coparcenery in the Mitakshara School of Hindu law.
  3. Paragraph (c) of Sub-clause (iii) of the FERA deals with stay with his or her spouse. Shorn of immaterial words Section 2(p)(iii)(c) will read thus; a person resident in India means a person, not being a citizen of India, who has come to or stays in India for staying with his or her spouse, such spouse being a person resident in India. A plain reading of paragraph (c), extracted above, makes it evident that the stay contemplated therein has to be some permanence and not with the intention of returning abroad in some short, set period. The word ‘staying’ in paragraph really means ‘residing with the spouse’. Even the purposes referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) indicate that the term ‘stay’ does not denote a short or casual stay; it has to be a stay for taking up employment or carrying on business or a vocation or with the intention of remaining in India for an uncertain period. If we construe paragraph (c) to include a mere casual stay or stay for a short period, it would defeat the purpose of having Non-Resident (External) Account. This being the position, the appellant cannot be treated as a person resident in India during the relevant period. Consequently, he will be a person resident outside India within the meaning of Section 2(q) of the FERA.
  4. “Questions of constitutional importance arise in the appeal. viz., whether Manipur was a part of India or British India within the meaning of the Govt. of India Act, 1935 and whether the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1937 was applicable in the State of Manipur in 1942.” Section 311 is the interpretation section of the 1935 Act[Govt of India Act]. According to this section British India means all territories for the time being comprised within the Governors Provinces and the Chief Commissioners Provinces and “India means British India together with all territories of any Indian Ruler under the suzerainty of His Majesty, all territories under the suzerainty of such an Indian Ruler, the tribal areas, and, any other territories which His Majesty in Council may, form time to time, after ascertaining the views of the Federal Government and the Federal Legislature, declare to be part of India.” Therefore, any enactment made by the Federal Legislature or the Provincial Legislature would have only territorial operation; in the case of the former in the whole of British India and in the case of the latter in the provinces only. Such legislation could not have any extraterritorial operation except what is provided in Section 99. (2) of the 1935 Act. Manipur was a princely State and before its accession after independence with the Union of India, it was outside British India. Therefore, any enactment passed by the Central Legislature could not operate in the State of Manipur proprio vigore, Manipur being a princely State. The Central legislation could only be applied by some action taken by the Prince or Raja or Maharaja in the Darbar or Council. Such legislation did not operate (sic) (apply?) ipso facto to the princely States.[ (1977) AIR(Gauhati) 1 : (1976) AssamLR 270GAUHATI HIGH COURT SANGLAKPAM NINGOL ADHIKARIMAYUM ONGBI IBEMCHA DEVI AND ANOTHER Vs. NINGOMBAM MANI SINGH AND OTHERS ]

Vaidic/Vedic Sankalpa Sutram :

ॐ नमः परमात्मने, श्रीपुराणपुरुषोत्तमस्य श्रीविष्णोराज्ञया प्रवर्तमानस्याद्य श्रीब्रह्मणो द्वितीयपरार्द्धे श्रीश्वेतवाराहकल्पे वैवस्वतमन्वन्तरेऽष्टाविंशतितमे कलियुगे प्रथमचरणे जम्बूद्वीपे भारतवर्षे भरतखण्डे आर्यावर्तान्तर्गतब्रह्मावर्तैकदेशे पुण्यप्रदेशे बौद्धावतारे वर्तमाने यथानामसंवत्सरे अमुकामने महामांगल्यप्रदे मासानाम्‌ उत्तमे अमुकमासे अमुकपक्षे अमुकतिथौ अमुकवासरान्वितायाम्‌ अमुकनक्षत्रे अमुकराशिस्थिते सूर्ये अमुकामुकराशिस्थितेषु चन्द्रभौमबुधगुरुशुक्रशनिषु सत्सु शुभे योगे शुभकरणे एवं गुणविशेषणविशिष्टायां शुभ पुण्यतिथौ सकलशास्त्र श्रुति स्मृति पुराणोक्त फलप्राप्तिकामः अमुकगोत्रोत्पन्नः अमुक नाम अहं ममात्मनः सपुत्रस्त्रीबान्धवस्य…………….करिष्यामि।

Amor Kosaha by Amar Simha [ 200 BCE]

(२.१.१४) लोकोऽयं भारतं वर्षं शरावत्यास्तु योऽवधेः -(२.१.१५) देशः प्राग्दक्षिणः प्राच्य उदीच्यः पश्चिमोत्तरः

(२.१.१६) प्रत्यन्तो म्लेच्छदेशः स्यान्मध्यद्देशस्तु मध्यमः -(२.१.१७) आर्यावर्तः पुण्यभूमिर्मध्यं विन्ध्यहिमालयोः



%d bloggers like this: