Talk:Names for India/Archive 1

Name formation
This article doesn't really provide the formation/history of the word India itself. Odd.--iFaqeer 01:42, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Etymology of the names of India
That's what this article is. The etymology of India would be restricted to the one name, India, not Bharata; bit pedantic perhaps, but then, this is an encyclopaedia, so we should be pedantic. So I suggest a rename. Imc 09:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Really?

 * Interestingly the Vedas did not assign any particular name for India...

Really? Then what was the name "Jambu-Dweep" supposed to mean?

WikiSceptic 16:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm somewhat confident (not fully confident though) that Jambudvipa was more than India. Perhaps all of Asia, or the whole of the Old World. Imc 12:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Indus River?
Does anybody else find it interesting (and ironic) that the word "India" comes from the Indus River, not even part of modern India, but Pakistan? I think this should be featured in the "Did you know?" section.128.100.36.250 15:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Indus Flows through India before it enters Pakistan. One look at the map will confirm this. Anon, 16, March, 2006

Suspect information
The following sounds suspicious to me: "King Bharata himself may have been named after the Goddess Bharati, worshipped nowadays as Bharat Mata (mother India). There may be evidence to suggest that the Indo-European tribe that collectively worshipped 'Bharati' may have reached the farthest shores of Europe, settled on the land which they named after the Goddess: Bharatania (Britannia). Images of the Goddess describe her as bearing a trident and accompanied by a lion."

Mainly because AFAIK the figure of britannia is not ancient, having been invented at around the time when scotland, england wales were joined together- that is to say the early modern period. Also generally the idea of an indo-european people who once ruled all europe sounds suspiciously like the bogus "Aryan" theory of the Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.228.38 (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2006‎

Change on the Bharatvarsha Map
Bharatvarsha is actually supposed to include several parts of Tibet, including the holy Kailash Mt. Also the Brahmapurta rivers are said to be in Bharata's Empire, so I updated the previous map. It's mof the same size and made by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.198.10623:36, 17 May 2006‎ (talk)

Recent edits and additions of names
The article is on the etymology of the names of India. The alteration at shows that etymological information is being removed, in favour of adding names and giving reasons for their being names of India. Given the title, it makes no sense for this article to be a list of names. If someone wishes to make a list of names, then that is a legitimate subject for another article. Such an article could then include such minor variations of the better known forms as the Turkish 'Hindistan' or the French 'Inde'.

Other points;
 * 'Sanatan society', 'members of the Arya Dharma', are names and phrases that are understood or even known in common English. They should not be used here.
 * The chronological order of the content of Hind and Hindustan section was reverted to a random order. As an etymological account, a chronological order makes more sense. Reverted back to chronological order.
 * For the quotation from the Baarhaspatyua Samhita and whether it is reasonable to use it as a source, see discussion recently in Talk: Hindu, on 22 to 25 February under two headings. It contributes nothing of etymological interest. Removed.
 * Ilavarta – this is a part of Jambudvipa (ref. Mahabharata, Sabha Parva). No evidence that this is India. Removed.
 * Aryadesh is plainly not a name of India, but a part of it only. Jambudvipa is greater than all of India. The etymology of these names is not mentioned. Hence both removed.  There is speculation under headings of Ilavarta and Jambudvipa that has no place anywhere in an encyclopaedia.
 * List of names; none of these were of all India, and hence belong under state or other names. Removed.

Imc 12:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Among the other changes introduced in recent days among the recent reverts were an image of 'Aum' in Indian languages, and a map of sacred Hindu sites within modern India and Nepal only. (Image:102_0449.JPG and Image:Punyabhumi.jpg). Again, quite irrelevant to the topic and heading, so also removed. Imc 22:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Protected
I have protect this page to prevent an edit war and allow the two camps to sort out the issue on this page. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  15:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Could somebody change the wikilink Indo-Aryan in the Bharat section to bypass the disambiguation page and point directly to Indo-Aryans? --Sapphic 20:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that the page is unprotected, I've done it. Ntsimp 22:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Malayalam version
Why is the Malayalam version just a transliteration of "Republic of India" (with "India" as the shortened version)? This English-derived term is sometimes used ("India" is almost always used in the colloquial speech of the younger generation), but I doubt that it is the official name. To be consistent with the other languages, it would probably be better to use ഭാരത ഗണരാജ്യം (Bhārata gaṇarājyam) with ഭാരതം (Bhāratam) being the short form. --Kannan91 (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC) OhDear ! I enjoy wiki its full of useful things but boy oh boy how those Americans hate the British ,how they twist and distort -do anything to keep thoes goddan Britishers out! Heres an article about India a name recreated by the British during their two hundred yera time when the created modern India and not one mention of those British..aint it amazin!! Some years ago there was a typically childish Indian desire to change British names into Indian ones..thus Bombay became Mumbai which is in fact the same sound but is spelt differently ..the same incidentally goes for Myammar--Burma.. however the name India (British) has never been changed!!!

Alternative explanation of the origin of the word "Hindu"
The derivation of the word "Hindu" from the Persian pronunciation of Sind may now be in doubt.

Please have a look at this paper: http://sarasvati95.googlepages.com/antiquityhindu.pdf

In this scholarly and meticulously researched essay, Dr Pahoja has refuted claims that the word “Hindu” is a medieval construct. He cites historical evidence from a rich variety of sources to conclude that the word “Hindu” (like “Sindhu”) has been in use since the Vedic age and although it is a modified form of “Sindhu”, the origin lies in the Saurashtran practice of pronouncing ‘H’ in place of ‘S’ rather than being a corruption of “Sindhu” in Persian.

Jaidharma 13:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Jaidharma

I am new to wikipedia so apologies in advance if I have violated any guidelines. thanks.


 * You have made no other contributions to Wikipedia that I can see so it does not look like you have violated any guidelines.
 * As for the article at, it's not a claim that I can take too seriously. Some of it shows a poor grasp of language change, such as the claim that if the Sind/Hind transformation had taken place in Persian, then a corresponding change must have also taken place in the name Persia itself, changing it to Perhia! Much of the article seems to revolve around the point that the term Hind / Hindu has been established for thousands of years. The author seems to assume that any transformation of Sindhu --> Hindu in Persian was recent. This is not so, it was already established in Avestan (see similar cognates, such as Ahura / Asura). He makes a claim that Ashoka's inscriptions used the term Hind (which he then reproduces in Devanagari script, which did not exist at the time). That the term was used in Ashoka's empire would not be that surprising. The term had already been established in Persia at that time. By the time of Ashoka, Achemenid Persians (and later Greeks through Persia) had already made several inroads into the subcontinent, and it is to be expected that the name would be known there. It probably was used even then in those places where the language and culture were based on Persian or Greek culture. This includes Gandhara, and may have also included some of the Indus Valley. Imc 15:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You have violated no guidelines, Jaidharma, it is always a good idea to raise a point on talk first. However, the "article" linked is pure nonsense cobbled together by a confused ideologist (you only need to read the first line in order to see what this is about). I invite you to review WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. These guidelines basically say that such stuff can be safely ignored. dab (𒁳) 10:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am no linguist, I have to establish this first because I am making no definate claimes here. However, I'd like to give my opinion if you don't mind. The cited article definitly has mistakes. It dates an Arabic poem bake to the 1700s BC, which contradicts most (if not all) scholars (including Arabs, by the way) that say that the Arabic languag did not exist that far back (well, except some ideologists who don't have any concrete evidence).


 * But, I must say that I find it rather strange that the word Hind originated from Sind. Both words exist in Arabic refering to the region of India and Pakistan respectively since at least the fifth century AD (I read a pome of that era that mentioned them). While the artilce whose discussion page is this one states that the word Hind existed in Arabic and Persian around the 11th century (6 centuries later). I believe that the eytmology given is incorrect and does not make sense. In my humble opinion, someone must look further into this issue and dig up some references with more viability. --Maha Odeh (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge "Official names of India" here
As this includes the official list, what is the need for a separate article? And any "Names of India" article should surely encompass those official names, so removing that list from here would castrate this article. --Ant (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Subsets, but separate articles required
The article Official names of India can be a part of the article Names of India, though it needs a separate article owing to its official staus, whereas the Names of India is more from a historical perspective. I have given a link to the main article of Official names of India in Names of India.

Similarily, Hindustan, though one of the important names of India, needs a separate article linked to Names of India, as it has a great scope of expansion, v. its usage in the changing cultural landscape of 19th and 20th century Indian subcontinent. Link duely provided in the Names of India article. (Ekabhishek (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Etymology/Terminolgy of Name
What is the literal meaning of "Gaṇarājya"? Rajya look like "kingdom" or something like that...but then what is "Gana"? Le Anh-Huy (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct, "Rajya" indeed means "kingdom" or "rule". "Gana" can mean a "group", etc., but here it means "people" -- thus "Gaṇarājya" is a "rule of the people" -- used to mean "republic". "Gaṇatantra" is also sometimes used for this purpose. [I'm not an authority on language so this may be inaccurate, but it is more or less right.] Shreevatsa (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Black Thieves?
"The name Hind is derived from the Iranian equivalent of Indo-Aryan Sindh.It means literally "Black Thief". The Avestan -stān means country or land (cognate to Sanskrit sthāna "place, land").Hindustan means in the original context of these foreign invaders of India Black Thief Land .Essentially land of Black Thieves. Treating the conquered in a derogatory manner is common in history. The name of the island Zanzibar is derived from the Arabic zinj el barr, or "land of the blacks".This in itself is not derogatory except to modern sensibilities.Where as Kaffir means Unbeliver in Arabic and refers to non-Muslims, and was disrespectful from the outset."

This part of the article has no citations. As this explanation is one not commonly heard and is contradicted by other parts of the article. I question the veracity of the statements. Also, they are poorly written suggesting that they may be by someone with an agenda.


 * I second this objection. This paragraph should be removed. Vayu (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Bharata
This is quite off. Like India, "Bharat" is often used synonymously with the Republic of India. But it is primarily a cultural reference to the notion of "Indian Civilization", that is the historical Indian Subcontinent. It also often has sacred meaning that for many transcends specific geographic or political reference. The epic the Mahabharata means Maha (Great), and Bharata (the term). These were all the places that were mentioned in the Mahabharata and other epics, and they reach every corner of the geographic and cultural bounds of the Indian Subcontinent:

Epic India

I will have to change this soon, as well as the redirect to point perhaps to the subsection of this page.

In general, the notion of India, versus Indian Subcontinent, vs South Asia, vs the Republic of India, vs Bharat, vs Indian Civilization, vs Hindustan, etc are very mixed up throughout articles in Wikipedia. I'll have to consider how it all flows comprehensively before I make any major changes.

NittyG (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Jambudveepa
Is not Jambudveepa the present day Indonesian islands? In Ramayana there are some references to Jambudveepa, where some rakshasa seeks refuge after being defeated by lakshmana. Can't find references for it though -- I remember having heard it as stories long ago -- Fgpilot (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "There is a story in Jain mythology and in Hindu and Buddhist texts as well that describe Jambudvipa being one of the seven islands/continents of the world. It is possible that perhaps "island" is used to refer to India because India in one time was a separate Indian Plate. Perhaps the phrase is used in the manner that the land of India is still an island in between the Indus River and the rest of the Asian Plate. Jambudvipa is also addressed in Buddhist mythology and in some he is addresses as the ruler over entire Jambudvipa and in one, "He reigned over a quarter of the land of Jambudvipa...""

The explanation why Jambudvipa refers specifically to India is not clear. There are no references to its usage to specifically refer to India. The explanation that it may refer to the Indian Plate as an island is a poor usage of plate tectonics theory. The Indian plate collided with the Eurasian Plate over 10 million years ago (at least 9 million years before humans existed on earth). No scholarly source would use this explanation, as it would be immediately refuted. The only cited resource used is a link to a dead website. The ideas posited here appear to me as conjecture. I move that this paragraph be deleted or at least reworked to better explain the use of this name for India (provide literary sources instead of a clearly wrong usage of plate tectonics). JNG71886 (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * India (= {bhAratavarSa} and {jambu-dvIpa}) in this source, for the record(at that time). असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 21:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

map link added for easier distribution reference
Added and external link of India map showing current political boundary and distribution of population amongst states and union territories for easier reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.194.100.169 (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

天竺
Modern Chinese 天竺 and Japanese Tenjiku both came from Late Old Chinese (Han Dynasty) 天竺, pronounced *hl’iin tug, transcription of Old Iranian *Hind-uka - hypocoristic of *Hinduš ("people living beyond the Indus"). 129.78.32.21 (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Bharat written as Bha1rat in earlier dictionary
About self ascribed part of Bharat name, I would like to point out that the site mentions clearly that "http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Ivan_%C5%A0tambuk/MW/5000".

Also about the Bharat ( of Manu (who gave the name to the country Bha1rata) ) mentioned here from Manu is per:

Manu ie Vaivasvat (Son of Surya and his wife Sangya, Manu the seventh of present Manavatar at Matsyavatar of Vishnu).

Ven (Son of Manu).

Prithu (Son of Ven)

Trishanku (Son of Prithu)

Kuvalyashva (Son of Trishanku)

Yuvanashva (Son of Kuvalyashva)

Susandhi (Son of Yuvanashva)

Bharat (Son of Susandhi)
 * Even if you ignore the fact that your link is to a user page, wikitionary is not a usable source just as wikipedia is not one either. As you know, anyone can edit these things and, unfortunately, some of these 'anyone' includes pov warriors, trolls, and other problematic creatures. --rgpk (comment) 18:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, in fact there are many Bharat Kings in Bharat! Another reference from The Vishnu Purana, translated by Horace Hayman Wilson on this site, the actual source here: "Descendants of Priyavrata, the eldest son of Swayambhuva Manu: his ten sons: three adopt a religious life; the others become kings of the seven Dwipas, or isles, of the earth. Agnidhra, king of Jambu-dwipa, divides it into nine portions, which he distributes amongst his sons. Nabhi, king of the south, succeeded by Rishabha; and he by Bharata: India named after him Bharata: his descendants reign during the Swayambhuva Manwantara."
 * More about the source here: MEMBER OF THE ROYAL ASIATIC SOCIETY, AND OF THE ASIATIC SOCIETIES OF BENGAL AND PARIS; OF THE IMPERIAL SOCIETY OF NATURALISTS, MOSCOW; OF THE ROYAL ACADEMIES OF BERLIN AND MUNICH; PHIL. DR. IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BRESLAU AND BODEN PROFESSOR OF SANSCRIT IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD; &c. &c. &c.  LONDON, PUBLISHED BY JOHN MURRAY,  ALBEMARLE STREET, which authentic. असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 19:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)
 * Some info about H.H. Wilson: was one of the first Europeans to translate a Hindu sacred text from the original Sanskrit. His style and annotations are exceptional and very readable. असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 19:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

I think this article needs a total re-write from scratch. Either it encompasses the whole all it remains true only to the subject. If the author is confused, there is no necessity to confuse the reader. In Indian folklore and from various scriptures,literary works and also school text books - it says that Bharatavarsha has been named after 'Bharata' the son of Dushyanta and Shakuntala. One can check for their lineage through appropriate links. So the common man in India refers tto this Bharata only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.85.198.249 (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Oldest known language to humans?
The section Hindustan claims that Sanskrit is the oldest known language to humans. I'm doubtful about the statement. Even if it's true, there should be some sort of citation attached to it. Anachor (talk) 08:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anachor (talk • contribs) 08:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary usage of Hindustan
"A third name, Hindustan, is a historical term for the north and northwestern subcontinent (especially during the British India period) that is now widely used as an alternative name for the region comprising most of the modern nations of the subcontinent when Indians speak among themselves." The first part of this statement is true (although a citation can be added), but the second does not appear to be backed by any credible references. When most Indians speak amongst themselves, the term Hindustan almost exclusively means Republic of India. This can also be seen in some company names, such as Hindustan Motors, Hindustan Petroleum, Hindustan Aeronautics, and the newspaper 'Hindustan'. In all of these instances, Hindustan refers to the Republic of India. Regarding a term that Indians (South Asians ?) use for 'the region comprising most of the modern nations of the subcontinent', I doubt any credible source will back the use of the term 'Hindustan'. A more likely term is bound to be 'desh' or 'desi', or just 'South Asia'. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Alignment Case edits
, you are WP:edit warring. Your edit summaries like this make sense, but your edits don't. You have removed or modified a lot more than the term "Hindush". Then you make even more edits, partly contentious and partly ok. You need to either provide reliable sources or discuss your issues here to reach consensus. Repeatedly reinstating contested content will get you blocked. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Names for India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120628235414/http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.1:1:191.hobson to http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.1:1:191.hobson

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The Greek aspirate
, please see. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Bharatavarsha
An IP has been edit warring over the origin of Bharatavarsha. For the record, here is what the cited source says:

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Disputed Historicity of the Term
The accuracy of this article (as it is currently written) is flawed. The article's central claim is: "Historically the name Bharata and India referred to either the region of Greater India and the Indian subcontinent." This central claim about the historicity of the term "Bharat" is not adequately substantiated. Bharat has historically referred to A. An important character (a king) in the Hindu mythological/Religious epic the Mahabharata B. The (mythological) Dynasty descended of this king C. Possibly a small area of North India that is believed by some to correspond to locations in the Mahabharata. The use of the term "Bharat" to refer to India (the country), "Greater India" or the "Indian Subcontinent" are all recent, modern usages of the term. They came into use in response to British colonial rule over South Asia, and can be associated with the formation of modern Indian nationalism. What was once a myth-derived term of limited geographic, historical and contextual scope, was expanded to a national, civilisational and sub-continental scale. The article does not recognize this change in the meaning of the term, and projects modern identity and socio-cultural concepts onto the distant past. This yields an inaccurate and ambiguous fusion of fact and myth - past and present: the meaning of Bharat is thus confounded rather than clarified.--96.246.32.210 (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A historian says this:
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The anonymous poster of 8 November 2017 seems to me to be suffering a perceptual anachronism. Of course "Bharat" did not mean the modern India in the usage of centuries past. The modern India itself did not exist in centuries past.


 * Kautilya3, by contrast, makes perfect sense.
 * David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Forking Bharatavarsha into a separate article
The section Names of India does belong here, that's for sure – it's one of the ancient names for the land of India. But that also makes it a mythological entity, with its own associated narratives and mythological geography – i.e. something that warrants having an article of its own. And most of the content in this section imho applies to the mythological entity rather than the the name of India per se. I think we should move most of the content into a separate article "Bharatavarsha" and keep here only what is relevant. Any thoughts? Uanfala (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, unless someone objects I'll proceed to do the split in a couple of days. Uanfala (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. Please do not use the blanket term myth or mythology. In new article you can have sections on mythology, but a lot of scientific research have been done on Hindu texts and a large parts of those have been accepted as historical facts, e.g. kuru dynasty in kurukshetra in haryana, their bharata ancestor, and thats how the term bharatvarsha came up during vedic era. Many aspects of vedic era might by legends, but a lot of those have been accepted as historic events as well. So be careful to not use the blanket term myth. Separate the unscientifically implausible stuff as legends, add the verifiable and things accepted as history in history section. In the origin section, you can add legends subsection. Have you seen Muslims or Christians using the term mythology for the scientifically implausible claims of their mythological books. e.g. muhammad hallucinated or faked revelations which he claimed were sent to him by god through an angel being called a myth or manipulation? or Christians calling Jesus walking on water a myth? Myth is a term which was originally deployed by the proselytizing Abrahmic religious preachers to discredit Indic religions with the aim of conversions. The term was later adopted by the colonial christian writers, picked up by the leftists after independence, now mainstreamed by Hindus out of ignorance. Whereas, on Islam related articles on wikipedia you will see peaceful Muslim editors banding together to fiercely resist any edits if you even try to add reliably sourced scientific criticism of Islamic mythology. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

POV
I have added a POV template because an IP had top loaded the lead with material about "Melluha," which I have reverted. Yes, that name does occur in Mesopotamian sources, but it was used for the region of the Indus Valley now almost entirely within Pakistan. This page is about the names of the Republic of India not an amorphous region which includes all of present-day India, present-day Pakistan and maybe even parts of Iran. There were already POV concerns before the large-scale edits were made by the IP whereby the inline POV tags were either removed or buried in a wall of text. That includes the POV that "India' is as much an official name of India as the "Republic of India" whose proof is given by directly interpreting the Constitution of India from first principles, a very clear instance of original research.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You removed the content added by multiple editors and added "POV" tag over the content which you already removed? That made no sense. I have restored this version from 17 December as the last stable. Whether "Melluha" deserves inclusion or not will be decided by reliable sources. I will look into this later, but tag bombing was totally unwarranted unless you are ready to clarify why you are tagging. Dhawangupta (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Edits verification
@Fowler&fowler May I ask you to verify this diff removing the text of what Bhārat was referring to? Thanks! — DaxServer (talk to me) 09:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is covered in the body. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Aryavrat
The term 'Aryavrat' used many time in ancient to refer India. This should be added in this page. Shrish Das (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2023
"Urdu scholar's" should be changed to "Urdu scholars" at the end of the article. 156.143.240.137 (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you for pointing this error out. RegentsPark (comment) 19:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2023
Change of Image. As the map shown is technically wrong, it has wrong presentation of India's borders. 76.32.119.84 (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is unclear what change you would like to make. Please be specific (i.e., clearly outline what the changed map should look like) and please provide reliable sources and make sure your proposed change has consensus. RegentsPark (comment) 01:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2023
This sentence in first section needs citation "but was later more broadly applied to the Indian subcontinent and the region of Greater India," Gnanamkt (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I am unsure of what it is you're requesting, is it to add a "citation needed" template? Or you have a citation to provide? Or are you requesting to remove the clause entirely? -- Pinchme123 (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2023
The oldest son of Lord Ridhabha was Bharata. He was a chakravarti king. In the later part of his life he retired as a Jain monk and attained nirvana. Since he became a siddha, he is worshipped in Jain religion. According to the Jain tradition, India was named Bhaarata-varsha after him. This is supported by most of the Hindu Puranas.

SrimadBhagabat says:

Priyabratam nama suto manoh Svayambhubasya yah. Tasyagnidhrastato Nabhih Rishabhastatsutah smritah. Abatirnam putrashatam tasyasid Brahmaparagam Tesham boi Bharato jyestho Narayanaparayanah. Bikhyatam varshametad yannanma Bharatamuttamam.

According to Kalidas, India was named Bhaarata due to Bharata the son of Dushyanta. This view is however not supported by the Puranas. 74.12.176.55 (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Midleading content and plenty of Original Research in this article
Hodu is not a reference to India. In the book of Esther the verse specifically names Hodu as one of the 127 provinces of the Persian empire. In old Persian, this would be Hindush. The context shows that this province was part of Persia, not some independent country or name for the Indian subcontinent. KamranHassanUK (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

"Bharat(India)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bharat(India)&redirect=no Bharat(India)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)