[Hannah Ellis-Petersen, South Asia
correspondent
at the Guardian]


[India or Bharat? As the history books show,
this is a question that goes back centuries.

As India prepares to host the G20 summit
this weekend, state-issued invitations sent
to world leaders using the word “Bharat”
have ignited rumours that
Narendra Modi’s nationalist government might
plan to phase out the English name.

Some have declared it a triumphant move
to finally throw off colonial chains,
others have called it a disastrous
vanity project by the prime minister.

In 1947, when British rule was finally
overthrown,
India ostensibly had three coexisting names,
each with its own history,
connotation and legitimacy.
There was India, a name thought to have
its origins in Sanskrit, referring to the
Indus River that runs through the north
of the country.

It was first used in different iterations
by the Persians, the ancient Greeks and Romans
more than 2,000 years ago and was widely
adopted by British maps in the
18th century to refer to the territory
in the subcontinent under British rule.
There was Hindustan, the name used by
the Persians, the Greeks,
Delhi sultans and the Mughals for
hundreds of years to refer to a
large stretch of the north and centre
of the subcontinent.]


https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...back-centuries

Yes, some companies can not afford
a name change.

Companies have Vans and Boxes
it could take many years

:laugh: