6 ms·

Interesting that they used "Bharat" in the name. Without going political, sounds like an article one can ignore.

martin_a 3y ago
By having a look at the Wikipedia article [1] I don't see how this name would be a problem?!? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_India#Bh%C4%81rata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_India#Bh%C4%81rata
- nsvd 3y ago
  The term has become a political dog whistle recently.
  - yipbub 3y ago
    Yes, but this doesn't seem like that usage. It's neutral on those issues.
- jowea 3y ago
  There's been some political controversy with the right-wing government favouring the Bharat name very recently. Nobody seems to have updated the Wikipedia article yet.
  - morbidious 3y ago
    These right-wing, left-wing terms have come from the west and violated with a negative connotation from the west. Don't defile anything in the east with these vile implications that the western nazis have come to associate with. We in the east are civilized people, not genocidal barbarians. Thank you.
econorew 3y ago
[flagged]
- thrawaway3292 3y ago
  Except for the fact that it's nothing like that it's exactly like that. It's a ridiculous effort by the Indian government that is trying to bury it's awful mismanagement of the economy at a time when nearly every factor is in India's favor (never again will India find basically every Western and non-Western leader basically begging for its support economically and geopolitically, a result of the series of massive own goals by China) by stoking crass nationalism and pretending to be a big bully on the world stage. But there's nothing racist in the name's origin itself.
  - econorew 3y ago
    [flagged]
morbidious 3y ago
Article 1 of the Constitution states that “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” It's crucial to emphasise that Article 1 of the Constitution recognises both 'India' and 'Bharat' as official names for the country.[1] [1]: https://www.indiatoday.in/law-today/story/india-or-bharat-renaming-constitution-article-1-supreme-court-2431213-2023-09-05 https://www.indiatoday.in/law-today/story/india-or-bharat-re...
- throwaway1 3y ago
  Why is this downvoted? This is literally from the Indian constitution.
  - morbidious 3y ago
    Welcome to HN, my friend. People here self-claim to be of high intellectual standards and follow facts. But what I see is a network embroiled in degeneracy. Unfortunate.
  - jowea 3y ago
    Lack of context IMHO. The issue is controversial and the post is acting like it isn't.
    - morbidious 3y ago
      So now hard facts are considered controversial?
      - jowea 3y ago
        If there was a thread about a mass shooting in the US, and a non-American asked something like "people in the US are allowed to own assault rifles?!?" and someone answered with the literal text of the 2th amendment and no other explanation, would you think that's a good comment?
        morbidious 3y ago
Obscurity4340 3y ago
Is nice

By having a look at the Wikipedia article [1] I don't see how this name would be a problem?!? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_India#Bh%C4%81rata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_India#Bh%C4%81rata

nsvd 3y ago
The term has become a political dog whistle recently.
- yipbub 3y ago
  Yes, but this doesn't seem like that usage. It's neutral on those issues.
jowea 3y ago
There's been some political controversy with the right-wing government favouring the Bharat name very recently. Nobody seems to have updated the Wikipedia article yet.
- morbidious 3y ago
  These right-wing, left-wing terms have come from the west and violated with a negative connotation from the west. Don't defile anything in the east with these vile implications that the western nazis have come to associate with. We in the east are civilized people, not genocidal barbarians. Thank you.

econorew 3y ago

[flagged]

thrawaway3292 3y ago
Except for the fact that it's nothing like that it's exactly like that. It's a ridiculous effort by the Indian government that is trying to bury it's awful mismanagement of the economy at a time when nearly every factor is in India's favor (never again will India find basically every Western and non-Western leader basically begging for its support economically and geopolitically, a result of the series of massive own goals by China) by stoking crass nationalism and pretending to be a big bully on the world stage. But there's nothing racist in the name's origin itself.
- econorew 3y ago
  [flagged]

morbidious 3y ago

Article 1 of the Constitution states that “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” It's crucial to emphasise that Article 1 of the Constitution recognises both 'India' and 'Bharat' as official names for the country.[1] [1]: https://www.indiatoday.in/law-today/story/india-or-bharat-renaming-constitution-article-1-supreme-court-2431213-2023-09-05 https://www.indiatoday.in/law-today/story/india-or-bharat-re...

throwaway1 3y ago
Why is this downvoted? This is literally from the Indian constitution.
- morbidious 3y ago
  Welcome to HN, my friend. People here self-claim to be of high intellectual standards and follow facts. But what I see is a network embroiled in degeneracy. Unfortunate.
- jowea 3y ago
  Lack of context IMHO. The issue is controversial and the post is acting like it isn't.
  - morbidious 3y ago
    So now hard facts are considered controversial?
    - jowea 3y ago
      If there was a thread about a mass shooting in the US, and a non-American asked something like "people in the US are allowed to own assault rifles?!?" and someone answered with the literal text of the 2th amendment and no other explanation, would you think that's a good comment?
      - morbidious 3y ago

Obscurity4340 3y ago

Is nice