When various official invitations for the G20 summit events, including those from the President, used the title 'President of Bharat', it led to controversy and speculation about the BJP Government's intentions to rename the nation.

However, it seems the Government only aims to promote the use of 'Bharat' alongside 'India', aligning with the constitutional reference of 'India that is Bharat'.

Sections of the mainstream media promptly expressed disapproval. Most of these criticisms were openly political, accusing the Modi Government of feeling threatened by the I.N.D.I Alliance and thus trying to rename the country.

But joining these political voices, was the voice of pop-mythologist Devdutt Pattanaik. He said:

The quoted passage above is intriguing for a multitude of reasons. It artfully crafts an illusion of impartial academic critique. However, beneath this facade, it not only reveals the superficiality of Pattanaik’s understanding but also lays bare his cultural ignorance.

When such questionable posturing merges with shallow knowledge and cultural illiteracy, it naturally seeks refuge in the final sanctuary of every sub-mediocre 'intellectual' in this nation—the alleged deep-seated north-south divide.

Suddenly, even Bharat transforms into a Jain entity in the south and a ‘Brahminical’ one in the north.

Nonetheless, let us delve into the assertions made by the pop-mythologist and ascertain if there is any substance to his claims.

We shall commence with the assertion that 'Bharat' is non-Brahminical and Jain in southern India.

The Purananooru, belonging to the oldest stratum of the Sangam corpus, offers a compelling counterpoint.

It is replete with verses that depict the entire land from the Himalayas to Kanyakumari as a unified entity. Its content is unmistakably Vedic.

Brahmins are portrayed as esteemed scholars who were an integral part of ancient Tamil life.

Here one should remember that Purananooru is not Bhakti literature or sacred scripture. It is a ‘secular’ text in that it extols the martial prowess and bravery of the Tamil people. That such a text employs metaphors and similes that venerate the Vedas and consider the nation as one actually shows how deep-rooted is the Vedic national unity in Tamil conscience.

Consider the following poem which wants the fame of a Pandya king to spread beyond his own land.

The king incidentally had the title ‘king who had conducted multiple Yajnas’. So the poet sings how his fame should spread beyond his territory by defining the frontiers:

It's acknowledged that the king in question didn't have political control over the entire nation. This emphasizes the importance of our discussion. The poet saw the nation as a unified whole, regardless of kingdom boundaries.

It's worth noting that the eastern sea is described as a man-made one, unlike the natural sea on the western border. This connects to the Puranic belief that the eastern sea was created by Sakaras.

The three-tiered cosmology presented here, often attributed to Indo-European influence by many Indologists, is also significant. The depiction of Go-Loka (cow realm) above as the ultimate destination of ascension aligns with Vaishnavaite Puranic beliefs.

The presence of these Puranic or proto-Puranic elements in poems from the oldest sections of Sangam literature clearly shows that defining Bharat’s boundaries and its people as Bharatis in the Vishnu Purana—a layered text dating from 300 BCE with its last update no later than circa 450 CE—has a longstanding tradition.

This discussion traces back to the Harappan civilization.

Eminent scholar Iravatham Mahadevan (1930-2018), who devoted his life to studying ancient inscriptions, especially the Harappan script, proposed a unique theory about the Harappan culture.

While he supported the Indo-European (IE) migration model, he consistently found Vedic ritual symbols in Harappan seals. This led him to conclude that the Indus Valley Civilization was culturally Vedic, even if its language was Dravidian or proto-Dravidian.

In a touching yet scholarly lecture, he reflects on the message of the Indus Script as he sees it:

It is imperative to note that Mahadevan ardently dismissed the notion of a substantial Indo-European presence in the Harappan civilization. He proposed that the Vedas incorporated elements from the Harappans through subsequent borrowing.

However, contemporary evidence strongly suggests the existence of Indo-European languages in Harappa, a fact that should be taken into consideration when interpreting the aforementioned passage.

The etymological origin of the term ‘Bharat’ is intriguingly similar to the title ‘poṟ-ay/Porai’ used by the Chera royal dynasty in the deep south. Both terms, derived from the root ‘bhr-’ in Sanskrit and ‘porai’ in Tamil respectively, signify ‘to bear’ or ‘to carry’.

Furthermore, the Tamil word ‘Porumai’, denoting patience, also shares this root. The phonetic resemblance between ‘bhr’ and ‘porai’, coupled with their shared semantic field, is unlikely to be mere coincidence.

Therefore, it can be inferred that the term ‘Bharat’, along with its pan-Indian connotation and association with Vedic Yajna, also encapsulates within it a symbolic linguistic diversity.

In 1959, the then government issued a White Paper titled ‘Historical Background of the Himalayan Frontier of India’. Within this is the following passage:

And as for the pop-mythologist’s relentless fixation on fabricating a Brahmin/non-Brahmin, North/South divide in Bharat where none exists - one can only quote the Bhagavad Gita - sarvarthan viparitansh cha buddhih sa partha tamasi (18:32).