THE SIGNAL

The Mirror

What the textbooks built in culture — how an incomplete history shaped what Indians call beautiful, romantic, and great.

It shaped culture, taste, and the instincts by which a civilization learns to recognize itself. Ask an educated Indian to name the country's greatest monument and the answer, almost without exception, is the Taj Mahal — followed by the Qutub Minar, the Red Fort, and on the colonial side, Victoria Terminus or the Victoria Memorial. Ask about India's most sophisticated cuisine and the answer tilts toward Mughlai. Ask about its most elevated music and the answer moves toward Sufi devotional music, qawwali, the ghazal. Ask which language carries the most literary and poetic prestige and many educated Indians will reach for Urdu before they reach for Sanskrit — the language in which two millennia of philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, and literature were recorded, and in which the Mahabharata and Ramayana were composed at a scale and sophistication that has no easy parallel in world literature. What an educated Indian instinctively reaches for when asked to identify the finest expression of their civilization almost always points to a two-hundred-year imperial period rather than to the three thousand years that preceded it.

What makes the gap in Indian historical knowledge particularly significant is not its colonial origin — it is the fact that it was deepened and institutionalized in independent India, by Indian historians, writing for Indian children. After Independence, the writing of school history was consolidated through the NCERT — the National Council of Educational Research and Training — whose textbooks became the standard curriculum for hundreds of millions of Indian students across every state board for decades. The historians who shaped these textbooks — most prominently Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, R.S. Sharma, and Bipan Chandra — were formidable scholars operating within a specific intellectual framework: Marxist historiography combined with Nehruvian secular nationalism. The consequences of that framework were predictable and significant. A Marxist reading of history measures civilizations primarily through the lens of class structure, economic production, and material conditions — not through the scale of their architectural achievement, the sophistication of their mathematical contributions, or the reach of their naval power. A Nehruvian secular reading treated any serious celebration of Hindu civilizational identity with institutional suspicion, framing it as communalism rather than history. The result was a generation of textbooks that gave extensive, sympathetic treatment to the Mughal period and the composite culture it represented, while treating the achievements of ancient and medieval Hindu civilization — the Cholas, Vijayanagara, the mathematical tradition, the university at Nalanda — with skepticism, brevity, or silence. This was not the colonial legacy lingering passively into independence. It was a deliberate set of choices made by a specific intellectual establishment, operating through public institutions funded by Indian taxpayers, shaping the historical imagination of nearly every Indian child who attended school in the second half of the twentieth century.

The romance of Shah Jahan and Mumtaz Mahal has been retold for generations as the defining Indian love story — a grief so absolute it produced the most beautiful building in the world. What tends not to be mentioned is that Mumtaz was his third wife, that she died delivering their fourteenth child, and that the singular devotion of the popular narrative is a version of events considerably smoother than the historical record. The Salim and Anarkali story, immortalized in Mughal-e-Azam and celebrated as one of Hindi cinema's crowning achievements, is based on a romance for which historians have found no credible evidence; Anarkali almost certainly never existed. The Jodha Akbar story — the great civilizational romance between a Mughal emperor and a Rajput princess — has been disputed by historians and protested by Rajput communities for decades, with contemporary Mughal sources failing to establish the relationship as it has been popularly depicted. The artistry of the films is not in question. What is worth noting is that the figures who came to occupy the romantic and heroic imagination of modern Indians most fully were drawn overwhelmingly from a single period, and the stories attached to them were often more constructed than historical. The English language meanwhile absorbed the imprint permanently — the word mogul, as in media mogul, oil mogul, business magnate, derives directly from Mughal, because European traders were so overwhelmed by the wealth of that court that the emperor's title became the global synonym for extraordinary power. The civilization that built the underlying prosperity those Europeans encountered across centuries of prior history did not get a word.

The Reckoning

The scale of what was actually built — and what it means for a civilization's relationship with itself.

Economic historians, most notably Angus Maddison of the University of Groningen, have estimated that India accounted for roughly a quarter to a third of world gross domestic product on the eve of the colonial period. That figure did not materialize from nowhere. It was the product of centuries of sophisticated governance, agricultural development, commercial organization, manufacturing capacity, and institutional knowledge built and refined across generations. The decimal number system that undergirds all modern mathematics and computing originated on the Indian subcontinent and was transmitted through the Arab world to Europe. Aryabhata, writing in 499 CE, calculated the length of a solar year to within minutes of modern measurements and proposed — a thousand years before Copernicus — that the earth rotates on its own axis. Brahmagupta, in the seventh century, formalized the arithmetic of zero and negative numbers, contributions so foundational that the entire subsequent history of science rests on them. Nalanda, the great university in Bihar, operated for roughly seven hundred years and at its height housed approximately ten thousand students and two thousand teachers drawn from across Asia — not a temple school, but an institution of higher learning on a scale that would not be replicated in Europe for centuries. The India that Europeans arrived to colonize was not a civilization that had been waiting for the world to find it. It was a civilization that had been shaping the world for a very long time.

The more immediate question is what happens to a civilization's relationship with itself when its children grow up knowing, in considerable detail, the story of their ancestors' defeats and knowing almost nothing about their ancestors' achievements. Identity is not purely personal. It is also inherited. When we understand ourselves as part of a lineage that navigated complex problems, built durable institutions, produced original knowledge, and shaped the world far beyond its own borders, we approach our own circumstances differently — not with arrogance, which requires ignorance of other civilizations, but with a grounded confidence that comes specifically from knowing what the people who came before you were actually capable of. That is not a small thing. It is, in fact, the reason that every serious civilization, without exception, invests heavily in teaching its children the story of what it built.

The version of Indian history that occupied the most space for too long was the version in which India was the object of other people's ambitions — invaded, administered, reformed, and eventually liberated. That version is true. It is also incomplete to a degree that has real consequences, visible not only in what Indians know about their past but in what they instinctively reach for when they want to describe beauty, romance, sophistication, or greatness. The fuller version — in which India was, for most of recorded history, a civilization of extraordinary scale, prosperity, and global consequence — has always been available. It simply was not taught with equal energy, equal detail, or equal pride. Correcting that is not a political act. It is the straightforward obligation of any civilization that intends to take its own inheritance seriously, and to pass it on intact to the generations that come next.

Because the story we tell about our ancestors eventually becomes the story we tell about ourselves. And it begins with knowing what to call them — and what to call ourselves.

The Naming

Bharatiya. Sanatani. The names a civilization gave itself — and what replaced them.

The borrowed mirror problem does not stop at history books, cinema, or the monuments a civilization points to with pride. It reaches into something more fundamental — the names a civilization uses to describe itself, its land, and its tradition. The names "India," "Indian," and "Hindu" are not the names this civilization gave itself. They are the names it was given, at various removes, by people encountering it from the outside. Understanding how that happened is not an academic exercise. It is the final layer of the mirror that needs examining.

The Sindhu was the great river — what the world now calls the Indus. When Persian armies and traders first reached this civilization from the northwest, they carried with them a specific phonological constraint: in Old Persian and Avestan, the Sanskrit sound "S" at the beginning of a word consistently shifted to "H." This was not contempt or deliberate distortion. It was simply how their language worked. Sindhu became Hindu. Saraswati became Harawhati. Sapta became Hapta. The land east of the Sindhu became, in Persian usage, the land of the Hindu — a geographic designation, not a religious one. It meant, simply, the people who lived on the other side of the river whose name they could not correctly pronounce. When the Greeks encountered this Persian geographic term, they converted it further: Hindu became Indos, which became Indus in Latin, which became India in English. The people of this civilization — who had called their land Bharata, who had called themselves Bharatiya, who had named their rivers, their mountains, and their cities in Sanskrit — became known to the world by a name that is an English rendering of a Latin rendering of a Greek rendering of a Persian mispronunciation of a Sanskrit word for a river. There is no malice in this chain. There is, however, a complete erasure of the civilization's own self-description, replaced layer by layer by the phonological accidents of every foreign tongue that passed through.

The civilization's own name for itself is Bharata — ancient, specific, and rooted entirely in its own literature and memory. It comes from King Bharata, whose lineage is the central subject of the Mahabharata — the "great story of Bharata." The Vishnu Purana describes the land north of the ocean and south of the Himalayas as Bharata, where the descendants of Bharata dwell. This is not mythology deployed as politics. It is the civilization's own account of its own name, preserved in its own texts, consistent across millennia. The Constitution of India acknowledges both in its opening article: "India, that is Bharat." The word Bharat was never lost. It was simply not the word the outside world used — because the outside world named this place before it learned what the people living here called it. Bharatiya is the proper demonym — of Bharata, belonging to Bharata — and it carries within it the Mahabharata, the Vishnu Purana, and two thousand years of kings, poets, philosophers, and scientists who understood themselves to be heirs of something specific, continuous, and extraordinary.

The same pattern of external naming applies to the tradition itself. The word "Hinduism" — with its English "-ism" suffix — was coined by British scholars in the nineteenth century as part of a broader intellectual project of categorizing the world's belief systems into Western frameworks. "Buddhism," "Sikhism," "Jainism" — these labels were produced by the same exercise, applied by the same hands. They are not the names these traditions used for themselves. Before this external labeling, the tradition called itself Sanatana Dharma: the eternal order, the eternal way. "Sanatana" means without beginning or end — not ancient in the sense of old and fading, but ancient in the sense of foundational and continuous, present at the beginning of things and not dependent on any single revelation or founder. "Dharma" is untranslatable into English in a way that matters: it is not "religion," which implies a creed, a church, a founder, and a set of propositions one accepts or rejects. Dharma is cosmic order, right action, the way things are and the way one lives in alignment with them. It has no single founder because it does not claim to have been invented. It claims to describe what was always true. Calling oneself Sanatani is not a political position. It is an accurate one — the name the tradition used for itself, in its own language, before someone else decided what to call it.

The same logic that applies to these large names applies at every scale of geography. Prayagraj — the ancient confluence of the Ganga, Yamuna, and Saraswati, one of the most sacred sites in the civilization's own understanding of itself — was renamed Allahabad by Akbar in the sixteenth century. The name "Allahabad" is itself a political act, an imperial stamp on sacred geography. Restoring "Prayagraj" is not the political act. It is the correction of one. Aurangabad carried the name of an emperor who spent his reign attempting to dismantle the civilization this article has been describing. Sambhajinagar honors Sambhaji Maharaj — the son of Shivaji, captured and tortured by that same emperor, who refused to submit or convert and was executed for it. Restoring his name to that city is not provocation. It is memory restored to geography. Mumbai was Mumbadevi before it was Bombay. Chennai was Chennai before the British renamed it Madras. Calcutta became Kolkata. These restorations did not begin with any single party or government, and they do not belong to any single party or government. They reflect a civilization gradually, imperfectly, reclaiming the names it gave itself — across different states, different decades, different political configurations — because the impulse to be called by one's own name is not ideology. It is instinct.

None of this requires anger, and none of it requires enemies. It requires knowledge, and then a quiet, deliberate choice. Use Bharatiya when you mean to describe what you are — not Indian, which is the residue of a chain of foreign phonologies that began with a Persian soldier mispronouncing a river. Use Sanatana Dharma or Sanatani when you mean to describe the tradition — not Hinduism, which is a nineteenth-century British administrative category applied to something that predates administration itself. Understand that when a city reclaims its original name, it is not erasing history. It is restoring the history that was erased. Teach your children that Bharat named itself — that the name is in the Constitution, in the Mahabharata, in the Puranas, and in the memory of the civilization — and that knowing it is part of knowing who they are.

The borrowed mirror problem has many layers. The textbooks were one layer. The cinema was another. The cultural hierarchies were another. The city names were another. The name of the country itself, and the name of the tradition itself, are the deepest layer — the most intimate, because they are the words used every day without thinking about where they came from or what they replaced. A civilization that knows its own name is not the same as one that answers to someone else's. The name Bharata carries within it the Mahabharata, the Vishnu Purana, and the full inheritance of what this article has spent four sections trying to describe. The name Sanatana Dharma carries within it a tradition that predates the categories used to describe it, a way of being in the world that was never a religion in the sense that word implies and never needed to be. Recovering these names is not nostalgia. It is precision. It is the simple act of calling things what they were always called — by the people who built them, named them, and passed them on.

Because the story we tell about our ancestors eventually becomes the story we tell about ourselves. And the name we use for ourselves is where every story begins.

Sources: Comparative philology of the Sindhu/Hindu/India etymology is documented in standard Indo-European linguistic scholarship. Vishnu Purana, Book II, Chapter 3 on Bharatavarsha. Constitution of India, Article 1. The coinage of "Hinduism" as a term is discussed in Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, and in Brian Pennington, Was Hinduism Invented? (2005). City renaming chronology sourced from state government records and historical records of the respective municipalities.

Other Editions

Every analysis. One publication.