This I just thought over the last second, for a couple minutes and surprised myself with it’s implications/hidden meanings. Now Bharata is the traditional name of India which has been taught to us all Indians as “the land ruled by King Bharat”. But I think, irrespective of the truth of the former (because it still may be valid as per my analysis that Bharat was the King nevertheless my analysis is not untrue, rather makes great deal of sense)
Bharata probably comes from the word “Bhratru or bhrata” meaning brother. [Bhratru => bharat ra u] i.e. if the right hand side is spoken quickly it gives the LHS, therefore the LHS is a result of the RHS. This would either mean India in ancient times was coined from the “brotherlyness” of the people that lived here, or possibly the “brothers of the Lord” when in ancient times persons were considered honorable or God/Godly.
Hence the brotherlyness amongs Godly persons or simply persons. It does not necessarily come from King Bharat. King Bharat on the other hand might have been given the name to reflect his brotherly qualities at birth or at “crowning”. Now where I come from originally, there is a place called Bhapur which might be a “apabhransha” of Bharat pur with the “R^a” and “T^a”, which may have become extinct, coming from the way words were spoken in those times. Now there are plenty of Bharat pur in story books so it makes sense that in ancient times cities and villages were named as India city or the likes
(the translation of Bharat Pur would be India city because Bharat does not literally translate into India, it’s a conveniently done translation, Indians are very convenient people, read opportunistic, they don’t even want to do a truthful back searching of their own history, I have heard 100s of times how Bharat is translated as India but they are different. But how? read on.)
Now what is “India”. We have been taught often that India has come from Indus, but how?
All we have ever been told was it comes from river Sindhu or possibly Hindukush mountain range. Also we are all Hindus therefore Hindustan. Voila, but how? And the Japanese calls IndiA “Ind’O”
So here is my etymology analysis: The word India is Ind + (Ja/Ya of Sanskruta) which is nothing but Hind + Ja/Ya/Ia.
Now if you analyze river Sindhu: Sindhu = “sin” ut u. [hindu = hin ut u], If you say it’s “chin ut u” it becomes chindu. This might also come from [han ut u = han du/hndu].
SO this word comes from a “generator” which is all related to China. (han, hun, hin, chin, sin) Now Ut in sanskruta is as I have mentioned else where the English “out/up of/from”. Notice that “ut” is as populated a word in Indian languages (in Odia we say “ut” or the stress variant “Uth” meaning get up, from where you are sitting, from sleeping, from slumber etc, In other situations we say “ut-thapn” meaning to raise, such as an issue)
SO our [(sin, hin, han, hun, chin) ut u = Sindhu/Hindu] means nothing but “out from Chin” (as in: “not in” here but there) SO someone, who is not necessarily from Chin, the original name/tranLIT of China, but stands in Chin or a map of Chin and uses Sanskruta, an international etymology of the contemporary times, let’s say in 800 AD, let’s say in 200 BC, let’s say in 700 BC, we really don’t know from here, says pointing to India “sin ut u” to refer to the river or mountain that borders Chin to say “not in Chin (but close to Chin/borders Chin)” which is therefore India.
SO Bharat was an ancient name of India meaning something deeper than just “a King Bharat who ruled the land in those times”, brotherlyness among the propsperous people or brotherlyness with God or Godly persons. India on the other hand through river Sindhu or mountain Hindu (Hindu Kush) was an ancient name that reflected the fact that India and Indians and the mountains and rivers of the land lie in close proximity to Chin or China of those times.