British India - Myth

[FaujHistorian]

Sir,

It is no use convincing us. Pakistan government should invest in convincing the world that Indus valley civilization is Pakistan civilization.

it is not about the world

It is the inferiority complex of Bharatis.

They should have been proud of Ganga valley/plain artifacts and archeological sites.

But no!

there they found nothing comparable to advanced stuff from Sindh river in Pakistan.

so they all started running to Pakistani border areas, begging "please give us some civilization too".

hahahah

 

[scorpionx]

Rishi Dayanand Saraswati states that they are praying to different aspects of the same Brahman not separate Gods. I have read his interpretation of vedas. Quite monotheistic point of view.

Yes, I am familiar with his and the peculiar 19th century general revivalism of vedas. Dayananda Saraswati had done fantastic job with the vedas, but I do not agree with the part that early orators of Rg were followers of monoism. A plenty of early Gods in vedas have strange affinities with the ones worshiped in the present Slavic states, mostly southern Urals. Given the early profuse interactions between communities and trans-continental movement of people between Anatolia, Urals and North Western India, it is hard to believe that contemporary Indians were following an isolated belief system than the rest.

 

[Soulspeek]

If OP is so sad by the turn of events, he sould also think that Pakistan is also an unnatural entity. He should strive for independent states of Sind, Baluchistan, Pakhtunistan etc.. etc.

LOL at the desperation of Pakistanis to alter history and prove their uniqueness.

 

[utraash]

well excavation of all important sites is going in Pakistan which means we are carrying legacy of our ancestors Pakistan is just new name for our thousand's year old homeland and about rig ved what original says"creator in one"thus we are following Monotheism,but those who compiled Vedas, there children were enough smart to opt a new Idea known as Islam which was and is more broad then the which we abandoned.And about our identity we are "Muslims of Indus Valley civilization"known today as Pakistans.

Have you read rig Veda yourself before calling it monotheistic scriptures? Better read it don't come up with falsehood impression of Rig Veda .... One or two verses cant change the nature of rig veda or any other veda.... Stop watching zakir naik nonsense.....
Do you even know what's the meaning of Rig or Veda ? Since just that lands falls at your backyard doesn't mean that you ppl only carrying the legacy of Indus.... Geographically you can claim it but discarding us from claiming it would be futile on your part...

 

[kalu_miah]

Ok, lets look at my two posts:

My 1st post:

Atanz has a point, the confusion comes from Republic of India choosing to call itself both India and Bharat. If only Bharat was chosen and India was dropped because of its colonial association, then none of this confusion would even arise.

By keeping the name India, then political leaders gave rise to this illusion among Indians today that somehow they have some illusory right over all of previous British India, which is clearly not the case. Confused people make bad confused choices and then extend that confusion for billion souls. Both funny and sad at the same time, yes I think it would qualify as a modern day tragedy.

Your reply:

Not really. By picking the name India (and quite rightly so), Indians respected the antiquity of the land and its cultural compactness. Modern Pakistanis and Bangladeshis may not have retained the same old respect for it and call it an illusion but it was a rare correct step by Indian leaders to maintain the cultural continuity by turning it into a political expression.

My 2nd post:

Lets look at where the word India comes from:
India's name
Sindhu (sangskrit, river still exist) -> Sindh (region still exist) -> Hind (persian) -> Indikos (greek) -> Indicus (latin) -> India (English)

So "India" is an English word with a diverse origin and it is what the British used to identify this region. Question is why an independent country would follow their colonial master and their choice of word to choose the name of their country? I would not do it, I would simply drop India, an English word and choose Bharat instead, a completely indigenous word, to create a clean break with the British colonial past or even the period of Muslim rule (Hindustan), to give people a sense of pride.

There is still time for you to do it, better late than never. It is time Bharatiya's should drop the mental slavery of the white man, and it can start with the dropping of the name India for your country.

Now, that is a completely different argument isn't? You said ( in the second para, red lined one) by taking up the name 'India', Indians unscrupulously claim the inheritance all over the 'British India', did not you? Whether India denotes colonial slavery still or not was not your argument but the moral sense behind it that you emphasized. And that was exactly OP's point too.

Now, reread my 1st post:
"If only Bharat was chosen and India was dropped because of its colonial association, then none of this confusion would even arise."

What do you think this sentence means?

You just did not understand what I meant by colonial association, which then I had to explain in my 2nd post showing to you, where the word India comes from, which is the English language and colonial English name of British India.

The reason India was kept as a name was of course the mental slavery of the Indian leaders at that time, all of them after all were product of European civilization, their sense of nation hood were from the European construct.

An unfortunate by product of keeping that name India is the illusion that somehow all parts of British India belong to citizens of current Bharat and as if post 1947 Bharatiya's lost some valid bona fide parts of their original country to usurping nations like Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Is that clear enough now?

Now this statement "Indians unscrupulously claim the inheritance all over the 'British India' ", is your statement, not mine, I only mean what I say, I have no interest to analyze your idea of what I said.

It seems that confused minds are still existing today in abundant numbers.

 

[unbiasedopinion]

well excavation of all important sites is going in Pakistan which means we are carrying legacy of our ancestors Pakistan is just new name for our thousand's year old homeland and about rig ved what original says"creator in one"thus we are following Monotheism,but those who compiled Vedas, there children were enough smart to opt a new Idea known as Islam which was and is more broad then the which we abandoned.And about our identity we are "Muslims of Indus Valley civilization"known today as Pakistans.

So if you have abandoned something then u cannot claim it to be their descendant. you cannot call it as your legacy as you have not cared for it that's why you abandoned it.

There were no muslims at the time of Indus valley civilization, hence there is nothing called "Muslims of Indus Valley civilization"...

 

[scorpionx]

An unfortunate by product of keeping that name India is the illusion that somehow all parts of British India belong to citizens of current Bharat and as if post 1947 Bharatiya's lost some valid bona fide parts of their original country to usurping nations like Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Is that clear enough now?

Now this statement "Indians unscrupulously claim the inheritance all over the 'British India' ", is your statement, not mine, I only mean what I say, I have no interest to analyze your idea of what I said.

It seems that confused minds are still existing today in abundant numbers.

Perhaps it is you who needs to focus what scholars mean by the term 'India' and not what some 'disillusioned' Indians believe. NO one claims that all parts of British India are part of India, a political state. What everyone agrees with is that modern Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and parts of South East Asia were in fact part of a greater India, a cultural entity and a geographic expression as well.From the Buddhist art, stupas in the Swat valley in the West to the Java in the East, everything was considered as a generalized expression called 'India' from which Pakistan and Bangladesh chose to part away as a separate political entity, not a separate cultural one. Is that clear enough?

 

[farhan_9909]

No doubt,Pakistan is the true successor state of ancient India.

 

[Gibbs]

Perhaps it is you who needs to focus what scholars mean by the term 'India' and not what some 'disillusioned' Indians believe. NO one claims that all parts of British India are part of India, a political state. What everyone agrees with is that modern Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and parts of South East Asia were in fact part of a greater India, a cultural entity and a geographic expression as well.From the Buddhist art, stupas in the Swat valley in the West to the Java in the East, everything was considered as a generalized expression called 'India' from which Pakistan and Bangladesh chose to part away as a separate political entity, not a separate cultural one. Is that clear enough?

Cultural and civilizational linkages definitely yes.. But would not agree on the geographical expression of it.. Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Myanmar does not adhere to the geographical entity of what was known as the Indian subcontinent, Nor the term India, Never did

One can also add North Eastern states of what is now known as India to the above list as well, Till they were amalgamated during the British colonial period

 

[Sneaker]

Identity crises runs deep... pakistanis could become neither arabs nor indians..

 

[scorpionx]

Cultural and civilizational linkages definitely yes.. But would not agree on the geographical expression of it.. Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Myanmar does not adhere to the geographical entity of what was known as the Indian subcontinent, Nor the term India, Never did

One can also add North Eastern states of what is now known as India to the above list as well, Till they were amalgamated during the British colonial period

Agreed and it is bad on my part. India as a geographic expression anything beyond Indus was Persian and later, Greek terminology, not British.

 

[ito]

it is not about the world

It is the inferiority complex of Bharatis.

They should have been proud of Ganga valley/plain artifacts and archeological sites.

But no!

there they found nothing comparable to advanced stuff from Sindh river in Pakistan.

so they all started running to Pakistani border areas, begging "please give us some civilization too".

hahahah

It is about the world. I heard from so many Pakistanis saying that India has hijacked 'their' civilization. But apart from their fellow Pakistanis I never found any support for their assertion from anywhere across the world.

And...there is nothing called Ganga valley. Our religion, our scared texts, our culture, our gods are all the product of Indus valley civilization. Just because Pakistan was formed in 1947, you cannot have all that transferred to Pakistan...History doesn't work that way Sir... It is even a debate whether the present day Pakistanis belong to this land or are they people from Arab world and central Asia who pushed Indus people down south. There are even lot of articles on that too.

 

[Gibbs]

Agreed and it is bad on my part. India as a geographic expression anything beyond Indus was Persian and later, Greek terminology, not British.

For example Ceylon/ Sri Lanka was recognized as a distinct entity from what was known as India since the ancient Egyptians..

Egyptians called it.. Salike
Greeks .. Taprobana
Romans.. Simoundou
Phoneticians/ Arabs/ Persian.. Serendib
Portugese..Ceilão
Spanish.. Ceilán
Dutch.. Zeilan

Map of Ptolemy circa 150.. What is shown as Taprobana is Sri Lanka.. You could see it's shown a distinctive geographical entity from the sub continent

 

[Armstrong]

Perhaps it is you who needs to focus what scholars mean by the term 'India' and not what some 'disillusioned' Indians believe. NO one claims that all parts of British India are part of India, a political state. What everyone agrees with is that modern Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and parts of South East Asia were in fact part of a greater India, a cultural entity and a geographic expression as well.From the Buddhist art, stupas in the Swat valley in the West to the Java in the East, everything was considered as a generalized expression called 'India' from which Pakistan and Bangladesh chose to part away as a separate political entity, not a separate cultural one. Is that clear enough?

Did you just imply that I am an Indian ?

I am culturally not an Indian; unlike you I don't swallow a whole fish and deposit its bones in my mouth like a Bengali artisan !

I eat some Mutton Kebabs from the land of Khyber !

 

[scorpionx]

Did you just imply that I am an Indian ?

I am culturally not an Indian; unlike you I don't swallow a whole fish and deposit its bones in my mouth like a Bengali artisan !

I eat some Mutton Kebabs from the land of Khyber !

I heard from a reliable source that you are a 'Bhat'?
And if eating fish makes us culturally Indian, what about those mentioned in the records of Nearchus who saw people swallowing whole fish in Baluchistan?