What's new

Hindustan is not India

The vast majority converted to Islam.
Everybody has converted to what they are now. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Bhuddist etc were not that in 5,000 BCE.

Two states came into being from British India
Both states, Pakistan and India are successor states of the British Raj in the geographic space called India.

Europe is a name of geographric region. If Kosova named itself "Europe" it would not follow that it always existed and that rest of Europe was carved from it.
 
Everybody has converted to what they are now. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Bhuddist etc were not that in 5,000 BCE.

Both states, Pakistan and India are successor states of the British Raj in the geographic space called India.

Europe is a name of geographric region. If Kosova named itself "Europe" it would not follow that it always existed and that rest of Europe was carved from it.

I thought the Jews were a race? The 12 tribes are the 12 sons of prophet Jacob pbuh (AKA Israel). They confuse the hell out of me.
 
Jews were a race?
Depends how you define race. Jews left their ancestral lands nearly 2,000 years and lived among other races for over 60 generations. In that time they have mixed with the hosts and diffused to the point where they are no more a race then Muslims are. Jews today are white blondes, brown, Afro black and everything in between. To call them a race today is a joke.

I live in UK. in another 2,000 years or 60 generations would you call my descendants Pakistani? Even if at every tenth generation a mix happens with the host population nothing much will be left of me. That is what happened to the Jews.

211d4f11900d12963cb5896e9b28cc0d.jpg



F090531Att38-e1472715507634-640x400.jpg
 
If Aryan migration theory is true. Probably every other people are alien to the land.

It's more like Urdu branched away, while Hindi followed the same grammer, script, and many words from Sanskrit - Prakrit.
Incorrect on both counts. Hindi was artificially Sanskrtized; wheras Urdu continued as traditional Hindustani, following the Perso-Arabic vocabulary inventory. Hindustani is based grammatically on Sanskrit, so no change there.

yeah yeah,,a language which has more native speakers in India thn in Pakistan is ur unifying language.
Like i said,,we have got u bhayyajees to thank,,u did what ancient bhayyas cud never do,,i.e. made non bhayya pakistanis(pashtuns etc.) learn n speak a Indian language,,thank u for paving way for cultural domination.

Hindustani was developed under the Dehli Sultanate by foreign empires, not by the locals. Imagine a Mexican claiming that there are more Spanish speakers in Mexico than say Argentina (which is true) does that mean Argentinians speak a "mexican language".

You types are ridiculous
 
https://rlp.hds.harvard.edu/invention-traditions

While Hindu communities of thought and practice have flourished on the Indian subcontinent for at least three millennia, the concept of “Hinduism”—as a world religion, as a unitary, coherent package of beliefs and rituals akin to “Christianity,” “Islam,” or “Buddhism”—emerged only in the nineteenth-century colonial context via processes much-debated in scholarship over the past three decades.

Derived from a Persian word indicating those who live “beyond the Indus River,” over the centuries “Hindu” has been associated with a variety of regional, cultural, and religious identifications. It was in the context of British colonialism of the Indian subcontinent, however, that the meaning and significance of “Hindu” among European officials, missionaries and scholars grew increasingly complex. For example, in the late eighteenth century British Christian missionaries took aim at the “idolatry” and “savagery” of “Hindoo” practices as they failed to understand the significance of divine images or rituals of animal sacrifice. In contrast, early Orientalist scholars such as William Jones (1746-1794) countered such contemporary visions of “excess” with accounts of sophisticated philosophical wisdom from ancient Sanskrit texts. In a third example, Indian scholar Rammohan Roy (1772-1833) who was heavily influenced by both Islam and British Unitarianism, embraced the Vedas and the monotheism of the Upaniṣadic Brahman. Roy was a social reformer and the first to use the term “Hinduism” in 1816 to refer to a coherent, pan-Indian set of religious ideals and practices.

Throughout the nineteenth century—and particularly following the transfer of power over much of the Indian subcontinent from the East India Company to the British crown in 1857—“Hindu” and “Hinduism” grew increasingly identified with Indian aspirations for independence and full nationhood. While a diverse range of political and religious figures from Vivekananda (1863-1902) to Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948) envisioned a religiously plural India where Hindu and Muslim, Sikh and Jain might live peaceably side-by-side, activists such as Dayananda Saraswati (1824-1883) sought to define India as a more exclusively Hindu nation, its social and cultural forms to be rooted in Sanskrit education, the teachings of the Vedas, and adherence to caste. From Saraswati’s conservative focus on Veda, Sanskrit, and caste would emerge the twentieth-century Hindu nationalist movements, beginning with Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s (1883-1966) influential 1923 pamphlet that introduced the notion of Hindutva or “Hindu-ness” into Indian public discourse, “Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?” There, Savarkar argues for Hindutva as a unifying cultural and political force that unites the people of India and forms the basis for authentic nationhood. Savarkar’s use of Hindutva to encompass all of Indian culture, religion, and politics is championed today on a global scale by a closely allied set of political and cultural organizations known as the Sangh Parivar.

Critique of “Hinduism” as defined during the colonial period and underlying the Hindutva rhetoric of the Sangh Parivar has grown increasingly loud in the wake of inter-religious violence at Ayodhyā and in Gujarat in the 1990s and early 2000s. Many historians have argued, for example, that the “Hinduism” understood by Rammohan Roy and increasingly taken up by the British colonial administration primarily reflected the elite traditions of the relative few, ignoring entirely the beliefs and practices of the vast majority of Hindus. In the mid-nineteenth-century census-taking exercises of British-controlled India, for example, questions of religious identity often proved confusing for respondents, with significant numbers checking both “Hindu” and “Mohammedan” in early versions of the census. Most working definitions of “Hinduism”—like the Sanskrit-, Veda-, and caste-based rhetoric of the Sangh Parivar—focus on upper-caste, elite, male views and downplay or denigrate the everyday religious lives of women, low-caste communities, and non-Hindus. On the other hand, in the contemporary global diaspora, streamlined presentations of Hinduism that target second-generation Hindus living in the US or Europe—such as Viswanathan’s widely circulated primer, Daddy, am I a Hindu?—owe much to the more liberal, inclusivist views of colonial reformers such as Vivekananda and Mohandas Gandhi. These examples represent 1) diversity within the tradition, 2) how religions evolve and change, and 3) the ways that religious influences permeate social, political, and cultural life.
 
There's been a lot of misconceptions in Pakistan as well as India that Hindustan is India and that "Hindu" is a religion.

In reality Hindu is a geographic term and it's usage to refer to a religion did not occur until some two centuries ago by the Europeans.

For example Hindu Kush or Hindko language are not associated with India or "Hinduism", so why do we associate Hindu or Hindustan with them?

Problem is people misuse and misapply terminologies so the confusion comes up. In reality the words "Hindu" "Indus" and "India" have their roots in ancient Sanskrit "Sindhu" or "Sapta Sindhu". These words evolved into Indus and Hindu by the Greeks and Persians. Even the name Sindh and Sindhi comes from there.

The name "India" eventually spread to Europe and referred to the Indus and possibly Ganges plains. The Muslim invaders continued using Hindu or Hindustan to refer to these geographic territories.

Even the older name of Urdu (and Hindi) is actually Hindustani. For one to say they speak Hindustani means they speak Hindi or Urdu because these are both different dialects of Hindustani.

When the British arrived they started calling all the indigenous spiritualities of the subcontinent "Hinduism". Even using the name "India" by the modern country is technically incorrect, since India originally meant land of the Indus, or today known as Eastern Pakistan.

So to break it down. Hindustan is Eastern Pakistan + Northern India + Bay of Bengal and arguably parts of Nepal and China. A Hindu or Hindustani is a native of these region, not some religious group.

Hindustani is the language that developed in this territory, a derivative of Sanskrit and the languages of the invaders that influenced this language.

So using the term Hindustan to refer to India is wrong and calling the local religions of the subcontinent is also wrong.



Altho there is widespread acceptance that Sindhu and Hindu are the same word. I have seen evidence that The Sindhu people lived in the mid and Southern Sindh where as there was an actual area called Hindhu around Khairpur While the souther portion was indicated as Sindhu ( So From my understanding it was around Punjab and upper Sindh. ( there is still people called Hindko ).
 
Although this article is inaccurate about the pre-47 names of India (it had none as India never existed then) the rest is mostly correct https://www.speakingtree.in/blog/hinduism-is-not-a-religion-it-is-a-misnomer

What about Bharat?

Hindustan name given by Persian
India name given by western/English

but does all these names apply to just present boundary of India established in 1947 excluding Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal etc?
Bharat includes a part of what is today India, not all of it.
 
I feel Pakistans fate was sealed on the day they made urdu thr national language.a great blunder n one of the major reasons for not being able to cultivate a strong national identity till now.
well we got to thank bhayyajees for tht :D
Interesting coming from the country that chose to make another variety of the same language official when the vast majority of the population would reject it as their native language, speaking languages of their own. Of all the languages to officialese, the newly formed "India" (named after an ancient region located in Pakistan) chose this language which was developed by previous Central Asian rulers. Are you sure the identity crisis doesn't lie with you?
 
India is the westernized name, Hindustan has Persian roots, Hind was the word used in Arabic, its not different. It was never one country, just a region like Europe, that is why British coined the term "subcontinent" where throughout history different empires ruled, had the British not come, there would be atleast 20 countries in subcontinent.
You're right. But Hindustan is not Republic of India. It refers to the Indo-Ganges which falls within Nepal, China and Pakistan as well. The entire meaning of "Hindu" has been falsified and corrupted. "Hinduism" came about in 1830 after the British coined it.

Hindus are people of the Indus proper, regardless of religion. And those who follow the Vedas are Brahmans, not "Hindus".
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom