Hindustan is not India

[ThunderCat]

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.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

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?

 

[911]

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.

Yes every person living in Indian subcontinent is Hindu and the place is called Hindustan . Though some people who claim, are free to claim any outside ancestory who cares .

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Yes every person living in Indian subcontinent is Hindu and the place is called Hindustan . Though some people who claim, are free to claim any outside ancestory who cares .

Its not about ancestry as if we get back in past then human race or life began with very first man and woman on this planet called earth . Its accepting the present border of India which was defined in 1947 and what name better suit to it

so akhanda bharat=hindustan=India ?
all same?

 

[ThunderCat]

Yes every person living in Indian subcontinent is Hindu and the place is called Hindustan . Though some people who claim, are free to claim any outside ancestory who cares .

Incorrect. Hindustan is not South India and is not Western Pakistan. Hindus are people of the Gangas and Indus plains and the bay of Bengal. Nepalis could be arguably Hindus as well in the geographic sense.

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?

My understanding is Bharata was a kingdom in what is today western India along the Indian ocean. It could be adopted as a name for India, but would be inaccurate in the historical sense.

 

[911]

Its not about ancestry as if we get back in past then human race or life began with very first man and woman on this planet called earth . Its accepting the present border of India which was defined in 1947 and what name better suit to it

so akhanda bharat=hindustan=India ?
all same?

Yes, Bharat is Hindustan is India. Have you ever thought why 1/5th area of Pakistan which broke away in 1971 is called Bangladesh while Pakistan remained Pakistan? Its because they choose to separate. Same is the case with Pakistan. In 1947, there was a notion that Muslims are not Hindustanis and are outsiders, so they did not claimed to be Indians. But after many yeaes of branding India, and its hitory, today many Pakistanis connect themselves with Indian history, yet claiming distinction between Indians and Pakistani keeping 2 nation theory in mind, failing to forge wrong history yet again. You can't have the cake and the cherry at the same time.

Brand sells, it attracts. I personaly don't endorse Akhand Bharat ideology, but if it manages to come into existence in future, it won't be because of wars but cultural exchanges and branding. Unknowingly Pakistanis are endorsing that ideology by allowing cultural invasion, and not only that they are catalysing by resiprocating with telecasting thier own shows in India . I would say make Persian or Arabic your national language to avoid it .

Incorrect. Hindustan is not South India and is not Western Pakistan.

So basically you are saying Indo-Aryan speakers are Hindustanis. Yea alright.

 

[barbarosa]

Yes, Bharat is Hindustan is India. Have you ever thought why 1/5th area of Pakistan which broke away in 1971 is called Bangladesh while Pakistan remained Pakistan? Its because they choose to separate. Same is the case with Pakistan. In 1947, there was a notion that Muslims are not Hindustanis and are outsiders, so they did not claimed to be Indians. But after many yeaes of branding India, and its hitory, today many Pakistanis connect themselves with Indian history, yet claiming distinction between Indians and Pakistani keeping 2 nation theory in mind, failing to forge wrong history yet again. You can't have the cake and the cherry at the same time.

Brand sells, it attracts. I personaly don't endorse Akhand Bharat ideology, but if it manages to come into existence in future, it won't be because of wars but cultural exchanges and branding. Unknowingly Pakistanis are endorsing that ideology by allowing cultural invasion, and not only that they are catalysing by resiprocating with telecasting thier own shows in India . I would say make Persian or Arabic your national language to avoid it .


So basically you are saying Indo-Aryan speakers are Hindustanis. Yea alright.

I would like to show you the fact!
India, Pakistan, Bangladesh = Geographical theory.
Hindu Muslim = religious theory.
two nation = political theory.
It is fact.

 

[911]

In Muhammad Ali Jinnah's All India Muslim League presidential address delivered in Lahore, on March 22, 1940, he explained:

It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state.



Sorry more than political .

 

[ThunderCat]

So basically you are saying Indo-Aryan speakers are Hindustanis. Yea alright.

I never said that. Stop trolling.

We are implying Hindustan in the geographical sense. Meaning and origin of the word Hindu:
Meaning and Origin Of The Word "Hindu"

So-called "Hinduism" is not a religion, it was coined by the British:

 

[Levina]

I guess its time for India to trade mark its other name - Hindustan.

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.

Going by what you'ev written all the places which are not called "hindustan" anymore should be renamed Hindustan. Now that would be a very welcome move.

But glad that you have understood the essence of Hindustan.

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.

Just curious why is this thread posted in Pakistan History? Nowhere does the OP mention western Pakistan or present day Pakistan.

 

[Srinivas]

India is Hindustan and also called Bharat, we are the decendents of Indian civilization, Pakistan is they claim are decendents of invaders, they are the defenders of Islamic civilization.

The naming is apt bharat as India and Madina e saini as Pakistan.

 

[halupridol]

Yes, Bharat is Hindustan is India. Have you ever thought why 1/5th area of Pakistan which broke away in 1971 is called Bangladesh while Pakistan remained Pakistan? Its because they choose to separate. Same is the case with Pakistan. In 1947, there was a notion that Muslims are not Hindustanis and are outsiders, so they did not claimed to be Indians. But after many yeaes of branding India, and its hitory, today many Pakistanis connect themselves with Indian history, yet claiming distinction between Indians and Pakistani keeping 2 nation theory in mind, failing to forge wrong history yet again. You can't have the cake and the cherry at the same time.

Brand sells, it attracts. I personaly don't endorse Akhand Bharat ideology, but if it manages to come into existence in future, it won't be because of wars but cultural exchanges and branding. Unknowingly Pakistanis are endorsing that ideology by allowing cultural invasion, and not only that they are catalysing by resiprocating with telecasting thier own shows in India . I would say make Persian or Arabic your national language to avoid it .


So basically you are saying Indo-Aryan speakers are Hindustanis. Yea alright.

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

 

[Umair Nawaz]

yeah i guess the OP is right, Hindustan was the name we gave to what today is south asia, even indians named their country as bharat not hindustan.

 

[libertycall]

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

That's correct.

The Muhajirs not only wanted a refuge and a place to live as they used to do in central Bharat, they also wanted to impose their central Bharati language and culture on the people of Pakistan.

 

[my2cents]

yeah i guess the OP is right, Hindustan was the name we gave to what today is south asia, even indians named their country as bharat not hindustan.

When Iqbal wrote "Sare jahan se acha hindustan hamara " he was referring to a geographical place and its people, not just hindus. In 1905, when Iqbal in his early twenties recited that poem he viewed our subcontinent to comprise a blend of both Hindu-Muslim culture, a pluralistic society in the making.

Later on he changed his stance and started asking for a separate country for muslims of the subcontinent.