I am out of the loop? Is India now officially called Bharat?

[airhead]

Most Indians dont have a clue about history. The world "India" is a artificial term that never existed prior to the European colonists (probably the French or portuguese named it as they cannot pronounce "h" in hind. This is purely an artificial formulation of a land ....it was never really "one" country. Even under the Moguls and the Delhi sultanate, there were princely states that ruled their lands fairly independently. Even prior to the muslim rule, Sind was fairly separate, Gujarat was separate, bengal was separate..most of India was divide into smaller and independent kingdoms that were constantly fighting. India cannot stand as one single unit...forget Pakistan ...even India that stands today cannot survive as one centralized unit for too long. This goes against history. The concept of india really was started by the British and propagated by the Indian congress. If you go way back to the Mauryans then yes maybe over a span of a few hundred years India may have been united but even in those you had smaller states that were autonomous. My point being that India the way it is structured today with a strong centralized govt cannot survive. There will be fractures appearing in the near future. Pakistan is different as what is today was what was Sind for centuries barring parts of KP and most of what exists today was united under the Rashiduns and Ummayads and later muslim rule so as long as this land called Paksitan is under some sort of an Islamic rule, it can and has shown to stay united. It may not survive in its current structure and may get subsumed by another islamic empire but will likely stay intact but India cannot survive in the long run

 

[epebble]

Most Indians dont have a clue about history. The world "India" is a artificial term that never existed prior to the European colonists (probably the French or portuguese named it as they cannot pronounce "h" in hind. This is purely an artificial formulation of a land ....it was never really "one" country. Even under the Moguls and the Delhi sultanate, there were princely states that ruled their lands fairly independently. Even prior to the muslim rule, Sind was fairly separate, Gujarat was separate, bengal was separate..most of India was divide into smaller and independent kingdoms that were constantly fighting. India cannot stand as one single unit...forget Pakistan ...even India that stands today cannot survive as one centralized unit for too long. This goes against history. The concept of india really was started by the British and propagated by the Indian congress. If you go way back to the Mauryans then yes maybe over a span of a few hundred years India may have been united but even in those you had smaller states that were autonomous. My point being that India the way it is structured today with a strong centralized govt cannot survive. There will be fractures appearing in the near future. Pakistan is different as what is today was what was Sind for centuries barring parts of KP and most of what exists today was united under the Rashiduns and Ummayads and later muslim rule so as long as this land called Paksitan is under some sort of an Islamic rule, it can and has shown to stay united. It may not survive in its current structure and may get subsumed by another islamic empire but will likely stay intact but India cannot survive in the long run

Megasthenes, (born c. 350 BC—died c. 290), ancient Greek historian and diplomat, author of an account of India, the Indica, in four books. An Ionian, he was sent by the Hellenistic king Seleucus I on embassies to the Mauryan emperor Chandragupta. He gave the most complete account of India then known to the Greek world and was the source for work by the later historians Diodorus, Strabo, Pliny, and Arrian.

 

[SaadH]

Who gives a $hit, there are more mundane things to worry about than always be simping for indians...

 

[Battlion25]

Most Indians dont have a clue about history. The world "India" is a artificial term that never existed prior to the European colonists (probably the French or portuguese named it as they cannot pronounce "h" in hind. This is purely an artificial formulation of a land ....it was never really "one" country. Even under the Moguls and the Delhi sultanate, there were princely states that ruled their lands fairly independently. Even prior to the muslim rule, Sind was fairly separate, Gujarat was separate, bengal was separate..most of India was divide into smaller and independent kingdoms that were constantly fighting. India cannot stand as one single unit...forget Pakistan ...even India that stands today cannot survive as one centralized unit for too long. This goes against history. The concept of india really was started by the British and propagated by the Indian congress. If you go way back to the Mauryans then yes maybe over a span of a few hundred years India may have been united but even in those you had smaller states that were autonomous. My point being that India the way it is structured today with a strong centralized govt cannot survive. There will be fractures appearing in the near future. Pakistan is different as what is today was what was Sind for centuries barring parts of KP and most of what exists today was united under the Rashiduns and Ummayads and later muslim rule so as long as this land called Paksitan is under some sort of an Islamic rule, it can and has shown to stay united. It may not survive in its current structure and may get subsumed by another islamic empire but will likely stay intact but India cannot survive in the long run

This.. I wished you would make space between words and more eye friendly.

Yes brother Sind and Bharat are entirely different elements. Example Bharat itself has never been a united element vastly different from each other because it is a make believe continent It is not a country. Just like you pointed out the Bengals, Gujuratis, Mahratis, tamils, Keralites etc etc and many more a different countries, ethnicities entirely.

As for Sind it was never part of Bharat but entirely different. Whereas The Pathans are Iranic were part of Afghanistan and the Durrand line was non-existential. The Balochis are also Iranic people. You have the Punjabis and Sindis who are proto-Aryans and entirely different from Bharat and there is a small tiny part of Punjab that somehow is in India and that is due to the border demarcations during partition because 10% of Punjab never converted.

Pakistan is so much up north that it was separate from India until the Invasion of Muhammad of Ghor. Pakistan and India's current borders and divide use to be Ghazanvid and Ghorid borders with Bharat but at that time it was the Chauhan empire hence technically today's border are based on Ghorid sultanate borderlines with the Chauhan empire. Muhammad of Ghor came via Punjab province mainly Bathinda and Tarain which is no coincidence.

From since 8-9th century everything in the Ghazanvid border lines with Bharat and later Ghorid which just took over Ghazanvid areas were muslims. Not to forget all the civilizations east and north of it are also muslims. Afghanistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Iraq, Azerbaijan etc etc all of the Mid-east but it is that corridor and starting from Ghazanvid/Ghorid border territory anything outside of it were non-muslims.

 

[Maira La]

And there was a Pakistan before 1947?

Pakistan is not a name, it is an acronym. Punjab, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Sind, Balochistan all existed before 1947.

British did not name it. This region was known by Hind and India for far longer than that.

Known by who? Your ancestors didn't know they were Hind or India until British colonial era. But Eastern Pakistanis did, they called themselves Sind. Hind is a Persian corrupton of their name, and likewise India is European corruption of Hind.

 

[vikan]

Pakistan is not a name, it is an acronym. Punjab, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Sind, Balochistan all existed before 1947.

By that very logic (which you use to say there was no India prior to europeans arriving), there is no Pakistan did not exist before 20th century.

It doesnt matter what name India or Pakistan were known prior to 1947 or the Europeans, both countries are concents and ideas. India was the term used to describe all regions starting from the Sindh region (and the nearby regions). Those regions were the first of the Indic regions the west encountered for obvious reasons, and as they explored more, they saw the similarities between the various kingdoms in the region and called them all under a single term "India", much like how we use "Ancient Greece". They were all city states but fell under a broad description.

Then Pakistan as a concept and idea was born and eventually you ceded from British Raj to form a country. So what happenes to the name India? Why should it not be used anymore by the rest of the region that came to be identified by that name for many centuries? So what if the name started from the Sindh region? So what if India is named by the Europeans? Thats what has been used for centuries and it has become the name present day Indians (or Bharatiyas) got used to. If you are so desperate to lay claim to the name India or prevent us from using that name, you shouldn't have named your self as Pakistan or objected to India taking that name AT THE TIME of independence, wonder why Jinnah and others didnt think of this?

 

[Maira La]

By that very logic (which you use to say there was no India prior to europeans arriving), there is no Pakistan did not exist before 20th century.

Isn't it common sense Pakistan is a new country like 'India' and every post colonial country that emerged after the Europeans left?

Then Pakistan ... ceded from British Raj to form a country. So what happenes to the name India?

What happens to the name India? It came with the British, and should have left with the British. The locals continued to call their land Sind, just as they did before the British came. Last time I checked it is part of Pakistan. Pakistanis cannot call the entire country Sind, their name has to accommodate the other regions that formerly belonged to Afghanistan.

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

Technically speaking, India is not correct. Before British named you India, you didn't even know you are India. Technically speaking, India is Eastern Pakistan, and the local name is Sind.

Absurd. My ancestry is Hindustani which comes from Hindustan [India]. This is analogous to Chinese and China. Did the Chinese get their name from the British too? First I heard of Bharat was in school. Not something we use in our household. Bharat is not our identity.

 

[mangochutney]

Makes sense as the Indus River, which the word India is derived from, isn’t even located in India.

'India' has everything to do with the word 'Indigenous' and very little to do with the word 'Indus' because the Persians who came through Indus did not call it India and the Europeans in whose era the name 'India' caught up, did not come through Indus!

'Hindusthan' might be a derivative of 'Indus', but not 'India'

 

[Cheepek]

British did not name it. This region was known by Hind and India for far longer than that. The Indian Ocean has been known by its present name since at least 1515 when the Latin form Oceanus Orientalis Indicus ("Indian Eastern Ocean") is attested, named after India, which projects into it.

Don't bother with the janitor, even Japan is out of madrassa curriculum

 

[Abdul Rehman Majeed]

Persians pronouce S as H.

Sind/Sindhu is pronounced as Hind/Hindu in Persian.

Persian Hind/Hindu was pronouced by the Greeks as Ind / Indus

Europeans used the word India as they got from Greeks who passed it on to the Romans

Indica (Megasthenes) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mangochutney]

Don't bother with the janitor, even Japan is out of madrassa curriculum

Says the no life no hope street shitting religious bigoted slum dwelling motherfucker

**** off pagan pussy your the guy who’s actually despised on this forum for what you are and been taught by your cum worshipping pandit .

 

[Cheepek]

Says the no life no hope street shitting religious bigoted slum dwelling motherfucker

**** off pagan pussy your the guy who’s actually despised on this forum for what you are and been taught by your cum worshipping pandit .

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend all janitors

 

[mangochutney]

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend all janitors

**** off bigoted troll
No life no hope motherfucker
Purpose of life to spout rubbish on a forum which despises him for which he is .
Wallowing in self pity & self doubt

 

[Cheepek]

bigoted troll