What's new

India - identity crisis of 1.4 billion people

.
.
This is not even remotely close to being a valid answer. Show me the text where Faxian calls Bengal India. It has to be India, not any other name.

Is some part incomprehensible to you ?
Tianzhu was also referred to as Wutianzhu (五天竺, literal meaning is "Five Indias"), because there were five geographical regions in the Indian subcontinent known to the Chinese: Central, Eastern, Western, Northern, and Southern India.[1]
 
Last edited:
.
Back to basics- personal attacks.

Nice story you cooked up, like many other fantasies from indian men. Online pretending to be ex-muslims, «Dev is from USA», « Ser we are calling from Microsoft office».

You forgot one big puzzle in your story. Muslims really dont see white people or any particular colored people as masters. That role is wholeheartedly embraced by Indians. So much that indians are gladly risking cancer in order to whiten their skin with dangerous bleeching products.
you missed the whole point.
thus reinforcing the limits theories.
 
. .
Disagree with this. There is NO identity crisis in India. In fact more recently, the Indians are proud of who they are and their identity. Just talk to any indian to find out.

Unlike Pakistan where ordinary people are embarrassed to say they are from Pakistan because of the terrible imagine of this country as a Military dictatorship involved in terrorism.
 
.
India was never united, except for very short periods, before Brits arrived.
India is a legacy of the British Empire and should be strictly considered under this framework.

fact is various regional and local groups with different beliefs were in perpetual war with eachother.
The conditions werent that different from americas and sub sahara africa until muslims conqourers and europeans arrived.
Hinduism never was a unitary religion, but rather different tribal beliefs with somewhat smililarities, as they borrowed stories and elements from eachother.
Hinduism is indeed the uniting factor for India
Regions that became predominantly Muslims got out of this United Hindu Kingdom like Afghanistan,Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.
Had Religion not a uniting factor,India and Pakistan would never have existed on the map of Earth but small ethnic based states with constant infighting with each other.
This region will one day become a super Power of this world like it was some thousand of Years ago.And religion will play major role in keeping these countries United.
 
.
I can buy that. You are talking more than 2000-2500 years ago. Sometime after that the Arabs and Chinese started referring to the area of Eastern Pakistan + India + Bangladesh as India. There is a practical reason. Most of what India was known for was not produced in modern Pakistan. The Europeans got their knowledge about India from the Arabs and Chinese.

Modern day India was not called such by it's inhabitants until British rule. Regardless, the etymology that even Indians use and what became their names refers to the Indus basin proper.

Europeans also might have expanded it as a mistake just like they did for natives. They might have landed on the peninsula thinking they reached the Indus basin.
 
Last edited:
. .
Modern day India was not called such by it's inhabitants until British rule. Regardless, the etymology that even Indians use and what became their names refers to the Indus basin proper.

Europeans also might have expanded it as a mistake just like they did for natives. They might have landed on the peninsula thinking they reached the Indus basin.

There is no evidence that Hindustan or India was ever confined to the Indus Valley. India was disunited politically for most of its history. That is no criteria to disqualify the use of the name.

The Europeans knew exactly what they wanted. The British were efficient exploiters of wealth and resources. They founded East India Company in 1600. They did not bother to march into modern Pakistan for 200 years. Ditto for the French, Dutch, Portuguese and Danes.
partition-of-india-6-728.jpg




The Europeans derived their knowledge from Arabs and Chinese. Look at the memoirs of Chinese writers. They spent most of their time in modern day India.
 
.
There is no evidence that Hindustan or India was ever confined to the Indus Valley. India was disunited politically for most of its history. That is no criteria to disqualify the use of the name.

The Europeans knew exactly what they wanted. The British were efficient exploiters of wealth and resources. They founded East India Company in 1600. They did not bother to march into modern Pakistan for 200 years. Ditto for the French, Dutch, Portuguese and Danes. The Europeans derived their knowledge from Arabs and Chinese. Look at the memoirs of Chinese writers. They spent most of their time in modern day India.

The etymology all refers to the river Indus. Even when modern "Indians" chant the hymns of the Indus or Sindhu in their prayers and use last names for, such as they do in fact refer to the Indus and not the Ganges.

Hindustan=Indus land. When the Arabs referred to Muslim pilgrims from today's Khyberpakhtunkhwa as "Hindi" people, they were referring to the river Indus and not the vast peninsula east of it.

When the French, Danes, Dutch & Portuguese were referring to "India" they derived the name from the Indus region from the Greeks & Romans.

The Indus was a major trading point. The reasoning for calling modern day "India" by that name is for similar reasons as calling Native Americans "Indians", a misnomer.
 
Last edited:
.
Hinduism is indeed the uniting factor for India
Regions that became predominantly Muslims got out of this United Hindu Kingdom like Afghanistan,Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.
Had Religion not a uniting factor,India and Pakistan would never have existed on the map of Earth but small ethnic based states with constant infighting with each other.
This region will one day become a super Power of this world like it was some thousand of Years ago.And religion will play major role in keeping these countries United.

i saw someone write article on how language is the uniting factor

thus english is imporant and is able to hold diverse places like singapore together

whether or not india can stay together is dependent on their progress in a national language
 
.
Hinduism is indeed the uniting factor for India
Regions that became predominantly Muslims got out of this United Hindu Kingdom like Afghanistan,Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.
Had Religion not a uniting factor,India and Pakistan would never have existed on the map of Earth but small ethnic based states with constant infighting with each other.
This region will one day become a super Power of this world like it was some thousand of Years ago.And religion will play major role in keeping these countries United.

There never was a United Hindu Kingdom.
There was British Empire, a de-facto secular state, governing vast territories all over the world, with South Asia as the largest Province.

British Raj split NOT primarly around religious lines, but around ethno-cultural lines.
- Myanmar (barman culture)
- Pakistan (Indus culture)
- Sri Lanka (Sinhalese culture)
- India (Gangetic+Dravidian culture)

This also explains why Pakistan further divided into TWO separate nations: Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The way i see it, the other ethno-cultural groups who remained in the newly independent India, werent either strong enough or clever enough to get their own full independency. Geography, as usual, is also factor in play.

Would it really be that surprising, if Tamil-Dravida area became a separate country after WW2? Or East and Bengal became one united separated country?
Why didnt it happen? Because Nehru and his colloborators were potlitically clever enough to stop that from happening.
 
.
Is some part incomprehensible to you ?
Tianzhu was also referred to as Wutianzhu (五天竺, literal meaning is "Five Indias"), because there were five geographical regions in the Indian subcontinent known to the Chinese: Central, Eastern, Western, Northern, and Southern India.[1]

For the last time I'm asking, show me the text where Faxian calls Bengal India. It has to be India, not any other fancy name that requires Pajeet interpretation.
 
.
According to Indians, 'India' produced many of 'greetest anshiant saientisht, phhilujuphhar and mathamatishan evar noun to hoomankind.'

These great people must have left lots of written work with the name of their country mentioned somewhere. Don't tell me they didn't know their country's name.

So PDF 'Indians', please quote just one line from their* written work, that correctly identifies their country as India/Hind/Sindh. Don't say India didn't exist back then, India is anshiant kantry it was always there.

* the author must have been resident of the territory that constitutes modern day India (excluding Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, IoK)
India is an exonym https://www.dictionary.com/browse/exonym. Why will it be used by ancient authors?
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom