vish
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 10, 2008
- Messages
- 867
- Reaction score
- 0
As has been pointed out, when the name India was initially used it exclusively referred to the lands primarily comprising current Pakistan.
Yes, very true. Initially the term India was used to refer to lands that are now in present day Pakistan, but not exclusively. The IVC predates India. By the time the term India was in widespread use, civilization(s) had evolved across the major rivers of the subcontinent.
The "disadvantage" that results from the modern Indian State automatically being given credit for history that is shared between the many nations of South Asia is a genuine concern, and has only arisen, IMO, due to the choice of the name "India" by the Indian founders.
An oft repeated conversation between Jinnah and Nehru (IIRC) is of Jinnah saying that the new nation for Muslims would be called Pakistan, and that the remainder would be called "Hindustan", to which Nehru replied that it would be called India.
I disagree with you thoroughly here. India is given credit for the history of the South Asian nations largely because the entire sub-continent was once, and aptly, referred to as India. Modern day India, being the dominant entity within the subcontinent is the continuation of India, in more ways than is Pakistan, Sri Lanka, etc. Hence the history of Pakistan, Sri Lanka, etc is seen to lie within the realm of Indian history, but Indian history is seen in the same light as Indian history.
Nehru did not want to adopt the name Hindustan because he was an atheist secularist, and the name Hindustan had severe religious connotations.
The history of the region would still be referred to as "Indian History", without any issues, had the name Hindustan been chosen, and the term would be akin to "South Asia". Therefore the only advantage in claiming this history Modern India has is that fate determined that its name would be identical to the historical name for the region.
Ive mentioned earlier why Nehru avoided the term Hindustan. The reasons why India is seen as a continuation of India is more than just nomenclature. Whilst it cannot be denied that the first civilizations in the subcontinent today largely lie within the borders of Pakistan, the lands within modern day India have been witness to many events and actors. The reason why Pakistan is seen as an offshoot (I do not intend to be rude here) is because Pakistan (and to a certain extent, the other states) was created as a separate state (from India).
The history of Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians, the historical events of their ancestors, belong to Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians, not just the modern Indian political entity, though I can "understand the proclivity of the Indian perspective" to amalgamate almost every thing historical related to South Asia under the banner of the modern Indian state to deny Pakistan any opportunity to discredit Pakistan's separate existence as much as possible.
Correct, the history of Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians, the historical events of their ancestors, belong to Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians, not just the modern Indian political entity. I wonder, though, how does the proclivity of the Indian perspective arise? It is not that India/Indians have sought this history mumbo-jumbo. I do not intend to annihilate Pakistan, or its entity, or the question of its nationality. My only concern is its non-secularism. All Im saying is that Pakistans history is seen as a part of Indian history, and nothing will change that. Also, India is a continuation of India in more ways than mere nomenclature and that India is seen as more of a torch bearer than Pakistan or the other South Asian states; nothing will change these facts too.
AM, Im sorry if I sound rude; Ive no such intention.