Motivations behind selecting the name 'India' in 1947

[Flintlock]

Flint,
That doesn't really answer my argument.

I would still point out that the people and land on the West of the Indus, unless you are getting closer to Baluchistan or NWFP, are essentially the same as those on the East. So Megasthenes's description of the Western boundary of India cannot be taken literally.

Well, the Indus boundary would most likely be a "soft" boundary, and would naturally involve the some land on the western bank as well. I don't think that "India" would end abruptly on the western shore.

Perhaps it could be interpreted as the Indus valley forming the eastern boundary of India. This would include the present Punjab and Sindh.

The text is quite interesting and informative, which is why I included a large portion of it. The entire text is available in the link specified.

What I'm trying to point out is that the idea of India in the west has been largely shaped by this text - as a land of rich and plenty - vast plains and many rivers.
I hope you'll agree that contesting this idea as "wrong" is rather strange and would not do justice to the last 2000 years of history.

 

[Flintlock]

Apparently Megasthenes was in Chandragupta Maurya's court as an ambassador for Seleucus I of Syria.

That would mean that his descriptions of India are in fact those of Maurya's empire, which might explain why he arbitrarily chose the Indus as his Western boundary, since the land and the people would not have suddenly changed across the river - East and West of the Indus is all the Indus plain.

This is the extent of the Mauryan Empire circa 300 BC:

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Flint,

I at least am not contesting the idea of references to India as a 'region', similar to Asia, after a certain point. What I was contesting was the seemingly arbitrary choice of lands to the East of the Indus, which made no sense, and that is why I said that Megasthenes comments should not be taken literally. He chose natural landmarks, mountains, seas and rivers, to construct his definition, and similarly just picked the Indus for the Western boundary.

Megasthenes descriptions of ancient India make for interesting reading nonetheless, though they seem cursory, in that he was not able to distinguish between the rich variety of cultures and ethnicities that inhabited the region, and chose to describe them singularly.

It is also interesting that if Maurya's empire did extend as far as the map suggests, why Megasthenes did not use the Hindukush as his boundary. Possibly Maurya's empire had not stretched that far at that point.

 

[Flintlock]

Flint,

I at least am not contesting the idea of references to India as a 'region', similar to Asia, after a certain point. What I was contesting was the seemingly arbitrary choice of lands to the East of the Indus, which made no sense, and that is why I said that Megasthenes comments should not be taken literally. He chose natural landmarks, mountains, seas and rivers, to construct his definition, and similarly just picked the Indus for the Western boundary.

I think his idea of India was more than just a region - he saw it as a distinct cultural entity which was quite different from other regions that he had visited.

Megasthenes descriptions of ancient India make for interesting reading nonetheless, though they seem cursory, in that he was not able to distinguish between the rich variety of cultures and ethnicities that inhabited the region, and chose to describe them singularly.

Well we must forgive him for his shoddy research, but considering that he wrote all this in 300 BC, quite a feat I must say.

It is also interesting that if Maurya's empire did extend as far as the map suggests, why Megasthenes did not use the Hindukush as his boundary. Possibly Maurya's empire had not stretched that far at that point.

That is possible, perhaps a full reading of Indika will tell us more about the political situation.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think his idea of India was more than just a region - he saw it as a distinct cultural entity which was quite different from other regions that he had visited.

Megasthenes may not have seen it as a region because he was Ambassador to an Empire, and therefore it was primarily one united entity which is how he described it as well, but I was speaking in more general terms about historical references to regions.

Well we must forgive him for his shoddy research, but considering that he wrote all this in 300 BC, quite a feat I must say.

Oh indeed, still very interesting as I said. A view from thousands of years ago, its quite a precious insight, especially into one of the great empires of South Asia.

 

[Flintlock]

Megasthenes wasn't the only author who wrote about India - there are a number of writers who wrote descriptions of their travels in India.

Also, the full text of Indika is not available, and only fragments survive.`

His description of Pataliputra - the capital of the Mauryas, and the habits of its inhabitants:
____________________________________________________________________


Of Pataliputra and the Manners of the Indians.

It is farther said that the Indians do not rear monuments to the dead, but consider the virtues which men have displayed in life, and the songs in which their praises are celebrated, sufficient to preserve their memory after death. But of their cities it is said that the number is so great that it cannot be stated with precision, but that such cities as are situated on the banks of rivers or on the sea-coast are built of wood instead of brick, being meant to last only for a time,--so destructive are the heavy rains which pour down, and the rivers also when they overflow their banks and inundate the plains,--while those cities which stand on commanding situations and lofty eminences are built of brick and mud; that the greatest city in India is that which is called Palimbothra, in the dominions of the Prasians, where the streams of the Erannoboas and the Ganges unite,--the Ganges being the greatest of all rivers, and the Erannoboas being perhaps the third largest of Indian rivers, though greater than the greatest rivers elsewhere; but it is smaller than the Ganges where it falls into it. Megasthenes informs us that this city stretched in the inhabited quarters to an extreme length on each side of eighty stadia, and that its breadth was fifteen stadia, and that a ditch encompassed it all round, which was six hundred feet in breadth and thirty cubits in depth, and that the wall was crowned with 570 towers and had four-and-sixty gates. The same writer tells us further this remarkable fact about India, that all the Indians are free, and not one of them is a slave. The Lakedaemonians, and the Indians are here so far in agreement. The Lakedaemonians, however, hold the Helots as slaves, and these Helots do servile labour; but the Indians do not even use aliens as slaves, and much less a countryman of their own.

FRAGM. XXVII.

Strab. XV. i. 53-56,--pp. 709-10.

Of the Manners of the Indians.

The Indians all live frugally, especially when in camp. They dislike a great undisciplined multitude, and consequently they observe good order. Theft is of very rare occurrence. Megasthenes says that those who were in the camp of Sandrakottos, wherein lay 400,000 men, found that the thefts reported on any one day did not exceed the value of two hundred drachmae, and this among a people who have no written laws, but are ignorant of writing, and must therefore in all the business of life trust to memory. They live, nevertheless, happily enough, being simple in their manners and frugal. They never drink wine except at sacrifices. Their beverage is a liquor composed from rice instead of barley, and their food is principally a rice-pottage. The simplicity of their laws and their contracts is proved by the fact that they seldom go to law. They have no suits about pledges or deposits, nor do they, require either seals or witnesses, but make their deposits and confide in each other. Their houses and property they generally leave unguarded. These things indicate that they possess good, sober sense; but other things they do which one cannot approve: for instance, that they eat always alone, and that they have no fixed hours when meals are to be taken by all in common, but each one eats when he feels inclined. The contrary custom would be better for the ends of social and civil life.

Their favourite mode of exercising the body is by friction, applied in various ways, but especially by passing smooth ebony rollers over the skin. Their tombs are plain, and the mounds raised over the dead lowly. In contrast to the general simplicity of their style, they love finery and ornament. Their robes are worked in gold, and ornamented with precious stones, and they wear also flowered garments made of the finest muslin. Attendants walking behind hold up umbrellas over them: for they have a high regard for beauty, and avail themselves of every device to improve their looks. Truth and virtue they hold alike in esteem. Hence they accord no special privileges to the old unless they possess superior wisdom. They marry many wives, whom they buy from their parents, giving in exchange a yoke of oxen. Some they marry hoping to find in them willing helpmates; and others for pleasure and to fill their houses with children. The wives prostitute themselves unless they are compelled to be chaste. No one wears a crown at a sacrifice or libation, and they do not stab the victim, but strangle it, so that nothing mutilated, but only what is entire, may be presented to the deity.

A person convicted of bearing false witness suffers mutilation of his extremities, He who maims any one not only suffers in return the loss of the same limb, but his hand also is cut off. If he causes an artizan to lose his hand or his eye, he is put to death. The same writer says that none of the Indians employ slaves; [but Onesikritos says that this was peculiar to that part of the country over which Musikanos ruled.]

The care of the king's person is entrusted to women, who also are bought from their parents. The guards and the rest of the soldiery attend outside the gates. A woman who kills the king when drunk becomes the wife of his successor. The sons succeed the father. The king may not sleep during the daytime, and by night he is obliged to change his couch from time to time, with a view to defeat plots against his life.

The king leaves his palace not only in time of war, but also for the purpose of judging causes. He then remains in court for the whole day, without allowing the business to be interrupted, even though the hour arrives when he must needs attend to his person,--that is, when he is to be rubbed with cylinders of wood. He continues hearing cases while the friction, which is performed by four attendants, is still proceeding. Another purpose for which he leaves his palace is to offer sacrifice; a third is to go to the chase, for which he departs in Bacchanalian fashion. Crowds of women surround him, and outside of this circle spearmen are ranged. The road is marked off with ropes, and it is death, for man and woman alike, to pass within the ropes. Men with drums and gongs lead the procession. The king hunts in the enclosures and shoots arrows from a platform. At his side stand two or three armed women. If he hunts in the open grounds he shoots from the back of an elephant. Of the women, some are in chariots, some on horses, and. some even on elephants, and they are equipped with weapons of every kind, as if they were going on a campaign.

[These customs are very strange when compared with our own, but the following are still more so;] for Megasthenes states that the tribes inhabiting the Kaukasos have intercourse with women in public, and eat the bodies of their relatives, that there are monkeys which roll down stones, &c. (Fragm. XV. follows, and then Fragm. XXIX.)

 

[Flintlock]

Forgive me for spamming - but I think this makes interesting reading as well - another author - Pliny:
____________________________________________________________

Pliny: Position, Boundaries, and Physical Characteristics of India

BOOK VI. c. 17 (21). But where the chain of Hemodus rises the communities are settled, and the nations of India, which begin there, adjoin not only the eastern sea but also the southern, which we have already mentioned under the name of the Indian Ocean. That part which faces the east runs in a straight line to the bend where the Indian Ocean begins, and measures 1875 miles. Then from this bend to the south up to the river Indus, which forms the western boundary of India, the distance, as given by Eratosthenes, is 2475 miles. But many authors have represented the total length of its coast as being a sail of forty days and forty nights, and its length from north to south as being 2850 miles. Agrippa has estimated its length at 3300 miles, and its breadth at 2300. Poseidonios has measured it from north-east to south-east, placing it opposite to Gaul, which he was measuring from north-west to south-west, making the whole of India lie to west of Gaul. Hence he has shown by undoubted proofs that India being opposite to Gaul must be refreshed by the blowing of the west wind, and have in consequence a salubrious climate. Here the appearance of the heavens is entirely changed, and the stars rise differently; there are two summers in the year, and two harvests having winter between them, while the Etesian winds are prevalent; and during our winter the breezes there are light and the seas navigable. In this country the nations and cities are numberless should one attempt to reckon them all up. It was opened up to our knowledge not only by the arms of Alexander the Great and of the kings who succeeded him, Seleucus and Antiochus, as well as by their admiral Patrokles who sailed round even into the Hyrcanian and Caspian seas, but also by certain Greek authors, who resided with Indian kings, such as Megasthenes, and Dionysius who was sent by Philadelphus, and have thus informed us of the power and resources of the Indian nations. However, there is no room for a careful examination of their statements, they are so diverse and incredible. The companions of Alexander the Great have written that in that tract of India, which he subdued, there were 5000 towns, none less than Cos--that its nations were nine in number--that India was the third part of all the world, and that the multitude of its inhabitants was past reckoning. For this there was probably a good reason, since the Indians almost alone among the nations have never emigrated from their own borders. Their kings from Father Bacchus down to Alexander the Great are reckoned at 153 over a space of 6451 years and three months. The vast size of their rivers fills the mind with wonder. It is recorded that Alexander on no day had sailed on the Indus less than 600 stadia, and was unable to reach its mouth in less than five months and a few days, and yet it appears that it is smaller than the Ganges. Seneca, who was our fellow-citizen and composed a treatise on India, has given the number of its rivers at 60, and that of its nations at 118. It would be as great a difficulty should we attempt to enumerate its mountains. The chains of Imavos, Hemodus, Paropanisus, and Caucasus are mutually connected, and from their base the whole country sinks down into a plain of immense extent and bears a great resemblance to Egypt. But that our account of the geography of these regions may be better understood, we shall tread in the steps of Alexander the Great, whose marches were measured by Diognetes and Baeton.

BooK II. c. 73 (75). In the same way they inform us that in the town of Syene, which is 5000 stadia south of Alexandria, no shadow is cast at noon on the day of the solstice, and that a well dug for the purpose of the experiment was completely illuminated, from which it appears that the sun is vertical at that place, and Onesicritus writes that in India this is the case at that time at the river Hypasis. . . . In the country of the Oretes, a people of India, is the mountain Maleus, near which shadows in the summer are cast to the south and in winter to the north. The stars of the Great Bear are visible there for fifteen days only. In India also, at Patala, a celebrated port, the sun rises on the right hand and the shadows fall to the south. It was observed, while Alexander was staying there the seven stars of the Bear were seen only at the early part of the evening. Onesicritus, one of his generals, states that in those parts of India where there are no shadows the Bear is not seen; these places, he says, are called 'ascia,' and time there is not reckoned by hours.

C. 108 (112). One part of the earth . . . stretches out to the greatest extent from east to west, that is, from India to the Pillars of Hercules at Gades, being a distance of 8578 miles according to Artemidorus, but according to Isidorus 9818 miles.

Book VI. c. 16 (18). This nation (the Bactrian) lies at the back of Mount Paropanisus over against the sources of the river Indus

 

[Ali.009]

India is a fake, wrong name given to hindu land. India means - land of the Indus, i.e it belongs to the poeple of Pakistan.

India should be renamed to Ganges-desh, or something related to Ganges, or just simply Hindustan. A country promoting itself as a glamorous civilization should atleast first correct its 'imported' incorrect name.

 

[Flintlock]

India is a fake, wrong name given to hindu land. India means - land of the Indus, i.e it belongs to the poeple of Pakistan.

India should be renamed to Ganges-desh, or something related to Ganges, or just simply Hindustan. A country promoting itself as a glamorous civilization should atleast first correct its 'imported' incorrect name.

Wow....after the entire Mahabharat....

 

[Vinod2070]

Well you can only take the horse to the water....

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think the point Ali and RR made is valid in the sense that the literal derivation of the name 'India' from the river Indus does imply that is inaccurately used for the contemporary Indian Republic, since the river Indus is not within its boundaries.

Historical references of India also refer to either the region, or empires at the time that encompassed the river Indus, so on both those counts the adoption of the name "India" in 1947 was inaccurate.

However, since Pakistan did not want the name, there is no point in arguing over the fact that Congress chose it for their political entity (leaving aside any arguments over whether Jinnah may have assumed that India would not be chosen), other than the problem of confusion over Pakistani history or regional (South Asian) history vs the Republic of India's history.

 

[Flintlock]

I think the point Ali and RR made is valid in the sense that the literal derivation of the name 'India' from the river Indus does imply that is inaccurately used for the contemporary Indian Republic, since the river Indus is not within its boundaries.

Historical references of India also refer to either the region, or empires at the time that encompassed the river Indus, so on both those counts the adoption of the name "India" in 1947 was inaccurate.

K...looks like we're back to square one....so never mind...whatever makes you happy.

I've made my point, and anyone without an obvious bias will understand.

Perhaps you should start by questioning the rationale behind the name "Indonesia" before moving on to India.

In addition, let us stop using English because all the words in the english language had different meanings to begin with. Lets go all the way to 15000 BC and communicate using animal sounds.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

K...looks like we're back to square one....so never mind...whatever makes you happy.

I've made my point, and anyone without an obvious bias will understand.

Perhaps you should start by questioning the rationale behind the name "Indonesia" before moving on to India.

In addition, let us stop using English because all the words in the english language had different meanings to begin with. Lets go all the way to 15000 BC and communicate using animal sounds.

Your 'point' I referenced in my post while arguing why the name was incorrectly chosen in 1947.

"the literal derivation of the name 'India' from the river Indus does imply that is inaccurately used for the contemporary Indian Republic, since the river Indus is not within its boundaries.

Historical references of India also refer to either the region, or empires at the time that encompassed the river Indus, so on both those counts the adoption of the name "India" in 1947 was inaccurate."

Almost everything you have posted validates my argument above. Megasthenes quote was based on his position as an Ambassador to the Maurya empire, which at that moment covered a large part of South Asia, including the Indus, and before then we had the Greeks primarily referring to the lands comprising Pakistan alone as 'India'.

The usage of the word India historically has predominantly been in the context of 'Empire'/'State', controlling regions inclusive of the Indus, or in the context of 'region' - that is 'South Asia'. The contemporary Indian Republic meets neither of those standards. But hey, no one can stop anyone from picking any name they like, its just that yours is inaccurate given the historical usage, and that is why historians make a distinction between 'ancient India' and the "republic of India'.

I think you made inaccurate assumptions about what we agreed upon when we left this discussion last.

But whatever makes you happy.

 

[Flintlock]

Your 'point' I referenced in my post while arguing why the name was incorrectly chosen in 1947.

"the literal derivation of the name 'India' from the river Indus does imply that is inaccurately used for the contemporary Indian Republic, since the river Indus is not within its boundaries.

Does the word "India" mean "Indus"? NO. It does not. It is a CORRUPTION of the word "Sindhu", which obviously doesn't imply that it must have the same meaning.

How hard is that to understand?

Historical references of India also refer to either the region, or empires at the time that encompassed the river Indus, so on both those counts the adoption of the name "India" in 1947 was inaccurate."

Bullshit. Historical references of India always term India a region, and throughout most of ancient history, the term has been used for the entire Indian Subcontinent.

Almost everything you have posted validates my argument above. Megasthenes quote was based on his position as an Ambassador to the Maurya empire, which at that moment covered a large part of South Asia, including the Indus, and before then we had the Greeks primarily referring to the lands comprising Pakistan alone as 'India'.

So how does that validate your argument at all? Why should you favour one political setup over another ?

The point is that the Greeks (and later the Persians/Turks) used the term India/Hindustan to refer to the inhabitants of the Indian Subcontinent.

Since modern day India includes most of this territory, it is but obvious that we would choose this name, just like any political entity covering most of Europe would choose the word "Europe".

The word "Europe" originally referred to the Greek Mainland, but was later in 500 BC onwards expanded slowly to eventually include the whole continent . So should we now stop using word "Europe" because it was originally used for just Greece?

Now I am going to argue that the word "Hindu" should be used for the inhabitants of the region of Pakistan, since the word "Hindu" is far more obviously a corruption of "Sindhu" river.

Kosher?

No. Obviously not. Because that's not how language works.

The usage of the word India historically has predominantly been in the context of 'Empire'/'State', controlling regions inclusive of the Indus, or in the context of 'region' - that is 'South Asia'. The contemporary Indian Republic meets neither of those standards. But hey, no one can stop anyone from picking any name they like, its just that yours is inaccurate given the historical usage, and that is why historians make a distinction between 'ancient India' and the "republic of India'.

The contemporary Indian Republic covers most of the territory comprising historical India, and that is what matters.

What DOES NOT matter however, is the origins of the word. I don't care if the term "India" originally meant "Apple". Its the usage which is important.

If we extend your logic, we can argue that the name "Pakistan" has no historic basis at all, and is simply an arbitrary construct and is therfore false.

I think you made inaccurate assumptions about what we agreed upon when we left this discussion last.

But whatever makes you happy.

I don't think we have ever agreed or we will ever agree, because you are obviously hell-bent upon somehow not accepting the plain facts before your eyes.

That is obviously what makes you happy.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Does the word "India" mean "Indus"? NO. It does not. It is a CORRUPTION of the word "Sindhu", which obviously doesn't imply that it must have the same meaning.

How hard is that to understand?


Bullshit. Historical references of India always term India a region, and throughout most of ancient history, the term has been used for the entire Indian Subcontinent.

So how does that validate your argument at all? Why should you favour one political setup over another ?

The point is that the Greeks (and later the Persians/Turks) used the term India/Hindustan to refer to the inhabitants of the Indian Subcontinent.

Since modern day India includes most of this territory, it is but obvious that we would choose this name, just like any political entity covering most of Europe would choose the word "Europe".

The word "Europe" originally referred to the Greek Mainland, but was later in 500 BC onwards expanded slowly to eventually include the whole continent . So should we now stop using word "Europe" because it was originally used for just Greece?

Now I am going to argue that the word "Hindu" should be used for the inhabitants of the region of Pakistan, since the word "Hindu" is far more obviously a corruption of "Sindhu" river.

Kosher?

No. Obviously not. Because that's not how language works.


The contemporary Indian Republic covers most of the territory comprising historical India, and that is what matters.

What DOES NOT matter however, is the origins of the word. I don't care if the term "India" originally meant "Apple". Its the usage which is important.

If we extend your logic, we can argue that the name "Pakistan" has no historic basis at all, and is simply an arbitrary construct and is therfore false.


I don't think we have ever agreed or we will ever agree, because you are obviously hell-bent upon somehow not accepting the plain facts before your eyes.

That is obviously what makes you happy.

Been off volunteering for Obama's campaign and busy with school, so I haven't logged on for like a week.

The name India, bastardized and all, is derived from the Indus/Sindhu. That's my point, not that it is what the natives of the time called it, but that it originated because of a geographical feature, a river, called the Indus, now located in Pakistan. Therefore the usage of the name by the Indian Republic on the basis of any geographic indicators is flawed, since the geographic indicators are not located in India.

My second point is that even though the name originally referred to the territories primarily comprising Pakistan, it was expanded to encompass larger and larger tracts of South Asia, and as such its usage was extended to empires encompassing large sections of South Asia, and the region of South Asia in general. It is therefore historically inaccurate to name the contemporary republic as such, since the contemporary republic does not include many of the lands that comprised the region referred to as India throughout most of its history. In fact, hardly ever was the region referred to as 'India' not inclusive of the lands comprising Pakistan, and specifically the Indus valley and the Indus river.

Now, I am not staking a claim to the name or hoping to rename Pakistan - Nehru chose it for your nation, and he could have chosen any name, and that was his prerogative. We chose Pakistan, and we are proud of that name and happy with it. I am however pointing out that usage of the name is inaccurate since the modern Indian republic reflects neither the geographic entity that the name was derived from, nor does it contain many of the regions that were part of the 'region of India', that popular 'usage' referred to throughout history. However, it is a name as is Pakistan, and as I said before, a nation can choose whatever name it desires, but that does not mean the name is historically accurate.

I am not hell bent upon rejecting any 'facts', I feel I have argued my point quite rationally. You seem to be flying into a tizzy however.