Motivations behind selecting the name 'India' in 1947

[s90]

On Wikipedia : The name India (pronounced /ˈɪndiə/) is derived from Indus, which is derived from the Old Persian word Hindu, from Sanskrit Sindhu, the historic local appellation for the Indus River(in Pakistan)

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I should add one thing, which perhaps I was not clear about in my earlier posts. While I consider the usage of the name 'India' by the contemporary republic to be historically inaccurate, it is nonetheless not entirely inaccurate, since the contemporary republic is comprised of a large portion of the lands that used to be referred to as India.

The usage of the name India is therefore not as inaccurate as, say, Pakistan being named Greece, or India being named Japan etc.

 

[DarkStar]

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

Thanks for posting this fictional map. As for Chandragupta Maurya's conquests, I don't remember reading in history that he even waged a campaign against anyone, let alone conquests.

He along with his adviser and minister Kautilya, actually usurped the Nanda throne in a coup. The nanda kingdom was extensive, but not at all what has been shown on the map.

After he gained power, there is no record of him conquering anything.

 

[Flintlock]

Thanks for posting this fictional map. As for Chandragupta Maurya's conquests, I don't remember reading in history that he even waged a campaign against anyone, let alone conquests.

He along with his adviser and minister Kautilya, actually usurped the Nanda throne in a coup. The nanda kingdom was extensive, but not at all what has been shown on the map.

After he gained power, there is no record of him conquering anything.

Well golly gee darkstar. Care to provide some sources?

 

[DarkStar]

which part of my statement do you dispute and need sources for?

 

[Flintlock]

I should add one thing, which perhaps I was not clear about in my earlier posts. While I consider the usage of the name 'India' by the contemporary republic to be historically inaccurate, it is nonetheless not entirely inaccurate, since the contemporary republic is comprised of a large portion of the lands that used to be referred to as India.

The usage of the name India is therefore not as inaccurate as, say, Pakistan being named Greece, or India being named Japan etc.

Wow...thanks for that concession sir...glad to know that India being named India isn't as wrong as Pakistan being named Greece.

How about this - lets calculate the total area of South Asia , do the same for modern India, and get the percentage.

Well it comes to around 3.3/4.5 which is approx. 73%. That should settle it.

 

[Flintlock]

which part of my statement do you dispute and need sources for?

The part where that map is supposed to be fictional.

 

[DarkStar]

Wow...thanks for that concession sir...glad to know that India being named India isn't as wrong as Pakistan being named Greece.

How about this - lets calculate the total area of South Asia , do the same for modern India, and get the percentage.

Well it comes to around 3.3/4.5 which is approx. 73%. That should settle it.

Yes, and magically transport the Indus river smack bang, in the middle of the deccan too...

An India without the INdus river. lol

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Wow...thanks for that concession sir...glad to know that India being named India isn't as wrong as Pakistan being named Greece.

How about this - lets calculate the total area of South Asia , do the same for modern India, and get the percentage.

Well it comes to around 3.3/4.5 which is approx. 73%. That should settle it.

What was that about?

The name isn't used entirely out of place, it is nonetheless inaccurate since it implies that the modern Indian republic is synonymous with the ancient Indian region.

Its like a country calling itself Asia.

 

[Flintlock]

Yes, and magically transport the Indus river smack bang, unto the middle of the deccan too...

An India without the INdus river. lol

Dude, mind going through the thread once before replying to it?

Also, I see that you haven't managed to back up your claim about the map being "fictional".

 

[Vinod2070]

Just because alien invaders attacked India, later divided the country (and turned some natives), settled a part of it doesn't mean that they also own the country's history.

They may now occupy an important part of India's ancient lands and that means squat except that they occupy other people's land illegally.

The Ottoman Turks occupied the lands of Turkey and no one say they have anything to do with the Greco Roman empire that was based out of Constantinople before that invasion and occupation of other people's lands.

The river Indus never had anything to do with the Arabs and the myriad other invaders that this holy land suffered. We miss that river in our hearts even now.

It may have been snatched from us physically but not from our hearts.

 

[Vinod2070]

Its like a country calling itself Asia.

AM, just read this statement again and see if even you don's wince and grimace.

 

[Vinod2070]

A bit on Chandragupta's conquests for those who don't know their history.

After Alexander's death in 323 BC, Chandragupta, turned his attention to Northwestern India (modern Pakistan), where he defeated the satrapies (described as "prefects" in classical Western sources) left in place by Alexander (according to Justin), and may have assassinated two of his governors, Nicanor and Philip.[3][31] The satrapies he fought may have included Eudemus, ruler in western Punjab until his departure in 317 BC; and Peithon, son of Agenor, ruler of the Greek colonies along the Indus until his departure for Babylon in 316 BC. The Roman historian Justin described how Sandrocottus (Greek version of Chandragupta's name) conquered the northwest:
“ "India, after the death of Alexander, had assassinated his prefects, as if shaking the burden of servitude. The author of this liberation was Sandracottos, but he had transformed liberation in servitude after victory, since, after taking the throne, he himself oppressed the very people he has liberated from foreign domination." ”

—Junianus Justinus, Historiarum Philippicarum libri XLIV, XV.4.12-13
“ "He was of humble origin, but was pushing to acquiring the throne by the superior power of the mind. When after having offensed the king of Nanda by his insolence, he was condemned to death by the king, he was saved by the speed of his own feet" ”

—Junianus Justinus, Historiarum Philippicarum libri XLIV, XV.4.15
“ "Later, as he was preparing war against the prefects of Alexander, a huge wild elephant went to him and took him on his back as if tame, and he became a remarkable fighter and war leader. Having thus acquired royal power, Sandracottos possessed India at the time Seleucos was preparing future glory." ”

—Junianus Justinus, Historiarum Philippicarum libri XLIV, XV.4.19

Having consolidated power in the northwest, Chandragupta pushed east towards the Nanda Empire.

Chandragupta Maurya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another one:

Conquests
Chandragupta Maurya defeated the Macedonian satrapies in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent in 317 BC. Thereafter, he turned his attention towards Northwestern India. Chandragupta allied with the Himalayan king Parvatka and launched an attack against Dhana Nanda of the Nanda Empire. The battle ended around 321 BC, with the siege of the capital city of Kusumapura and the conquest of the Nanda Empire. Thus was born the powerful Maurya Empire in Northern India.

Conquest of Seleucus' Eastern Territories
After the conflict with Seleucus in 305 BC, Emperor Chandragupta Maurya extended his empire towards Seleucid Persia. Through a treaty sealed in 305 BC, Seleucus gave up the country around the Indus River to Chandragupta, including the Hindu Kush, present day Afghanistan and the Balochistan province of Persia. In return, he received five hundred war elephants, increasing his military strength.

Southern Conquests
After annexing the eastern Persian provinces Seleucus, Chandragupta's empire stretched across the northern parts of Southern Asia, from the Bay of Bengal to the Arabian Sea. Thereafter, began his conquests in south, beyond the Vindhya Range and into the Deccan Plateau. Most of the Southern Asia got united under the rule of Chandragupta Maurya.

Chandragupta Maurya - King Chandragupta Maurya, Chandragupta Maurya Biography, Chandragupta Maurya Life History

The Arab masters of some people were not the only ones who built empires!

 

[DarkStar]

Chandragupta Maurya was himself based in teh Northwest, TAxila to be exact. This is where Alexander is supposed to have met him while he was a student (according to legend).

Under the patronage of Kautilya, he first tried to assume power by an unsuccessful coup. AFterwards, Kautilya arranged for him along with other disgruntled local rulers at the edges of the Nanda empire, to attack the nanda regions, piecemeal, culminating in the capture of Magadh, and Pataliputr.

Before assuming power, one of the chiefs who was an ally, was reported to have been poisoned by Kautliya, so Chandragupta Maurya ascended the throne in 320 BCE, without opposition.

But what I pointed out, was that as a ruler, he made no further conquests, or campaigns after capturing the Magadhan throne. Well, not any that have been documented.

As for the accuracy of the map provided by Flintlock, let me say that the history books that I have read do not include gujrat (proper), sindh, rajasthan andhra, tamil nadu and karnataka as being part of the empire during the time of Chandragupta Maurya, although the map claims that these are all his conquests.

Historical proof of his not having ruled over Karnataka can be found in the fact that he abdicated his throne, and led a congegation of jains south through the deccan, to karnataka, in 297 BCE. There was a dire prediction of a famine (by a revered student of the lord Mahvir no less), unless he left his kingdom. He along with his followers, after a lot of travelling settled in a place called Shravan Balgol, near modern day Bangelore.

The place has ever since been a home for the jains, and has probably teh worlds tallest ancient sculpture, that of the nude Gomateshwar. Google it if you don't know.

Anyway, this journey outside his kingdom proves that it did not extend as far south as is claimed in the map.

 

[DarkStar]

Conquests
Chandragupta Maurya defeated the Macedonian satrapies in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent in 317 BC. Thereafter, he turned his attention towards Northwestern India. Chandragupta allied with the Himalayan king Parvatka and launched an attack against Dhana Nanda of the Nanda Empire. The battle ended around 321 BC, with the siege of the capital city of Kusumapura and the conquest of the Nanda Empire. Thus was born the powerful Maurya Empire in Northern India.

Like I said before, this was before he ascended the throne. Which campaign did he undertake afterwards?

Conquest of Seleucus' Eastern Territories
After the conflict with Seleucus in 305 BC, Emperor Chandragupta Maurya extended his empire towards Seleucid Persia. Through a treaty sealed in 305 BC, Seleucus gave up the country around the Indus River to Chandragupta, including the Hindu Kush, present day Afghanistan and the Balochistan province of Persia. In return, he received five hundred war elephants, increasing his military strength.

He certainly extended it, but conquered wouldn't be the right word. If you must know, it was Seleucus who invaded Nanda territory in 305 BCE, and is assumed to have been defeated. The territory ceded to Chandragupta in exchange for 500 elephants was territory that had been previously under Seleucus' control, but was always a troublesome area for him, since he had more pressing engagements in the west. A bit fortuitous for Chandragupta, if you ask me, and definitely not a campaign of conquest launched by Chandragupta.

Southern Conquests
After annexing the eastern Persian provinces Seleucus, Chandragupta's empire stretched across the northern parts of Southern Asia, from the Bay of Bengal to the Arabian Sea. Thereafter, began his conquests in south, beyond the Vindhya Range and into the Deccan Plateau. Most of the Southern Asia got united under the rule of Chandragupta Maurya.

Only as far as Nanda rule. There is no evidence for a seperate campaign to unite the south. There is evidence of some gains in the south in the time of Ashoka Maurya, but that is not what we are discussing now.