What's new

Motivations behind selecting the name 'India' in 1947

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cant understand why we must see an ulterior motive in everything.

India existed even before the brits came , when they left a part of India seperated to form a new entity while the rest of India remained.

Thats all.

Before the British came, british india were a bunch of separate independent countries. The British combined all those countries saw the Indus River flowing through Punjab and Sindh and called their empire British India.

Our land only has historical and cultural links with East Punjab that is in your country.
 
.
Cant understand why we must see an ulterior motive in everything.

India existed even before the brits came , when they left a part of India seperated to form a new entity while the rest of India remained.

Thats all.

Wrong, After 1720's Punjab and Sindh became almost independent, after Nadir Shah's 1738 invasion, mughal ceded punjab and sindh to nadir shah, Pakistan reamined separated untill 1844, Untill 1844, Punjab and pukhtunkhwa were independent, Sindh and Balochistan ware independent.

British invaded independent kingdom of Sindh using slave soldiers from hindustan, Sindhis lost. Sindh made part of bombay presidency,

Then they invaded iindependent punjab using the same hindustani soldiers. If hindustanis had never helped those brits in occupying punjab and sindh and kashmir, we would have remained independent.
In short brits came created 565 princely states and 13 princes, and they left with two dominions, If it wasn't for the brits, hindustan would still be under muslim control.
 
.
This habit can be attributed ,of your elders , them assuming Pakistan was encapsulation of Muslims of entire India.Which wasn't the case considering many Muslims stayed in India and further the event of 1971 was the last straw to this 2 nation theory.




We cling to the name India because our new nation being a pluralistic, multilingual and multiethnic society ,we didn't want a name biased in any case.
Hence the obvious pick was India

Two nation theory remains intact as long as bangladesh remains independent and separate from Bharat
 
.
Wrong, After 1720's Punjab and Sindh became almost independent, after Nadir Shah's 1738 invasion, mughal ceded punjab and sindh to nadir shah, Pakistan reamined separated untill 1844, Untill 1844, Punjab and pukhtunkhwa were independent, Sindh and Balochistan ware independent.

British invaded independent kingdom of Sindh using slave soldiers from hindustan, Sindhis lost. Sindh made part of bombay presidency,

Then they invaded iindependent punjab using the same hindustani soldiers. If hindustanis had never helped those brits in occupying punjab and sindh and kashmir, we would have remained independent.
In short brits came created 565 princely states and 13 princes, and they left with two dominions, If it wasn't for the brits, hindustan would still be under muslim control.


Wrong Hindustan was not under total muslim control as you say even b4 the British empire it was fragmented with Marathi and Sikh empires ruling vast lands of Bharat.
 
.
Before the British came, british india were a bunch of separate independent countries.

So before British came there was British India?

If i recall there were a bunch of kingdoms.

The British combined all those countries

The British just dissolved the dominate powers(Sikh,Maratha) into their empire after successive defeats.

saw the Indus River flowing through Punjab and Sindh and called their empire British India.

They just refered the lands with name which Europeans did.

Why do you think Columbus said he had discovered India when he reached America.
 
.
Wrong Hindustan was not under total muslim control as you say even b4 the British empire it was fragmented with Marathi and Sikh empires ruling vast lands of Bharat.

Marathas were routed by the durranis and the Sikh had nothing to do with bharatis sikhs, They were pakistani sikh, Only The 65000 strong pakistani sikh comunity can lay claim to sikh empire not the hindustanis sikhs, And yes Ranjit singh empire never went beyond sutlej river, so it was only pakistani punjab, KPK,Kashmir that were part of it.
Ranjith was the son of gujranwala and nothing to do with hindustani sikhs.
 
.
Two nation theory remains intact as long as bangladesh remains independent and separate from Bharat

The argument about the 2 nation theory was Indian Hindus and Muslims cannot live together as they are 2 different nationalities .

India is a home to the 3rd largest Muslim population in the world,which openly proves the opposite of this 2 nation theory concept.
 
.
Marathas were routed by the durranis and the Sikh had nothing to do with bharatis sikhs, They were pakistani sikh, Only The 65000 strong pakistani sikh comunity can lay claim to sikh empire not the hindustanis sikhs, And yes Ranjit singh empire never went beyond sutlej river, so it was only pakistani punjab, KPK,Kashmir that were part of it.
Ranjith was the son of gujranwala and nothing to do with hindustani sikhs.


Rubbish there was no Pakistan b4 1947 so your claim on The Sikh empire is non sense considering parts of it fell under states like Himachal and Kashmir.

Second point The Marathas never fully recovered from the loss at Panipat, however they remained the predominant military power in India and managed to retake Delhi 10 years later. However, their claim over all of India ended with the three Anglo-Maratha Wars, almost 50 years after Panipat.
 
. .
Rubbish there was no Pakistan b4 1947 so your claim on The Sikh empire is non sense considering parts of it fell under states like Himachal and Kashmir.

Second point The Marathas never fully recovered from the loss at Panipat, however they remained the predominant military power in India and managed to retake Delhi 10 years later. However, their claim over all of India ended with the three Anglo-Maratha Wars, almost 50 years after Panipat.

Of course there was no word as pakistan but the land was always there, sikh empire only included part of himachal, and indian punjab doesn't means you are the inheritors of sikh empire, Just like persian empire ruled balochistan for centuries and only persians can claim to be the inheritors of persian empire not pakistan.
 
.
A typical pathetic attempt to deceive, trick, and misguide people for spreading disinformation, Just who are you trying to impress with your scholarly English, we all know the literacy rate of Bharat don’t we.

@ Joe shearer

You have been caught out. Who are you trying to impress? I mean, so what if you went to the finest schools, the top Management institute(IIM if i recall), had a long & distinguished career and are an expert in History. You are not impressing this guy.(don't say I didn't warn you:post 481:P)

I couldn't even understand half of your diatribe
@ Joe shearer
Well! that explains why he was not impressed.

and there is not a single reference you have given me while I did give you reference.
@ Joe shearer
I say, my dear Sir! Are you not aware that all the books that you quote from mean nothing unless it is clearly enumerated in alphabetical order. I blame your shoddy vocabulary & your cheap tactics.

Your failure to give any reference and your cheap tactic of using shoddy vocabulary to impress upon others has earned you zero credibility. Sir, you know nothing about Pakistan’s history.
@ Joe shearer
Zero credibility! You are finished here,Sir-finished! Certificates have been issued by this very established member who has been here since.....err..sometime this month.


. The aryavartans(Punjabis and Sindhi) called the people living in Ganga valley as Dasya vartans. Source (Pakistan and Western Asia, By Prof. Norman Brown)

Dasya Vartans indeed!
 
Last edited:
.
Of course there was no word as pakistan but the land was always there, sikh empire only included part of himachal, and indian punjab doesn't means you are the inheritors of sikh empire, Just like persian empire ruled balochistan for centuries and only persians can claim to be the inheritors of persian empire not pakistan.

I never said India was the inheritor of the Sikh empire I just pointed out that there was various warring factions who established rule over parts of modern day Pakistan and India.
 
.
@ Joe shearer

You have been caught out. Who are you trying to impress? I mean, so what if you went to the finest schools, the top Management institute(IIM if i recall), had a long & distinguished career and are an expert in History. You are not impressing this guy.(don't say I didn't warn you:post 481:P)



Well! that explains why he was not impressed.



I say, my dear Sir! Are you not aware that all the books that you quote from mean nothing unless it is clearly enumerated in alphabetical order. I blame your shoddy vocabulary & your cheap tactics.



Zero credibility! You are finished here,Sir-finished! Certificates have been issued by this very established member who has been here since.....err..sometime this month.




Dasya Vartans indeed!

Your utter inability to refute my argument reveals your true personality, when all else fails and you are facing an ocean of facts with actual quotes from a plethora of history books you stoop so low to make fun of writer, why should i enumerate books in alphabetical order. I am not in a writing competition.
Sorry, i come here for decent discussion not to indulge in any cheap arguments, So if you are not prepared to use cheap shots, you will not win any arguments.
If i tell you about my real age you will be banging your head against wall.
 
.
Maybe, maybe not.Not quite convinced. What is being suggested by you is a new theory to fit the genetic facts, all previously prevalent theories seem to go out of the window in light of those studies. The dates of the Aryan movements are a problem because of the importance of Saraswathi in the Rig veda. In previous theories this was largely discounted as mythical and therefore the dates could be moved as close as 1500 B.C. The drying up of the most important river & the tectonic shifts which resulted in the Sutlej moving into the Indus & Yamuna moving towards the Ganges would have been monumental if that happened very suddenly. The fact that the Saraswathi is mentioned as late as the Mahabharata(even if no longer mentioned as a flowing river) indicates a substantial passage of time where this occurred. The dates are important because it changes everything previously assumed. For the Indus to become the river it is and for it be the origin of the name that India is now known by, it must have postdated the drying up of the Saraswathi. So when was the Rig veda composed?

I am sorry, I should have stepped back one step and given you - and others - a little more of a perspective view.

In history, except during the precise recorded history that we find as we come further and further into modern times, where sometimes days and hours are possible to identify, it is safer to work with a range. Much of historical studies of ancient times, whether of Ancient Europe, of Ancient Iran, or of Ancient India, depends on intelligent estimation of a range of dates which are equally possible. The exception is, of course, Ancient China; the Chinese have always been the most methodical with regard to their reporting and their administrative processes, bar none.

I am not sure exactly what is worrying you, but suspect that if you put down all the major events relevant to you for your analysis, whatever you believe those events to be, and assign an earliest possible date and a latest possible date to them, you may find that there is a lot of room for things to happen.

However, I do know that there are certain philosophical differences between us; in terms of the older historical paradigms, I belong to the AIT, and you perhaps to the OOI - these are the Aryan Invasion of India and the Out of India theories. The clue I got was your mention of the Saraswati; for reasons that I have not got deeply involved with till now, the existence and direction of flow of the Saraswati is very, very important for the OOI school.

If I remember correctly, and this is from memory, since I couldn't bring myself to read Frawley or Rajaram, the early mention of the Saraswati shows that the Rg Vedic culture was aware of it, it is seen as one of the sustaining rivers of the Indus Valley Civilisation, therefore, the OOI school say that with the IVC dependent on it, and its drying up rendering the IVC impossible to sustain, and with the evident knowledge of the river apparent in the earliest part of the Rg Veda, these events were almost contemporaneous. There is circumstantial evidence, therefore, to consider that the IVC may have been a Sanskrit speaking civilisation, rather than a Dravidian one, as conventional wisdom among the AIT had all along held.

I have nothing to say about OOI vs. AIT here. That is a thread, a blog, a book, a reference journal by itself. As of now, it does seem that the AIT has a credible story to tell, and that it is for others to put forth a stronger story, or to discredit this story in a conclusive way. That has not yet happened.

But about the dates, very briefly, and without prejudice, meaning I am representing the commonly held view for your ready reminder in a separate note (I will try and see if a table formed in Word can be fitted into this format).

Indo-Iranian tribes in Central Asia: 2500 BC to 2000 BC
Iranian tribes move westward: 2000 to 1700 BC
Composition of the Avesta: 1700 BC to 1300 BC
Indian tribes move eastward: 2000 to 1700 BC
Last dates of viable IVC settlements, latest: 1300 BC
Composition of the Rg Veda and three other Vedas*: 1700 BC to 1000 BC
Composition of the Mahabharata*: 800 BC to 800 AD

* Both contain evidence of earlier events and activities, in places other than their place of final composition.

You must consider that in the Mahabharata itself, a Scythian King, the Lord of the Parama Kamboja, is general for Duryodhana and the Kaurava Army after the death of Shalya. Connections between the tribes that drifted apart lasted much longer than these dates indicate, and there were links with east Iranian tribes such as the Parama Kamboja which were remembered as late as the 8th century BC. The split of the tribes happened around 1700 BC give or take a century, and was in any case a gradual process; nobody got up one morning, declared,"Right, today onwards we are Iranian," and marched off west to their manifest destiny. So there is a relationship which lasted into subsequent centuries, and was remembered nearly 900 years later.

Is it possible that likewise, the Saraswati was remembered years later, in the Mahabharata in 800 BC, while being first mentioned in the Rg Veda between 1700 to 1000? Would you be comfortable with its probable final stages being, say, towards the end of the Rg Vedic period, 1000 BC, and a couple of hundred years before the Mahabharata? That would more or less coincide with 1300 BC, the final years of the IVC.

//Aaaaaaaaaaaargh! I missed seeing your entire second paragraph//

The other problem is a complete lack of any evidence of widespread use of a pre aryan language system in Northern india. Some evidence must be around somewhere if the pre aryan people remained the majority. The similarity of religious figures in the whole of India especially when there was a concept of Aryavartha prevailing is a little odd. If the South of the Vindhyas was normally a no go zone then how did it start to resemble the North including in the concept of caste which incidentally is a post Rig vedic phenomenon.

Too many questions, too little answers. The genetic studies seem to have opened up a Pandora's box.

I am not sure if you are familiar with the connections between Kol-Mundari and the Tamil family, within the larger Dravidian group. Kol-Mundari, or Brahui, or similar languages prevailed all over north India, and it is considered that the Tamil/Dravidian words in Sanskrit were adopted from the sub-stratum languages in northern India.

There is actually a complete language coverage for the whole of India. It was the Dravidian family, and it retreated slowly, in fact, never lost its hold on some rural pockets in north India right until now.

Regarding the Dravidian pantheon, by simple elimination of the Aryan war-band from the present host in the combined cosmogony, we can get a thumb-nail sketch. It is clear that there was some elimination - Varuna, Mitra, the Nasatyas; some assimilation - Kartik is Subrahmanyam is Shanmugham; and some addition - the entire body of the Shaktis, Shiva. The composite Puranic culture apparently added some baggage; there are tempting indications that heroic men become demi-gods and then were elevated by their own particular sect to avatars. The first process was available in Greek and Roman Mythology already. I personally tend to suspect that the Dravidian pantheon was pretty close to the Great Mother cult suppressed by the patriarchal war-bands of the Greeks, the Celts, the Italians, the Germans, and arguably, the Indo-Aryans. The Titans turn up, too, in their expected places and expected roles; suddenly, we find Vanir and Aesir striding through our epics. Animal spirits abound; the strong similarity between Rg Vedic bear and mysterious man-killing quasi-humanoids of the woods is relatively easy to trace back.

Regarding your question of the spread to the south, consider it as a Sanskritisation process, which skipped the entire heirarchy and concentrated on key aspects. It acquired Brahmins probably by elevation of local shamans and partially by intermarriage with northern priestly families - I can write on this separately if anyone is interested, and point out the significance of Vadagalai and Thengalai. It allowed no one the Kshatriya rank; the Brahmins, by 800 BC, were facing increasing resistance to their encroaching ways and their universal greed, and the outburst of 600 BC must have been a long time in the making. Since this resistance was spearheaded by Kshatriyas, they may not have been too keen to elevate the warrior classes of the south to Kshatriya status. So Reddy, Thevar, Bunt, Nair stayed what they were, and didn't make it to the warrior castes, not to the level of the old Kshatriya. Businessmen got absorbed and Shettys/Chetttys abound in large numbers. Finally, the poor remained downtrodden and oppressed, here as in there.

But there is some room for doubt. Considering the striking difference between the Vedic war-band, whether that of the Gods or that of the humans, it is a tempting suggestion that the Indo-Aryans succumbed to caste under pressure from an existing system.

And I didn't get your reference to a no-go zone. It was emphatically nothing of the kind.
 
Last edited:
.
Your utter inability to refute my argument reveals your true personality, when all else fails and you are facing an ocean of facts with actual quotes from a plethora of history books you stoop so low to make fun of writer, why should i enumerate books in alphabetical order. I am not in a writing competition.
Sorry, i come here for decent discussion not to indulge in any cheap arguments, So if you are not prepared to use cheap shots, you will not win any arguments.
If i tell you about my real age you will be banging your head against wall.

The post was addressed at Joe Shearer, not to you .
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom