Motivations behind selecting the name 'India' in 1947

[roadrunner]

The UCL papers you quoted are about a presentation about the possible links between the Gandhara Grave culture and Vedic people.

By Vedic people it means people with Vedic culture, and not necessarily the "composition of the rigveda". We will need something more specific than that.

The composition of the Rig Veda can only be localized to Pakistan, the Eastern most extreme being Delhi, the Western most fringe being near the Bolan Pass, Pak/Afghanistan. This really is a direct quote from Witzel, 2007 with link.

ON THE LOCALISATION OF VEDIC TEXTS AND SCHOOLS
(Materials on Vedic Śåkhås, 7)
1. RIGVEDA
The geographical area of the Rgveda is quickly characterised11 by mentioning some of the major rivers this texts knows of: The Kubh&#229;, Krumu, Gomati&#299; in the West (= Kabul, Kurram, Gomal in E. <176> Afghanistan and Pakistan); the seven rivers of the Panjab in the center; the Yamun&#229; and the Gag&#229; in the East (only in a late passage). The Northern limits are perhaps indicated by the mentioning of the Ras&#229; as a small tributary of the Sindhu, somewhere in the Himalayas, which are known to the RV as himavant. The Southern fringe of geographical knowledge, though probably not of actual settlement, is the ocean (samudra)12, and -- if the localisation has remained the same -- the Bolan pass, represented by the Bhal&#229;nas tribe in RV. It is also important to note that the tiger and rice are still unknown to the RV, which excludes the areas, roughly speaking. East of Delhi: the Gag&#229;-Yamun&#229; Doab, and the tracts of land South of it.
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/Localisation.pdf

This only demonstrates te geography of the Rig Veda. The Rig Vedic homeland, where the Vedic people lived would have been Gandhara initially, and then later on in the Rig Veda, will probably have spread to the rest of Pakistan, at some later point during the Rig Vedic period entering the extreme Northwestern fringe of todays Bharati Punjab, perhaps (there's no evidence for this though).

There is a difference between the "Vedic Homeland" and the "formalization of the Rigveda" this is something I just learnt about today.

Definitely Aryan migrants entered the Subcontinent and settled at Gandhara.
But did they compose the verses then? They definitely had most of the traits that the rigveda indicates, meaning that they were the same people.

However, the composition of the rigveda was done later, when the Aryan people had spread deeper into the Subcontinent.

The Aryan people didn't enter the subcontinent according to your Witzel quote. I don't believe they entered Bharat either. Just their culture did, carried forth by one or two adventurous Aryans, who eventually got swarmed by the Gangetic inhabitants.

On where the Rig Veda was written, what's 100&#37; sure is that it was written somewhere in Pakistan. There's no detailed references to Bharati places (noone even knows where the Saraswati was for sure) or tribes in it. Gandharvas are pretty important though. As are (from Book 7).
Pakthas (VII.18.7) = Pakhtoons
Bhalanas (VII.18.7) = Baluchis
Sivas (VII.18.7) = Khivas
Alinas = (VII.18.7) = Hellenes?
Visanins (VII.18.7) = Pishachas (Dardic)

 

[Flintlock]

Here's a quote from Megasthenes (300C BC)

"India then being four-sided in plan, the side which looks to the Orient and that to the South, the Great Sea compasseth; that towards the Arctic is divided by the mountain chain of H&#275;m&#333;dus from Scythia, inhabited by that tribe of Scythians who are called Sakai; and on the fourth side, turned towards the West, the Indus marks the boundary, the biggest or nearly so of all rivers after the Nile."


A map to help interpret the paragraph:

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"India then being four-sided in plan, the side which looks to the Orient and that to the South, the Great Sea compasseth; that towards the Arctic is divided by the mountain chain of H&#275;m&#333;dus from Scythia, inhabited by that tribe of Scythians who are called Sakai; and on the fourth side, turned towards the West, the Indus marks the boundary, the biggest or nearly so of all rivers after the Nile."

That does not imply the name was intentioned to mean 'East' - Megasthenes is merely articulating his understanding of the geography of the region.

On a slightly different point, his quote does validate the point about India being a 'region' vs a country, as Megasthenes also refers to all of East Asia as the 'orient', and we know that the 'orient' is not a nation.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Herodutus on India, before Megasthenes:

"Eastward of India lies a tract which is entirely sand. Indeed, of all the inhabitants of Asia, concerning whom anything is known, the Indians dwell nearest to the east, and the rising of the Sun."

Which 'sands' mark the Eastern boundary of India here? The Thar desert?

 

[Flintlock]

That does not imply the name was intentioned to mean 'East' - Megasthenes is merely articulating his understanding of the geography of the region.

Yes, that's kinda obvious. Its also obvious (I hope) that we are concerned with the usage rather than the etymology.

For example, the term "demagogue" if interpreted literally means "leader of people", but it is used as a negative term to mean a bad or self-serving leader.

On a slightly different point, his quote does validate the point about India being a 'region' vs a country, as Megasthenes also refers to all of East Asia as the 'orient', and we know that the 'orient' is not a nation.

Well I doubt there were any nation states in 300 BC, only small kingdoms and vast empires. In any case Megasthenes has not mentioned the political situation of the region in that quote.

 

[Flintlock]

Herodutus on India, before Megasthenes:



Which 'sands' mark the Eastern boundary of India here? The Thar desert?

That is the older definition. The newer one would supercede it obviously.

As you know, the Greeks explored India from West to East, and their definition of India expanded over time, till it covered the entire Indian Subcontinent.

 

[Vinod2070]

In any case, Pakistan has been on the periphery of the Indian history for the longest time.

The center of Indian civilization was Magadha even in the times of Alexander. Porus was a small frontier kingdom.

In Mahabharata too The center of the civilization is deep in the Gangetic plains.

Why this fascination with foreign invaders to define what India means or should mean? our own scriptures carry enough details.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That is the older definition. The newer one would supercede it obviously.

As you know, the Greeks explored India from West to East, and their definition of India expanded over time, till it covered the entire Indian Subcontinent.

So we know that the 'definition' was changing, but at the heart of the discussion is the original meaning of the word. The meaning of India today is also different from that of Megasthenes.

It would seem then that the understanding of what the word India referred to changed from the original reference to the regions comprising Pakistan, to the regions comprising South Asia today. But the original reference still seems to have been to the regions comprising Pakistan, and then its usage became similar to references to the 'Orient', as being descriptive of a region.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In any case, Pakistan has been on the periphery of the Indian history for the longest time.

The center of Indian civilization was Magadha even in the times of Alexander. Porus was a small frontier kingdom.

In Mahabharata too The center of the civilization is deep in the Gangetic plains.

Why this fascination with foreign invaders to define what India means or should mean? our own scriptures carry enough details.

Pakistan was the original India.

Since the earliest usage of the word 'India' seems to have been found in Greek writings, that is where we woudl have to go to understand the origins of the word.

 

[Flintlock]

So we know that the 'definition' was changing, but at the heart of the discussion is the original meaning of the word. The meaning of India today is also different from that of Megasthenes.

It would seem then that the understanding of what the word India referred to changed from the original reference to the regions comprising Pakistan, to the regions comprising South Asia today. But the original reference still seems to have been to the regions comprising Pakistan, and then its usage became similar to references to the 'Orient', as being descriptive of a region.

Its "original reference" was the region of eastern Pakistan, which quickly expanded eastwards to its current usage. Its that simple.

I don't understand why the original reference is so important. What is important is the most widespread meaning of the word.

Also worth mentioning that its original reference was also to a region, and not to a country named Pakistan.

Ultimately, the clinching fact is that as early as 300 BC, the word was being used to describe the entire subcontinent, so there should be absolutely no doubt that the adoption of the term by modern India is neither dishonest nor incorrect.

 

[Flintlock]

Pakistan was the original India.

That makes no sense since the term 'Pakistan' originated in the 20th century.

The most accurate statement would be: "Some of the areas which make up modern Eastern Pakistan were first described as India, and within the next couple of centuries, as early as 300 BC, the term was used to describe the entire subcontinent".

Since the earliest usage of the word 'India' seems to have been found in Greek writings, that is where we woudl have to go to understand the origins of the word.

The origins of the word have nothing to do with their correct usage.

For example, the word "shampoo" originates from sanskrit "capayati" meaning "to knead", and was later corrupted to "shampoo" which meant to wash hair.

 

[Flintlock]

Also, nowhere between 300 BC and today was the term used exclusively for Pakistan. For the last 2300 years, it has been used to refer to the entire subcontinent, and that is what matters.

 

[Flintlock]

Why this fascination with foreign invaders to define what India means or should mean? our own scriptures carry enough details.

That's not the point. The thread is about the term 'India' and the reasons why we used it as our country's name.

Some Pakistani members were arguing that the "India' should be used for modern Pakistan since the earliest available definition of it only describes a region situated in that country.

However, it is clear that from 300 BC onwards till today, "India" has been used for the entire subcontinent.

The other name of our country, 'Bharat', has indigenous origins so obviously we would refer to our own scriptures for that.

In any case, Pakistanis are free to name their country "India" if they feel it belongs to them too. I would be more than happy

 

[jeypore]

If the word India really described Pakistan, then at the time of partition, why did jinnah or his advisors not argued for the name India for there newly formed country? Why he concocted the name of Pakistan, which he knew really well it was not in the history books?

 

[Flintlock]

If the word India really described Pakistan, then at the time of partition, why did jinnah or his advisors not argued for the name India for there newly formed country? Why he concocted the name of Pakistan, which he knew really well it was not in the history books?

Well if Pakistan was named "India", it would defeat the purpose of highlighting the differences between Pakistan and the rest of India.

Now that Pakistan is a reality, its inhabitants are looking for more concrete (read historical) reasons for the existence of their nation, and as a result, their interpretation of history is clashing with ours.

For example, the history of the subcontinent is generally referred to as "History of India" or "History of Indian subcontinent". However, it is not difficult to realize that Pakistan would have serious objections to this.