Motivations behind selecting the name 'India' in 1947

[Vinod2070]

Frankly to me the name doesn't matter so much. Its the idea that counts.

If Pakistan didn't chose the name India for itself may be it suggests that it wanted to go away from that history and embrace another one for itself.

Kind of the moving on that you talk about. And now it seems that some people are feeling they left something important back while they moved on, and that something has been taken over entirely by others. So they need it back now.

 

[jeypore]

Frankly to me the name doesn't matter so much. Its the idea that counts.

If Pakistan didn't chose the name India for itself may be it suggests that it wanted to go away from that history and embrace another one for itself.

Kind of the moving on that you talk about. And now it seems that some people are feeling they left something important back while they moved on, and that something has been taken over entirely by others. So they need it back now.

My point exactly.

 

[Vinod2070]

See the problems arise when the 'sharing of history' is juxtaposed with 'Modern India being a continuation of an 'ancient Indic civilization', then it starts to seem irredentist and expansionist - especially in the light of the Indian leadership's reluctant acceptance of Pakistan, and teh subsequent hostility we underwent.

In an atmosphere that was not so poisoned, I doubt we would have so many issues.

Happily the issues are confined to the chat rooms and internet forums. I don't see much action outside.

That means its a storm in the tea cup.

The feeling of reluctance to accept the other (by the other party of course) is mutual. Many in India feel Pakistan thinks itself as the inheritors of the Muslim rule. You surely have had terror groups that promote the thinking.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Sorry, but you cannot simply decide what is the "correct" definition and what is "incorrect".

I could claim that Herodotus definition is "incorrect" while Megasthenes one is "correct", and but that would not make any sense.

I cannot say why the later definitions did not include the regions west of the Indus, perhaps it was inhabited by different tribes.

I can indeed state that a definition is incorrect, provided I give reasons for it, which I did. You can however counter my reasons for contradicting the definition, and therefore point out why my contention is incorrect.

Well the non-EU European countries did not have a say in the choosing of the name, so I don't see what the difference is between India and Europe in this context.

As far as I am concerned, the analogy fits perfectly.

Not really - European history is insanely complicated - and there are thousands of unresolved disputes.
However, because of a more honest understanding of history (and less nationalistic interpretation and hyperbole), these disputes are not so important anymore.

Perhaps the dispute between Macedonia and Greece would be a useful example.

European history is indeed complicated, but what I am pointing out is that it is delineated on a national basis, that affirms every nations disticnt identity, and does not purport to push them all into one large mass. They may indeed fight over what part is whose, but that is the point - in that fighting they are reaffirming their distinct nationalities.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Happily the issues are confined to the chat rooms and internet forums. I don't see much action outside.

That means its a storm in the tea cup.

The feeling of reluctance to accept the other (by the other party of course) is mutual. Many in India feel Pakistan thinks itself as the inheritors of the Muslim rule. You surely have had terror groups that promote the thinking.

Welll, Pakistan does have astrong affinity with Islam, since the population is Muslim. I think in that sense the identity has indeed become distinct from modern India's. You just cannot expect Pakistanis to disown that aspect of history, especially since it is so large a part of their current identity through their faith.

But there is a difference in considering Pakistan to be a legacy of the Muslim rulers of South Asia, and thinking of conquering all of South Asia - unless you belong to an extremist organization ofcourse.

 

[Flintlock]

I can indeed state that a definition is incorrect, provided I give reasons for it, which I did. You can however counter my reasons for contradicting the definition, and therefore point out why my contention is incorrect.

That makes no sense whatsoever because you accept historical names "as they are" and not argue over whether they are correct.

It is absurd to consider one historical name as correct and another as incorrect on flimsy "if-then" reasoning.

European history is indeed complicated, but what I am pointing out is that it is delineated on a national basis, that affirms every nations disticnt identity, and does not purport to push them all into one large mass. They may indeed fight over what part is whose, but that is the point - in that fighting they are reaffirming their distinct nationalities.

Not necessarily. The history of the Roman Empire, for example, includes most of modern Europe. It would be considered European as well as Italian, and every country which was ever part of that empire would consider it part of their history.

Even ancient history cannot be restricted within national boundaries - consider Britain for example - they were occupied by the Vikings, the Celts, the Normans, the Romans. Its hardly clear- cut.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That makes no sense whatsoever because you accept historical names "as they are" and not argue over whether they are correct.

It is absurd to consider one historical name as correct and another as incorrect on flimsy "if-then" reasoning.

I am not saying the name is incorrect, just that Megantheles's 'definition' does not make sense due to the reasons I gave, but that coudl have been due to the political situation at the time.

On a somewhat different note, it seems Wiki has moved onto more neutral territory, as their entry on 'The History of India' refers to the History of South Asia, with a disclaimer and a link to a seperate page for the "history of the republic of India".

All history pages on SOuth Asia are also marked with 'History of South Asia', that carries the flags of all the South Asian nations.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Not necessarily. The history of the Roman Empire, for example, includes most of modern Europe. It would be considered European as well as Italian, and every country which was ever part of that empire would consider it part of their history.

Even ancient history cannot be restricted within national boundaries - consider Britain for example - they were occupied by the Vikings, the Celts, the Normans, the Romans. Its hardly clear- cut.

But we similarly have the Mughal Empire, the Mauryan Empire, the Durrani Empire etc. classified under the specific groups who led them.

 

[Flintlock]

I am not saying the name is incorrect, just that Megantheles's 'definition' does not make sense due to the reasons I gave, but that coudl have been due to the political situation at the time.

Well you used the word "incorrect" so I'm assuming that you typed what you meant.

On a somewhat different note, it seems Wiki has moved onto more neutral territory, as their entry on 'The History of India' refers to the History of South Asia, with a disclaimer and a link to a seperate page for the "history of the republic of India".

That's been there for a long time - for as long as I can remember actually.

 

[Flintlock]

But we similarly have the Mughal Empire, the Mauryan Empire, the Durrani Empire etc. classified under the specific groups who led them.

So are they part of Indian history or Pakistani history?

They are the history of "Ancient/Medieval India" if you ask me.

I can understand if you have an objection to that definition, but that is not my concern

 

[jeypore]

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.

I do disagree that Pakistan was the original India. Since the Alexander days, Socrates taught Alexander that in approching India he needed to get the ganghis river to back Athens.

So even in History India was considered a larger part of Southeast Asia and not only part of Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well you used the word "incorrect" so I'm assuming that you typed what you meant.

That's been there for a long time - for as long as I can remember actually.

Well I did mean what I typed, that the definition of Megantheles is incorrect, not that the word India itself is incorrect.

Ahh, never been to that page before, so I did not know. But I do like the disclaimer they have, clarifying the context in which "History of India" is being used.

So are they part of Indian history or Pakistani history?

They are the history of "Ancient/Medieval India" if you ask me.

I can understand if you have an objection to that definition, but that is not my concern

Indeed they are a part of ancient Indian/South Asian history. No quarrels over that - but I imagine the Afghans would claim the Durrani empire over Pakistan, since it was governed form there, and Durrani was from Afghanistan, though the majority of the empire comprised modern day Pakistan - similar to the Greek empires (most of whose territory was outside of Greece).

Similarly, I imagine Maurya would be considered Bengali history, and a Bengali empire, were Bengal to be an independent nation. Bengal is a part of contemporary India (not sure how much he impacted modern Bangladesh), so the empire is correctly a part of Modern India's history.

Now, I am not going to go as far as some others in claiming that one nation has no claim over certain portions of history. But I think that similar to European and Asian history, we have a broader classification of South Asian history, and we can then delineate it into the history of the regions comprising our nations - so each nation shares South Asian history, since it overlapped as in Asia and Europe, but each nation also has greater claim over different aspects of that history based on geographical location.

Pakistani textbooks could teach students about the Mauryan empire or South Indian empires, but it really would not be as intimate of a subject, akin to learning about the Huns or Chinese empires. However learning about the IVC, Durrani and Rajput Kingdoms etc. would be far more personal and intimate of a history lesson, since that history took place on our land, and those ancients were possibly our forefathers.

Does that make sense?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I do disagree that Pakistan was the original India. Since the Alexander days, Socrates taught Alexander that in approching India he needed to get the ganghis river to back Athens.

So even in History India was considered a larger part of Southeast Asia and not only part of Pakistan.

Well, as Flint clarified (and as I usually do, just got lazy that time) it is the regions comprising modern Pakistan that were originally known as "India". I base this hypothesis on the quote attributed to Herodotus, considered to be amongst the earliest use of the word India (in 450 BC, Alexander born in 356 BC):

"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."

Tract of sand would indicate desert, and the only desert I can think of would have been the Thar (Eastern Pakistan).

 

[DarkStar]

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?

"Jinnah was under the impression that neither state would want to adopt the British title of "INdia" He only discovered his mistake after Lord MOuntbatten, the last British viceroy, had already acceded to Nehru's demand that his state remain "India".

Jinnah, according to MOuntbatten, "was absolutely furious when he found out that they (Nehru and the Congress) were going to call themselves "India" The use of the word implied a subcontinental primacy that Jinnah would not accept.

It also flew in the face of history, since "INdia" originally referred exclusively to territory in the vicinity of the INdus river (with which teh word is congnate). Hence it is largely outside the republic of India but largely within Pakistan. "

Taken from, India A History, John Keay, Harper Colilns publishers, page 57, and a quotation of Lord Mountbatten taken from "Mountbatten and the partition of India," page 70, L.Collins and D.Lapierre.

 

[jeypore]

Year Name Source Definition
c. 486 BC. Hidush Naksh-i-Rustam "Says Darius the King: By the grace of Ormazd these (are) the countries which I have acquired besides Persia. I have established my power over them. They have brought tribute to me. That which has been said to them by me they have done. They have obeyed my law. Medea . . . Arachotia (Harauvatish), Sattagydia (Thatagush), Gandaria (Gadára), India (Hidush). . . ."

c. 440 BC India Herodotus "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."

c. 300 BC India/Indikē Megasthenes "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 Hēmōdus 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."

c. 140. Indoi, Indou Arrian "The boundary of the land of India towards the north is Mount Taurus. It is not still called Taurus in this land; but Taurus begins from the sea over against Pamphylia and Lycia and Cilicia; and reaches as far as the Eastern Ocean, running right across Asia. But the mountain has different names in different places; in one, Parapamisus, in another Hemodus; elsewhere it is called Imaon, and perhaps has all sorts of other names; but the Macedonians who fought with Alexander called it Caucasus; another Caucasus, that is, not the Scythian; so that the story ran that Alexander came even to the far side of the Caucasus. The western part of India is bounded by the river Indus right down to the ocean, where the river runs out by two mouths, not joined together as are the five mouths of the Ister; but like those of the Nile, by which the Egyptian delta is formed; thus also the Indian delta is formed by the river Indus, not less than the Egyptian; and this in the Indian tongue is called Pattala. Towards the south this ocean bounds the land of India, and eastward the sea itself is the boundary. The southern part near Pattala and the mouths of the Indus were surveyed by Alexander and Macedonians, and many Greeks; as for the eastern part, Alexander did not traverse this beyond the river Hyphasis. A few historians have described the parts which are this side of the Ganges and where are the mouths of the Ganges and the city of Palimbothra, the greatest Indian city on the Ganges. (...) The Indian rivers are greater than any others in Asia; greatest are the Ganges and the Indus, whence the land gets its name; each of these is greater than the Nile of Egypt and the Scythian Ister, even were these put together; my own idea is that even the Acesines is greater than the Ister and the Nile, where the Acesines having taken in the Hydaspes, Hydraotes, and Hyphasis, runs into the Indus, so that its breadth there becomes thirty stades. Possibly also other greater rivers run through the land of India."

c. 590. Hind Istakhri "As for the land of the Hind it is bounded on the East by the Persian Sea (i.e. the Indian Ocean), on the W. and S. by the countries of Islām, and on the N. by the Chinese Empire. . . . The length of the land of the Hind from the government of Mokrān, the country of Mansūra and Bodha and the rest of Sind, till thou comest to Kannūj and thence passest on to Tibet, is about 4 months, and its breadth from the Indian Ocean to the country of Kannūj about three months."

c. 650 Five Indies Xuanzang "The circumference of the Five Indies is about 90,000 li; on three sides it is bounded by a great sea; on the north it is backed by snowy mountains. It is wide at the north and narrow at the south; its figure is that of a half-moon."

c. 944. Hind, Sind Masudi "For the nonce let us confine ourselves to summary notices concerning the kings of Sind and Hind. The language of Sind is different from that of Hind. . . ."

c. 1020 Hind Al-Birūnī "Hind is surrounded on the East by Chín and Máchín, on the West by Sind and Kábul, and on the South by the Sea."-
1205 Hind Hasan Nizāmī "The whole country of Hind, from Peshawar in the north, to the Indian Ocean in the south; from Sehwan (on the west bank of the Indus) to the mountains on the east dividing from China."

1298 India the Greater
India the Minor
Middle India Marco Polo "India the Greater is that which extends from Maabar to Kesmacoran (i.e. from Coromandel to Mekran), and it contains 13 great kingdoms. . . . India the Lesser extends from the Province of Champa to Mutfili (i.e. from Cochin-China to the Kistna Delta), and contains 8 great Kingdoms. . . . Abash (Abyssinia) is a very great province, and you must know that it constitutes the Middle India."

c. 1328. India Friar Jordanus "What shall I say? The great- ness of this India is beyond description. But let this much suffice concerning India the Greater and the Less. Of India Tertia I will say this, that I have not indeed seen its many marvels, not having been there. . . ."
1404 India Minor Clavijo "And this same Thursday that the said Ambassadors arrived at this great River (the Oxus) they crossed to the other side. And the same day . . . came in the evening to a great city which is called Tenmit (Termez), and this used to belong to India Minor, but now belongs to the empire of Samarkand, having been conquered by Tamurbec."
Names of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia