Pakistan, Bharat, British India - What came first, what came after?

[INDIC]

what are you pointing at??
That India was a more widely used name??

I meant both Herodotus and Megasthenes used the identical word 'India', there were other similar words used by Greeks but the name India was known to them.

 

[SpArK]

what are you pointing at??
That India was a more widely used name??

Map of the Entire World (circa 1513)This early-16th century map by Martin Waldseemüller (1470-1521) is the only known copy of this particular world map, and contains an early appearance of the name “America.”

 

[navtrek]

I said at (11) above that this mix up with nomencature can through up some strange results today which goes to the 'false identity' issue i brought up.

Large majority of people, if asked where is Harappa? Reply will be India. We all know it is in Pakistan.
Again if asked where is Mohenjo Daro? Reply will be India. We all know it is in Pakistan.
Ask people where Gandhara was/is? Reply again will be India. We all know it is in Pakistan.
Ask people when Alexander crossed the Hydaspes which country was in? Reply India. We know that is modern Jhelum in Pakistan.
Ask people which country would you go to to follow Alexander's march in South Asia? Reply will be in India.

Well we know they could chose to go to India but hell other the claim to the name India they would not be marching in the footsteps of Alexander. I make these points to show how this mix up of nomenclature has created a very wrong impression. I have had to correct people. These have been reasonably read and intelligent people. Some have even laughed when I said Pakistan. Only when challanged to check their facts did they realize their incorrect understanding.

The problem is that in the context or timing at which the questions are placed there was no Pakistan. The piece of land that you are referring to was known as India.

If you remember during the time of Ashoka and Chandra Gupta Maurya there were exchange of Ministers between Greek and the Mauryas so they knew about the existence of Bharatha aka India..

 

[INDIC]

the region with non-Hindu culture and population currently Pakistan, and a small portion of Afghan- where these places really considered part of ancient Bharat? Is this the reason that Pakistani Islamics claims that "Pakistan existed much before 1947". The Civilization was 2 distinct ones IMO.

The land West of Indus had nothing to do with the culture of the people living East of the Indus. The first Pashtun tribe crossed the Suleiman ranges in 9th century and settled in Gandhara before that people of Gandhara were Indic people who spoke a North-West Prakrit language.

Map of the Entire World (circa 1513)This early-16th century map by Martin Waldseemüller (1470-1521) is the only known copy of this particular world map, and contains an early appearance of the name “America.”

Known world according to Herodotus. It was Megasthenes who wrote the first description of entire India in his book Indica.

 

[Rajesh12379]

My 2 cents on the topic:

Yes,IVC is heritage of Pak.Its Indian heritage too.Lothal is in India.India never stole this heritage from Pak.I mean how can you steal someone's heritage ffs!!Pak voluntarily chose to forgo this heritage in 47.Now unsurprisingly, some people are blaming India for the same.Go celebrate IVC,have IVC festivals,whatever.Is India stopping you?

If westerners associate it with only India then is it India's fault?If we start calling India as Bharat will westerners suddenly think IVC only belongs to Pakistan?Laughable logic.Shows the identity crisis Pakistani people are facing.Also shows the flimsy grounds for partition(But I am happy that it happened,just look at our economy now.And Pak's)

Second point I would like to say is IVC culture is still alive in India.The Goddess IVC people worshiped got assimilated in Hinduism. On the other hand,modern state of Pakistan has'nt even got any vestigial remnant of Indus valley people's culture.Pak's only claim to IVC heritage is that it now controls the land where IVC once flourished.

IVC was just a bad name given just because the first few site identified with the civilization happened to be along the Indus (as per the usual practice). In fact, Kalibangan in Rajasthan was explored first but it was abandoned midway at that time due to some reasons. Else it would have been always called by a more appropriate name.

And you are absolutely right that India is still living the Sarasvati-Indus valley culture (a more appropriate name). I will highly recommend the book "The Lost River: On The Trails of Saraswati" by Michel Danino that covers both these issues in great detail and without any hyperbole.

Now it is conclusively proven that river Saraswati had a far higher concentration of the sites than the Indus.

Anyway, this whole idea of trying to artificially construct an "Ancient Pakistani history" based on the artificial Radcliffe and Durand lines is funny. West Pakistan was a smaller part of the Pakistan created in 1947 specifically on the basis of Islam and the assumption that conversion changed their history/identity/worldview...

The geography of Pakistan was a happenstance, just the areas of India that happened to have Muslim majority. Nothing to do with their ancient history.

So trying to now define a history based on these lines is rich but expected as the society goes through the identity based ferment.

 

[Rajesh12379]

The OP claims others are confusing modern geography with ancient history and civilization while he himself is a victim of the same.

The following point is very pertinent:

The geography of (Western) Pakistan was a mere happenstance, it was just the areas of Northwest corner of India that happened to have Muslim majority. Nothing to do with their ancient history.

Pakistan is about an idea, its geography was mere incidental. You just have to look up the two nation theory for this. This is the basis of partition and no skulduggery or neo-revisionism will change this.

Now, the pre-Islamic history of the region (it is correct that there were no nation states anywhere in the world at that time, it is a modern concept) is about the Dharmic civilization that flourished in the region. If some parts of the land where this history occurred later converted and separated, that doesn't take away from the fact of it being Dharmic history.

Now modern India (what you call republic of India) is the most major inheritor of the Dharmic legacy of the region. The others are Nepal, Bhutan, Srilanka etc. that follow the Dharmic legacy still.

The Islamic countries of Pakistan and Bangladesh are free to choose if they identify with their pre-Islamic legacy or want to just reject it as jahiliyah. That is an internal debate for them, nothing to do with us.

It is just like it is the Greeks who are the inheritors of Greek civilization (and not Muslim Turks) even though some of the Greek history occurred on lands now occupied by Muslim Turks.

 

[Luca1]

The problem is that in the context or timing at which the questions are placed there was no Pakistan. The piece of land that you are referring to was known as India.

If you remember during the time of Ashoka and Chandra Gupta Maurya there were exchange of Ministers between Greek and the Mauryas so they knew about the existence of Bharatha aka India..

India is a geographical expression like Arabia and Balkans. There were time that a power taken over the whole geographical area. But they are still a geographical area. So is India.

 

[posedion]

How about the fallacy that Muhammad Ali Jinnah is the Founder of Pakistan. The real Founder of Pakistan was Jawahar Lal Nehru who created Pakistan the moment he walked away from the " Cabinet Mission " Plan. Jinnah had already agreed to undivided India as envisaged under the Cabinet Mission plan and signed the document. It was Nehru who walked away from the Cabinet mission plan after he already signed up on the plan but later reneged. After Nehru reneged on the agreement, Jinnah was left with no option other than asking for Pakistan.

How true

 

[Rajesh12379]

India is a geographical expression like Arabia and Balkans. There were time that a power taken over the whole geographical area. But they are still a geographical area. So is India.

So, slowly moving from uncooked barbarian to semi cooked barbarian? Getting ever so slowly cooked over there?

Don't worry, you will get there in the next 2000 years if you stop obsessing with India. Don't lose face every time you show your pathetic ignorance, it is precious where you are coming from, even if it is a sullen and stupid and smirk face.

 

[farhan_9909]

Please read my earlier posts

"Not the modern india instead Pakistan is the true successor state of ancient IVC/India/or the South asian region"

 

[halupridol]

Please read my earlier posts

"Not the modern india instead Pakistan is the true successor state of ancient IVC/India/or the South asian region"

the thread title shud be "Pakistan ka matlab kya?"

 

[Rajesh12379]

the thread title shud be "Pakistan ka matlab kya?"

Some of them have seen the matlab not leading to much.

They need a new matlab and this will keep on happening for quite some time.

Pakistanis keep on alternating between "not India" and "real India". Shows the amount of confusion that stems from the identity crisis.