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

[Developereo]

Exactly!

The name 'India' HAS BECOME a part of OUR cultural heritage.

That is our culture. We incorporate stuff from all over the world. That's the great thing about our Indian culture. It is all-inclusive.

Nonsense!

You reverted from Bombay to Mumbai, Calcutta to Kolkata, Bangalore to Bengaluru.

By logical extension, you should revert from India to Bharat or Hindustan.

You conveniently skipped my post about the 'Mughal heritage' of India.

I skipped it because it is not relevant to the debate about India and IVC.

Well I like the name India, so it stays. Frankly its a pretty silly debate going on here in terms of what India and Pakistan should call themselves, and nothing to do with the topic. Please stay on topic (to Indians as well).

The original topic that Atanz wanted to discuss was that why don't Pakistanis take more pride in their ancient non-Islamic past(Hindu/Buddhist/IVC, etc)? This was my reply to the topic that is meant to be discussed:

The modern Indian use of the name India has everything to do with the topic. As the OP stated, when most people talk about Harappa or Mohenjodaro, they think 'India', not 'Pakistan', because those names are tied to ancient India.

The reason some Pakistanis reject the ancient heritage is subconsciously because of that association with the word 'India'. If modern India were called Bharat, there would be no confusion with ancient India, no wholesale appropriation of all the ancient heritage, and Pakistanis would be more willing to accept that heritage. The word India would regain its ancient meaning as 'the land of the Indus river'.

It's like telling all Muslims in the Indian subcontinent to abandon Islam because it came from outside.

But we are not the ones rejecting foreign influences. We embrace both Harappa and Islam.

You guys are the ones going around changing the names of cities to their indigenous names. Take it to the logical conclusion and change the name of the country itself.

 

[Rafi]

Nonsense!

You reverted from Bombay to Mumbai, Calcutta to Kolkata, Bangalore to Bengaluru.

By logical extension, you should revert from India to Bharat or Hindustan.



I skipped it because it is not relevant to the debate about India and IVC.



The modern Indian use of the name India has everything to do with the topic. As the OP stated, when most people talk about Harappa or Mohenjodaro, they think 'India', not 'Pakistan', because those names are tied to ancient India.

The reason some Pakistanis reject the ancient heritage is subconsciously because of that association with the word 'India'. If modern India were called Bharat, there would be no confusion with ancient India and Pakistanis would be more willing to accept that heritage. The word India would regain its ancient meaning as 'the land of the Indus river'.



But we are not the ones rejecting foreign influences. We embrace both Harappa and Islam.

You guys are the ones going around changing the names of cities to their indigenous names. Take it to the logical conclusion and change the name of the country itself.

The beauty of Pakistan, you can love and admire the IVC and our Islamic civilization.

 

[neutral_person]

Nonsense!

You reverted from Bombay to Mumbai, Calcutta to Kolkata, Bangalore to Bengaluru.

By logical extension, you should revert from India to Bharat or Hindustan.



I skipped it because it is not relevant to the debate about India and IVC.



The modern Indian use of the name India has everything to do with the topic. As the OP stated, when most people talk about Harappa or Mohenjodaro, they think 'India', not 'Pakistan', because those names are tied to ancient India.

The reason some Pakistanis reject the ancient heritage is subconsciously because of that association with the word 'India'. If modern India were called Bharat, there would be no confusion with ancient India and Pakistanis would be more willing to accept that heritage. The word India would regain its ancient meaning as 'the land of the Indus river'.



But we are not the ones rejecting foreign influences. We embrace both Harappa and Islam.

You guys are the ones going around changing the names of cities to their indigenous names. Take it to the logical conclusion and change the name of the country itself.

If you read Article 1 of the Indian Constitution, it says India has 3 legal names, India, Hindustan and Bharat. India is just used much more because thats what the world (especially Western nations) is most familiar with. We are India, and will always be known as India alongside Bharat and Hindustan.

As for the bolded part, that is an insecurity Pakistanis only have themselves to blame for and its upto them to get over it.

 

[Rafi]

If you read Article 1 of the Indian Constitution, it says India has 3 legal names, India, Hindustan and Bharat. India is just used much more because thats what the world (especially Western nations) is most familiar with. We are India, and will always be known as India alongside Bharat and Hindustan.

As for the bolded part, that is an insecurity Pakistanis only have themselves to blame for and its upto them to get over it.

It is not insecurity - but the fact that india has sought to destroy and undermine us for 65 plus years.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Austerlitz: If the Sindhi's who live near Mohenjo Daro or the Punjabi's who live next to Harrapa are not the successors to the people who built them, with respect who is? The Eskimos? The Yakuts? Or possibly the inhabitants of Andaman Islands? It is plausible to assume that the people who in live in the Indus Valley ( that would mostly be Paklistan ) at present are the direct descendants of the original people of the Indus Valley unless or otherwise you have irrefutable proof that the the original population was en masse wiped out or moved out.

And which idiot's think that Bin Kasim et al boned every female in Indus Valley and thus are their fathers? A silly proposition, don't you think. If you bothered to read some of my previous posts I said something about evolution. Over 1,000 of years new blood is introduced into any population but the original sediment is still there. No doubt the Indus Valley has seen many invaders and of course they will have left their mark on the genetic pool.

Rubyjackass: Although I am struggling to understand what your saying but can I pay some respect to you in that at least you are trying to tackle the points I made. I will get back to you later.

Exactly its very plausible to claim them as your forefathers[btw a significant part has been discovered this side of border too],no one's stopping u from claiming that legacy.Just stop being hypocritical and then say that u are the descendants of the arabs and turkic invaders at the same time.Your official govt policy claims the latter as your official legacy as its 'more islamic'.No problem there,but stop being hypocritical and then jump 2k yrs back.
If u were already here and descendants of mahenjo daro then ur official heroes are the ones that destroyed and raped ur lands,and if u arrived with the ghaznavis then u have no claim on the IVC.Don't cherry pick history.Hope i made my point clear.

 

[Developereo]

If you read Article 1 of the Indian Constitution, it says India has 3 legal names, India, Hindustan and Bharat. India is just used much more because thats what the world (especially Western nations) is most familiar with. We are India, and will always be known as India alongside Bharat and Hindustan.

We've been through this. It's a circular argument: India is a valid name because it's in the Constitution, and it's in the Constitution because it is a valid name.

 

[neutral_person]

We've been through this. It's a circular argument: India is a valid name because it's in the Constitution, and it's in the Constitution because it is a valid name.

Logic is failing you Sir. You told us to change our nation's name from India to Bharat/Hindustan. I am telling you that India, Bharat and Hindustan are all legal names for our nation. We cant change the name of our nation to Hindustan or Bharat, because legally we are Hindustan or Bharat.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Again people, I opened this thread and I know what my intent was. I am NOT saying that Bharat can't use the the name 'India'. I am NOT saying Pakistan should HAVE got that name in 1947 and I am NOT saying we want the name 'India' now. No sir, it is yours now to keep.

What I am saying ( that was my intent behind the initiating post ) is Bharat stop using thr name 'India' as a cover and excuse to rape our heritage - That is the 5,000 years of the Indus Valley Civilization which today is manifested in the nation state called Pakistan.

Again for those who are deaf and dumb ( or blind ) in bold letters ..........

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT HOW BHARAT HAS USED THE NAME INDIA TO RAPE OUR HERITAGE BASED ON NOTHING BUT A NAME. I USED THE WORD NOMENCLATURE HOAX.

and again I will say by our heritage I mean the Indus Valley, all the 5,000 years of drama played out in the Indus Valley starting from Mohenjo Daro and on and on and on through the millenia to 1947 and today's Pakistan. Lest anybody have issues about where the fr*gg*in Indus Valley is please consult a decent map and you will find Pakistan sits atop the Indus Valley region.

Yes, some incidental zones extend into India or even Afghanistan. EXAMPLE: The Kabul Valley and the River Kabul flow into the Indus Valley but that does not make Afghanistan a Indus Valley state. In the same way some parts of Indian Punjab or extremities of Rajasthan flow into the Indus Valley and even part of Tibet flows into the Indus Valley but that is incidental.Non of them are Indus Valley states.

Why because Indian Punjab is tiny part India ............ therefore it is i-n-c-d-e-n-t-a-l to the Indus Valley.

Therefore PAKISTAN = INDUS VALLEY = PAKISTAN.

So stop spoiling this thread with irrelevant garbage.

 

[Developereo]

In Delhi, we have a very happening place. It's called 'caunnaught place'. It was, a few years back, renamed to 'Rajiv Chowk'.

Although, people still prefer to call it 'Caunnaught Place'.

Why? Because that is what we've come to know this place as. It's famous all over India.

But the point is that the name was changed to Rajiv Chowk.

There are still people who use the terms Bombay and Ceylon. There is always social inertia which takes time to overcome, so what?

'India' is just like that.

And, just like Mumbai, people will learn to use the indigenous name over time.

BTW, I got a little quiz for you,

Hinduism

Sikhism

Buddhism

Islam

...pick the odd one out.

HINT: It's your state religion.

Off-topic.

Logic is failing you Sir. You told us to change our nation's name from India to Bharat/Hindustan. I am telling you that India, Bharat and Hindustan are all legal names for our nation. We cant change the name of our nation to Hindustan or Bharat, because legally we are Hindustan or Bharat.

And Bombay was also a legal name for the city.

But you guys changed it to Mumbai.

Tell it to your countryman. He was the one who implied that.

Wrong.

I pointed out the logical inconsistency in your rejection of the names Bombay, Calcutta and Bangalore, but not India.

 

[Rafi]

Again people, I opened this thread and I know what my intent was. I am NOT saying that Bharat can't use the the name 'India'. I am NOT saying Pakistan should HAVE got that name in 1947 and I am NOT saying we want the name 'India' now. No sir, it is yours now to keep.

What I am saying ( that was my intent behind the initiating post ) is Bharat stop using thr name 'India' as a cover and excuse to rape our heritage - That is the 5,000 years of the Indus Valley Civilization which today is manifested in the nation state called Pakistan.

Again for those who are deaf and dumb ( or blind ) in bold letters ..........

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT HOW BHARAT HAS USED THE NAME INDIA TO RAPE OUR HERITAGE BASED ON NOTHING BUT A NAME. I USED THE WORD NOMENCLATURE HOAX.

and again I will say by our heritage I mean the Indus Valley, all the 5,000 years of drama played out in the Indus Valley starting from Mohenjo Daro and on and on and on through the millenia to 1947 and today's Pakistan. Lest anybody have issues about where the fr*gg*in Indus Valley is please consult a decent map and you will find Pakistan sits atop the Indus Valley region.

Yes, some incidental zones extend into India or even Afghanistan. EXAMPLE: The Kabul Valley and the River Kabul flow into the Indus Valley but that does not make Afghanistan a Indus Valley state. In the same way some parts of Indian Punjab or extremities of Rajasthan flow into the Indus Valley and even part of Tibet flows into the Indus Valley but that is incidental.Non of them are Indus Valley states.

Why because Indian Punjab is tiny part India ............ therefore it is i-n-c-d-e-n-t-a-l to the Indus Valley.

Therefore PAKISTAN = INDUS VALLEY = PAKISTAN.

So stop spoiling this thread with irrelevant garbage.

You and me sir, are on the same page.

 

[neutral_person]

But the point is that the name was changed to Rajiv Chowk.

There are still people who use the terms Bombay and Ceylon. There is always social inertia which takes time to overcome, so what?



And, just like Mumbai, people will learn to use the indigenous name over time.



Off-topic.



And Bombay was also a legal name for the city.

But you guys changed it to Mumbai.



Wrong.

I pointed out the logical inconsistency in your rejection of the names Bombay, Calcutta and Bangalore, but not India.



But the point is that the name was changed to Rajiv Chowk.

There are still people who use the terms Bombay and Ceylon. There is always social inertia which takes time to overcome, so what?



And, just like Mumbai, people will learn to use the indigenous name over time.



Off-topic.



And Bombay was also a legal name for the city.

But you guys changed it to Mumbai.



Wrong.

I pointed out the logical inconsistency in your rejection of the names Bombay, Calcutta and Bangalore, but not India.

Lets try this again.

Legal Names of India since 1947: India, Bharat, Hindustan (anyone is free to call us any one of those three when referring to us)

Legal name of Mumbai before British: Mumbai only
Legal name during British: Bombay only
Legal name after British: Mumbai only

Also to be completely honest, I like the name India the best. And no, we wont change that name just because it makes some Pakistanis feel insecure or uneasy. That is your issue/problem of insecurity or uneasiness that you need to deal with.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

AUSTERLITZ:

I am not cherry picking, you are aware what a amagam is? We are a amalgam the original people and all the waves that have come since. Please refer to my post I said sediment. In geography a river bed gathers all the deposits over thousands of years. Layer after layer, that happens to all peoples we evolve. We are sum of all what has gone on in the past, the good, the bad, the ugly, the rapists, the killers. Here in UK lot of Brits. are descendants of Viking invaders who over time have mixed into the general population. Everybody from the past has contributed into the evolving genetic pool. Hope you can understand this.

Do take the time to read my previous posts, they cover the issues you brought up, that is if you can find the them with all the garbage deposited in this thread.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

@atanz.We don't rape ur heritage at all.Ur own official history does that,if u were the ghaznavis and ghauris who arrived in india then how can u be here 2000 yrs back.You can't be at both places.Everyone in this topic is conveniently ignoring this simple double faced hypocrisy.
Just answer this point.

 

[Developereo]

I am NOT saying that Bharat can't use the the name 'India'.
[...]
THIS THREAD IS ABOUT HOW BHARAT HAS USED THE NAME INDIA TO RAPE OUR HERITAGE BASED ON NOTHING BUT A NAME. I USED THE WORD NOMENCLATURE HOAX.

For 99% of the world outside the subcontinent, the ancient heritage is synonymous with the word 'India'. This association is not something the GoI engineered, it has been there all throughout history. So, simply by virtue of appropriating that name, Bharat has laid exclusive claim to that heritage.

The name is the brand. You cannot say Bharat can have the name, but not the brand.

 

[Developereo]

Legal name of Mumbai before British: Mumbai only
Legal name during British: Bombay only
Legal name after British: Mumbai only

What was the legal name of the country before the British came?