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

[Joe Shearer]

I haven't read the other threads -- I glanced at them long time back -- but here's the deal.

Given the Indian trend to shed the foreign names and revert to indigenous names (Mumbai, Kolkata, Bengaluru, etc.), the logical progression would be to shed the foreign name India and revert back to the indigenous Bharat.

Why are you still calling yourselves by the Greek name?

Smart one.

The Constitution gives us both names, one for use in Inglis, one for Desi languages.

Nice thought, but we'll pass.

Thats perfect,

I think this discussion is highly useless,as it has always been.

People are right when they say Pakistan existed in a way,

That is because people were able to convince Hindu Upper Castes of the North West to give up Orthodoxy and appreciate things that Desi Muslims have carved for themselves outside the orthodoxy of the Arab Culture.It is this success that makes the valid reason for an argument of Pakistan.

And logically the real limit starts in UP.

The culture northwards is pretty much mixed and composite and not as appreciated by the Orthodoxy of both religions.

Thats the reality.



They are a little loonier but its not a natural loonyness but just to prove a point to the other Vadamas as to why they are different from us by a hairline.

And i am extremely sorry for trash talking with you,you can take a shot at me anytime,i wont respond,i dont like badmouthing people my grandfather's age.

JJ is Tam Iyengar only,Hebbars are those living in Mysore for centuries.JJs has been moving in between,same as Hema Malini.

And yeah,sorry again,even more so that u r a soldier.

And yeah 2 of my aunts and a damn good friend is hebbar and their chicks are great like Meenakshi Seshadri & Vasundhra Das/No disrespect.

Vasundhara Das lives across the road from us in Bangalore! We've watched the kid grow up. Her father is real cool.

Now don't back off and go humble on me. I was looking forward to our clashes. Keeps me on my toes.

 

[Developereo]

Because we never have been colonized by Greeks, so India, unlike Calcutta, Bombay, Bangalore etc, hasn't been imposed on us.

But it is still foreign. None of the indigenous texts refer to the region as India. After all, it is mahabharata, not mahaindia.

Anyway as someone has said, it's written in our constitution - "India, that is Bharat".

That happened post 1947, so it begs the question.

then according that logic....we should call it Indus..isnt it ??

Bomaby reverted back to Mumbai because of the name of the city based on the Mumbra devi temple.
Calcutta became kolkata because the city got its name from the Kali mata temple.
thats the actual trend..we're not shedding the name just because calcutta and Bombay were foreign names.

so according to that trend, we should continue using it India..as it is derived from the river Indus.

The difference is that the names Mumbai and Kolkata were indigenously chosen. Not so with India; it was imposed from without. Indigenously, it has always been Bharat or Hindustan.

Names dont matter man

But isn't this whole discussion precisely about names?

The Constitution gives us both names, one for use in Inglis, one for Desi languages.

What I wrote above. After all, you guys don't use Mumbai in Hindi and Bombay in English, it's Mumbai throughout.

 

[vsdoc]

I find myself agreeing with Developer here.

Sure sign that I need to go home and have a drink.

 

[Developereo]

I find myself agreeing with Developer here.

Sure sign that I need to go home and have a drink.

Or you could savor the lucidity.

 

[vsdoc]

Or you could savor the lucidity.

Especially considering the fount it flows from.

 

[Subramanian]

Smart one.

The Constitution gives us both names, one for use in Inglis, one for Desi languages.

Nice thought, but we'll pass.



Vasundhara Das lives across the road from us in Bangalore! We've watched the kid grow up. Her father is real cool.

Now don't back off and go humble on me. I was looking forward to our clashes. Keeps me on my toes.

Haha,alright.

but wont be easy,u r too nice unlike my grandpa who wud compete with my dad to thrash me.

But it is still foreign. None of the indigenous texts refer to the region as India. After all, it is mahabharata, not mahaindia.



That happened post 1947, so it begs the question.



The difference is that the names Mumbai and Kolkata were indigenously chosen. Not so with India; it was imposed from without. Indigenously, it has always been Bharat or Hindustan.



But isn't this whole discussion precisely about names?



What I wrote above. After all, you guys don't use Mumbai in Hindi and Bombay in English, it's Mumbai throughout.

well,i find all this fussy.

But the point is true,we never went away.Those who went away give themselves a name.

 

[toxic_pus]

Nicely argued. I am beginning to feel redundant. Time to retire?

....and I'm beginning to turn pink....

 

[Developereo]

Especially considering the fount it flows from.

Stick around. We'll make a "convert" out of you still.

But the point is true,we never went away.Those who went away give themselves a name.

But that is precisely what the OP is stating.

As Pakistanis, we "went away" from Bharat, not India, which did, and does, encompass the region of Pakistan.

 

[Ignited Mind]

British named it 'British India' because there WAS an India already existing. It wasn't a strictly defined nation state as we've come to know now but that would be like saying that Britain didn't exist until it lost all its colonies or France didn't exist until Imperialism ended.

There was a reason they called it British INDIA and not British Pakistan or British China or British Argentina or British Moon or whatever.

 

[RazPaK]

Pakistan came first, then India.

 

[H1ndustaN1]

I haven't read the other threads -- I glanced at them long time back -- but here's the deal.

Given the Indian trend to shed the foreign names and revert to indigenous names (Mumbai, Kolkata, Bengaluru, etc.), the logical progression would be to shed the foreign name India and revert back to the indigenous Bharat.

Why are you still calling yourselves by the Greek name?

Dude I'm a little too old to start adopting a new name and identity. Really, India works just fine for us and we are happy with being called Indians. Unlike other nations which tend to nitpick on every tiny detail, we are comfortable with what and where we are and we don't need to start making radical changes now.

Something just came to my mind that I wanted to ask. I read somewhere that Pakistan stands for Punjab-Afghan-Kashmir-Sindh-Balochistan yes? If this name was coined in 1947, what about East Bengal? Why aren't the Bengalis represented in the name? Or were they not part of the original idea ?

 

[Developereo]

Something just came to my mind that I wanted to ask. I read somewhere that Pakistan stands for Punjab-Afghan-Kashmir-Sindh-Balochistan yes? If this name was coined in 1947, what about East Bengal? Why aren't the Bengalis represented in the name? Or were they not part of the original idea ?

Personally, I never put much stock in that acronym theory. For me, Pakistan simply means Pak-stan, pure land, not even "land of the pure". Pakistan was meant as a place where one could be free of religious persecution.

That's my personal interpretation; not sure about the historical record.

 

[H1ndustaN1]

Stick around. We'll make a "convert" out of you still.



But that is precisely what the OP is stating.

As Pakistanis, we "went away" from Bharat, not India, which did, and does, encompass the region of Pakistan.

There's the British Indian Empire which for the sake of convenience is called India. Then there's the Indian Subcontinent which is generally referred to as India. And the Republic of India is also known as India, like it or not, that's the case and its not just us but the world calls us India. You can look at it any way you want. Just don't go around telling people 'India encompasses the region of Pakistan' as well, cos for most people the first thing India represents is the Republic of India. NOT the British Indian Empire or the subcontinent. Unless of course u'd like to forget the partition happened........

 

[jayron]

India still retains what the world associates India with and Pakistan has almost nothing. The distinct culture, famous monuments and the ancient philosophy is still alive and the partition has not affected it one bit. So the name India is justified.

Looks like Pakistanis have come to hate their country's name. I am seeing numerous such threads. I know Pakistan is just a weak 'brand' compared to India. Pakistan would for ever be mentioned as the country next to India . gotta live with it.

 

[Speaker]

India still retains what the world associates India with and Pakistan has almost nothing. The distinct culture, famous monuments and the ancient philosophy is still alive and the partition has not affected it one bit. So the name India is justified.

Looks like Pakistanis have come to hate their country's name. I am seeing numerous such threads. I know Pakistan is just a weak 'brand' compared to India. Pakistan would for ever be mentioned as the country next to India . gotta live with it.

Rather harsh and unfair assessment in my opinion. Your post seems to suggest our "branding" has solely to do with us retaining our historical name, and discounts the hard work and progress made by India in all spheres over these years, especially the last 20. I think Pakistanis love their country's name but are simply unhappy about us still being referred to as India/Indians. But for reasons mentioned by multiple people, Pakistan effectively seceded from India, hence they got a new name, while we retained the name, culture and values ever present in our long history.