Usage of "Indian Subcontinent" should be banned, Say "Asian Subcontinent"

[Varunastra]

You were not called "indians" prior to European colonization. You appropriated the name during their rule and at the end of it.



Native Americans are still called "indians" just as you are because of him. So a European colonist gives you your fake identity which he derived from Romans who in tern indirectly dirrived it from our Sapta Sindhu. Clearly you are the thieves.

Like anyone has an iota of doubt who the real Indians are. You can have all the misnomers of red indians(now appropriately called native Americans) , West indians(now appropriately called the people of caribbean) , etc, they'll eventually fall out of favor. That's why it was corrected and here we are now. Hind always meant the people east of the Indus, no border but there was no doubt who the people were. Also Romans used to trade with western and southern Indian ports, they knew the people and the land.
Stay content with your current name mate.

 

[RescueRanger]

How did this thread get to 10 pages...

 

[kazaki]

In Pakistan,

Saying "Indian Subcontinent" should banned.

We are not Indians, we are Pakistanis.

Say Asian Subcontinent.

Thanks for suggestion beside that i will use maldivian ocean before something more adequate name emerge.
This hijacking of identity by hindus shoud be supressed and reversed.

When hindus hijacked your identity ?

 

[kazaki]

Lol who told you the subcontinent mass looked like that. We have a physical topography to prove Pakistan was the location this joint happened millions of years ago. Regardless. The whole talk was on the naming convention not that it was distinct..dinosaurs didnt call it india. The original name was sindh and it will always be. Not india not hindustan not bharat.

Hindus gave it name sindh

How did this thread get to 10 pages...

Some people of pakistan want to get copyright on sindh a name given by vedic aryans .

 

[ThunderCat]

Like anyone has an iota of doubt who the real Indians are. You can have all the misnomers of red indians(now appropriately called native Americans) , West indians(now appropriately called the people of caribbean) , etc, they'll eventually fall out of favor. That's why it was corrected and here we are now. Hind always meant the people east of the Indus, no border but there was no doubt who the people were. Also Romans used to trade with western and southern Indian ports, they knew the people and the land.
Stay content with your current name mate.

People east of the Indus are modern Sindhis & Punjabis. Hind is derived from Sindh. The term did not refer to areas hundreds and hundreds of KM east of it.

So Romans traded with you and suddenly you get to build a fake identity. First Columbus then Romans....

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

Hindus gave it name sindh


Some people of pakistan want to get copyright on sindh a name given by vedic aryans .

Vedics had nothing to do with Hinduism

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

Hind is derived from Sindh. The term did not refer to areas hundreds and hundreds of KM east of it.

It did with the movement of a branch of Hindustani ruling caste to the East, followed by the establishment of ancient Hindustani empires based from Ayodhya and Pataliputra. Maurya Empire at its biggest was somewhat larger than the Mughal Empire at its biggest. Delhi and Mughal empires were medieval Hindustani empires based on ancient precedence. India's national emblem [Lions of Faith] is based on the Hindustani Maurya Empire.

So, Hind encompasses modern day Sind. They have different meaning and identity.

 

[ThunderCat]

It did with the movement of a branch of Hindustani ruling caste to the East, followed by the establishment of ancient Hindustani empires based from Ayodhya and Pataliputra. Maurya Empire at its biggest was somewhat larger than the Mughal Empire at its biggest. Delhi and Mughal empires were medieval Hindustani empires based on ancient precedence. India's national emblem [Lions of Faith] is based on the Hindustani Maurya Empire.

So, Hind encompasses modern day Sind. They have different meaning and identity.

Hindustan=Indus land in English. The term did not exist at the time of the Mauryan Empire which is not of Hindi/Sindhi origin.

Hindus gave it name sindh


Some people of pakistan want to get copyright on sindh a name given by vedic aryans .

They were our ancestors, not yours, so we do get to copyright what is rightfully our heritage including our lands. That is part of the reason why Pakistanis get annoyed at modern "indians" always claiming our heritage.

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

It did with the movement of a branch of Hindustani ruling caste to the East, followed by the establishment of ancient Hindustani empires based from Ayodhya and Pataliputra. Maurya Empire at its biggest was somewhat larger than the Mughal Empire at its biggest. Delhi and Mughal empires were medieval Hindustani empires based on ancient precedence. India's national emblem [Lions of Faith] is based on the Hindustani Maurya Empire.

So, Hind encompasses modern day Sind. They have different meaning and identity.

Can you tell me one and I mean one single greek author who talks about "mauryan empire".
Megasthanes the guy who assumedly coined the word indos as per the little leftover puzzles absolutely never used the word mauryan or Chandra gupta that you have actually inferred from you own religious texts and associated it with megasthaness findings and crafted history out of it. The word megasthanes used was. Sandro kutto , your chandragupta as per your own texts lived in a different time around 1500bc. While sandrokutto and chandragupta lived 1000 years apart you folks are clearly talking about a different guy.
Furthermore today scholars have concluded that there is no proof megasthanes actually visited patna(pataliputra) and that it is indeed only since he gave lot of information on india and since patalipitra was so called capital of mauryans as per indians today it is a conclusion drawn that he was calling present day india indos which is ofcourse not true. Megasthanes was ambassador of a greek satrapi. No such greek satrap existed in present day india. Lastly he was accused of lies and not endorsed by many later writers like strabo.This actually lessens the fruitfulness of his work.

 

[manpk77]

Hindustan=Indus land in English. The term did not exist at the time of the Mauryan Empire which is not of Hindi/Sindhi origin.


They were our ancestors, not yours, so we do get to copyright what is rightfully our heritage including our lands. That is part of the reason why Pakistanis get annoyed at modern "indians" always claiming our heritage.

Our ancestors are Arabis and Turks not Pagans. Pakistan has nothing to do with Vedas and Sanskrit or whatever religion or culture what Indians follow.

Vedics had nothing to do with Hinduism

Pakistan is an Islamic country and we do not connect ourselves with Vedas. We have adopted a better culture and tradition from Middle east.

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

Hindustan=Indus land in English. The term did not exist at the time of the Mauryan Empire which is not of Hindi/Sindhi origin.

We always called India, Hindusthan (at times Hind).

From my post #115 : "The Greek geographer Herodotus (5th century BC) describes India, calling it ἡ Ἰνδική χώρη (Roman transliteration: hē Hindikē chōrē, meaning "the Indus land").

Indus Land = Hindusthan. The Persians and Greeks got it from us, not the other way around! Also, we never called India, Bharat or Sindh. Aryans had called it Aryavartha. So I believe Bharat is related to a Scythian group. Scythians began arriving in India in the middle of the first millenium BCE which is latter part of Vedic period. Mahabharat war is related to the history of Scythians.

 

[kazaki]

Vedics had nothing to do with Hinduism

Who are you ? A vedic rishi or some pakistani ?

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

Who are you ? A vedic rishi or some pakistani ?

It doesn't matter what I am..

 

[ThunderCat]

Modern day Brahmans, who've been calling themselves and others "hindus" probably since the Ghori period are not followers of the extinct Vedic religion, but take inspiration from it.

Just like modern Islam is not the religion of Muhammed or the Quran, but based on the Hadiths, which in turn take inspiration from Muhammed's teachings & the Quran.

Same thing for Christianity. Most of it seems to be based on the teachings of Saint Paul & Emperor Constatine, not Jesus/Isa himself.

Our ancestors are Arabis and Turks not Pagans. Pakistan has nothing to do with Vedas and Sanskrit or whatever religion or culture what Indians follow.

Pakistan is an Islamic country and we do not connect ourselves with Vedas. We have adopted a better culture and tradition from Middle east.

How do you know the Vedic religion was pagan or what not? No we are not of Arab and Turkish descent. Do you have DNA evidence to back up this laughable claim? We Pakistanis are a blend of native Harrappen and Bronze Age Aryan invaders.

This is a classic example of how Pakistanis throw away their heritage and modern "indians" pick it up and keep it.

Italians are proud of their pre-Christian Roman heritage and it's not for give away for anyone. Same is true for the Egyptians despite being predominantly Muslim & Christian.

Pakistanis should make no exceptions.

 

[kazaki]

It doesn't matter what Arabian , you don't need to bother

It doesn't matter what I am..

It matters , Pakistanis have nothing to do with Vedas , you are Arabian .