Use of the name " India'

[third eye]

I often read comments here from Pak & sometimes BD posters expressing resentment on use of the name " India' by India.

The logic offered varies from India being a collective name for the sub continent to a British coined name. Furthermore, since the region was divided in 47 the usage of the name as suggested by some should stop as the Brit colony ceased to exist.

I cannot understand the resentment or is it a sense of jealousy as having retained the name India becomes a natural claimant to the history that goes with the name ? After all the more than major chunk of land associated with this name is with India.

As I see it , its like this :

• Pakistan chose its own name so what difference should it make to it what the rest of the Sub Continent calls itself ? It appears like "I don't want it but you shouldn't have it" !!
• The Elder Son kept the family name , a name that it was known by for centuries.
• There are countless nations across the globe known by two names - One international & the other Local therefore if India uses ' Bharat' alongside its perfectly fine - both name have stayed for centuries.
• BD was not even conceived back then so they do not count .

Comments if any please

 

[nForce]

Jinnah and Nehru had this discussion during partition, along with the other leaders.

Jinnah demanded that the name India should be abandoned as according to him India was being partitioned on religious lines into two parts, Hindu majority and Muslim majority parts. Jinnah wanted independent India to be called Hindustan, as it signifies a Hindu land.
However, the Nehru and the other India rejected the proposal outright on the basis that while Pakistan may be created on religious lines, but that does not mean rest of India has to follow the same path. Partition was merely separation of Pakistan from the bigger India.

A brilliant decision, in my opinion taken by our leaders at that time. Had India been named Hindustan, then it would have sealed the fate for ever as a Hindu land fuelling communal tensions. It would have also meant that the Indian leaders were willing to accept the idea of dividing India on racial/religious lines.

 

[Soulspeek]

Why would we cater to the whims of Jinnah. Let him call his Muslim nation Pakistan. India was always meant to be plural in its nature. We embrace our history. Both its glorious path and shameful ghulami. Our history does not start with Bin Qasim. We are INDIA in all sense.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Well the "Indus River" from which it is named, is almost entirely in Pakistan.

The British liked to assign this name to various groups, notably the Red Indians and the West Indians (Carribeans).

There is nothing wrong with Pakistan claiming the heritage of their land.

 

[nForce]

Well the "Indus River" from which it is named, is almost entirely in Pakistan.

The British liked to assign this name to various groups, notably the Red Indians and the West Indians (Carribeans).

There is nothing wrong with Pakistan claiming the heritage of their land.

It's not Pakistan that wished to be named India. Its the present India that did not want to change the name.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

As far as I am concerned I have no problem with the name 'India' being used by your country. In 1947 your country got that right so in no way is anybody least of all Pakistan have any right to question your right to call yourself India or Indians. We do not therefore question your right to call you republic 'India'.I hope I have made this explicitly clear.

The problem is much like the terms Europe, Scandanavia, Balkans are geographic names the term 'India' also has been used as a geographic denominator proximating with what we call today South Asia or 'Indian Sub continent'. This is where the problem happens. Your people have a habit of jumping between the (i) geographic India and the (ii) republic India.

By jumping between both they create ambiquity and within that space they build the narrative of their entity having been around since dawn of history or that Pakistan was created from their entity. The reality is both republics were created from a impeerial colony called British India. Merely because of a name today your people carry the gusto of us being around for ever and we the Pakistani being around only since 1947.

It is like if Finland called itself Europe would it then entitle it to claim every act of history in the continent of Europe since time began? This country called Europe would arrogate the Roman civilization, the Greek civilization, the discovery of Americas, the invasion and subsequent defeat of the Arabs/Moors, the invention of Roman alphabet and all the history of Europe.

This would create distortions like Arabs/Moors invaded this Europe/Finland [ when the truth is Moors/Arabs ] only invaded Spain but because it is in Europe you could also claim the Moors invaded Europe. Then the Europe/Finland could claim they defeated the Arabs/Moors in Poiters when the truth is the Franks defeated the Arabs in Poitiers in modern France.

In this narrative I have given in the previous paragraph the Finnish were never involved in Spain or the Frankish defeat of the Moors at Poitiers but by using the 'Europe' label all that would be subsumed. In the exact same way we resent the modern republic using that name'India' as carte blanche to claim everything in South Asia as itself.

It is like if I used the name Alexander I start claming I discovered Penicillin ( Alexander Fleming Scottish Biologist 1880-1950 ) and that I conquered the known world ( Alexander the Great ) and that I am behind the great blues songs ( Alexander O'Neil ). Obviously everybody would laugh at me because I could not have lived all those lives as a mortal human being. I could not be all those Alexander's.

However I use this analogy to convey a point. The modern republic becomes all those India's. Just outside Islambad is a small river called Soan. Some time ago a pre historic culture was discovered and dated to half a millions ago. Think about this. This is before any country, any empire, any peoples existance. All the literature will say 'India' in referance to the Soanian culture. This then will be claimed by modern republican Indian's as their heritage. If we say anything they will say there was no Pakistan before 1947 overlooking that there was no Indian republic before 1947 either. Whatever mutations existed prior are not the exclusive rights of the republic called India just because it has a common name.

This is what the republic born on the same day as Pakistan does by playing about with that name. This is the source of the frustration.This is what we complain about. I hope I explained well enough.

* Soanian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Maira La]

I often read comments here from Pak & sometimes BD posters expressing resentment on use of the name " India' by India.
...

• BD was not even conceived back then so they do not count .

Comments if any please

Weird. You might get a hell lot of thanks for your post, but I don't think any Bangladeshi wants to claim the name "India" nor do we have any problem with you using it. I only suggested once, in case you want to get rid of the name given by Westerners, you could call the land Hindustan. Jealousy?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

The problem is much like the terms Europe, Scandanavia, Balkans are geographic names the term 'India' also has been used as a geographic denominator proximating with what we call today South Asia or 'Indian Sub continent'. This is where the problem happens. Your people have a habit of jumping between the (i) geographic India and the (ii) republic India.

I have seen many Indian members here claiming that "Buddha was from India", even though everyone knows the Buddha was from Nepal (born in Lumbini).

When I point it out, they say: "It's the same thing". Even though Nepal was not even a part of British India.

Also claiming the achievements and heritage of the Indus Valley Civilization, and even naming themselves India, even though the Indus River is almost entirely within Pakistan.

There does seem to be confusion regarding the geographic term India, and the Republic of India.

 

[Bang Galore]

A. Just outside Islambad is a small river called Soan. Some time ago a pre historic culture was discovered and dated to half a millions ago. Think about this.

That does require some thinking since modern humans only first appeared in the fossil record in Africa about 195,000 years ago.

Half a million years ago......wonder what that was...?

. I only suggested once, in case you want to get rid of the name given by Westerners, you could call the land Hindustan. Jealousy?

Why Hindustan, India's main name of Bharat exists & the country is defined as such in the constitution itself.

 

[Maira La]

Why Hindustan, India's main name of Bharat exists & the country is defined as such in the constitution itself.

I could really care less whether it's Bharat or Hindustan. I was just suggesting why not revert to older names, just for the sake of your pride. Was just curious what you guys thought about it. It doesn't really concern us.

 

[Bang Galore]

I could really care less whether it's Bharat or Hindustan. I was just suggesting why not revert to older names, just for the sake of your pride. Was just curious what you guys thought about it. It doesn't really concern us.

Bharat is used. It is one of two official names used.

 

[Luca1]

I have seen many Indian members here claiming that "Buddha was from India", even though everyone knows the Buddha was from Nepal (born in Lumbini).

When I point it out, they say: "It's the same thing". Even though Nepal was not even a part of British India.

Also claiming the achievements and heritage of the Indus Valley Civilization, and even naming themselves India, even though the Indus River is almost entirely within Pakistan.

There does seem to be confusion regarding the geographic term India, and the Republic of India.

The problem here is that many, but not all, Indian members claim that geographic India represent a country called India. I , along with many others, had tried to explain the difference. But these Indians refuse to,listen or accept this obvious distinction.

 

[Maira La]

The problem is much like the terms Europe, Scandanavia, Balkans are geographic names the term 'India' also has been used as a geographic denominator proximating with what we call today South Asia or 'Indian Sub continent'. This is where the problem happens. Your people have a habit of jumping between the (i) geographic India and the (ii) republic India.

It's like the USA claiming Canada's and Mexico's history, as well as the history of the entire Americas, because they are called America. Lol.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

I give you one simple example.

Did Alexander the Great invade India? The answer is No to Republic of India. However if you mean the term like Scandanavia, Europe, Balkans that is as the geographic India the answer is yes.. However what people then do is distort history to make it look like it was Republic of India just because of the name having geographic and modern republic name. The truth is Alexander's most eastern limit was in Pakistan not India as the map shows below.

Please look at the map below of Alexander's route and the area he conquored. I am using this example to show what i mean by the distortion of facts that occurs and that is used by Indians to their advantage. This happens across the entire spectrum of discourse and is used by Indians to distort everthing to their advantage. This is the cause of our complaints.

I think the solution is that since we now have a republic or country called India since 1947 we use the term South Asia for geographic meaning in particular to prior 1947. That would then resolve lot of the problem. The term 'India' should be only used for post 1947 country. That would prevent confusion and distortion of facts as demonstrated by me in my above example. Of course if anybody has other ideas lets hear them.

 

[wolfschanzze]

I often read comments here from Pak & sometimes BD posters expressing resentment on use of the name " India' by India.

The logic offered varies from India being a collective name for the sub continent to a British coined name. Furthermore, since the region was divided in 47 the usage of the name as suggested by some should stop as the Brit colony ceased to exist.

I cannot understand the resentment or is it a sense of jealousy as having retained the name India becomes a natural claimant to the history that goes with the name ? After all the more than major chunk of land associated with this name is with India.

As I see it , its like this :

• Pakistan chose its own name so what difference should it make to it what the rest of the Sub Continent calls itself ? It appears like "I don't want it but you shouldn't have it" !!
• The Elder Son kept the family name , a name that it was known by for centuries.
• There are countless nations across the globe known by two names - One international & the other Local therefore if India uses ' Bharat' alongside its perfectly fine - both name have stayed for centuries.
• BD was not even conceived back then so they do not count .

Comments if any please

Dont like the word India, Bharat is a apt name.British did it because it was easier to pronounce and Greeks gave the name.
You want to know the real name ask Chinese, they still call you "Yintoo", India is only a creation of West!
While Bharat is ours!

 

[Indus Pakistan]

It's like the USA claiming Canada's and Mexico's history, as well as the history of the entire Americas, because they are called America. Lol.

Indeed Maira. A lovely example by you. You conveyed in one sentance what I failed to do in whole page. Maybe I could hire your services ?

As you said it would be like USA claiming everything from Canadian New Foundland to Chilean Teira Del Feugo. North, Central and South America as it's historical, cultural realm all because they call themselves American.

Who was Pele the football player? American. - Brazil
Who was Maradona the football player? American - Argentina
Who is Selma Hayek? American- Mexico
Who is Celine Dion? American - Canadian.

and on !

Point made?

I reiterate we are not asking the republic to change her name just because we have a problem. We need to be aware of this ambiquity and remedy it with for example use of the term 'South Asia' when talking about the geographic sub continent or as a historical realm that covers that geograhic space encompassing more than just the republic of india or when talking of 'Geater India' that is the sub continient..