Use of the name " India'

[nForce]

Jinnah never suggested any name for the other newly formed country, but he was under the impression that neither country would adopt the name India as it was a colonial legacy. That is the reason why he got furious when he found out that Mountbatten had succumbed to the demand of Nehru and allowed him to retain the name India for his state.

You are just playing with words now. Jinnah did not suggest any name, okay let's agree to that. Then Jinnah got furious when he finds out that the name India is going to be retained. Of course he wanted something otherwise, that's why he got furious. He also expressed what he thought and wanted.The act of expressing ones thoughts is called suggesting.

 

[Porus]

You are just playing with words now. Jinnah did not suggest any name, okay let's agree to that. Then Jinnah got furious when he finds out that the name India is going to be retained. Of course he wanted something otherwise, that's why he got furious. He also expressed what he thought and wanted.The act of expressing ones thoughts is called suggesting.

You guys have the habit of creating stories out of nothing. I thought my post was quite simple and easy to understand. He never suggested any name for Nehru’s state as you are implying here, but he seriously believed that India was a colonial term and no country would want to adopt it. He got furious because the use of the word implied the sub-continental primacy which Pakistan would never accept (Keay John, India-A History).

 

[third eye]

He got furious because the use of the word implied the sub-continental primacy which Pakistan would never accept

Why would Mountbatten's permission be need to name a country ?

What was stopping the assembly to pass a resolution to name the country.

 

[nForce]

You guys have the habit of creating stories out of nothing. I thought my post ase quite simple and easy to understand. He never suggested any name for Nehru’s state as you are implying here, but he seriously believed that India was a colonial term and no country would want to adopt it. He got furious because the use of the word implied the sub-continental primacy which Pakistan would never accept (Keay John, India-A History).

Yeah, I was wrong in describing the facts, hence the confusion. Jinnah did not go ahead and suggest a name, he assumed it is not going to be India. It is my speculation here, that he assumed that the name is going to be Hindustan.

Why would Mountbatten's permission be need to name a country ?

What was stopping the assembly to pass a resolution to name the country.

@Porus quotes John Keay there.Although he changed the words to suit his personal thoughts more, perhaps.

John Keay says Mountbatten acceded to Nehru's demands meaning he agreed to Nehru's demands and not Mountbatten succumbed to Nehru's demands, which would have meant, Mountbatten was pressurized to accept the demands.

 

[Porus]

Yeah, I was wrong in describing the facts, hence the confusion. Jinnah did not go ahead and suggest a name, he assumed it is not going to be India. It is my speculation here, that he assumed that the name is going to be Hindustan.

@Porus quotes John Keay there.Although he changed the words to suit his personal thoughts more, perhaps.

John Keay says Mountbatten acceded to Nehru's demands meaning he agreed to Nehru's demands and not Mountbatten succumbed to Nehru's demands, which would have meant, Mountbatten was pressurized to accept the demands.

Whatever I wrote was from memory and I even mentioned the source, rest assured I don't have any personal agenda here. Whether he succumbed to his demand or acceded to his desire is irrelevant here and has got nothing to do with the point we argued about.

 

[nForce]

Whatever I wrote was from memory and I even quoted the source, rest assured I don't have any personal agenda here. Whether he succumbed to his demand or acceded to his desire is irrelevant here and has got nothing to do with the point we argued about.

Ohh I agree to your point.

 

[Sneaker]

I really don't understand this dilemma.

Some Pakistanis tend to exert that they are related to the Arabs/Turks who invaded the Indian subcontinent and ruled the natives,predominantly Hindus, for thousand years.

Then again, when it comes to ancient history of the region, dating before the first Arab invasion, all of a sudden they turn into "son of the soil" and claim its there history too. I mean, pick one, you can't be both at same point of time!

I would be bothered if they claimed it is their history as well, because it is. What is sill is that their claim of it being "only" theirs... Which is plain bs. Pakistan rejected the culture, ethos and identity of this civilization, but now, since the world has been discovering more about it, wants a piece (or all) of it. As they say, success has million fathers..

 

[wiseone2]

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.

historically India is the whole subcontinent. Everyone in the world realizes the subcontinent has been divided in 1947.
No one is re-writing history books to say Alexander invaded Pakistan. Maybe in 500 years.

Prussia was always part of Germany. Right now Prussia is completely under Poland and Russia

 

[nForce]

I would be bothered if they claimed it is their history as well, because it is. What is sill is that their claim of it being "only" theirs... Which is plain bs. Pakistan rejected the culture, ethos and identity of this civilization, but now, since the world has been discovering more about it, wants a piece (or all) of it. As they say, success has million fathers..

If they had cared for the ancient history of the land, they would have done something about it too. There would have been departments in their universities, that study and preserve the history, culture and language. Well, how many places in Pakistan offer a course on Sanskrit ?

Going forward, people will give examples like, "as much of an hypocrite as a Pakistani".

 

[Sneaker]

If they had cared for the ancient history of the land, they would have done something about it too. There would have been departments in their universities, that study and preserve the history, culture and language. Well, how many places in Pakistan offer a course on Sanskrit ?

Going forward, people will give examples like, "as much of an hypocrite as a Pakistani".

True.. they wanted to be on a high horse. Since the "invasion", "converts" were exclusively taught in specific religio-education places that how they were superior to the "natives" in all aspects hence justified the conversion. Today, if they concede that it is not true but "native" civilization was much more rich, vibrant and way too ancient for them to comprehend, the existence of their religious identity itself (and as extensions, their false ego of superiority and basis of their country) is crushed. So, they must (a) deny the connection between today's "infedels" and their ancient past to console themselves that infidels weren't rich in culture before arrival of you know who (b) somehow claim that ancient history only belongs to them so that they can sustain the false ego taught to them since ages. IMHO, all this began with shattering of umma concept. Arabs did not let anyother peoples be part of their history (rightfully so) and culture (which is wrong). This left our neighbors in deep identity void where they were taught they are superior to natives (so, hate everything associated with natives) but at the same time treated inferior to arabs (which they wanted to be part of). This identity crisis among pakistanis will not end till they get down from their imaginary high horse and embrace their past. Realize that there is nothing special about following certain religion and one doesn't just suddenly become superior due that. Next level of introspection would be how they started following new religion which isn't native. Is it because new one was "superior", was attractive because it was new or a survival necessity? each of these steps will lead to loosening of the very foundation of their young nation. So the easy way out is to distort history and create a fake one so that they can sleep at night..

 

[Lord ZeN]

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).

Indo-Nepali border to be exact.

 

[KingMamba]

Yes, and Columbus told this to you over a jug of beer.

No a history class tells people this.

Jinnah wanted India to be named Hindustan, in line with the name Pakistan.
India had a problem with naming a nation on religious lines, even though many great men of arts and letters like Iqbal has used the name Hindustan in their works.

Yeah because he understood India meant as much if not more to Pakistan as a name then it does to present day India who trys to take all history of South Asia just because it adopted the geographical name of the subcontinent.

Jinnah never suggested any name for the other newly formed country, but he was under the impression that neither country would adopt the name India as it was a colonial legacy. That is the reason why he got furious when he found out that Mountbatten had succumbed to the demand of Nehru and allowed him to retain the name India for his state.

You are on point, like I mentioned before Jinnah forsaw the history robbing that would occur decades before it became a thing. Truly a man of brilliant insight.

They were looking for India, particularly South India and sea connectivity to the spice route. The Portuguese were looking for the same under Vasco da Gama. Who took the route around Africa, and successfully landed in Kerala.

It's funny, because it was something set by the Romans originally.

Columbus in particular was looking for a route to the "East Indies", while the rest of what you say is true my point is India as a name was attributed to multiple present day nations back in the day which doesnt mean all those nations were really ever India just that Euros liked to give regions one name. Just like everything north of "India" was called China.

 

[nForce]

Yeah because he understood India meant as much if not more to Pakistan as a name then it does to present day India who trys to take all history of South Asia just because it adopted the geographical name of the subcontinent.

I was a little wrong in that, Jinnah never suggested that name, there is no such historical record, but he opposed to the name India.
The reason the Indian leaders wanted to keep the name the same is of course not to antagonize Jinnah..
It was the most suitable name for the country, considering it historical importance and the great diversity of India in terms of ethnicity and language.

Perhaps you are aware, the way you have a little issue with Urdu and non-Urdu speaking people India has a similar problem with Tamil and Hindi speaking people. I don't think the name 'Hindustan' would have impressed the Tamils. On the other hand everybody was already habituated to use the name India. So, why don't just keep it !!

Lastly, you also have to understand this, creation of Pakistan was not exactly viewed by Indian leaders as creation of two new country, but separation of some of its elements from one.