Use of the name " India'

[Levina]

And the most funny thing is when that religious bigot & racist TT get own when presented with historical fact he duck it buy bringing how poor India is compared to mighty Pakistan lol

Yes I've seen sir Atanz post those links on youtube too.

 

[toxic_pus]

Thank you, Nehru, for giving the Pakistanis a never ending khuji in their collective @sses and pushing them into a bottom less pit of identity crisis.

 

[nForce]

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!

 

[bongbang]

Indian subcontinent refers to the region adjoining India protruding into the Indian Ocean. The reason why it is called Indian subcontinent, is, India is historically and politically the biggest and the most significant territorial entity in the region.

These are just naming conventions and nothing like an absolute justification can be found in favour or against it.

It's like arguing, why shall we call it Arabian sea, while India, Pakistan, Iran share shores with it, or why shall we call it Persian Gulf, while it's not like only the Persians have access to it.

You can discuss and discuss, at the end of the day these are cases of convention over logic.

To name whatever Indian, Bangladesh Pakistan landmass have also contribution. But present India has the larger contribution due to its size. Its as simple as that. We will simply call you ROI or Republic of India.

 

[nForce]

To name whatever Indian, Bangladesh Pakistan landmass have also contribution. But present India has the larger contribution due to its size. Its as simple as that. We will simply call you ROI or Republic of Ondia.

Ondia noy re khepa .. thik koro eta..
I am okay with Republic of India/India/Bharat/Hindustan..all fine..

 

[Bang Galore]

To name whatever Indian, Bangladesh Pakistan landmass have also contribution. But present India has the larger contribution due to its size. Its as simple as that. We will simply call you ROI or Republic of India.

Nobody denies the contribution of Bangladeshis, Pakistanis or their right to claim their heritage, should they choose to do so. These arguments are usually a tactic to claim the heritage for a country alone because they have some ticketing rights to some of the ancient sites.

 

[The BrOkEn HeArT]

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

Your problem is "hate". You hate name "India". So you makes your own theory that satisfy your ego. You don't want to show your any contact with ancient India or modern India. But the truth is history is not based on your ego, nor based on your like or dislikes. The fact is there was only India and there are still India. You were part of that same India. Don't confuse yourself between geographic India and republic India. That was just phases of India what India has been struggled through. Today the face of India is "Independence republic". But there was and there is only one land called " India(Bharat)".

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

Your problem is "hate". You hate name "India". So you makes your own theory that satisfy your ego. You don't want to show your any contact with ancient India or modern India. But the truth is history is not based on your ego, nor based on your like or dislikes. The fact is there was only India and there are still India. You were part of that same India. Don't confuse yourself between geographic India and republic India. That was just phases of India what India has been struggled through. Today the face of India is "Independence republic". But there was and there is only one land called " India(Bharat)".

 

[altaf khan]

Pakistanis are suffering from Identity Crisis. They are denying simple fact that there wasnt any country called Pakistan before 1947. while India is here from thousands of years.

 

[ito]

It is really surprising to see Pakistanis version of history. Initially I was surprised and then understood from where is stemmed from. Only in Pakistan is taught 'ancient Pakistan', while Pakistan was just formed in 1947

 

[Rau]

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.

Sir,First of all nobody is here is claiming on based on geography, we are claiming on based of culture.
1. pakistanies claim " Indus civilization is solely their :- Here is problem lies. Indian claiming its our civilization as culture of Indus civilization are same like Shiva and nature worshiping etc.Has any one in Pakistan are doing same, No. They reject that idea just after Independence, and claim Bin Kasim, right. We are not forced them to throw there heritage.They choose not align to Pagan culture.Now, just wake after 60 later and claiming, hey you stole our culture.
One example I wanted to give. "one man ask Lord Krishna that "who is your real mother "Devaki" or "Yashoda". Krishna replied no doubt its "Yashoda mai" because though "Devaki" give birth to me but "Yashoda mai" is who who up-bring me.
Thus Assuming, Current Pakistan is where Indus civilization born (Though, some of its cities also found in current India) we Hindus nurture, up-bring it to where it now respected world wide.
Rest reply will you given after,i have meeting now, so till then by.sorry for typo, gramer.

 

[ito]

People should refer to present India by its full name as Republic of India or Bharat Ganarajyo. Or by short form ROI or BG. Then we dont have problems if any one refers India as Bangladesh or Pakistan. Canada, Mexico all are America too. They simply refer America as USA. This way any complexity can be avoided.

India would not do that. This is not our problem. If Pakistan and Bangladesh has problem, you can rename your country to what ever you want. We on our part would go all out to say to the world that India is the only country that can claim the legacy of this great civilization.

 

[third eye]

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.

I observe a sense of resentment in your post.

The example of Finland is not relevant for it or any other European nation with the exception of Greece does not have a history that spans centuries and continents - culturally & politically. The Brit presence in India was for 2-3 Centuries which is a blip in time.

Next, in Asia the nations whose influence ( not necessarily political ) spread way outside its borders are China, Persia ( a mix of what now is Iran & Iraq), India and Turkey.

We need to stop seeing history through parochial lenses. For instance the region called Indo - China. Now how can India or China be blamed for their influence spreading across the region :

Mainland southeast Asia, also known as the Indochinese Peninsula, refers to the continental portion of Southeast Asia lying roughly south or southwest of China, and east of India. The historical name "Indochina" has its origins in the French Indochine, a combination of the names of "India" and "China", referring to the location of the territory between those two countries.

The countries of mainland Southeast Asia however received cultural influence from both India and China to varying degrees. Some cultures, such as those of Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand are influenced mainly by India with a smaller influence from China. Others, such as Vietnam, are more heavily influenced by Chinese culture with only minor cultural influences from India, largely via the Champa civilization that Vietnam conquered during its southward expansion.

Lastly, I recall reading articles where people resented the name Indian Ocean. There is no cure for this !

 

[bongbang]

India would not do that. This is not our problem. If Pakistan and Bangladesh has problem, you can rename your country to what ever you want. We on our part would go all out to say to the world that India is the only country that can claim the legacy of this great civilization.

We Bangladeshis dont have to rename anything. We have the name Bang came before any kinds of name India, Hindu, Shindhu etc.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

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.

As a Indian I am surprised to see Chinese have a view of history like this. India and China have a civilisation that transcend civilisational generations.
Anything east to the river was called "Indu" and not just the area surrounding Indus. Chinese call India as "Indu" in ur language. It was a vague greek term , with this name having a history of 2500 years. So how can u ever claim India refers to ancient Pakistan, when there was no ancient Pakistan to begin with.

We Bangladeshis dont have to rename anything. We have the name Bang came before any kinds of name India, Hindu, Shindhu etc.

Incidentally Tamils called the land of Bengal as Vanga.. Literally translates to Banga.. In tamil its called as Vangadesam.

 

[Porus]

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.

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.