Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 4th, 2018, 07:24 AM   #1
Citizen
 
Joined: Mar 2018
From: Pakistan
Posts: 18
Is Pakistan The REAL India?


Written by me here...I look forward to your comments.
https://www.facebook.com/AncientPaki...type=3&theater

Click the image to open in full size.

When we refer to India today, are we also referring to the historic concept of India that ancient historians and explorers wrote about? Turns out it’s not. The India of today is not the historic India…ironically Pakistan is the real India. Confused? You should be…unfortunately European colonialism played a big part in how the term “India” was misused and mislabeled. Let’s discuss this more in detail. Before moving on, let’s define some basic terms to avoid confusion: When ‘Republic of India’ is mentioned, we are referring to the modern-day India (1947 to present). When ‘India’ is mentioned, we are referring to the historic definition of India (the Indus Valley) as cited by Greek, Persian, Macedonian, Arab and Roman sources.

~ Jinnah vs Mountbatten ~
Following independence in 1947, many maps printed in the Republic of India referred to the newly formed country as Bharat – in fact the Constitution of India officially names the country as Bharat. The word Bharat derives from Bharatavarsha (the land of the Bharatas), with these Bharatas being the most prominent and distinguished of the early Vedic clans who migrated from the Indus Valley to the Ganges plain sometime between 1200 BCE to 800 BCE. By adopting this name, the new republic in Delhi could, it was argued, lay claim to a revered Arya heritage that was geographically vague enough not to provoke regional jealousies yet doctrinally vague enough not to jeopardize the republic's avowed secularism. Bharat would seem preferable since the term India was too redolent of colonial disparagement. It also lacked a respectable indigenous pedigree. In the whole colossal corpus of Sanskrit literature, nowhere is the term India ever mentioned. Nor does the term India appear in Buddhist or Jain texts and nor was it used in any of India’s numerous languages. Worse still, if etymologically the term India belonged anywhere, it was not to the republic proclaimed in Delhi by Jawaharlal Nehru but to its rival headed by Mohammed Ali Jinnah in Pakistan. Partition would have a way of dividing the subcontinent's spoils with scant reference to history. No tussle over the word India is reported because Jinnah preferred the newly coined and Islamic-sounding acronym Pakistan. Additionally, he was under the impression that neither state would want to adopt the colonial term India. He only discovered his mistake after Lord Mountbatten, the last British viceroy, had already acceded to Nehru's demand that his state be named Republic of India. Jinnah, according to Mountbatten, “was absolutely furious when he found out that they (Nehru and the Congress Party) were going to call themselves India”. The use of the word implied a sub-continental primacy that Pakistan would never accept. It also flew in the face of history, since India originally referred exclusively to territory in the vicinity of the Indus River (with which the word is cognate) and its tributaries. Hence India was largely outside the Republic of India and largely within Pakistan.

~ European usage of the word India ~
Reservations about the word India, which convinced Jinnah no nation would use it, stemmed from its historical usage among European colonialists. India or Indies (its more generalized derivative) had come, as if by definition, to denote an acquisition rather than a specific territory. India was yet conceptually concrete to Europeans: it was somewhere to be coveted as an intellectual curiosity, a military pushover and an economic bonanza. While the historic term of India exclusively referred to the Indus Valley (today known as Pakistan), the European definition of India was used to describe acquired territories across the world. Let’s go over some of them:

*British East India Company – present-day Bangladesh, Ganges plain & Deccan

*British West Indies – The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Antigua, Virgin Islands, Dominica, Montserrat, Grenada, Cayman Islands, Guyana, Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago

*Dutch East India Company – present day Bangladesh, Ganges plain & Deccan

*Dutch East Indies – present day Indonesia, Brunei & Malaysia

*Dutch West Indies – present-day Suriname & Netherlands Antilles

*French East India Company – present-day Puducherry

*French West India Company – present-day Dominica, Grenada, Guadeloupe & Haiti

*Portuguese East India Company – present-day Goa

*Portuguese East Indies – present-day Malacca (Malaysia) and Macau (China)

*Casa da India – managed all overseas territories including Brazil & Angola

*Spanish West Indies – present-day Puerto Rico, Cuba, Venezuela & Dominican Republic

*Spanish East Indies – present-day Philippines, Guam, and Papua New Guinea

*Danish East India Company – present-day Bangladesh, Bengal & Tamil Nadu

*Danish West Indies – present-day US Virgin Islands

*Swedish East India Company – present-day Bangladesh & Bengal (but never lasted long).

You get the picture...India was geographically imprecise among the Europeans. This is in stark contrast to terms like Africa, Arabia, Britain, Scandinavia or America, where the territory was well defined. The term India on the other hand was indeed moveable if one took account of all the “Native Indians” in the Americas, and all the overseas Indies. Tulane University professor Rosanne Adderly says the phrase "West Indies" distinguished the territories encountered by Columbus or claimed by Spain from discovery claims by other powers in [Asia's] "East Indies". The term "Indies" was eventually used by all European nations to describe their own acquired territories in the world.

~ Historic India ~
Now that we have a clear picture of how the word India was misused, let’s delve deeper into where the term India comes from and what it actually defines. The first occurrence of the word sets the trend and is an inscription found at Persepolis, capital of the Achaemenid Empire of Darius I in Persia. Dated from 518 BC, it lists his numerous domains including that of “Hi(n)du”. Where does Hindu comes from? Let’s investigate.

The word for river in Sanskrit is “Sindhu” and hence “Sapta Sindhu” meant the land of the seven rivers, which is what the Vedic clans of the Indus Valley called Punjab. Six of these rivers were all tributaries to the Indus River and hence the Indus was viewed as the “Sindhu par excellence”. In the ancient Persian language, a relative of Sanskrit, the initial 'S' of a Sanskrit word was invariably rendered as 'H' and thus Sindhu became Hindhu in Persian. When the word found its way into Greek, the initial ‘H’ was dropped, and it began to appear as the root “Ind”. In this form, it reached Latin and most other European languages, giving rise to “Ind + ia” or India. In Arabic, Persian and Turkish, the “H” was retained and the term “Hindhu” would eventually give rise to Hindhustan, by which Turks, Persians and Mughals would know India. The word Hindhu also reached Europe much later and was used to define the country's indigenous people – the Vedic clans of the Indus Valley (ie. Sindhu, Kasmiras, Kambojas, Gandhara etc).

On the strength of a slightly earlier Persian inscription, which makes no mention of Hindhu, it is assumed that the Indus Valley was added to Darius' Achaemenid Empire much earlier than 520 BC. This earlier inscription mentions “Gadara” (or Gandhara), a Buddhist state located in an arc reaching the western Punjab through Khyber Pakhtunkhwa towards Kabul and perhaps into southern Afghanistan (where it is believed Kandahar got its name from). According to Xenophon and Herodotus, Cyrus The Great had conquered Gandhara, which means the first Achaemenid invasion may have taken place as early as the mid-sixth century BC (~550 BC) rather than 518 BC. This invasion seems likely from a reference to Cyrus dying of a wound inflicted by the enemy. The enemies were the “Derbikes” who enjoyed the support of the "Sindhu" people and were supplied by war-elephants. In Persian and Greek minds alike, the association of "Sindhu" with war elephants was thereafter almost as significant as its connection with the mighty Indus River. To Alexander of Macedon, following in the Achaemanids' footsteps two centuries later, the river would be a geographical curiosity, but the elephants were a military obsession.

If Gandhara was already under Achaemenid rule, Darius' Sindhu territory must have been beyond it, and so to the south or east. Later Persian records refer to Sindhu giving rise to the word Sind, today Pakistan's southern most province. It seems unlikely though that the present-day Sindh borders were that of Sindhu in the late sixth century BC, since Darius subsequently found it necessary to send a naval expedition to explore Sindhu. Flowing through the middle of the Indus River would surely have been familiar to any naval explorer of the region. More probably then the territory of Sindhu lay east of Gandhara and in all likelihood would be the region between eastern Punjab and Thar Desert. Sindhu territory thus occupied what is today Cholistan and Thar (southern Punjab and northern Sindh provinces). Both Gandhara and Sindhu would later on become provinces or "satrapy" of the Persian Empire.

Under Xerxes (Darius' successor), troops from the satrapy of Gandhara and Sindhu were reportedly serving in the Achaemenid Army. These people were mostly archers, although cavalry and chariots are also mentioned. They fought as far as eastern Europe and some were present at the Persians' victory over Leonidas and his Spartans at Thermopylae, and then at the decisive defeat by the Greeks at Plataea. Through these and other less fraught contacts between Greeks and Persians, Greek writers like Herodotus gleaned some idea of India. Compared to the intervening lands of Anatolia and Iran, it appeared a veritable paradise of exotic plenty. Herodotus told of an immense population and the richest soil imaginable from which kindly ants, smaller than dogs but bigger than foxes, threw up hillocks of pure gold dust. The ants may have intrigued entomologists, but the gold was registered in political circles. With several rivers to rival the Nile and behemoths from which to give battle (war-elephants), it was clearly a land of fantasy as well as wealth. Herodotus, of course, knew only of the Indus Valley and that too by hearsay. Hence, he did not report that the land beyond the sensational extent of the Thar Desert. Hence, the Indus Valley was considered “terra firma” or the end of the world to Greeks and Europeans. In abbreviated form, Herodotus' history circulated widely throughout ancient Greece and Europe - and a hundred years after his death, people would still be reading his writings, including an avid teenager named Alexander of Macedon, who knew it well enough to quote its stories. It wouldn’t be until Alexander’s arrival in the Indus Valley (~330 BC), that people would discover a land beyond the Indus Valley (the Gangetic plain and Deccan...or what is today the Republic of India). Up until this point, the Indus Valley was considered “one end” of the ends of the world. The rest as they say is history.

~ Moving Forward ~
If Pak Studies had been written properly, today we would not be having this discussion. It’s very easy to blame European colonialists for disparaging the word India, but why haven’t we claimed this name? What are we sitting around for twiddling our thumbs for? Pakistan should have done to the Republic of India as Greece did to the Republic of Macedonia.

The Macedonia naming dispute is a political dispute regarding the use of the name Macedonia between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia, formerly a federal unit of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. After the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1991, the former Socialist Republic of Macedonia gained independence in 1991, naming itself Macedonia. Citing historical and territorial concerns resulting from the ambiguity between the Republic of Macedonia, the adjacent Greek region of Macedonia and the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon which falls mostly within Greek Macedonia, Greece opposed the use of the name "Macedonia" by the Republic of Macedonia without a geographical qualifier such as "Northern Macedonia" for use by all and for all purposes. As millions of ethnic Greeks identify themselves as Macedonians, unrelated to the Slavic people who are associated with the Republic of Macedonia, Greece further objects to the use of the term "Macedonian" for the neighboring country's largest ethnic group and its language. The Republic of Macedonia is accused of appropriating symbols and figures that are historically considered part of Greek culture such as the Vergina Sun and Alexander the Great, and of promoting the irredentist concept of a United Macedonia, which involves territorial claims on Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, and Serbia. The dispute has escalated to the highest level of international mediation, involving numerous attempts to achieve a resolution. In 1995, the two countries formalized bilateral relations and committed to start negotiations on the naming issue, under the auspices of the United Nations. Until a solution is found, the provisional reference "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (sometimes unofficially abbreviated as FYROM) is used by international organizations and states that do not recognize translations of the constitutional name Republic of Macedonia. UN members, and the UN as a whole, have agreed to accept any final agreement on a new name resulting from negotiations between the two countries.

Similarly, Pakistan should have done the same to the Republic of India, which has no valid claim on the term India – neither geographically (Indus Valley vs Ganges plain), neither religiously (Early Vedic beliefs vs Brahmanism) and neither culturally. The only reason the Republic of India is named India is purely due to European colonialist ignorance and greed. It remains to be seen if Pakistan would ever legally question the usage of the term India, however, it is our responsibility as a nation to educate not only us, but also the world about the true concept of India. The Indus Valley is the true India…always has been and always will be.

Feel free to tag and share this post with everyone you know. I look forward to debates and questions and other views.
Indus is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 4th, 2018, 08:05 AM   #2

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 15,265
Blog Entries: 2

I see this is back again. You Indus, it might help if you peruse some of the earlier threads on this subject. You would discover many of the arguments you have discovered have not only been raised before but dealt with.
Its worth remembering that the entity we call Pakistan was premised as a religious state, not a geo-cultural one, and explicitly aimed at housing in a separate nation, the Muslim peoples of India.

As to India not having claim to India...
Well I only wonder whether Megasthenes and Arrian are to be regarded as the products of colonial thinking
Quote:
India, which is in shape quadrilateral,
has its eastern as well as its western side
bounded by the great sea, but on the north-
ern side it is divided by Mount Hemodos
from that part of Skythia which is inhabited
by those Skythians who are called the S a k a i,
while the fourth or western side is bounded by
the river palled the Indus, which is perhaps
the largest of all rivers in the world after the
Nile. * The extent of the whole country from
east to west is said to be 28,000 stadia, and
from north to south 32,000. * Being thus of
such vast extent, it seems well-nigh to em-
brace the whole of the northern tropic zone
of the earth, and in fact at the extreme point of
India the gnomon of the sundial may frequently
be observed to cast no shadow
They certainly seem quite clear on the fact that India isn't simply the Indus Valley. Yes the word India derives from the Sanskrit word Sindhu (A language you'll note not regarded as a major language by the state of Pakistan, given its ties to Hinduism). Given that it has always been recognized that India is a term used predominantly by outsiders, whereas native terms tend to be more varied, I don't see why fixating on the specific word is useful.

India is hardly the only major entity which is most popularly known by a term developed by outsiders, and later adopted by its people. China, Egypt, Turkey - all names adopted in the modern era, but having etymological roots in foreign terms. China called itself the Middle Kingdom. The Egyptians had a variety of terms for their territory, such as Kemet. Even the Greeks didn't call themselves Greeks as far as I know. Arguing that only Pakistan is India, is a bit like me saying Greece can't be Greece, because they were known as Yavanas by outsiders, and this in turn referred to the territory of Ionia which is in modern day Turkey. Infact your logic is equally comparable to me saying Pakistan should be made a Hindu country because Sindhu is a Hindu name from Vedic literature. Absurdum arguments aren't usually considered very strong.

Its also surprising that you think India is only the Gangetic plain. You do know that there's an entire subcontinent to the south which has been regarded as part of the general territory of India since the times of the Ancient Romans. I would think a legacy of over 2000 years for a general geo-cultural zone being tied to a name trumps a specifically narrow root term. Pliny complained about trade with India, which was trade with the entire Indian West coast, not just the Makran coast and the Indus delta. You have Megasthenes' descriptions. The Chinese Buddhist also claim to visit India as I understand it. The British East India company acted as agents for the Emperor of India, and they, along with many entities such as the Marathas, or the state of Awadh, regarded their symbolic authority to be over the entire subcontinent.

Infact the British did not invent the term India. They explicitly claimed a de-jure descent from the Empire of India which in their eyes was the entire subcontinent. This was the basis for the constitutional deadlocks of the late 18th and early 19th century that could only be resolved in a somewhat hamfisted manner after 1857.

Sources
Megasthenes quote
https://archive.org/stream/ancientin...rgoog_djvu.txt
or
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/gdc/sc...40416001in.pdf

For understanding British ideas about India, might I suggest Scandal of Empire by N. Dirks or Business of Empire by H.V Bowen? Infact you might look up my own paper in the EPW which addresses some of the issues you're considering, though not directly, as it speaks to pre-colonial notions of general political identity. Its on the Degradation of Mobility in Early Colonial India.


EDIT: I just noticed on the FB page shared above, that the poster objects to the term India for India, but argues it should be called East Indies... You know... Indies, India - both deriving from the EXACT same word? *facepalm*

Last edited by tornada; March 4th, 2018 at 08:17 AM.
tornada is offline  
Old March 4th, 2018, 08:32 AM   #3

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Atheist, Advaitist, Hindu
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 4,069

So Indus, you prefer the term East Indies for us. In that case your country will be West Indies. Satisfied now?
Is India a nation? - Page 52 - Historum - History Forums
Aupmanyav is offline  
Old March 4th, 2018, 08:34 AM   #4
Citizen
 
Joined: Mar 2018
From: Pakistan
Posts: 18

Quote:
Originally Posted by tornada View Post
I see this is back again. You Indus, it might help if you peruse some of the earlier threads on this subject. You would discover many of the arguments you have discovered have not only been raised before but dealt with.
Repeating Indian nationalist propaganda is not addressing any issue as far as I'm concerned. I've never heard one compelling argument against this idea - the reality is Pakistan should be called India, while India should be called Bharat.

Quote:
Its worth remembering that the entity we call Pakistan was premised as a religious state, not a geo-cultural one, and explicitly aimed at housing in a separate nation, the Muslim peoples of India.
I'm not arguing what the premise of Pakistan was. My argument is that Pakistan should not have called itself Pakistan...rather they should have argued in favour of India, whereas the Republic of India should be named Bharat.

Quote:
As to India not having claim to India...Well I only wonder whether Megasthenes and Arrian are to be regarded as the products of colonial thinking
Megasthenes and Indian nationalists go together like a horse and carriage. They literally ignore every other source.


Quote:
They certainly seem quite clear on the fact that India isn't simply the Indus Valley.
Well let's see what the Vedas have to say. After all, they made a distinction and called the Ganges plain as "Dasya Varta". It's not a coincidence of stories of Vedic gods plundering and destroying "Dasya Puras" (cities in the Ganges plain). Vice versa it's not a coincidence that Dravidian/Gangetic gods like Krishna are seen clashing and destroying Indra (a Vedic god) and calling the Indus Valley "Vahika Desa" and its inhabitants "sudras".

And if my Veda history is correct, the Vedic sacred land is referred to as Sindhu and Sapta Sindhu...if I remember correctly...those are territories that form the Indus Valley.

Quote:
Yes the word India derives from the Sanskrit word Sindhu (A language you'll note not regarded as a major language by the state of Pakistan, given its ties to Hinduism).
Are you claiming Sanskrit is the liturgical language of Hinduism? So sacred that lower castes (more than 75% of modern Hindus) weren’t even allowed to listen to it being recited? Right.

Vedic Sanskrit was first recorded in inscriptions in what is now northern Syria. Between 1500 and 1350 BC, a dynasty called the Mitanni ruled over the upper Euphrates-Tigris basin, land that corresponds to what are now the countries of Syria, Iraq, and Turkey. The Mitannis spoke a language called Hurrian. During the Aryan migration to the Indus Valley, this language came in contact with the remnants of the Harappan language, thus giving Vedic Sanskrit.

Quote:
Given that it has always been recognized that India is a term used predominantly by outsiders, whereas native terms tend to be more varied, I don't see why fixating on the specific word is useful.
It's useful, because Indians tend to think the history of the Indus Valley is related to them. They seem fixated on the IVC, while ignoring there own true rich Dravidian heritage.

Quote:
India is hardly the only major entity which is most popularly known by a term developed by outsiders, and later adopted by its people. China, Egypt, Turkey - all names adopted in the modern era, but having etymological roots in foreign terms. China called itself the Middle Kingdom. The Egyptians had a variety of terms for their territory, such as Kemet. Even the Greeks didn't call themselves Greeks as far as I know. Arguing that only Pakistan is India, is a bit like me saying Greece can't be Greece, because they were known as Yavanas by outsiders, and this in turn referred to the territory of Ionia which is in modern day Turkey. Infact your logic is equally comparable to me saying Pakistan should be made a Hindu country because Sindhu is a Hindu name from Vedic literature. Absurdum arguments aren't usually considered very strong.
Umm Vedic culture and faith is hardly reminiscent of modern Puranic Hinduism, I don't understand why you're conflating the two. Vedics adopted Zoroastrian and Bactrian gods, buried their dead, ate beef and had no caste system. This is a far cry to the Puranic Hinduism next door.

Quote:
Its also surprising that you think India is only the Gangetic plain. You do know that there's an entire subcontinent to the south which has been regarded as part of the general territory of India since the times of the Ancient Romans. I would think a legacy of over 2000 years for a general geo-cultural zone being tied to a name trumps a specifically narrow root term.
Yes...the Vedas also mention this. The Deccan and the Ganges is what I refer to as Bharat, and was known by the Vedics as "Dasya Varta".

Quote:
Pliny complained about trade with India, which was trade with the entire Indian West coast, not just the Makran coast and the Indus delta.
Pliny the Elder? Who called India “the sink of the world's gold!”? I hope you know he was referring to the Indus Valley. Herodotus also mentions "gold digging ants" in his famous writings, which Alexander was inspired from.

Click the image to open in full size.
Quote:
You have Megasthenes' descriptions.
Literally one description.

Quote:
The Chinese Buddhist also claim to visit India as I understand it.
They visited Taxila...that's also the Indus Valley.

Quote:
The British East India company acted as agents for the Emperor of India, and they, along with many entities such as the Marathas, or the state of Awadh, regarded their symbolic authority to be over the entire subcontinent.
The British invented the idea of India being the entire subcontinent, when in reality India was only the Indus Valley.

Quote:
Infact the British did not invent the term India. They explicitly claimed a de-jure descent from the Empire of India which in their eyes was the entire subcontinent. This was the basis for the constitutional deadlocks of the late 18th and early 19th century that could only be resolved in a somewhat hamfisted manner after 1857.
Which Empire of India? The Mughuls?
Indus is offline  
Old March 4th, 2018, 08:35 AM   #5
Citizen
 
Joined: Mar 2018
From: Pakistan
Posts: 18

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav View Post
So Indus, you prefer the term East Indies for us. In that case your country will be West Indies. Satisfied now?
Is India a nation? - Page 52 - Historum - History Forums
No...rather you should call yourselves by your constitutional name. BHARAT.
Indus is offline  
Old March 4th, 2018, 08:42 AM   #6
Citizen
 
Joined: Mar 2018
From: Pakistan
Posts: 18

MOD EDIT: Link removed. Recruitment to another forum is NOT allowed.
Indus is offline  
Old March 4th, 2018, 08:54 AM   #7
Citizen
 
Joined: Mar 2018
From: Pakistan
Posts: 18

Also, this idea that British India was a real country needs to die. South Asians are notoriously behgehrat (Urdu: Shameless). They are literally the only people who seem to be proud of being occupied by the British.

British India was NOT a country...it was a colony and occupation. Both of what is today Pakistan and Republic of India were part of a BRITISH invention called the "British Raj", which Indian nationalists hilariously call "united India". Colonialism seems to have yet to die in these people.

The Indian claim that Pakistan and Republic of India were ‘one’ in ancient and medieval times is ludicrous. Minus a few hundred years under Mughul, Gupta and Mauryan rule, the two regions have always been distinctly separate.

The names “India/Indica/Hindustan/Hind/Shendu” were originally used to refer to the “land around river Indus/ the Indus plains” (which is today Pakistan). With time the definition of “India” broadened and EXPANDED towards the Gangetic plain and towards the Deccan following colonial European invasions beginning in the 17th century.

The Republic of India chose to keep a name that doesn't actually define them.
Indus is offline  
Old March 4th, 2018, 09:03 AM   #8

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 30,807

thread closed.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
india, pakistan, republic



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Greater Pakistan (Real Pakistan) Pak Watan Asian History 4 January 10th, 2017 08:15 AM
Can't India and Pakistan just get along? RoyalHill1987 Asian History 687 September 2nd, 2015 10:25 AM
Likeliness of another Pakistan-India War? Mohammed the Persian Asian History 52 August 10th, 2015 11:49 PM
India/Pakistan Patito de Hule History Book Reviews 2 May 5th, 2011 10:00 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.