What's new

"Ancient India" was in Pakistan region, not present-day India!

Whirling_dervesh

FULL MEMBER
Sep 16, 2014
728
1
1,388
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
"Ancient India" was in Pakistan region, not present-day India!

By John Keays


Maps printed after 1947 sometimes show the republic of India not as `India' but as `Bharat'. The word derives from Bharata- varsha, `the land of the Bharatas', these Bharatas being the most prominent and distinguished of the early Vedic clans. By adopting this term the new republic in Delhi could, it was argued, lay claim to a revered arya heritage which was geographically vague enough not to provoke regional jealousies, and doctrinally vague enough not to jeopardize the republic's avowed secularism.

In the first flush of independence `Bharat' would seem preferable, because the word `India' was too redolent of colonial disparagement. It also lacked a respectable indigenous pedigree. For although British claims to have incubated an `India consciousness' were bitterly contested, there was no gainsaying the fact that in the whole colossal corpus of Sanskrit literature nowhere called `India' is ever mentioned; nor does the term occur in Buddhist or Jain texts; nor was it current in any South Asia's numerous other languages. Worse still, if etymologically `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 very Islamic-sounding acronym that is `Pakistan'. Additionally, he was under the impression that neither state would want to adopt the British title of `India'. He only discovered his mistake after Lord Mountbatten, the last British viceroy, had already acceded to Nehru's demand that his state remain `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 subcontinental primacy which 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). Hence it was largely outside the republic of India but largely within Pakistan.

The reservations about the word `India', which had convinced Jinnah that neither side would use it, stemmed from its historical currency amongst outsiders, especially outsiders who had designs on the place. Something similar could, of course, be said about terms like `Britian', `Germany' or `America'; when first these words were recorded, all were objects of conquest. But in the case of `India' this demeaning connotation had lasted until modern times. `Hindustan', `India' or `the Indies' (its more generalized derivative) had come, as if by definition, to denote an acquisition rather than a territory. Geographically imprecise, indeed moveable if one took account of all the `Indians' in the Americas, `India' was yet conceptually concrete: it was somewhere to be coveted – as an intellectual curiosity, a military pushover and an economic bonanza. To Alexander the Great as to Mahmud of Ghazni, to Timur the Lame as to his Mughal descendents, and to Nadir Shah of Persia as to Robert Clive of Plassey, `India' was a place worth the taking.

The first occurrence of the word sets the trend. It makes its debut in an inscription found at Persepolis in Iran, which was the capital of the Persian or Achaemenid empire of Darius I, he whose far-flung battles included defeat at Marathon by the Athenians in 490 BC. Before this, Darius had evidently enjoyed greater success on his eastern frontier, for the Persepolis inscription, dated to 518 BC, lists amongst his numerous domains that of `Hi(n)du'.

The word for a `river' in Sanskrit is sindhu. Hence sapta-sindhu meant `(the land of) the seven rivers', which was what the Vedic arya called the Panjab. The Indus, to which most of these seven rivers were tributary, was the sindhu par excellence; and in the language of ancient Persian, a near relative of Sanskrit, the initial `s' of a Sanskrit word was invariably rendered as an apirate – `h'. Soma, the mysterious hallucinogen distilled, deified and drunk to excess by the Vedic arya, is thus homa or haoma in old Persian; and sindhu is thus Hind(h)u. When, from Persian, the word found its way into Greek, the initial aspirate was dropped, and it started to appear as the route `Ind' (as in `India', `Indus', etc.). In this form it reached Latin and most other European languages. However, in Arabic and related languages it retained the initial `h', giving `Hindustan' as the name by which Turks and Mughals would know India. That word also passed on to Europe to give `Hindu' as the name of the country's indigenous people and of what, by Muslims and Christians alike, was regarded as their infidel religion.

On the strength of a slightly earlier Iranian inscription which makes no mention of Hindu, it is assumed that the region was added to Daruis' Achaemenid empire in or soon after 520 BC. This earlier inscription does, however, refer to `Gadara', which looks like Gandhara, a maha-janapada or `state' mentioned in both Sanskrit and Buddhist sources and located in an arc reaching the western Panjab through the north-west frontier to Kabul and perhaps into southern Afghanistan (where `Kandahar' is the same word). According to Xenophon and Herodotus, Gandhara had been conquered by Cyrus, on of
Darius' predecessors. The first Achaemenid or Persian invasion may therefore have taken place as early as the mid-sixth century BC. That it was an invasion, rather than a migration or even perhaps a last belated influx of charioteering arya, seems likely from a reference to Cyrus dying a wound inflicted by the enemy. The enemy were the `Derbikes'; they enjoyed the support of the Hindu people and were supplied by them with war-elephants. In Persian and Greek minds alike, the association of Hindu with elephants was thereafter almost as significant as its connection with the mighty Indus. 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' Hindu must have lain beyond it, and so to the south or east. Later Iranian records refer to Sindhu, presumably an adoption of the Sanskrit spelling, whence derives the word `Sind', now Pakistan's southernmost province. It seems unlikely though, that Sindhu was Sind in the late sixth century BC, since Darius subsequently found it necessary to send a naval expedition to explore the Indus. Flowing through the middle of Sind, the river would surely have been familiar to any suzerain of the region. More probably, then, Hindu lay east of Gandhara, perhaps as a wedge of territory between it, the jana-padas of eastern Panjab, and deserts of Rajasthan. It thus occupied much of what is now the Panjab province of Pakistan.

Under Xerxes, Darius' successor, troops from what had become the Achaemenids' combined `satrapy' of Gandhara and Hindu reportedly served in the Achaemenid forces. These Indians 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 ad 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 rivers to rival the Nile and behemoths from which to give battle, it was clearly a land of fantasy as well as wealth.

Herodotus, of course, knew only of the Indus region, and that by hearsay. Hence he did not report that the land of Hindu was of sensational extent, nor did he deny the popular belief that beyond its furthest desert, where in reality the Gangetic plain interminably spreads, lay the great ocean which supposedly encircled the world; Hindu or `India' (but in fact Pakistan) was therefore believed to be the end of terra firma, a worthy culmination to any emperor's ambitions as well as a fabulous addition to his portfolio of conquests. In abbreviated form, Herodotus' History circulated widely. A hundred years after his death it was still avidly read by northern Greeks in Macedonia, where a teenage Alexander `knew it well enough to quote and follow its stories'.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...epage&q=jinnah was furious john keays&f=false
 

Safriz

BANNED
Aug 30, 2010
20,860
-1
11,295
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Unknown to most, Indian air force also started from present day Pakistan.
From Drigh road Karachi. That's where the first pilots of Indian subcontinent were trained and that was the first air base of the region.
 
Last edited:

Foxtrot Delta

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 18, 2015
4,921
1
7,863
Country
Pakistan
Location
China
India was jist a region with many princely states. Pakistani region was always united by turks iranians mongols and arabs. India is just a region jumbled to form a state .

It was suppsoed to be a secular state for all indians of many nations. But now they want it all for hindu identity because of RSS.

They lost incredible india india it will be smaller free nations soon again secular free and prosperous unlike modi's india in 2020 .

India will split itself from with in wait and watch.

Pakistani and central asian identity is solid Muslim identity unity.

We can even accept new muslim states from with in india of 2020.
 

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

ELITE MEMBER
May 28, 2018
13,296
5
28,553
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
@AgNoStiC MuSliM @Indus Pakistan @Mentee @masterchief_mirza @Ace of Spades PaaJee @SIPRA @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @DESERT FIGHTER

Lads,

What is the most interesting
is to learn from this article that Quaid e Azam R.A. was outraged at the treachery of Nehru and the Britsh at the Theft of OurHeritage!

All other facts are not new ...neither are surprising.

As I have position in my piece on Freedom/Separation... the GeoConstruct of the British called India was/is designed as Balace of Power vector in the Non-Stop GreatGame which now has morphed into The GreatestGame!

This brings us back to question posed by @AgNoStiC MuSliM is his thread..regarding the good people of Gengetic plains...

Even Bahart cann't be allowed to be used by them...since ...yeah... it belongs to us.

It is, obviously, not about petty arguements..but about Onwership of OurHeritage....

Yes, we were Induz/Hinduz for thousands of years...and Buddhist too... and then we accepted the Light of Islam.... but we as People Continue.... and that is where Heritage..both Ancient and Islamic matters...becasue its OurStory, OurCivilisation...in Continum!

IndoEuropeans = IndusEuropeans

ProtoIndoEuropeans = ProtoIndusEuropeans



Mangus

P.S. This thread belongs to Pakistan History section!
Another masterpiece. Indus European, quite an eye opener.

What thread was it that Agnostic Muslim posed the question about Gangetic people?
 

masterchief_mirza

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 29, 2019
9,791
17
20,495
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Another masterpiece. Indus European, quite an eye opener.

What thread was it that Agnostic Muslim posed the question about Gangetic people?
It was the "banned words thread".

This article basically reiterates that modern India is an artificial construct that has zilch to do with what the ancients regarded to be "India". Hindutva has retrofitted the disparate and quite separate polytheist tribes of south Asia into this false construct known as the republic of India. It really is a complete joke. Jinnah understood the ramifications better than anyone of his time. Even now folks may wonder what the fuss is about. But there is a fuss because the republic of India has stolen Pakistani heritage, all of it, pre-Islamic in particular. The IVC is unrelated to both the native gangetics and the marauding Aryans that our "moderate" friends now worship as Brahmins.

True India is in fact coterminous Pakistan and the IVC.

Alexander, Herodotus and others knew this. Even modern secular republicans are forced to concede that the IVC is the origin of many Buddhist precursors and distinguished Hindu scholars. Modi has usurped them all for his agenda. The gangetics never reached the heights of the IVC and would have remained as elephant herders were it not for the invading Aryans forcing them to heel. Even medieval India was substantially built by other invaders. The same happened in the colonial era.

We assumed hitherto that the hindutva ptsd inferiority complex was limited to the gangetic experiences with Muslim invaders - not so. It would seem that central Asian steppe raiders, Muslims and Brits all contributed to the gangetic sense of inadequacy and self-loathing. Modi is trying to rewrite history to create a false narrative centred around the Ganges.

It's remarkable that Jinnah understood this so long ago - then again nothing about this man surprises me any more.

The only others who understand the importance of such matters of nomenclature are in fact the Greeks. Just as Alexander and Herodotus knew India to be the IVC, their present day descendants wouldn't dare let other nations touch their hard earned legacy.

India is to Pakistan what "North Macedonia" is to Greece.
 

Gandhi G in da house

ELITE MEMBER
Nov 5, 2010
9,489
-24
11,100
Country
India
Location
India
This must be at least the 100th thread on this forum on this topic.

If you are so sure about it, you wouldn't have to go around shouting making these claims. People would just believe it.
 

Indus Pakistan

ELITE MEMBER
May 7, 2012
19,041
186
55,515
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
If you are so sure about it
The UK government is very sure about this.

upload_2020-5-12_0-13-6.png


But that has not stopped it from repeating this mantra a million times since the lockdown began on 23rd March. On TV, on adverts, on hoardings. Everywhere. You see and hear this. The point is not about being sure but about making sure the message gets out and is well known.
 

Zaki

SENIOR MODERATOR
Oct 20, 2008
19,837
19
22,996
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
I think we have been having this discussion for the past 10 years. I won't be surprised if the author read one of the thread on PDF to write this article.

In my opinion, it is fair to say if Pakistan had opted to use India as country name, we might have laid claim to 5000 year old history of this region but we tried to rebrand ourselves with Islamic nation called Pakistan and now a lot of people question our identity. The least we can do is to not disguise this term India and be proud of our past and our fair share of history from the subcontinent

The word India derives from the people living around River Indus and 95% of the river flows in Pakistan (remaining 5% in China) as I consider Indian occupied Kashmir as part of Pakistan
 

Genghis khan1

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2015
3,195
0
4,038
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Basically the thread title insinuates that Pakistan is real India.
Pakistan ka matlab kya,
Asli ancient bhayya India. :D
Word India Subcontinent and ocean is called India because of Indus. Modern Indian state should b officially name Bahrat or Hindustan or Gangadash or whatever bharti chose as per their heritage.
 

-blitzkrieg-

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 1, 2015
3,522
2
4,196
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
"Ancient India" was in Pakistan region, not present-day India!

By John Keays


Maps printed after 1947 sometimes show the republic of India not as `India' but as `Bharat'. The word derives from Bharata- varsha, `the land of the Bharatas', these Bharatas being the most prominent and distinguished of the early Vedic clans. By adopting this term the new republic in Delhi could, it was argued, lay claim to a revered arya heritage which was geographically vague enough not to provoke regional jealousies, and doctrinally vague enough not to jeopardize the republic's avowed secularism.

In the first flush of independence `Bharat' would seem preferable, because the word `India' was too redolent of colonial disparagement. It also lacked a respectable indigenous pedigree. For although British claims to have incubated an `India consciousness' were bitterly contested, there was no gainsaying the fact that in the whole colossal corpus of Sanskrit literature nowhere called `India' is ever mentioned; nor does the term occur in Buddhist or Jain texts; nor was it current in any South Asia's numerous other languages. Worse still, if etymologically `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 very Islamic-sounding acronym that is `Pakistan'. Additionally, he was under the impression that neither state would want to adopt the British title of `India'. He only discovered his mistake after Lord Mountbatten, the last British viceroy, had already acceded to Nehru's demand that his state remain `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 subcontinental primacy which 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). Hence it was largely outside the republic of India but largely within Pakistan.

The reservations about the word `India', which had convinced Jinnah that neither side would use it, stemmed from its historical currency amongst outsiders, especially outsiders who had designs on the place. Something similar could, of course, be said about terms like `Britian', `Germany' or `America'; when first these words were recorded, all were objects of conquest. But in the case of `India' this demeaning connotation had lasted until modern times. `Hindustan', `India' or `the Indies' (its more generalized derivative) had come, as if by definition, to denote an acquisition rather than a territory. Geographically imprecise, indeed moveable if one took account of all the `Indians' in the Americas, `India' was yet conceptually concrete: it was somewhere to be coveted – as an intellectual curiosity, a military pushover and an economic bonanza. To Alexander the Great as to Mahmud of Ghazni, to Timur the Lame as to his Mughal descendents, and to Nadir Shah of Persia as to Robert Clive of Plassey, `India' was a place worth the taking.

The first occurrence of the word sets the trend. It makes its debut in an inscription found at Persepolis in Iran, which was the capital of the Persian or Achaemenid empire of Darius I, he whose far-flung battles included defeat at Marathon by the Athenians in 490 BC. Before this, Darius had evidently enjoyed greater success on his eastern frontier, for the Persepolis inscription, dated to 518 BC, lists amongst his numerous domains that of `Hi(n)du'.

The word for a `river' in Sanskrit is sindhu. Hence sapta-sindhu meant `(the land of) the seven rivers', which was what the Vedic arya called the Panjab. The Indus, to which most of these seven rivers were tributary, was the sindhu par excellence; and in the language of ancient Persian, a near relative of Sanskrit, the initial `s' of a Sanskrit word was invariably rendered as an apirate – `h'. Soma, the mysterious hallucinogen distilled, deified and drunk to excess by the Vedic arya, is thus homa or haoma in old Persian; and sindhu is thus Hind(h)u. When, from Persian, the word found its way into Greek, the initial aspirate was dropped, and it started to appear as the route `Ind' (as in `India', `Indus', etc.). In this form it reached Latin and most other European languages. However, in Arabic and related languages it retained the initial `h', giving `Hindustan' as the name by which Turks and Mughals would know India. That word also passed on to Europe to give `Hindu' as the name of the country's indigenous people and of what, by Muslims and Christians alike, was regarded as their infidel religion.

On the strength of a slightly earlier Iranian inscription which makes no mention of Hindu, it is assumed that the region was added to Daruis' Achaemenid empire in or soon after 520 BC. This earlier inscription does, however, refer to `Gadara', which looks like Gandhara, a maha-janapada or `state' mentioned in both Sanskrit and Buddhist sources and located in an arc reaching the western Panjab through the north-west frontier to Kabul and perhaps into southern Afghanistan (where `Kandahar' is the same word). According to Xenophon and Herodotus, Gandhara had been conquered by Cyrus, on of
Darius' predecessors. The first Achaemenid or Persian invasion may therefore have taken place as early as the mid-sixth century BC. That it was an invasion, rather than a migration or even perhaps a last belated influx of charioteering arya, seems likely from a reference to Cyrus dying a wound inflicted by the enemy. The enemy were the `Derbikes'; they enjoyed the support of the Hindu people and were supplied by them with war-elephants. In Persian and Greek minds alike, the association of Hindu with elephants was thereafter almost as significant as its connection with the mighty Indus. 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' Hindu must have lain beyond it, and so to the south or east. Later Iranian records refer to Sindhu, presumably an adoption of the Sanskrit spelling, whence derives the word `Sind', now Pakistan's southernmost province. It seems unlikely though, that Sindhu was Sind in the late sixth century BC, since Darius subsequently found it necessary to send a naval expedition to explore the Indus. Flowing through the middle of Sind, the river would surely have been familiar to any suzerain of the region. More probably, then, Hindu lay east of Gandhara, perhaps as a wedge of territory between it, the jana-padas of eastern Panjab, and deserts of Rajasthan. It thus occupied much of what is now the Panjab province of Pakistan.

Under Xerxes, Darius' successor, troops from what had become the Achaemenids' combined `satrapy' of Gandhara and Hindu reportedly served in the Achaemenid forces. These Indians 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 ad 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 rivers to rival the Nile and behemoths from which to give battle, it was clearly a land of fantasy as well as wealth.

Herodotus, of course, knew only of the Indus region, and that by hearsay. Hence he did not report that the land of Hindu was of sensational extent, nor did he deny the popular belief that beyond its furthest desert, where in reality the Gangetic plain interminably spreads, lay the great ocean which supposedly encircled the world; Hindu or `India' (but in fact Pakistan) was therefore believed to be the end of terra firma, a worthy culmination to any emperor's ambitions as well as a fabulous addition to his portfolio of conquests. In abbreviated form, Herodotus' History circulated widely. A hundred years after his death it was still avidly read by northern Greeks in Macedonia, where a teenage Alexander `knew it well enough to quote and follow its stories'.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0IquM4BrJ4YC&pg=PT128&lpg=PT128&dq=jinnah+was+furious+john+keays&source=bl&ots=KOjTsak8Mb&sig=ACfU3U3jPqosbqsAfySsAkZTIQgVYcx5-Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3_vDBnKzpAhUHTxUIHZaLBiQQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=jinnah was furious john keays&f=false

This is true..But its original name is and was Sindh or Sindha which is the name of one of our province..This was discussed on another thread last month.Historically anything east of indus and south of Kashmir was part of that land.
The thing is we will never let a foreginer give us our archaic label whether its hind, hindistan, indika or India.
-Sindh- is the only name we know.
This thing should be inculcated into the young minds through history curriculum.

Unknown to most, Indian air force also started from present day Pakistan.
From Drigh road Karachi. That's where the first pilots of Indian subcontinent were trained and that was the first air base of the region.
even their film industry that was glorius back in the day and now its just a ..
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom