Why? He said it in
coterminous sense. What most people here don't consider is how we
reify our understanding of the past. To a large degree this process is subjective and is often influenced by the
period a piece is written.
Now I want you to reflect on this. Most people's understanding of Al-Biruni's work is as often the case thanks to British. The English translation which has gone on to inform most people was translated in
1910 by Englishman Edward Sachau and the edition in English was published in London.
Theefore this translation is going to be done according to the reality of 1910. At that time British presided over a colony that covered the region Al-Biruni had explored. Since this entire region was named by British as "India" when the writer translated it he did so using the reality in 1910. So look at the original title of the book. It emphatically does not say "India" or even use the word "India" because it simply had not even gained currency 1,000 years ago. Therefore Al-Biruni would
not have used the name "India" as much as he would not use the name "Pakistan" as both after his book was written and certainly both names were alien to him in 1038.
So what name did Al Biruni use? Well his title is "
Tahqiq ma li-l-hind". Now I don't see India or Pakistan being used. Edward Sachau translated this work in 1910. At that time the British had this region conquered into British India. So in 1910 Mr Sachau naturally had to translate "Hind". And he translated that according 1910 and not 2018. Had he done that in 2018 he might have translated "Hind" as South Asia because it covers Pakistan, India, Bangladesh. For instance the World Bank in it's report on poverty for India/Pakistan/Bangladesh use the term '
South Asia'. because it is for 2018. If the same report was published in 1910 it would have said "India". And in 1038 it was "Hind".
https://www.worldbank.org/en/region/sar
But because this book is the English translation done in 1910 when the region was a British colony called "India" he translated Al Biruni's "Hind" into India. If I translated that book in 2018 I would update it to the present reality which is "Al Biruni's South Asia". And if any of you want to be
precise and pedantic then please don't use the name India either because Biruni never used it. It was a Englishman in 1910 who foisted that term into our discourse.
Thus if India can be used
retrospectively so can Pakistan. And 'India' was used retrospectively to translate "Hind" when the name "India" had no currncy in 1030.Bot the terms India/Pakistan woukd have been alien to Al-Biruni's ears.
Therefore it is essential that we use the term 'ancient Pakistan' as much as possible so that we can reify the concept as much as 'India' has been reified by colonial English writers from last century. If we don't it will never gain currency and the English abstraction of our region from the
colonial times will remain dominant. Our understanding our history and ourselves will remain
enslaved to British colonial rulers. Is that what we want?
@UnitedPak
@django
@Talwar e Pakistan
@Taimur Khurram
@Cybernetics
@maximuswarrior
@war&peace
@PAKISTANFOREVER
