@Whirling_dervesh. Read the comments by Indian's here. From experiance they follow the typical trend. Broadly there are two responses informed by either the poster being 'dumb' or intentional duplicity.
(i) That Pakistan broke off India in 1947.
(ii) Any historical mention of 'India' was in referance to today's India.
(iii) Geographic India and political India are merged by Indian's to create this false notion of India having been there since time began when the actuall reality is India is one day younger then Pakistan. Bharat and Pakistan republics came in existance in August 1947.
The fact that prior to 1947 was a colony called 'British India' from which to have evolved Bharat, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar [ Burma ] is lost on dumb posters and others use that as a wordlplay to create illusion of 'Bharat' having a existance prior to 1947. Bharat and Pakistan had equal existance as they both were in the embryonic stage within the womb of British colony in thegeograhic sub continient.
At a intellectuel level I think we have a solid cogent argument but we face the real problem of centuries of inertia most of it coming from western writing, the British Indian history and finally our singualr failure post 1947 to develop a solid historical base for Pakistan. It is as if we are afraid of saying 'Pakistan' with referance to any history pre 1947. The reality is not many countries existed in nthe past but that does not stop for example the Afghans referring to a even in 500ad and using the name Afganistan.
I have struggled with this problem in differant fora and whilst I can articulate a fifinally prepared response but that entails a long drawn out discussion with the Indian's normally setting of smokescreen to make the task harder.The shortest sharpest response that I have come down is as follows.
The name Alex has been around for millenia. If you run into a Alexander today that does not mean that person is Alexander the Great or Alexander Fleming. Over the millenia Alexander has been used but we all know it cannot have been the same Alexander.
In the same way if you look at the name 'India' it has been used over the millenia but it's meaning has differant. Over time it settled for what we now call India. This is like the way Asia has been around but what it conveyed has gradually changed. This often happens witth words and is called linquistic drift.
Drift (linguistics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of continent name etymologies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The word
Asia originated from the Ancient Greek word "Ἀσία",
[7] first attributed to
Herodotus (about 440 BCE) in reference to
Anatolia or to the
Persian Empire, in contrast to
Greece and
Egypt. It originally was
just a name for the east bank of the
Aegean Sea, an area known to the
Hittites as
Assuwa. In early Classical times, the
Greeks started using the term "Asia" to refer to the whole region known today as
Anatolia (the peninsula which forms the Asian portion of present-day
Turkey). Eventually, however, the name had been stretched progressively further east, until it came to encompass the much larger land area with which we associate it today, while the Anatolian Peninsula started being called "
Asia Minor" or "The Lesser Asia" instead.
And to the Indian's we are not wanting to use the name India today. We just want the indus basin to have a clear historical link with us withot any obfuscation whatsoever. WE want to bring clarity and concisness not create confusion which is what we have at the moment because in this confusion many of your people use to pillage our history and legacy. All because of a name.
. And that ends the thread. No more propaganda and fake facts anymore. Ha ha ha.
